Cupisnique, Tembladera, Chongoyape, Chavín? a Typology of Ceramic Styles from Formative Period Northern Peru, 1800-200 BC
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Cupisnique, Tembladera, Chongoyape, Chavín? A Typology of Ceramic Styles from Formative Period Northern Peru, 1800-200 BC (Volume 1) Julia T. Burtenshaw-Zumstein Thesis submitted in fulfilment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of East Anglia Sainsbury Research Unit for the Arts of Africa, Oceania & The Americas School of Art History and World Art Studies November 2014 © This copy of the thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and that use of any information derived therefrom must be in accordance with current UK Copyright Law. In addition, any quotation or extract must include full attribution. ABSTRACT This thesis presents a typology for Formative Period ceramic styles from the Jequetepeque and adjacent valleys. The materials in question have historically been considered as Chavín or Coastal Chavín and more recently as Cupisnique, however, these terms remain vague and ill-defined. Other stylistic labels have also been applied (notably Chongoyape and Tembladera) but a lack of definition means that the use of these terms remains contradictory. Few attempts have been made to systematically consider let alone classify the artistic diversity of Formative Period North Peruvian ceramics. The first point raised in the course of this research is that not all these ceramics should be grouped under one monolithic label. There is a huge amount of diversity that can make generalised stylistic descriptions problematic. This research addressed this issue by using a quantitative multivariate approach. Statistical tests applied to the thesis dataset (c.900 ceramics) identified statistically significant combinations in the permutations used to classify variables such as chamber-shape, 3D-sculpting, handle-shape, spout-shape and spout-rim, the application of different kinds of paint, and the use of surface-texturing techniques, amongst others. The recurring of specific and mutually exclusive combinations of traits strongly indicates distinct manufacturing processes (chaînes opératoires) that in turn point to separate cultural traditions of ceramic-making. In particular, the identification and classification of two distinct handle-spout types and their consistent co-occurrence with other formal and decorative techniques are decisive in defining distinct ceramic styles. Within the Formative Period North Peruvian ceramic complex, two ceramic classes and seven types are thereby classified, plus a number of varieties. Through comparison with archaeological data, it was possible to assign some of these to geographical and/or chronological ranges, while also revealing a complex and fluctuating situation of ceramic-making and exchanging of techniques and motifs in the past. 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I gladly take this opportunity to thank the people whose support and counsel were absolutely fundamental in the successful completion of this thesis. I am grateful for their time, their views, their guidance, their patience and their criticism, as well as their humour, their companionship, and their empathy. George Lau, my primary supervisor, for believing in me and never letting up on his maddening attention to detail, which I came to value enormously. Andrew Mills, my second supervisor, for accepting the challenge of supervising a thesis in Ancient Americas and a student who was new to SPSS and statistics. For financially supporting both my MA and PhD research, I thank the AHRC. At the Sainsbury Research Unit I am indebted to Steven Hooper, for his unfaltering support in helping to make my academic goals come true; Anne Haour and Sandy Heslop, for seeing a sapling of potential in the tangled forest of my upgrade documents; Patricia Hewitt, Jeremy Bartholomew, and Matthew Sillence at the SRU library, for keeping the stream of resources – literary and technical – flowing smoothly; and Lisa Shayes and Lynne Crossland, for working their magic behind the scenes. I wish to sincerely thank the institutions who opened their doors to a green PhD candidate and generously made their collections available for research. I hope this work is of some use to you: - Werner Rutishauser (Museum zu Allerheiligen Schaffhausen) - Doris Kurella (Lindenmuseum Stuttgart) - Nancy Rossoff (Brooklyn Museum) - Sumru Aricanli and Charles Spencer (American Museum of Natural History) - Patricia Nietfeld (National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution) - Bryan Just (Princeton University Art Museum) - Susan Haskell (Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University) - Julie Jones and Heidi King (Metropolitan Museum of Art) - Ulla Holmquist and Isabel Collazos (Museo Larco) - Cecilia Pardo (Museo de Arte Lima) - Doris Robles (Fundación Museo Amano) For sending me digital excerpts of their collections databases (even if I couldn’t add all to my database in the end) I am hugely thankful to: - Gassia Armenian (Fowler Museum at UCLA) 2 - Fabien Ferrer-Joly (Musée des Jacobins, Auch) - Patricia Thomlinson (Denver Art Museum) - Manuela Fischer (Ethnologisches Museum Berlin) - Sue Bergh (Cleveland Museum of Art) In the field, I thank those who let me set foot on their sites, look at and squeal over sherds, and took time to share in their discoveries and expertise, in particular: Eisei Tsurumi, Yoshio Onuki, John Rick, and Matthew Helmer. For sending me their unpublished manuscripts I am tremendously grateful to Isabelle Druc, Kimberly Jones, and Jason Nesbitt. My thanks also go to Kevin Lane and Gabriel Ramón Joffre, for supporting and challenging me in the early stages of all this. Finally I thank Aileen Dennis, whose grasp of and ability to convey the wonders of SPSS were invaluable to me. I cannot leave out my colleagues at the SRU, for providing the inspiration I needed and showing me how it is done. In particular I thank my SRU role-models Laura De- Becker and Mary-Katherine Scott, and my close friend Laurie Martiarena for being by my side for the journey. I also thank Eleanor Heans-Glogowska for countless caffeine-fuelled hours spent in the British Library. It wasn’t only the coffee that was keeping me going. I was not quite past my doctorate when I began my post-doctorate position at LACMA, and I will never forget the generosity and understanding with which my bosses Victoria Lyall and Diana Magaloni allowed me to finish the thesis alongside the job. The gratefulness I feel toward my family cannot be adequately expressed on paper. My parents are my inspiration and foundation. I hope they realise the enormous significance of, and my deep gratitude for, the fact that they not only believed in me and supported me in my pursuit of Andean archaeology, but were also genuinely interested. My final lines of thanks are reserved for my husband, who tolerated my frustration, my defeatism, and my chaotic drafts. Paul, you made it look so easy. I wish I could say that - with you by my side - it was. It wasn’t quite. But with to you by my side it was imaginable, probable, and in the end; possible. Thank you. 3 CONTENTS Volume 1 Abstract 1 Acknowledgments 2 Table of Contents 4 Chapter Contents detailed 5 List of Maps 8 List of Figures 8 List of Tables 11 List of Appendices 17 Chapters 1-8 18 References 265 Volume 2 Maps 286 Figures 289 Statistics Tables 351 Appendices 504 CD (enclosed): SPSS dadabase & Filemaker database CD 4 CHAPTER CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION AND SETTING ...................................................................... 18 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 18 1.0.A Introduction to the Research Problem .......................................................... 18 1.0.B Thesis Outline .............................................................................................. 19 1.0.C Research Project in Sum ............................................................................... 24 1.1 SETTING THE SCENE .............................................................................................. 25 1.1.A Environmental & Cultural Setting .............................................................. 25 1.1.B Social Setting ................................................................................................ 27 1.1.C The Setting in Sum ....................................................................................... 33 2 HISTORY OF RESEARCH...................................................................................... 35 2.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF RESEARCH .................................................. 35 2.1 EARLY SCHOLARSHIP ............................................................................................ 37 2.1.A Early Scholarship 1: Tello vs. Larco ............................................................. 37 2.1.B Early Scholarship 2: Chronologies of the 1930s, 40s and 50s ...................... 39 2.1.C Early Scholarship 3: Criticisms of the 1960s, 70s and 1980s....................... 42 2.1.D Summary of Early Scholarship & Chronology ............................................. 44 2.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK IN THE NORTHERN VALLEYS PRE-1990 .................... 45 2.2.A Early Surveys ............................................................................................... 45 2.2.B Chicama Valley Sites .................................................................................... 46 2.2.C Jequetepeque Valley Sites ............................................................................