The Chaîne Opératoire as an Approach to Distinguish between the Ceramic Production of the Viru and the Moche Polities on the North Coast of Peru

Abstract

Ceramics play a central role in the debates around the relationship between the Viru and the Moche. A recent model considers Negative and Moche-decorated ceramics produced by potters affiliated with the elites to be the cultural markers of the Viru and Moche populations, respectively. Due to the similarity of Viru and Moche plain-wares and the presence of Castillo Decorated ceramics in Viru and Moche contexts, this model sees both types of ceramics as domestic traditions, produced by independent potters and sharing a common technique. The research we present here supports this recent model by reconsidering the social and cultural meaning associated with these ceramic types: it uses a novel approach for South America of reconstructing the chaîne opératoire by studying the traces visible on ceramics at a macroscopic and microscopic scale. The study demonstrates how these potters used their own traditions to produce decorated and undecorated ceramics. Furthermore, we found that Castillo Decorated is a type produced only by Viru potters, and we argue that its presence in Moche contexts is evidence of the numerous exchanges maintained by these two populations.

Resumen

La cerámica desempeña un papel central en los debates sobre la relación entre los Virú y los Moche. Un modelo reciente considera que las cerámicas con decoración negativa y las Moche decoradas son los respectivos marcadores culturales de estas poblaciones, producidos por alfareros afiliados a las élites. Debido a una aparente similitud entre las cerámicas no decoradas Virú y Moche, y a la presencia de cerámica Castillo Decorado en contextos Virú y Moche, este modelo considera ambos tipos como tradiciones domésticas, producidas por alfareros independientes que comparten una técnica común. La presente investigación contribuye a este reciente modelo, al reconsiderar el significado social y cultural asociado a estos tipos cerámicos, utilizando un enfoque novedoso para Suramérica que busca reconstruir la chaîne opératoire, analizando las huellas visibles en las cerámicas a escala macroscópica y microscópica. Este articulo proporciona el estudio tecnológico de las tradiciones alfareras Virú y Moche y demuestra cómo sus productores emplearon sus propias tradiciones para elaborar las cerámicas decoradas y no decoradas. Además, comprobamos que el Castillo Decorado es un tipo producido únicamente por alfareros Virú, y planteamos que su presencia en contextos Moche evidencia los numerosos intercambios mantenidos por ambas poblaciones.

Archaeologists’ understanding of the Viru culture has undergone many changes since the beginning of the twentieth century—from considering the Viru culture as predating the Moche culture to viewing both as contemporaneous and rival societies (Bennett 1939, 1950; Ford 1949; Larco Hoyle 1945; Millaire and Morlion 2009; Shimada and Maguiña 1994; Strong and Evans 1952; Willey 1953). After a roundtable held in 2005 in Trujillo, Peru, a new model was posited (Millaire and Morlion 2009). Most researchers now consider the Viru and Moche cultures as two distinct and contemporary polities, whose cultural markers are, respectively, the Negative and the Moche decorated ceramic types (Figure 1a, b; Donnan 2009:30; Millaire 2009:12). This model no longer considers the Castillo Decorated type to be a Viru cultural marker (Bennett 1939; Ford 1949; Strong and Evans 1952) but instead as part of a domestic tradition produced and shared by all the societies present on the northern coast of Peru throughout the Early Intermediate period (200 BC–AD 600; Donnan 2009:30; Millaire 2009:12; Figure 1c, d). The strong similarity between Viru and Moche plain-wares and the fact that they remain relatively unchanged during this period support their being part of a shared tradition known as the Tradición Norcosteña (Figure 1e, f; Millaire 2009:11). These domestic traditions are seen to be part of the common cultural background from which the Viru and the Moche polities originated (Millaire 2009:13).

Figure 1. Viru and Moche ceramic types: (a) Gallinazo Negative (Huaca Gallinazo); (b) Moche decorated (Uhle Platform); (c) Castillo Modeled and (d) Castillo Incised (Huaca Santa Clara); (e) Viru plain-ware (Huaca Gallinazo); (f) Moche plain-ware (Uhle Platform; photographs b and f courtesy of Claude Chauchat). (Color online)

This recent model mainly relies on the morpho-stylistic attributes of Viru and Moche ceramics to establish chrono-cultural markers, which are then used to delineate their areas of interaction. More importantly, these hypotheses fit a model that associates the producers and consumers of decorated and undecorated ceramics with distinct and independent historical trajectories (Downey 2015:71; Uceda et al. 2009:107). Thus, two modes of specialized production would have coexisted during the period: an embedded and an independent production, as theorized by Brumfield and Earle (1987:5) and by Costin (1991, 2005; Costin and Hagstrum 1995). First, decorated ceramics are argued to have been produced by communities of potters affiliated with the elites, organized in workshops located within centers where production could be supervised (Bernier 2010). Second, Castillo Decorated wares and plain-wares, in contrast, are claimed to have been manufactured by potters who may also have been specialized but who were independent of the elites: they were dedicated to making pottery of low political and symbolic value, in workshops located on the periphery of the centers (Bernier 2010; Donnan 1971:461). Along the northern coast, multiple communities of potters could, then, have coexisted, sharing a technological tradition to produce Castillo Decorated and undecorated ceramics, whose traditions would have remained unchanged despite the sociopolitical upheavals caused by the elites (Gamarra and Gayoso 2008:198; Uceda et al. 2009:119). These changes were, in turn, transcribed in the iconography of decorated pottery (Uceda et al. 2009:107, 119).

Although these two hypotheses refer to craft production, the debates on the relationship between the Viru and the Moche rarely rely on comparative technological studies of this production. For the Moche, archaeometric studies on pottery provide significant insights into the practices for preparing ceramic paste while improving our understanding of the locus of production and the interregional relationships among the Moche centers (Chapdelaine et al. 1995; del Solar 2015; Koons 2015; Rohfritsch 2010). Recent archaeometric studies also provide important data on Viru ceramic production (Arrelucea et al. 2019; Sharp 2019). However, these studies do not document the stages of shaping nor do they indicate whether Viru and Moche decorated and undecorated ceramics were produced by distinct communities of potters. One of the problems is that several ceramic workshops for the production of Moche ceramics have been excavated, but no Viru workshops for either domestic or fine-wares have yet been found (Russell et al. 1998; Sharp 2019; Shimada 1994; Uceda and Armas 1998).

In this article, we provide evidence supporting the model formulated in 2005, using ceramic technology, an innovative methodology for the Andes, to compare for the first time the Viru and Moche technological traditions. Our technological approach, by virtue of its capacity to provide an anthropological reading of ceramic material, enables us to identify the techniques used at each step of the chaîne opératoire. We did a macroscopic and microscopic examination of complete pots and sherds to identify the traces of manufacture and to associate them with the gestures, methods, techniques, and tools employed on the material (Roux 2016). We believe that this is a valid method to characterize the ceramic technological environment of the north coast of Peru during the Early Intermediate period: it provides new insights into the social identity of the Viru and the Moche potters and their degree of cultural affiliation at a macro-regional scale. Our aim is not to invalidate comparative studies based on ceramic typology but rather to show the importance of coupling such typological studies with technological studies, thereby restoring the links between the ceramics, their producers, and the society to which these producers belonged.

Using this approach, we also demonstrate that our findings require a major revision of the existing Viru model. First, we propose that both Negative and Castillo Decorated ceramics were produced by Viru potters sharing a common technological tradition, and not by distinct communities of potters. We therefore argue that, as Negative ceramics, Castillo Decorated ceramics were produced by Viru potters. The wide distribution of the Castillo Decorated type in Moche contexts could be explained by the constant interactions between these two groups, resulting in the circulation of Castillo Decorated ceramics at Moche centers; the Viru producers themselves may have visited those centers. Second, we argue that the Viru and the Moche potters had their own traditions of manufacturing both decorated and undecorated ceramics and that there is no evidence that they held a tradition in common to produce plain-wares.

In the following sections, we outline our hypotheses about the relationship between the Viru and the Moche populations, focusing on the findings from previous ceramic studies. We then present the method and materials of our study and describe the Viru and Moche technological traditions. Finally, we discuss the Viru model and describe the northern coast cultural environment during the Early Intermediate period.

Early Definitions of the Viru (or Gallinazo or Viru–Gallinazo) Culture and Its Relationship to the Moche Culture

On the north coast of Peru, the Viru (200/150 BC–AD 700) and Moche (AD 100–800) cultures mostly flourished during the Early Intermediate period, even though they are known to have lasted longer in the northern valleys (Sharp 2019:46; Shimada 1994).

According to Fogel (1993) and, more recently, Millaire (2010a:6187), the Viru culture formed a sociopolitical entity centralized in the Viru Valley; from its center, the Gallinazo Group, this entity integrated a network of secondary centers and residential sites (Figure 2). It is also believed that these populations made occasional incursions into adjacent regions, especially into the Moche and Chicama Valleys, settling at Cerro Oreja, Cerro León, Huacas las Estrellas, Pampa La Cruz, and Huaca Prieta (Billman et al. 2019; Millaire et al. 2016). The Viru culture was partly contemporaneous with the Moche culture, which was distributed over a larger area, ranging from the valley of Piura to the valley of Huarmey, where the Moche built numerous civic–ceremonial centers connecting a large network of sites.

Figure 2. Map of the northern coast of Peru showing the sites studied (in bold) and the other sites mentioned in this article (in italics; produced using ASTER GDEM, a product of METI and NASA).

Current debates around the relationship between the Viru and the Moche cultures question the way in which scholars previously used ceramics as chrono-cultural markers to identify and differentiate these populations (Donnan 2009; Millaire 2009; Uceda et al. 2009). In the 1930s, Larco Hoyle (1945, 1948) was the first to describe the Viru or Negative culture, after the Negative ceramics he frequently found in graves, which he considered to be their hallmark. Negative ceramics are characterized by their decoration that was applied in several stages: (1) applying a removable material on the outer surface, (2) smoking the vessel, and (3) removing this material, leaving oxidized geometric designs on a black background. Larco Hoyle (1945) considered the Viru to be an ethnic group independent of the Moche and observed no direct affiliation between them. Despite his pioneering work, our understanding of the Viru culture is based primarily on the research conducted in 1936 by Wendell Bennett at the Gallinazo Group in the lower Viru Valley. Based on his ceramic study, he described the characteristics of the Viru culture, which he named Gallinazo and which he associated not only with Negative ceramics but also with ceramics decorated by means of applications and incisions, a type today known as Castillo Decorated (Bennett 1939:71). From this point onward, Negative and Castillo Decorated ceramics were used as Viru cultural markers (Donnan 2009:20; Millaire 2009:4).

The work of the Viru Valley Project, which began in 1945, has greatly contributed to highlighting the importance of the Gallinazo culture in the Viru Valley cultural sequence (Bennett 1950; Ford 1949; Strong and Evans 1952; Willey 1953). In the stratigraphy of Castillo de Tomaval and Huaca Gallinazo, William D. Strong and Clifford Evans (1952:217) observed an interruption of Gallinazo cultural development that marked the beginning of a Moche occupation, materialized by the appearance of Moche-style ceramics, locally named Huancaco. They emphasized the strong continuity in undecorated types, which led them to suggest the survival of local communities despite the sociopolitical upheavals caused by the elites. James Ford (1949:74–75) then created a typological sequence based on the material found during his surveys, claiming that the Gallinazo Negative, Carmelo Negative, and Castillo Decorated types were the most distinctive of the Gallinazo period (200 BC–AD 600).

Following his settlement pattern study, Gordon Willey (1953) proposed the founding of Moche sites during the Huancaco period (AD 600–750) and the presence of fully developed Moche ceramics at Gallinazo sites, which he tied to an intrusion of Moche populations into the valley; these newcomers took control of local administrative centers, such as Huaca Santa Clara and Castillo de Tomaval (Willey 1953:397). Thus, Willey viewed change in ceramic typology as being indicative of a deep rupture in the sociopolitical organization of the Viru Valley. These hypotheses are still widely accepted, and the Gallinazo populations have been seen as rivals of the Moche, who eventually conquered the Gallinazo/Viru populations and integrated them into their multivalley state (Fogel 1993; Millaire 2009:4).

The Emergence of a New Viru Model

Since the mid-twentieth century, Negative and Castillo Decorated ceramics have been used as “index fossils” to materialize a culture variously named Gallinazo, Viru, or Viru–Gallinazo. The frequent discoveries of these two types of ceramics from the Huarmey Valley to the Piura region gave the impression that this culture was widespread on the north coast of Peru, forming what Fogel (1993) considered to be one of the first multivalley states of the region.

However, as Millaire (2009:12) points out, outside the Viru Valley, the definition of a Viru occupation is most often based on the discovery of Castillo Decorated ceramics, which are rarely found in association with Negative ceramics. Moreover, at Moche centers, Castillo Decorated ceramics were frequently found in domestic, funerary, and sacrificial contexts from Moche phases I–V (Bracamonte 2008; Donnan 2009:22–26; Shimada 1994:171–172; Shimada and Maguiña 1994; Uceda et al. 2009:109). Archaeologists therefore began to question whether it is appropriate to use Castillo Decorated ceramics as an indicator of the physical presence of the Viru culture (Donnan 2009:20; Uceda et al. 2009:115).

In addition, fieldwork conducted by Bourget (2010) and Millaire (2009, 2010b) in the Viru Valley toward the end of the twentieth century strongly challenged the hypothesis of a hegemony of the Moche over the Viru populations. At Huaca Santa Clara and Huaca Gallinazo, the lack of evidence of a decline in the Viru material culture and of conflict shows that these communities did not experience any sociopolitical upheaval following the development of the Moche culture (Millaire (2009:4). In the Viru Valley, the Viru populations maintained their independence until at least the seventh century, although a Moche presence is evidenced in the valley from AD 600 at Huaca de la Cruz (Millaire 2010b:247; Strong and Evans 1952:217–218).

In 2005, researchers gathered at a roundtable gathering held in Trujillo to rewrite the cultural history of the northern coast during the Early Intermediate period (Millaire and Morlion 2009). During the discussion, several methodological errors were raised, the most important being equating the discovery of the Castillo Decorated type with the presence of people of the Viru culture, without being associated with Negative ceramics. The roundtable participants then proposed to distinguish between the terms “Viru” and “Gallinazo” (Donnan 2009:20–21; Millaire 2009:12). The term “Viru” is now understood to refer to a polity that was contemporaneous with the Moche polity; the Viru culture is associated with Negative ceramics and the Moche culture with Moche decorated types (Millaire 2009:10). The term “Gallinazo” is now considered to designate the Castillo Decorated type, a pottery style that is seen as part of a wider north coastal cultural tradition produced by potters either affiliated with the Viru or Moche culture; this wider tradition also manufactured undecorated ceramics (Millaire 2009:13). According to this perspective, Castillo Decorated and undecorated ceramics would then represent the common cultural background from which the Viru and Moche polities were founded, a hypothesis that we challenge by focusing on ceramic technology.

Materials and Method

We tested the 2005 model by analyzing Viru and Moche ceramics from recently excavated and documented sites (Table 1). The collection comprises 12,051 ceramics (minimum number of vessels: 6,939), of which 11,787 are sherds and 264 are complete pots. The sample includes ceramics from Huaca Gallinazo and Huaca Santa Clara, two ceremonial and residential Viru sites in the Viru Valley (Millaire 2009, 2010a, 2010b); the Viru and Moche domestic and funerary contexts of Pampa La Cruz (Arrelucea et al. 2019; Campaña and Prieto 2022; Chavarria 2021; Comeca et al. 2021; Parker et al. 2018; Prieto 2018; Prieto and Chavarria 2017); and domestic, funerary, and ritual contexts of the Moche centers Huacas de Moche (Uhle Platform, Plaza 3c, and Complex 35 of the Urban Area) and Sipan (Grave 7), where Castillo Decorated ceramics were discovered along with Moche decorated and plain-wares (Alva 2004; Uceda et al. 2009). We also analyzed the ceramics from Junius Bird's excavations at Huaca Prieta (Bird et al. 1985) and Ford's (1949) surveys in the Viru Valley at the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York, as well as a sample of Larco Hoyle's collections at the Museo Larco (Peru). The ceramic collection is representative of the Viru typology (Negative, Castillo Decorated, Gallinazo Broad-Line-Incised, and Castillo Plain) and of the Moche fine-wares and plain-wares present in the contexts studied.

Table 1. Description of the Collections Studied.

We use ceramic technology as a methodological approach by relying on the chaîne opératoire concept, which is conceived as an inherited way of doing things transmitted from generation to generation and that thus constitutes a technological tradition specific to a social group (Leroi-Gourhan 1973; Roux 2016:15, 21). Technical traditions are learned within groups of individuals united by social ties; they tend to overlap with social boundaries because they are more resistant to change than more easily transmitted or imitated traits such as style, whose boundaries fluctuate more (Hegmon 1998:267; Roux 2016:20). The identification of synchronic variability, if it is not functional, in the chaînes opératoires thus allows groups of producers to be differentiated and to identify changes within technical traditions that are an expression of the history of societies (Roux 2016:21).

For ceramic production, the chaîne opératoire comprises six main stages: acquiring and preparing raw materials, shaping, finishing, surface treatment, decoration, and firing (Rice 1987; Roux 2016; Shepard 1980). In the Central Andes, although the chaîne opératoire concept has been used in lithic, metallurgical, textiles, and shell-bed studies, its application to ceramics to date has not systematically accounted for the different stages of production, particularly the shaping stages. One purpose of this study is to demonstrate the utility of shaping methods and techniques in understanding the social and political context in which potters were embedded.

We identified the gestures and actions exerted on the material in the six steps of the chaîne opératoire, although in this article we focus on paste preparation, shaping, finishing, and surface treatment. To define the technological traditions, we first identified the entities and technological groups that corresponded to specific techniques used for shaping, finishing, and surface treatment by observing the traces of manufacture visible on the surface of the vessel and in cross sections at a macroscopic and a microscopic scale, using a binocular microscope (Roux 2016:181). The interpretation of these traces relies on experimental, ethnographic, and ethnoarchaeological data.

We then linked the entities and technological groups to the techno-petrographic groups, which highlight the paste variability for each technique based on petrographic analyses for the four collections with the largest sample sizes: Pampa La Cruz, Huacas de Moche, Huaca Gallinazo, and Huaca Santa Clara. We defined preliminary petrogroups with the aid of a binocular microscope, based on the color and texture of the clay matrix and the size, color, abundance, and shape of the inclusions. From these groups, we selected 105 sherds to create thin sections (Table 2); Isabelle Druc conducted qualitative and semi-quantitative analyses of the petrofacies using a petrographic microscope (a polarizing, transmitted-light microscope). These analyses described the properties of the fine mass, coarse fraction, and pore system. General supply areas for the ceramic raw materials were defined by comparison with geological maps of the region. The northern coast is a homogeneous geographic environment divided into three sectors: the eastern part is formed by the Andean foothills and the coastal batholith, the western part is formed by the alluvial plains that were carved out and filled in since the Quaternary, and the coastline is formed by marine terraces punctuated by rock masses (Cossío and Jaén 1967).

Table 2. Technical Traditions Identified in the Ceramic Collections Studied.

We subsequently correlated the techno-petrographic groups into larger techno-morpho-stylistic groups to determine which ceramic types were produced with which techniques and which paste recipes. This methodology allowed us to perform a first characterization of the Viru and Moche technological traditions, as presented next.

The Viru and Moche Technical Traditions

Hammering accounts for 80% of the ceramic collection (N = 9,638). Coiling (11%; N = 1,327) and molding (7.5%; N = 900) are secondary technical entities, and modeling is an anecdotal phenomenon representing only 0.5% of the collection (N = 38). However, the representation of each tradition differs from one context to another (Table 2) and is discussed separately next. But first we emphasize that hammering as a technical entity must be distinguished from the paddle and anvil technique, another technique of shaping by percussion. These two techniques share many diagnostic features like concave depressions on the inner walls, hammering is characterized by the absence of concentric flat areas, a compact microtopography, and inserted inclusions on the outer wall, because surface was not beaten with a paddle (Espinosa et al. 2021:10). The hammering technique involves pounding the inner walls of a clay mass placed into a support; for example, a pit covered with a mat or a broken ceramic, using a hammer or the hand while the paste is still wet. The use of a support enables control of the homogeneity of the outer surface and the thickness of the container.

Viru Technological Tradition

The hammering tradition largely dominates the Viru Valley collections. We identified this technique by a set of diagnostic features: a series of rounded depressions on the inner wall associated with an alternatingly smooth, fluidized, and irregular microtopography, along with numerous micro-tearings and a series of subparallel fissures in cross section (Figure 3a, b, c; Espinosa 2021:9; Roux 2016:210–213). Hammering was used to shape the base and the body of the vessel, whereas coiling was used to rough out the rim. Coils were systematically placed against the inner wall, as indicated by the fissures and overthicknesses visible on the sherds (Figure 3d). The rims were preformed by continuous pressure with the hand or using a cloth, leaving concentric, ribbed striations around their circumference (Figure 3e). The entire vessel was smoothed by exerting discontinuous, multidirectional pressure on the wet paste with the hand, which resulted in an imprinted network of striations organized in crisscrossed bands (Figure 3f). The ribbed striations and the frequent crests indicate a significant supply of water during smoothing. A few ceramic vessels were burnished—particularly, the ones decorated in negative—which are recognizable by their smooth, compact, and shiny microtopography.

Figure 3. Diagnostic features of hammering: (a) rounded depressions and (b) micro-tearings on the inner walls, (c) subparallel fissures in section. Roughing out and conforming of the rim: (d) internal fissures and (e) concentric ribbed striations on the rim. Smoothing: (f) ribbed striations visible on the external and internal walls. (Color online)

As previously stated (Espinosa et al. 2021), the ceramic production of Huaca Santa Clara and Huaca Gallinazo appears to be local, given that the mineralogical content of the thin sections reflects the sites’ geological environments (Figure 4; Table 3). They are characterized by a mixed lithological composition and a high concentration of volcanic rock; the volcano-detritic Casma Formation is more extensive in the Viru Valley than in nearby valleys (Cossío and Jaén 1967).

Figure 4. Geological map of the Viru and Moche Valley (modified after INGEMMET, national geologic map of Lima, Peru; Hugo Jaen and Luis Vargas, 1998 digital version).

Table 3. Representation of the Technical Traditions within the Petrographic Analysis.

The vessel shapes produced by hammering range in size from 15 to 20 cm to over 40 cm in height and include jars, bottles, dippers, bowls, plates, and cups. These ceramics were decorated using a wide array of tools and techniques and included geometric designs in negative and modeled adornments.

At Huaca Gallinazo and Huaca Santa Clara, hammering coexists with other, more rarely used techniques, such as modeling (Table 2), which was only used to shape miniatures and figurines (Figure 5; Espinosa 2021). These ceramics were smoothed with a wet clay paste using the moistened palm of the hand, and only the figurines were burnished. A comparative study of the pastes of modeled and hammered ceramics, using a binocular microscope, show that they had the same properties. Figurines and miniatures were sometimes decorated with painted designs or with modeled adornments, and the iconography of these decorations is similar to that observed on hammered vessels.

Figure 5. Diagnostic features of modeling at (a–d) Huaca Gallinazo and (e) Huaca Santa Clara: (a) irregular profile, thicker at the base, (b) deep grooves left after scraping to regularize the miniature, (c) miniature decorated with incisions, and (d, e) figurines. (Color online)

Based on these results, we argue that the technological variability in Viru ceramic production corresponds to adjustments made by the potters to adapt to the shape of the vessel being produced. Thus, this variability can be explained by functional factors and does not support the existence of two communities of potters. It is more likely that modeling was occasionally used by Viru potters to shape miniatures and figurines, in addition to the usual production created by hammering. These results are also consistent with our ceramic study from Pampa La Cruz and Huaca Prieta, for which hammering is the dominant tradition (Table 2). We therefore consider hammering to be a technological tradition characteristic of the Viru population, maintained throughout the Early Intermediate period and not shared with either their predecessors, the Salinar, or their contemporaries, the Moche (Comeca et al. 2021; Espinosa et al. 2021).

The scenario is quite different for the molded ceramics found at Huaca Gallinazo and Huaca Santa Clara. This tradition is characterized by the use of bivalve molds into which clay slabs were introduced, a technique that requires tools and technical skills very different from those that must be mastered for hammering (Figure 6). Moreover, the analysis of four thin sections from this tradition demonstrates that these molded ceramics were made from a clay paste whose composition does not match the Viru Valley geology: there is a very low concentration of volcanic rocks in the thin sections. This petrogroup is made up of a quartz-rich, silty clay with a highly controlled granulometry; there are very few small rock fragments and carbonates, and few mafic minerals. In fact, their mineralogical composition is closer to the Huacas de Moche petrogroups described later (Table 3). The shapes produced (dippers, stirrup spout-bottles, etc.) are also commonly produced using the hammering technique. However, the decorative techniques and iconography of these molded ceramics are more similar to the decorated ceramics of the Moche populations, which are known to have been molded (Donnan 2004).

Figure 6. Diagnostic features of molding at Huaca Gallinazo (a, c, d, e) and Huaca Santa Clara (b, f): overthicknesses, (a) scraping grooves, and (b) depressions left on the inner walls when the clay slabs introduced into the molds were regularized; thin sections showing (c, d) a well-sorted granulometry and few vertical fissures diagnostic of molding; (e, f) examples of Moche-style vessels found in Viru contexts. (Color online)

To summarize, the fact that molded ceramics are closer to the Moche style, are made using a technique that is rare at Huaca Gallinazo and Huaca Santa Clara but is dominant in Moche contexts, and use materials that do not seem to be local suggests that their presence in the Viru Valley contexts is the result either of exchange between the Viru and Moche communities or of the circulation of Moche individuals carrying these ceramic vessels with them.

Moche Technical Traditions

At Moche sites and the Moche domestic occupations from Pampa La Cruz, the proportional representation of the technological entities is entirely different: coiling and molding largely dominate (Table 2). Coiling involved superimposing coils on a modeled base and placing them against the inner walls (Figure 7a, b; Espinosa 2021; Espinosa et al. 2019). Coils were preformed by discontinuous pressure with the hands, resulting in an irregular topography of the inner walls. The walls were then thinned by scraping, leaving deep grooves on the surface (Figure 7c). In contrast, the rims were preformed by continuous pressure on a wet clay paste with an abundant supply of water, as evidenced by the thick-ribbed striations (Figure 7d). While the clay paste was still wet, the inner and outer walls were smoothed with the moistened palm of the hand (Figure 7e) without any further surface treatment.

Figure 7. Diagnostic features of coiling at Huacas de Moche: (a) overthicknesses and (b) horizontal fissures, (c) scraping grooves. Preforming of the rim: (d) concentric ribbed striations. Smoothing: parallel bands of ribbed striations (e). Example of intrusive inclusions in ceramic thin sections: (f) granite and (g) granodiorite rock fragments. (Color online)

The petrographic analyses, performed on 33 thin sections, indicate that the pastes were made from sieved colluvial clays to which a sorted sandy sediment had been added. Overall, three petrogroups can be distinguished: two petrogroups predominantly composed of intrusive rock fragments (granodiorite-diorite and granite; Figure 7f, g; Table 3) and one of a more mixed composition. These materials appear to be local, because both the clays and sands reflect the geological environment of the site. One type of paste, which mainly contains intrusive inclusions, dominates the sample (22 of 33 thin sections). The angular shape and coarseness of these inclusions indicate that these materials did not travel much and could have been extracted at the foot of a hill, such as the Cerro Blanco, which dominates the Huacas de Moche site and where potters from the modern-day town of Moche still mine their clay (Figure 4, Ki-c). The sands used as temper may also have come from the aeolian deposits that accumulated around this hill (Figure 4, Q-e). Coiling was used to produce a wide range of shapes that were very similar to those produced by hammering in Viru contexts; they included small to large jars, cooking pots, and bowls, generally undecorated, except for a few anthropomorphic and zoomorphic ceramic vessels.

In Moche contexts, molding involved the use of bivalve molds inside which clay slabs were inserted and then shaped by discontinuous pressure and percussion, leaving numerous depressions associated with fingerprints and resulting in overthicknesses on the inner walls (Espinosa 2021; Espinosa et al. 2019). The necks of the jars and the stirrup spouts of the bottles were only added after the vessel was dry and removed from the mold. The walls were subsequently smoothed with a cloth, and the external walls were burnished and coated with clay materials. Molded ceramics, such as stirrup-spout bottles and portrait vessels, were usually painted.

The existence of two traditions in Moche production could indicate the coexistence of two (or more) production units, but the same potters could have produced both decorated and undecorated ceramics. They could have adjusted their methods and techniques for specific shapes, such as coiling for plain-wares and molding for decorated pottery. However, we also identified the hammering technique, which is also found in Viru contexts. In Moche contexts, this technique is an anecdotal tradition that was infrequently used to shape Castillo Decorated ceramics, including effigy vessels and jars decorated with appliqué strips (Table 2). This evidence suggests that hammering is an exogenous tradition, one that was not commonly practiced by Moche potters who instead produced jars by coiling or molding. Thus, we propose that the Castillo Decorated ceramics present in Moche contexts were produced by Viru potters. Therefore, the presence of hammering is more likely related to sociological factors, meaning that hammered ceramics form a technical tradition of their own, practiced by a different group of potters. The presence of Castillo Decorated ceramics in these specific Moche contexts can indicate the circulation or importation of exogenous vessels, or even the presence of Viru potters at Moche sites. A petrographic study of Castillo Decorated ceramics would help us understand whether they were produced from nonlocal materials and then acquired, for example, from the Pampa La Cruz area or whether they were made with the same pastes as those used for coiled and molded ceramics. If they were found to be similar, this would support the hypothesis of local production by Viru potters, producing alongside Moche potters as proposed by Sharp (2019:306) for Songoy Cojal.

Comments on These Moche Technological Traditions

During the Early Intermediate period, the northern coast of Peru can be defined as a heterogeneous ceramic technological environment, where at least two technological traditions dominated (although we cannot exclude the existence of other, contemporary technological traditions): the Viru tradition (hammering, modeling) and the Moche tradition (coiling, molding; see Figure 8). The chaînes opératoires for each tradition involved different technical knowledge, whose stability in time and space within the social group was guaranteed by the mechanisms of intergenerational apprenticeship (Cleland and Shimada 1998; Roux 2016:18). Some ceramic vessels were evidently exchanged in the area, including the Castillo Decorated ceramics found in Moche contexts and the Moche decorated potteries found in the Viru Valley.

Figure 8. Synthesis of the technological traditions identified in Viru and Moche contexts.

Although Viru and Moche potters were not rooted in the same learning networks, they possessed similar knowledge regarding the properties of the materials available in the region. Both Viru and Moche potters used sieved colluvial clays, to which they added a sandy sediment extracted from the surrounding hills or from the Quaternary deposits in the lower valley. Regarding, Although the bodies of the Viru and Moche stirrup-spout bottles were shaped by hammering by the Viru and by molding by the Moche potters, the handles were formed according to the same method (Figure 9). This process, described by Donnan (2004), involved perforating two holes on the upper body to introduce the extremities of the handle, on which tenons had been applied to be spread against the internal surface. It is interesting to note that this shared technique only concerned objects of symbolic value, most often found in Moche funerary contexts and associated with key scenes of Moche iconography. In Viru contexts, only one Negative stirrup-spout bottle was found at Huaca Santa Clara, but a larger number are part of the Museo Larco collections. For Bennett (1939:72), the forming of the stirrup-spout is evidence of the contacts maintained by these communities of potters. We argue that the sharing of these forms, inherited from the Chavin and Cupisnique cultures, anchored the Viru and Moche populations in a historical continuity with their predecessors.

Figure 9. Stirrup-spout bottles of (a) the Viru and (b) the Moche traditions from Huaca Santa Clara, and (c) detail of the vessel in (a), showing the interior structure of a Negative pottery on which a stirrup-spout has been added. (Color online)

Discussion

Since 2005, the emergence of a new model has profoundly changed our understanding of the Viru and Moche relationships (Millaire and Morlion 2009). It proposes the existence of a Viru and a Moche community of potters affiliated with their population's respective elites and who were producing decorated ceramics (Millaire 2009:12). The model also proposes the coexistence of multiple production units independent of the elites, all sharing the same technology for producing both Castillo Decorated and plain-wares (Donnan 2009:30; Uceda et al. 2009:117). We claim that the findings of our study of their technological approaches imply that some aspects of this model should be retained but that others need to be reconsidered.

The Negative and Moche decorated types do appear to be cultural markers of the Viru and Moche populations, respectively: they were produced according to distinct technological traditions and generally circulated within their respective social group, in particular the Negative ceramics, which are absent from Moche contexts. Our study of the chaînes opératoires confirms the first postulate of the model by highlighting an absence of affiliation between the Viru and Moche communities of potters.

However, the fact that Castillo Decorated type of ceramics are manufactured in Moche contexts by hammering, and not by molding or coiling, indicates that they were not produced by the same groups of potters involved in the production of Moche decorated and undecorated pottery. Castillo Decorated ceramics are made according to a tradition that is clearly dominant in Viru contexts of manufacturing a range of vessels, including Negative ceramics. In this regard, Castillo Decorated should no longer be considered as a regional domestic tradition produced by potters who were either Viru or Moche. In our opinion, what explains the wide distribution of Castillo Decorated ceramics in both the Viru and Moche contexts along the northern coast are the numerous exchanges of these ceramics until at least the end of the Moche III–IV phases, around AD 450–500. However, further studies are needed to understand the mechanisms and the reasons behind the Moche's acquisition of these ceramics. Still unexplored is that many ceramic spindle whorls in the Moche fashion were recovered in domestic contexts at the site of Pampa La Cruz, especially in the occupational levels that mark the transition from former Viru political dominance to Moche material culture and religiopolitical control at this site. Did Viru and Moche potters engage in constant interaction, exchanging their ceramics as stated, for example, by Sharp (2019, 2020, 2022), or did the population affiliated with Viru and Moche sites obtain ceramic objects indiscriminately from the two groups of ceramists?

The same observation applies to plain-wares: despite the morphological similarity between those found in Viru and those found in Moche contexts, these plain-wares were produced according to distinct traditions. We therefore consider that there is one plain-ware from the Viru tradition (involving hammering) and another from the Moche tradition (involving coiling), rather than a common tradition shared by Viru and Moche potters independent of the elites. Yet, the technological traditions used for the manufacture of decorated and undecorated pottery evolved along parallel lines, meaning that the method used to shape plain-wares changed in the same way that the method used to shape decorated ceramics did. Therefore, the current data cannot support the model associating decorated and undecorated ceramics with distinct historical trajectories and thus with different social groups (Uceda et al. 2009:107). Although the pace of morpho-stylistic change in plain-wares was slow, the methods and techniques for producing them underwent profound changes.

More generally, we agree with Millaire (2009), Donnan (2009), and Uceda and colleagues (2009) in considering the Viru and Moche populations as two distinct sociopolitical entities. However, our evidence for their shared knowledge and the circulation of ceramic vessels in the area shows that the Viru and the Moche were in constant interaction and that these interactions were not only conflictual. The Viru and the Moche indeed shared many attributes of material culture, practices, and beliefs, as seen in their public and domestic architecture (Bennett 1950; Millaire 2009:14, 2010b:230), burial practices (Fogel 1993:289; Millaire 2010b:239), and textile technology and iconography (Surette 2015). These common traditions show that, although the Viru and Moche elites constituted distinct polities, they both originated from the same cultural background, and they both maintained numerous exchange networks. However, the iconography on decorated ceramics remained a privileged vector for the elites to distinguish themselves in this context of cohabitation.

Conclusion

Ceramic material has taken on great importance in the discussion about the relationship between the Viru and the Moche populations. To contribute to this debate, we studied their ceramic production from an innovative perspective—ceramic technology—by combining a study of the manufacturing traces with a petrographic analysis. Our work has resulted in the first description of the Viru and the Moche technological traditions, which allowed us to test the model defined in 2005.

Our results challenge the Viru model defined in 2005, although we support the hypothesis that there was no affiliation between the Viru and Moche potters: each had their own technological traditions. Yet, we apply this to both decorated and undecorated ceramics. Furthermore, our results show that the development of the Moche did not lead to the disappearance of Viru technological traditions, which remained unchanged in the Viru, Moche, and Chicama Valleys. Between the first and the sixth centuries AD, the Viru and the Moche populations maintained close contact while exchanging Castillo Decorated ceramic vessels. However, around the fifth and sixth centuries, the Moche expansion led to the disappearance of the Viru traditions in the Chicama and Moche Valleys (Espinosa et al. 2021).

As for Castillo Decorated ceramics, contrary to the 2005 model, they should no longer be seen as a domestic tradition shaped by production units independent of the elites and sharing a common tradition. We showed that in Viru contexts, they are made by potters who also produced Negative ceramics using the same hammering tradition. We also demonstrated that, in Moche contexts, Castillo Decorated ceramics were produced by Viru potters who had mastered the hammering tradition. The presence of these ceramics in Moche contexts is a result either of intercommunity exchange or of the presence of Viru potters at a Moche site. For the contexts studied, most of which are located in the southern part of the northern coast, we thus need to change the meaning of the terms “North Coastal Tradition” and “Gallinazo.” We should now consider Castillo Decorated type ceramics as a ceramic type produced by Viru potters, one that was exchanged with the Moche populations. In other Moche contexts, however, rather than automatically assuming that Castillo Decorated ceramics were made by Viru potters, researchers should conduct a complete technological study to test whether there is such an association. In conclusion, we hope that this study demonstrates how a technological analysis of ceramics, anchored in the chaîne opératoire concept, can provide clues for understanding the affiliations and contacts maintained by ancient societies while offering new perspectives on the archaeology of the region.