decapitación en cupisnique y moche a cordy-collins (1992)

8/12/2019 Decapitacin en Cupisnique y Moche a Cordy-Collins (1992)

1/16

Archaism or Tradition?: The Decapitation Theme in Cupisnique and Moche

Iconography

Alana Cordy-Collins

Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 3, No. 3. (Sep., 1992), pp. 206-220.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1045-6635%28199209%293%3A3%3C206%3AAOTTDT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E

Latin American Antiquity is currently published by Society for American Archaeology.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/sam.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academicjournals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.orgFri Nov 16 21:44:45 2007
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1045-6635%28199209%293%3A3%3C206%3AAOTTDT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Ehttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/sam.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/sam.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1045-6635%28199209%293%3A3%3C206%3AAOTTDT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E


2/16

ARCHAISM OR TRADITION?: THE DECAPITATIONTHEME IN CUPISNIQUE AND MOCHE ICONOGRAPHY

Alana Cordy-CollinsThe Cupisnique lca. 1000-200 B.C .) and the ,bloche lca. 100 B.C.-A.D. 800) inhabited much o f t h e sam eterritory of Peru's north coast in Precolumbian t im es, and bo th are noted for their extraordinary and distinctartistry. Despite the distinctiveness of th e two art styles, various similarities between t he m have been noted. O neinvestigation concluded that archaistic copying was the expla natio n for the similarities (R owe 1 971) . In contrast,the present study arrives at th e opposite interpretation: that th e Moche knew the symbolic content o ft h e earlierima ges and retained it. Decapitation is a concept that is essentially pan- And ean an d, therefore, it is not surprisingthat both the C upisnique and th e Moche subscribed to it. W ha t is surprising, particularly in view of the universalityof the idea, is that both groups employed virtually the sam e cast of characters. Thi s paper dem onstrates a continuityof belief between Cupisnique and Moche societies through an investigation ofthe Decapitator theme.Los cupisnique ica. 1000-200 A.C.) y 10s moche lca. 100 A . C . 4 0 0 D.C.) habitaron en gran medida el mis moterritorio de la costa norte del Perzi en la epoca prec olom b~na .Am bos pueblos son notorios por lo extraordinarioy peculiar de su arte. pesar de lo distintivo de sus estilos artfsticos, tam bien se ha n seiialado varias similitudes.Row e (1 971) explicd esas similitudes resaltando el arcaismo del arte Moche. E n co ntraste, el presente estudiollega a la conclusidn opuesta: que 10s mo che con ocfan el contenido simbdlico de /a s imdgen es temp rana s y loretuvieron. La decapitacidn es un concept0 bdsicamente pan-andino y, por siguiente, no es una sorpresa queam bos 10s cupisnique y 10s mo che lo utilizaran. L o que sorprende particularmente a lu z de la universalidad de laidea, es que am bos grupos utilizaran el m is m o reparto de personajes. E ste trabajo demuestra una continuidadde /a s creencias entre las sociedades c upisnique y moc he a traves del estudio del tem a de la decapitacidn.

Peru's most ancient cultures appear to have imprinted their beliefs and rituals indelibly upon thefabric of Andean culture. Of particular importance was the Cupisnique cult, a group of earlypeoples whose beliefs must have burned deep into the Andean psyche, for, following their demise(ca. 200 B.C.), there is iconographic evidence that their beliefs survived and were transmitted tolater peoples (Isbell and Cook 1987; Mackey and Hastings 1982:307-308; Rowe 197 1).

The Cupisnique people are most frequently referred to as a cult. There are two intertwined reasonsfor this. First, there is little direct evidence of their patterns of social organization, demography, orsubsistence strategies. What is known concerning these areas has been inferred, in large part, fromCupisnique architecture and art. The architecture can be termed corporate, indicating that it wasnot assembled haphazardly on an ad hoc basis (cf. Moseley [I9851 for an extended definition ofcorporate architecture in Precolurnbian Peru). Rather, the systematic arrangement of structures inCupisnique sites (such as the Los Reyes complex in the Moche Valley) indicates the presence of anorganized, stratified society of-at least-architects and designers, skilled artisans, and manuallaborers. Base personnel of farmers, fisherfolk, hunters, or traders also must have existed to supportthe upper echelons of the society, but almost nothing can be said about such groups at the presentstage of research.

The second reason for refemng to a Cupisnique cult is that, beyond the formal and structuralregularities of Cupisnique architecture, many buildings were embellished with painted and incisedstucco relief work depicting surreal creatures. The archaeological sites of Los Reyes, Cerro Blanco,Punkuri, Moxeke, Cerro Sechin, and Garagay all display buildings with such decoration. In addition,Cerro Sechin's outermost building is ornamented further with blocks of incised stone.

In addition to the architectural ornamentation, virtually all other forms of Cupisnique art arebereft of commonplace representations. Supernatural creatures and their component parts literally

Alana Cordy-Collins, Department ofAnthropology Sociology C~niversityof S un Diego, Alcald Par k, S un Diego,CA 921 10-2492

Latin American Antiquity. 3 3), 1992, pp. 206-220.Copyright 1992 by the Society for American Archaeology


3/16

[Cordy Collins] DECAPITATION IN CUPlSNlQUE AND MOCHE ICONOGRAPHY

Figure 1 Map of Peru locating Cupisnique and Moche culture areas

festoon all media. Natural objects do appear in Cupisnique art, but analysis has shown them toexist within a supernatural or religious context (Cordy-Collins 1977, 1979, 1980a, 1980b, 1982;Lathrap 1977). For these reasons, Cupisnique society is seen as one strongly rooted in and absorbedby religion. Following Anthony Wallace (1966), who classifies all religious institutions as one offour types of cults, it seems fair to refer to the Cupisnique people as a cult, probably a shamanisticone. However, although a decided commonality exists in the artistry at the various Cupisniquesites, there is no reliable evidence that they were united other than through a similar religiousoutlook. Therefore, to call the Cupisnique more than a cult stretches the available data.

The Cupisnique-sometimes called coastal Chavin- had as their immediate sphere of influencean area radiating outward from the Quebrada de Cupisnique, a region they seem to have dominatedfor a millennium or more (Figure 1). Although the impact of their ideology extended from theircoastal homeland to the eastern side of the Andean cordillera, in time the Cupisnique star faded,and the emerging north-coast cultures went on to develop their own character. Thus, the Cupisniquetwilight witnessed the birth of the Moche, Salinar, VicGs, and Gallinazo (VirG) cultures. Of these,by far the most vibrant was the Moche, whose kingdom eclipsed its brethren to span nine centuries(ca. 100 B.C.-A.D. 800).

A great deal more is known about Moche society than about Cupisnique. Several Moche ar-


4/16

208 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 3 NO. 3 1992

chaeological sites have been well excavated, and they tell a consistent story. The society was highlystratified; it incorporated a base population of farming and fishing folk, a middle class, and anelite population of extraordinary wealth (Donnan 1978, 1990). And, while there was a definitedistinction in the material culture between the Moche of the north coast and of the far north coast(Donnan 1990), there was also a religious commonality that transcended time and space (Donnan1992). This religious aspect of Moche society is of major interest in the present study.

Not only were the Moche the most dynamic of the societies that followed Cupisnique, but theyseem to have been the one most intrigued with Cupisnique artistic forms and iconographic motifs.Decapitation was one theme of special import to both the Cupisnique and the Moche.

THE MOCHE-CUPISNIQUE CONNECTIONIn 197 1 John H. Rowe reported his discovery that Moche artisans had created a group of ceramics

that archaized mythological designs from Cupisnique wares. Rowe pointed out that, although thedesign motifs on certain Moche jars and bottles could be likened more to Cupisnique prototypesthan to anything theretofore created by the Moche, the latter artisans either had misunderstood theoriginal ideological meanings, or they cavalierly had reinterpreted them, using Cupisnique appear-ances while imbuing them with new symbolic content (Rowe 1971:Figures 1-3, 6, 9-13, 15-16).Rowe's analysis introduced the question of how the Moche had come by the ancient symbols. Mightthey have chanced upon a cache of Cupisnique artifacts that had inspired them, had there been anunderlying stratum of Cupisnique religious belief present within the Moche kingdom from thebeginning that-for some particular reason-surfaced so dramatically in the production of thesearchaized wares, or might there have been another reason? Rowe's (197 1: 11 1) speculation was

that the Moche had collected Cupisnique antiques that they subsequently used as models for theirdesigns.

While this may well have been the scenario for the creation of the wares with archaized motifs,this essay demonstrates that there is another category of Moche imitations of Cupisnique motifs,that of a continuing tradition. This interpretation is discussed in greater detail below.

THE DECAPITATION THEMEThe concept of decapitation seems to be pan-Andean in scope, and on the north coast of Peru

during Cupisnique and Moche times the concept was codified as a theme. theme is characterizedas a specific set of symbolic elements (Donnan 1978: 158). The Decapitation theme is composedof opposing characters, a decapitator and the decapitated. Decapitators are creatures who havesevered their victim's head from the body. The decapitated victims are represented in either of twoways: as a body and a head separated from one another, or-more usually-simply as a severedhead or heads. In the Cupisnique repertoire, decapitators appear in five supernatural guises: Human,Monster, Bird, Fish, and Spider. Their victims are always human. Moche decapitators are the samefive beings, plus two more: a Crab and a Scorpion. Additionally, in the Moche sample, the Monsteris a victim as well as a victor. Cupisnique representations infrequently show a decapitation tool, arectangular-shaped object. Conversely, Moche decapitators always wield a long-handled crescent-bladed knife known as a tumi

It is interesting that, while there is such a tight set of symbolic elements that make up theDecapitation theme, the actual number of representations of the theme is quite small for bothCupisnique and Moche-perhaps one percent of the known samples. Even so, not every specimenis illustrated in this report.

CUPISNIQUE DECAPITATORSThe five Cupisnique decapitators were incised on bone and stone ornaments, and engraved on

small stone bowls and vases. Each piece is executed in the elaborate, dynamically fluid style thattends to characterize Cupisnique art.


5/16

Cordy Collins] DECAPITATION IN CUPlSNlQUE AND MOCHE ICONOGRA PHY

Figure 2 Image from a Cupisnique stone bowl of a Supernatural Huma n Decapitator holding a severed humanhead in one hand, a knife in the other redrawn from Salazar Burger and Burger 11982:Figure 111). BrooklynMuseum, New York.

Supernatural Human DecapitatorThe Supernatural Human Decapitator elaborately rendered in Figure 2 (carved on the exteriorof a stone bowl), not only has six similar human heads on his body, but holds a seventh in one

hand. His other hand holds a rectangular object that is probably a knife. The other faces that decoratemany of the emanations from the decapitator's body could indicate additional victims, but it seemsmore likely that they are the visual metaphors (or kennings ) best known from the related highlandChavin art style. John Rowe (1962) proposed that the term kenning be employed to describemetaphoric imagery created by Chavin artisans. The term derives from Old Norse court poetrywhere familiar terms were replaced by others to be understood only by an audience conversant withthe metaphor. For instance, the term sea would be replaced by the seal's field. Rowe arguedthat the Chavin employed a similar technique using pictures instead of words. Over the past 3years kenning has come into common parlance in Andean studies, being applied to art styles otherthan Chavin and, in fact, is frequently used as a verb.Supernatural Monster Decapitator

There are two representations of the Monster Decapitator (Figure 3), carved on a small stonecylindrical vase. Both images of the creature are bisected, thus allowing it to be seen in frontal view(left) and in profile (right) simultaneously. Several small human heads ornament the bisection (shownas an enlarged vertebral column) and another head, although very abstracted, is held by the hair inthe outstretched hand. The other hand holds a rectangular decapitation tool in front of the body.The Monster's most distinguishing features are his long muzzle and his divided topknot.Supernatural ird Decapitator

The sample also includes one representation of a Supernatural Bird Decapitator (Figure 4), carvedon a small stone vase. The creature is shown in profile, facing left. His eye is striped and his mouthis fanged. A kenning in the form of an agnathic face (one lacking a lower jaw) indicates the junctureat which his tail emerges from his body. His beak is superimposed over the flowing hair of the


6/16

LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 3, No. 3, 199 2

Figure 3. Cupisnique images of the M onster Decapitator carved on a stone cylinder vase redrawn from anunpublished original by J Bird).

severed head that he grasps with one hand. Blood flowing from the head is kenned as a second,albeit inverted, disembodied head.Supernatural Fish ecapitator

The single example of a Fish Decapitator is fragmentary Figure 5 . The image was carved on thebase of a stone bowl that since has been damaged, and not all the original details are evident.Nonetheless, it is clear that the main figure is an anthropomorphic, and therefore, supernatural fish.His body is covered with scales. What may be a scaly fish tail rises to the right above his left hand.This hand grasps a disembodied human head by its hair. Three other lone human heads appear, aswell as two small fish, and another animal-possibly a seal-that the Fish holds by its neck in hisother hand.

Figure 4 Carved Supernatural Bird Decap itator from a Cup isnique stone vess el redrawn from Roe 974:Figure 341 .


7/16

Cordy Collins] DECAPITATION IN CUPlSNlQUE AND MOCHE ICONOGRAPHY

Figure 5. Cupisnique image of a Supernatural Fish Decapitator carved on a stone bowl (redrawn from anunpublished original by J Bird).

Supernatural Spider ecapitatorThe Supernatural Spider Decapitator was first identified by Lucy Salazar Burger and Richard

Burger (1982). There are four examples of this individual (Figure 6; see also Salazar Burger andBurger 1982:Figures 8-16), all carved on stone vessels. Like the other decapitators, this one sprimarily anthropomorphic, with arachnid features added. The latter consist of distinctive pincer-like jaws placed in front of the human mouth, spinnerets from which web silk is spun-located atthe opposite end of the body, and segmented legs that end in a claw element. Although only fourspider legs are illustrated rather than the normal eight, a single human leg and arm are shown aswell. This reduction in the number of appendages might indicate that the creature simply is beingviewed in profile.

Figure 6. Two joined images of the Supernatural Spider Decapitator carved on a Cupisnique stone vase. Thesevered head held by the creature on each side of the vessel terminates in the form of a tuber. The tuber s rootsare kenned as birds. The two images are dissimilar mainly in tha t the webbinghetting over the creature s backcontains multiple heads in one instance, a single one in the other (redrawn from an unpublished original by 0Lostaunau).


8/16

212 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY po l. 3 NO. 3 1992

Figure 7 Two views of a Moche stirrup-spout bottle: left side; right front. modeled Supernatural HumanDecapitator holds a severed human head by its hair over his right shoulder. The body lies in front of him. Themissing left hand probably held a tumi. Hearst Museum of Anthropology University of California Berkeley.Courtesy C. Donnau photographer.

The severed human heads are shown variously: clustered in the web or net bag that covers thedecapitator s body, and another one held in his hand by its hair (Salazar Burger and Burger 1982).In Figure 6 each of the two Spider Decapitators also has a web or a net covering his body, onecontaining multiple disembodied heads, and the other with only a single large head that fills theweb. In addition, both decapitators hold a larger disembodied head kenned as a tuber. This particularvisual metaphor is intriguing. It suggests that such heads were looked on as something to be harvested.This suggestion is reinforced by examples of Cupisnique modeled ceramic tubers incised with humanheads (Lapiner 1976:Figure 107). It is also intriguing that only in the Spider Decapitator represen-tations are the severed heads in webs/bags. Because natural web-spinning spiders catch their preyin their sticky webs and bundle the victims therein, the web/net visual metaphor is an apt one forthis particular decapitator. Furthermore, perhaps akin to the modeled tubers just mentioned arethe frequent representations of disembodied heads shown in a netted format on many Cupisniqueceramic bottles (Lapiner 1976:Figure 113). If these and the tubers are meant to show the SpiderDecapitator s bound catch, they provide abbreviated versions of the fill iconography and, thus,extend the sample considerably.

MOCHE DECAPITATORSMoche decapitators are represented both in metal and in ceramic. The metalwork is fashioned

into ornaments of various shapes such as crescentic pendants, elaborate discs with metal spangles(Lapiner 1976:Figure 363), crescent-shaped bells (Alva 1988:522), long trapezoidal wamors back-flaps (Alva 1988:545), and in one case a round, lidded container. Ceramics are stirrup-spout bottlesor jars.

There are seven supernatural Moche decapitators. Five are the same individuals as in the Cup-isnique sample-the Human, the Monster, the Bird, the Fish, and the Spider. Two others-a Scor-pion and a Crab-have been identified only in the Moche inventory. All these decapitators employa crescent-bladed knife for decapitation. Actual examples of these tum shave been found archaeo-


9/16

Cordy Collins] DECAPITATION IN CUPlSNlQUE AND MOCHE ICONOGRAPHY

Figure 8 Images of the Monster Decapitator that had been painted in fine line on a Moche stirrup-spoutbottle. H is parted tresses are represented as opposing curls. Linden Museum Stiittgart. D . McC lelland drawingfrom photograph by C. Donnan; courtesy McClelland and Donnan.

logically. All are metal, either gold, silver, copper, or an alloy of those metals (Donnan 1978:Figure107). Two were excavated in situ on the upper chest of a Moche lord interred at the site of Sipanin the Lambayeque Valley (Alva 1988:534). Christopher Donnan (1988) suggests that such crescentknives may have indicated one's role within a decapitation cult. In other words, this interredindividual once may have been a real-life decapitator in Moche society.Supernatural H um an ecapitator

The Supernatural Human Decapitator is simply clothed in a loincloth and sometimes a tied beltor a tunic. He can wear neck, nose, or ear ornaments, and a headdress. His face may be wrinkledand his mouth may be fanged or simply lazy-8 shaped (Figure 7; Donnan 1978:Figure 106).

Supernatural Monster ecapitatorThere is more variation in the way the Monster Decapitator is represented (for example, see

Figure 8). Most usually he wears a tunic and a loincloth, and sometimes a collar or belt. Earringsare uncommon. The Monster's most distinguishing features are his long animal muzzle and histopknot. The latter may appear as tresses parted to either side of his head or as opposing curls.Occasionally it is omit ted. He may have muzzle curls/spikes as well, and frequently, spiky projectionsemanate from his sides. Although at first inspection the range of variation might seem to indicatethat more than a single creature is represented, this is not so. There is an overlap of traits whichargues that only one creature was intended (see also Castillo 1989:99-125).

An interesting group of bottles shows the Supernatural Human Decapitator in combat with theMonster Decapitator. The two individuals are readily distinguishable since the Monster is shownwith divided tresses and body spikes. Several relief-decorated bottles illustrate the pair engaged inhand-to-hand combat (Figure 9). An additional bottle lends more detail to the event portrayed(Figure 10). It may be that this group of bottles recounts events in a sequential narrative (see Castillo[1989:172-1771 for a discussion of Moche sequential narrative). A majority of the relief bottlesshow the Monster on the left half of the vessel, holding a t um i in one hand and a severed head inthe other. On the right the Supernatural Human Decapitator brandishes a t um i in one hand, butgrasps one of the Monster's tresses with the other (Figure 9). The remaining vessels in this groupare similar, but the Monster appears as the right-hand member of the pair and, instead of holdinga human head, he grasps the arm of the Supernatural Human Decapitator who holds his lock ofhair.

Additional bottles testify to the aftermath of the combat (Figure 10). The modeled example suggests


10/16


11/16

Cordy Collins] DECAPITATION IN CUPlSNlQUE AND MOCHE ICONOGRAPHY 2 5

Figure 11 Moche stirrupspout bottle modeled and painted in the form of a Supernatural Bird Decapitator(owl) who holds a tum in one hand and a severed human head in the other. Courtesy Fowler Museum of CulturalHistory, University of California, Los Angeles. Photograph by the author.

Supernatural ird DecapitatorThe single example of the Supernatural Bird Decapitator-probably an owl-is a modeled and

painted ceramic bottle (Figure 11). It clutches a tumi in one hand, its lanyard visible as well, anda disembodied human head in the other.Supernatural ish Decapitator

There is also only a single example of a Fish Decapitator, and this is painted on a stirrup-spoutbottle (Figure 12). As with the decapitators discussed previously, this creature holds a tumi with itslanyard in one hand and a disembodied human head in the other.

Supernatural Spider DecapitatorMany examples of the Spider Decapitator are known, both on ceramics and on metal objects.A graphic example of a Supernatural Spider Decapitator is pictured in Figure 13, whereas other

Figure 12. Images of the Supernatural Fish Decapitator holding a human head and a tum hat had beenpainted on a Moche stim psp out bottle (drawing by the author after Kutscher [1954:65B]). Museum fur Volk-erkunde, Berlin.


12/16

2 6 LA TIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 3 No. 3 992

Figure 13 Moche stirrup-spout bottle modeled in the form of a Supernatural Spider Decapitator. The crea-ture's right hand is broken off, but an intact duplicate vessel in the Rafael Larco Herrera Museum in Limademonstrates that a tum belonged in that hand. Excavated at Huanchaco, Moche Valley. Collection of theInstituto Nacional de Cultura, Huaca el Dragon, Trujillo. Courtesy C. Donnan, photographer.examples are more abstract (Figure 14 is representative). What a t first appears to be a SupernaturalHuman Decapitator is ultimately identifiable as a spider by dint of its eight legs-the ladderw-likeextensions that emanate from the creature's shoulders and sides, which is a physiognomy peculiarto arachnids. Legs are segmented and have claws at the termini, features that are also characteristicof arachnid anatomy (the clawed an d segmented legs of the Cupisnique Spider, Figure 6, are com-parable).

Figure 14. Moche gold bell with shell and stone inlays. The SupernaturalSpider Decapitator is shown holdinga severed head in one hand, a tum with lanyard in the other. Excavated from the Tomb of the Warrior Priest,Siph, Lambayeque Valley. Museo Briining, Lambayeque. Courtesy C. Donnan, photographer.


13/16

217ordy Collins] DECAPITATION IN CUPlSNlQUE AND MOCHE ICONOGRA PHY

Supernatural Scorpion and rab DecapitatorsThere is but a single example of each of these creatures, both in Trujillo, Peru. The Scorpion isidentifiable by virtue of its multiple legs and diagnostic thorax with a stinger at the tip. A t u m i isheld in its right hand, a human head is in its left. A broad crustacean's body and six animal legsidentify the other decapitator as a Crab. A t u m i is held in one hand, a severed human head in theother.

INTERPRETATIONThe Moche Decapitation theme is not archaized; i t derives directly from a Cupisnique prototype.Although the concept and practice of taking human heads is part of the greater Precolumbian Andeantradition, the Cupisnique and Moche representations are so similar to one another that they arguefor a direct transference of religious belief, not archaistic copying. The distinction between archaismand continuing belief is important to stress because upon it hinges the argument that the Mochepurposefully appropriated Cupisnique decapitator icons. Archaism is the stylistic imitation by one

group of the artifacts of an earlier one. Because it is style being copied, the copyists may omit theoriginal meaning of the images they are imitating. By style I mean the patterned arrangement ofdesign elements particular to any group of people working with a culturally inclusive mental templatein a particular place and time. Such culturally acceptable patterned arrangements become formalicons. Any digression from the cultural template (the norm) would be seen as inappropriate. We,in the Western Christian tradition, might not know immediately why the Madonna is never shownwearing anything other than robes of red and blue. Yet were we to see a representation of a womanclothed in a green and orange ski suit holding the Christ Child, we probably would assume that shewas not the Madonna because she was not properly attired. In other words, we do not have toknow that robes are a chronological marker or that in Christian iconography red and blue aresymbolic of love and truth, twin virtues of the Madonna, to know that red and blue robes havesome meaning that allows us to identify her. Thus, we can define meaning as the inherent culturallyaccepted content of the icons. While not everyone in the society may know the icons' meaning, allwill recognize them as being meaningful.But when style and meaning are pulled apart and half of the pair discarded, what is retained iseither archaism or a continuing tradition. (Picasso's use of African mask forms is a modem exampleof archaism). Archaisms frequently appear as garbled images such as those illustrated by Rowein his 1971 commentary on the subject. In contrast, a continuing belief maintains the meaning ofan image while its original style may be disregarded.Cupisnique art and Moche ar t are stylistically distinct; no one familiar with the artistic repertoiresof the two cultures could mistake the Moche Spider Decapitator for the Cupisnique one. Yet, thefact that there was a Spider Decapitator in both cultures indicates some commonality of thought:a continuing belief in decapitation. Moreover, it was not simply the broad notion of decapitationthat was passed on, but rather the understanding that at least five specific supernatural individualswere involved in that activity. Why were those five envisioned as head takers and what characteristicsmade them especially appropriate for the role? While at this time it is not possible to explain whymost of the creatures were selected, some interesting hypotheses may be put forward concerningthe spider.Although Cupisnique iconographic contexts are extremely limited, those of the Moche are moreextensive and allow for reasonable extrapolation. In Moche society militarism involved capturingprisoners of war on the battlefield, stripping them of their defenses, binding them to prohibit escape,and taking them to the home base of the captors. At that point the blood of the bound prisonerswas taken and subsequently consumed by aristocratic participants in an elaborate ceremony (Donnan1978:158-1 73). From the abundant depictions of warfare and prisoner sacrifice that are found inMoche iconography, clearly ihe objective of warfare was not the killing of the opponent, but ratherhis capture for ultimate ritual sacrifice (C. Donnan, personal communication 1990). Parallel behaviorby spiders makes them particularly appropriate for characterization as sacrificers. Their propensityfor capturing prey, binding it live with cord-like elements, and gradually removing its vital fluids


14/16

218 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 3 No 3 1992

Figure 15 Mo che gold bead crafted in the form of a spider with a human head on its back. E xcavated fromthe Tom b of the Old Lord of Sipan, Sipan , Lambayeque Valley. M useo Briining, Lambayeque. Courtesy CDonnan, photographer.

well may have been what prompted the Moche to select the spider as the decapitator par excellencefrom the Cupisnique repertoire.

Recent archaeological excavations at the Moche site of Sipbn in the Lambayeque Valley haveplaced this Spider Decapitator activity in an actual context. Possessions of the royalty interred inthe Sipbn tombs include metal bells and backflaps-battle accoutrements of Moche warriors-thatare ornamented with images of Supernatural Spider Decapitators (Figure 14; Alva 1988, 1990 . Inthe oldest Sipbn tomb found, the deceased was buried wearing a necklace of 10 large lenticulargolden beads that were crafted in the form of a spider on its web. What is especially noteworthyabout these spider beads is that a human head appears on the animal s back (Figure 15; Alva 1990:4 . The similarity between the iconography of these beads and that of the Cupisnique SupernaturalSpider Decapitators with the bound human heads upon their back is striking and strongly impliesan equivalency (compare Figure 15 with Figure 6 . The motivation for using the spider as a decap-itator in Moche iconography has been argued above, but since the origin of the motif is undeniablyCupisnique, a similar activity could well have existed in that ancestral society.Understanding the impetus for characterizing the other creatures as decapitators must await furtheranalysis, as must consideration of the creatures that do not remove heads. There are no felines,foxes, dogs, serpents, sea lions, or any other creatures involved in the action besides those examinedin either Moche or Cupisnique iconography. This parallelism further argues that the same inventoryof decapitators in both Cupisnique and Moche art was not mere coincidence. Were it so, one wouldexpect a randomness in the selection of the creatures involved. Clearly, a Cupisnique ideologicallegacy is present in Moche art (also see Cordy-Collins 1988 . Undeniably, the Moche were morethan collectors of antiques-they were heirs to a belief that they subscribed to in practice

CONCLUSIONThe Decapitator theme in Moche art had its beginnings in the old Cupisnique tradition of head

takers. Although the two cultures occupied some of the same territory, the process by which theMoche came by their Cupisnique heritage is unknown. Even if the Moche consciously had collectedCupisnique antiques as Rowe suggests, the close parallel in decapitator representations firmly implies


15/16

Cordy Collins] DECAPITATION IN CUPlSNlQUE AND MOCHE ICONOGRAPHY 219

that Moche artists did not merely have Cupisnique objects with which to continue the tradition oftheir predecessors. Not only did they understand the Cupisnique belief complex they practiced itas well. How this belief complex was transmitted is a question of paramount importance but onethat requires dependable means of refining the chronologies of Cupisnique and Moche decapitatoriconography and therefore cannot be addressed at the current stage of research.

The Decapitator theme in Cupisnique art imparts a powerful visual impact; the potency of theimagery transcends the centuries so that even at a remove of more than two millennia one feelsthe vitality of the ancient ideology. It should come as no surprise therefore that a culture closerin time to the original cultists-people who drew upon a common heritage-would have veneratedthe early faith. Such spiritual devotion is clear in the artistic creations of Moche society a peoplewhose veneration of the Cupisnique faith was both eloquent and tenacious.

Acknowledgments. I would like to extend my thanks to several individuals for their generous assistance inthe developm ent of this article. Helaine Silverm an sparked the initial impe tus for emba rking upon the research.Christop her Do nna n allowed me access to the A rchive of Moc he Art and engaged me i n many sp irited discussionsregarding the research as it progressed. Donn a M cClelland an d Luis Jaim e Castillo were very constructive criticsduring the stage of data analysis. Geraldine Cliff, Do n M cClelland, and Margaret T ho m as were extremely helpfuland patien t editors. JesGs Cruz graciously me tamorp hosed my abstrac t into the "King's Spanish ."

REFERENCES CITEDAlva, W.1988 Discovering the New World's Richest Unlooted Tomb. National Geographic 174(4):5 10-549.1990 New Royal Tomb Unearthed. National Geographic 176(6):2-16.Castillo, L. J.1989 Personajes m iticos escenas y narraciones en la iconografia mochica. Pontificia Universidad Cat6licadel PerG, Fond o Editorial, Lima.Cordy-Collins, A.1977 Chavin Art: Its Shamanic/Hallucinogenic Origins. In Pre-Columbian Art History: Selected Rea dingsvol. 1, edited by A. Cordy-Collins and J. Stem , pp. 353-362. Peek Publications, P alo Alto, California.1979 Cotton and the Sta ffG od: Analysis of an Ancient Chavin Textile. In The Junius B. Bird Pre-ColumbianTextile Conference edited by A. P . Rowe, E. P. Benson, and A -L. Schaffer, pp. 5 1-60. T he Textile Museu mand Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.1980a An Artistic Recor d of the Chav in Hallucinatory Experience. The Masterkey 54(3):84-93.1980b Th e Dual Divinity Concept in Chavin Art. El Dorado III(2) : 1-3 1.1982 Psychoactive Painted Peruvian Plants: Th e Sham anism Textile. Journal of Ethnobiology 2: 144-1 53 .1988 Th e Jaguar of the Backward Glance. Ms. on file, De part me nt of Anthropology/Sociology, Universityof San Diego, San Diego.Don nan, C. B.1978 Moche Art of Peru: Pre-Columbian Symbolic Co mm unicatio n. Fowler Museum of Cultural History,University of California, Los Angeles.

1988 Unraveling the Mystery of the W am or Priest. National Geographic 174(4):551-555.1990 Masterworks Revea l a Pre-Inca World . A\Tational Geograph ic 177(6): 17-33.1992 New Insights from the Art and Archaeology of San Jose de Moro. Paper presented at the 32nd AnnualMeeting of the Institu te of Ande an Studies, Berkeley.Isbell, W. H ., and A. G. C ook1987 Ideological Origins of the Andean Conq uest State. Archaeology 40(4):27-33.Kutscher, G.1954 Nordperuanische Keramik. Verlag Gebr, Mann, Berlin.Lapiner, A. C.1976 Pre-Columbian Art o f South America. Abrams, New York.Lathrap, D. W.1977 Thou ghts on the Subsistence Basis of Chavin . In Pre-Colu mbian Art History: Selected R eadings vol.1, edited by A. Cordy-Collins a nd J . Stem . pp. 333-35 1. Peek Publication s, Palo Alto, California.Mackey, C. J., and C. M . Hastings1982 Moche Murals from the Huaca de la Luna. In Pre-Co lumbia n Art History: Selected Rea dings vol. 2,edited by A. Cordy-Collins, pp. 293-3 12. Peek Publications. Palo Alto, California.Moseley, M. E1985 Th e Exploration and Explanation of Early M onum ental Architecture in the Andes. In Early Monu-mental Architecture in the Andes edited by C. B. Donn an, pp. 29-58. Dum barton O aks, Washington, D.C.


16/16

220 LAT IN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 3 No. 3 19921

Roe, P. G.1974 A Further Exploration of the Rowe Chavin Seriation and Its Implications for North Central CoastChronology. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology No. 13. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.Rowe, J. H.1962 Chavin Art: An Inquiry into Its Form and Mean ing. Museum of Primitive Art, New York.197 1 The Influence of Chavin Art on Later Styles. In Dumbarton Oaks Conference on Chavin, edited by EP. Benson, pp. 101-124. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.Salazar Burger, L., and R. L. Burger1982 La arafia en la iconografia del Horizonte Temprano en la costa norte del Perk. Beitrage zur Allgemeinenund Verleichenden Archaologie 4:2 13-253.Wallace, A. F. C.1966 Religion: An Anthropological View. Random House, New York.NOTE

All the metal examples of Spider Decapitators come either from Loma Negra in the Piura Valley or fromSipin in the Lambayeque Valley see Figure 1).

Received ,\'ovember 11 , 19 91 ; accepted Febru ary 26, I992

ANTHROPOEOGIICAL PAPERSAMEMCM MUSEUM OIF NATUWL HIISTORY

Proudlv Announces a Second PrintingThe Preceramic Excavations at the IluacaPrieta Chacam a Valley, Peru. Junius Bird,John Hyslop and Milica D. Skinner.Volume 62 (1) 1985. 29.00

"This landmark report deserves praise, both for Bird's original work and for allthose who contributed to the publication."-- John Rick, merican nthropologistMake checkslmoney orders payable to the American Museum of Natural History. Postage included.Address orders to: Publications1 Anthropology Department, American Museum of Natural History,79th St. Central Park West, New York,New York 10024-5192

decapitación en cupisnique y moche a cordy-collins (1992)

Documents