tembladera figurines

THE “TEMBLADERA” FIGURINES: RITUAL, MUSIC, AND ELITE IDENTITY IN

FORMATIVE PERIOD NORTH PERU, CIRCA 1800–200 B.C.

Julia T. Burtenshaw-Zumstein

Despite featuring in numerous publications and exhibitions since the 1970s, Tembladera figurines have never beenstudied in and for themselves. This article collects together all published as well as some previously unpublished examplesin order to describe the features that characterize these figurines. Groupings and a chronological attribution are suggestedbased on formal characteristics (size and iconography). In light of lacking proveniences, the subsequent discussion picksout themes such as gender, adornment, and music, and investigates the insight which can be gained from a formal studyof the figurines. It concludes that the figurines can significantly inform our understanding of the role of music and thenature of emergent elites in Formative Period north Peru, 1800–200 B.C.

A pesar de hallarse en numerosas publicaciones y en diferentes exposiciones desde la década de 1970, las llamadas“figurinas de Tembladera,” hasta la fecha nunca habían sido estudiadas con detenimiento. El presente artículo recoge lainformación sobre las figurinas en sus diferentes publicaciones, así como algunos ejemplos inéditos, con el fin de describirlos rasgos que caracterizan a estas figurinas. Agrupaciones descriptivas se sugieren en base a las características formales(tamaño e iconografía). En vista de que carecen de procedencia arqueológica, el debate posterior escoge temas comogénero, adorno personal, y música. A la misma vez, se investiga la idea de que se puede obtener información válidade un estudio formal de las figurinas. Se concluye que las figurinas pueden brindar información significativa sobrela base de nuestras interpretaciones, especialmente sobre el papel de la música y del carácter de las elites emergentesdurante el Período Formativo entre 1800–200 a.C. en el Norte del Perú. Se nota brevemente algunas comparacionesestilísticas con los imprecisamente definidos estilos y/o culturas de “Cupisnique” y“Chavín.” Al fin, se puede sugerir unaatribución cronológica entre 1000–400 a.C. aproximadamente para las figurinas.

In the 1960s, a large number of well-made pre-Columbian ceramics appeared on the antiquities

market, supposedly originating from Tembladera inthe middle Jequetepeque Valley and dating to the

Formative Period (Figure 1; see Lapiner 1976).These included elaborately modeled figurativevessels as well as the iconic figurines that are thesubject of this article. Most of these were quickly

Ñawpa Pacha, Journal of Andean Archaeology, Volume 33, Number 2, pp. 119–148. Copyright # 2013 Institute of Andean Studies. All rights reserved.

Julia T. Burtenshaw-Zumstein, Sainsbury Research Unit, Sainsbury Center for the Visual Arts, University of East Anglia,Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK, [email protected]

119

mailto:[email protected]




dispersed to diverse collections around the world.While some scholarly attention has been given tothe vessels, many of which were linked to theCupisnique and Chavín traditions, little is knownor has been published about the figurines. Of the54 examples known to the author, not a single onehas been retrieved from a controlled archaeologicalcontext, and many remain in private collections.This article considers these so-called “Tembladera”

figurines in greater detail. First of all, for descriptivepurposes, the figurines are grouped into categoriesbased on size and formal characteristics. Thereafter,possible proveniences and contexts of use are dis-cussed, before briefly exploring the kinds of inferencesthat can be made from the figurines as human rep-resentations, in isolation and in context. This articleexplores what the figurines tell us about the people/society which made and used them and, indeed,what their traits can contribute towards our

understanding of pre-Columbian beliefs, practices,and socio-political developments during theFormative Period more generally. Having drawntogether and analyzed this dataset in comparisonwith Formative Period north Peruvian ceramic rep-resentations in general, it is argued that Tembladerafigurines are particularly notable for the detailing oftheir clothing and adornments, their gender-specificiconography, and a conspicuous link to music andmusicians.Despite almost a century of research, the cultures

and styles of the Formative Period of northern Peruare still a cause for debate. This article does not aimto define Tembladera as a ceramic style or culture ingeneral, nor can it prove that these kinds of figurinesdo indeed originate in/around Tembladera.Nonetheless, by considering the figurines in and ofthemselves, the foundations for future cultural andstylistic attribution are laid. Comparison with other

Figure 1 Map of north coast Peru.

Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology Volume 33, Number 2

120

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1179/0077629713Z.0000000006&iName=master.img-001.jpg&w=305&h=311

human representations from Formative Period north-ern Peru (on ceramics labeled as either “Cupisnique,”“Chongoyape,” or “Chavín,” for example) are alludedto, however problematizing the definition of such cul-tural or stylistic labels is beyond the scope of thisarticle.1 Although chronological and geographicorigins are clarified and/or tentatively proposed, thesubsequent discussion does not rely on an exact cul-tural association.

The Figurines

The present article draws together the largest sampleof Formative Period figurines from north-coast Peruthus-far considered collectively—54 in total. Thisdataset is comprised of all previously publishedexamples known to the author, as well as a large pro-portion of unpublished pieces located in publiclyavailable museum collections in the USA and

Switzerland, which have been personally examinedby the author.2

Descriptive Groupings

Based on empirical observation of the formal, techno-logical, and iconographic traits, the figurines herehave been divided into three general groups (A, B,and C). These groups are useful to more accuratelydiscuss the characteristics of the figurines and theirimplications, but these categories are not definitiveand there is some degree of variability within them.The purpose of this study is not to address each vari-ation but to introduce the figurines, make a first broadinterpretation, and set the stage for future studies.Group A is the most elaborate and most of the discus-sion below will focus on the figurines of this group.Group B figurines are not as elaborate or large asthose of Group A, but show significant similarities

Figure 2 Flutist with feline headdress 1 (Group A).

Burtenshaw-Zumstein: The “Tembladera” figurines

121


as well as differences compared with those in GroupA. Group C consists of small ocarinas in human aswell as animal shapes. This article maintains that,given their similarities, all these figurines ought tobe considered as part of one dataset. An additionalfew figurines have been published as “Tembladera fig-urines;” however, they differ from the rest of thecorpus in a number of formal, technological, and ico-nographical features and, therefore, have beenassigned to a provisional “atypical” group (Group X)for further subdivision and analysis in the future.The figurines illustrated in Figures 2–34 are a repre-sentative sample of the larger corpus of figurines.Group A includes the largest and most elaborate

figurines (Table 1; Figures 2–16). Based on threeexamples of paired figurines it is possible to assigngender to the figurines of Group A (Figures 14–16).One of each pair appears to wear a loincloth, theother a full-length dress, leading us to interpretthem as male and female, respectively. Further

attributes reinforce this gendered identification,both in the paired and individual figurines ofGroup A. The distinction between the representedmale and female persons is evident based on theirgender-distinctive clothing and hairstyle or head-dresses, but also their pose and actions, as will be out-lined below. Also worth noting is that, in the pairedfigures, the male is always positioned on the right,with the female on the left side as they face.The figures in Group A are 15–20 cm tall. They

each have a large, round air-hole at the top of thehead, plus another air hole either on the abdomen(navel) or at the base (feet or in one case, anus).The faces of all figurines in Group A are incisedand/or zone-colored with elaborate, asymmetricalmarkings of steps, waves, and pulse-motifs. Tracesof both white and red post-fire paint remain on thefigurines’ faces and clothing. The elaborate clothingis particularly notable: all male figurines wear awhite loincloth, with a long vertical band at the

Figure 3 Flutist with feline headdress 2 (Group A).


122


front and shorter bands or a knot at the sides andback; female figurines wear full-body dresses (orskirts and blouses) decorated with circles, and sashesthat run diagonally across their bodies. The onlyexception to this is one figurine showing a sittingfemale who appears to be naked (Figure 12). Themale figurines wear some form of headdress (someof which are finely detailed feline or avian head-dresses), while the females have straight, shoulder-length hair. All figures in Group A wear a broad neck-lace/collar with multiple layers of thin rectangularelements (with the exception of Figure 5). All of themale figures except one (Figure 6) hold flutes orshell-trumpets and most of these musicians inaddition wear multi-component earrings andbracelets.Aside from the sitting female already mentioned,

two figurines stand out and, in the future, they maybe recognized as regionally or chronologically

different manifestations of this figurine tradition.Both show standing male figures in loincloths, haverectangular slit eyes, and are playing flutes(Figures 9 and 10). What distinguishes them is thedouble-crest headdress and, on the back of thehead, both have an incised agnathic face, with fangsand upturned eyes. Figure 10 further differs fromthe rest of Group A due to its bright red color andthe circle-and-dots that decorate the loincloth, neck-lace, and flute (this figurine was allegedly lootedfrom Puémape, as were Figures 6 and 8, as discussedfurther below).The figurines assigned to Group B are smaller and

lack the clothing, accessories, and distinctive actionspresented by the figurines of Group A (Table 2,Figures 17–21). Nonetheless, they can be closelylinked to or even considered as part of the samecorpus of figurines: the figurines of Group B wear abroad necklace/collar with multiple layers of

Figure 4 Flutist with avian headdress (Group A). Figure 5 Simple flutist (Group A).


123



rectangular elements that is virtually identical to thatworn by the figurines of Group A (with the exceptionof Figure 21). As with Group A, Group B figurinesbear traces of post-fire white paint, sometimes alsored paint, and they have a large, round air-hole onthe abdomen. As seen in Group A, Group B figurineshave facial markings, but these can be both asymme-trical and symmetrical and consist of curvilinearrather than stepped/pulse designs. Their eyes consistof rectangular slits with round pupils, just as inGroup A. However, in Group B there are additionalpierced holes at the corners of the eyes and mouth.At 12–14 cm tall, the figurines of Group B are

smaller than those in Group A (compare Tables 1and 2). Unlike the figurines of Group A, clothing isnot represented, and thus we cannot confidentlyassign gender to the figurines of Group B. All havelong hair, sometimes with finely incised lines at thefringe and wider strands at the back. The arms are

bent at right angles such that their empty hands areheld on the abdomen. Unlike Group A, no GroupB figurines hold musical instruments.The third group of figurines, Group C, is quite

different from those described above and the figurinesare also ocarinas (Table 3, Figures 25–34). They areconical and have a large hole on the back, plus twosmall holes at the shoulders and ankles (five holesin total), comprising the mouth and finger holes ofan ocarina, respectively. At 4–6 cm tall, these aremuch smaller and lack the detailed features (e.g.modeled noses or adornments) of the figurines ofGroups A and B. Their eyes are either rectangularslits with pin-prick pupils (as seen in Groups A andB) or made up of a circle and dot, and someocarina figurines feature both (see Figures 25 and 34).Aside from having the same alleged proveniences as

the other figurines (discussed below) there are anumber of parallels that enable us to link these

Figure 6 Plain standing male (Group A). Figure 7 Conch shell trumpeter 1 (Group A).


124



pieces with the Group A and Group B figurines. Thetan paste, surface color, and smooth finish are identi-cal to the other Tembladera figurines, and there aretraces of post-fire white paint and sometimes alsored or black paint. The circle and dot eyes seen onsome of these ocarinas are also seen on the felineand avian headdresses of the figurines described inGroup A. Remarkably, there is a paired figurine-ocarina (Figure 34) where one figure appears towear a full-length dress with circle decoration, asseen on the large (Group A) paired figures.It is worth noting that, in addition to the human

figurines, there are a number of bird ocarina-figurines(Figures 29 and 33), but these can be classified toGroup C with confidence: they are of the exactsame size, have the same conical body-shape, circle-and-dot eyes, white and red or black post-fire paint,and the same arrangement of air and finger holes.Particularly notable is a paired bird figurine(Figure 33).

The figurines that have provisionally been assignedto Group X are “atypical” pieces, i.e. figurines thatcannot be adequately described within the othergroups (see Table 4: Figures 22–24, plus others notillustrated). Future study may enable us to assignthese to new groups, or reveal some of them as fakes.Figures 22 and 23 are closely associated to oneanother. They are of a dark red, almost purple, colorand have a polished, reflective surface finish. Tracesof cream-colored paint are reported (Alva 1986: 98).No air holes or perforations are visible on the frontsor sides of the figurines. Both are seemingly dressedin long tunics that completely and tightly wrap theirbodies from neck to toe, decorated with one or two ver-tical bands. These appear to depict female figures (Alva1986; Lavalle and Lang 1981; Morgan 2009). One ofthem covers her eyes with both hands, a gestureunknown from any other north Peruvian Formativerepresentation. The other figurine has incised, ovaleyes with incised, upturned pupils, quite distinctfrom the figurines of Groups A, B, or C. Stepped,asymmetric facial markings around the mouth, onthe other hand, are vaguely reminiscent of thoseobserved for Group A. Another figure is similar tothose just described, but shows a tan color and lacksthe polish of Figures 22 and 23 (see Lapiner 1976:Figure 61). Figure 24 as well as one piece first illus-trated in Lavalle and Lang (1981: 120) are solidrather than hollow, and thus—despite the fact thatFigure 24 shows some similarity with figurines ofGroup B, especially the collar of Figure 21—must beconsidered as “atypical” within the corpus currentlyavailable for study.

Manufacture

With the exception of the two “atypical” pieces justmentioned, all the figurines are hand-made andhollow. While admittedly difficult to determinewith certainty, they appear not to have been madeusing a mold, which is consistent with the manufac-ture of sculptural vessels from the Formative Period(Donnan 1992; Elera 1998). The number and pos-ition of the air holes vary and could not always be

Figure 8 Conch shell trumpeter 2 (Group A).


125


ascertained on the specimens known only from pub-lications; however, there is a tendency to place theholes on top of the head and at the base and/ornavel. In some cases, even for the large Group Aand Group B figurines, these holes are said to formpart of the figurines’ function as ocarinas (Morgan2009), but it must be noted that air holes are necess-ary on all hollow ceramic bodies to facilitate the firingprocess and prevent breaking. Based on personalexamination of the figurines, it seems that, exceptfor the ocarina figures described in Group C, theseholes do not serve as a whistling mechanism.The paste color varies from a pale tan to orange

(and dark brown for Group X), and is fairly coarsewith a sandy temper. There is no slip, but thesurface is often smoothed or burnished and many ofthe figurines show traces of white and/or red post-fire paint. On some of the Group C figurines, tracesof black also remain. The colors are applied in

zones bounded by lines incised into the damp/drying paste.The figurines’ visual impact derives primarily from

the skill of the artisan and character of the iconogra-phy. The elaborate and delicate features of the figur-ines indicate that they were probably made by aspecialist; however, as their manufacture involves nocomplex techniques or access to rare materials, it hasbeen suggested that their manufacture was unlikelyto have been controlled by an elite patron (Morgan2009). Being hand-modeled rather than mold-made, they were also not mass-produced like later fig-urines (for example, Moche figurines, see Morgan2009).

Previous Research

Tembladera figurines have appeared in a number ofpublications and exhibitions, however, interpretations

Figure 9 Flutist with face on the back (Group A).


126


or discussions have been brief. The first research wasby Lapiner (1976) who published eight figurines,assigning the label “Tembladera-style” not just tothe figurines, but also to a diverse set of figurativevessels. In 1986, Walter Alva included nine figurinesin his publication of some 470 Formative Period cer-amics from the Jequetepeque and adjacent valleys,albeit without reference to Tembladera as a style orsite of origin (Alva 1986). Most subsequent publi-cations only feature isolated examples of the nowso-called Tembladera figurines, leaving commoncharacteristics and their potential implications unexa-mined (see Burger 2008; Denver Art Museum 1990;Kan 1972; Lavalle and Lang 1981; Parsons 1980;Quilter 2005).One exception is Alexandra Morgan (2009) who

considered Tembladera figurines as part of her exten-sive study of north Peruvian figurines. Morgan illus-trated 24 “classic” Tembladera figurines.3 A detailed

description of the group as a whole was followed bya discussion of some specific traits, including eye-shapes, facial markings, hairstyle, headdresses, cloth-ing, and hand positions. Without defining stylisticor cultural labels in general, Morgan pointed outthat, based on the figurines, “Tembladera” was dis-tinct from the more frequently cited Cupisnique tra-dition of the north coast, writing: “it is remarkablethat no similar figurines were found further south,in the general area of the Cupisnique culture, inspite of strong similarities between ‘Tembladera’ andCupisnique ceramics… In contrast to the wealth offigurines from the Jequetepeque Valley, no figurinesat all have yet come to light from a Cupisniquecontext in the Moche-Chicama valley” (Morgan2009: 38–39).Morgan’s work is an invaluable first compilation

and description of a number of Tembladera figurines,and she situates them within the wider context of

Figure 10 Red flutist with face on the back (Group A).


127


figurine-making traditions in north Peru. She pointsout basic trends and features, such as the uniquenessof the paired male-female figurines, but does not elab-orate on the significance of this, above and beyondnoting that “male/female dualism is a fundamentalconcept in Pre-Columbian Peru” (Morgan 2009:37). One key observation she makes is the clear associ-ation of the figurines with music, indeed, Morganinterprets the majority of figurines (14 of her 24classic Tembladera figurines) as ocarinas themselves(Morgan 2009: 38), an interpretation which, asnoted, is refuted here for all except the Group C fig-urines classified.

Dating and Chronology

The chronological frameworks for the FormativePeriod of northern Peru remain matters of debate(Kaulicke 2010). When “Tembladera” ceramics and

figurines first appeared in the academic sphere theywere dated, on the basis of stylistic similarities withChavín and Paracas, as “Late Chavín, 700–400B.C.” (Kan 1972; Keatinge 1980; Lapiner 1976;Lavalle and Lang 1981; Parsons 1980). Kan (1972)associated them with the “feline cult” practiced atChavín de Huántar. Stylistic similarities withParacas were also noted: “The zoned-incised, post-fire painting technique surprisingly parallels contem-porary Paracas pottery far to the south and is other-wise absent on the North Coast” (Parsons 1980:256).4 In summary, these stylistic similarities placedTembladera ceramics and figurines in the LateFormative Period, contemporary with or post-datingthe apogee of Chavín de Huántar.It must be noted that several scholars have referred

to a “Tembladera style” of ceramics in general, asopposed to figurines specifically. More recently, this“Tembladera” material culture (however defined,but mostly left undefined) has been associated withthe Early/Middle Formative periods, connecting itclosely to north-coast ceramics usually referred to as“Cupisnique” (Burger 1995, 2008; Cordy-Collins1998; Donnan 1992; Jones 2010; Torres 2008)and dating to approximately 1500–500 B.C.(Burger 1995; Elera 2009; Fux 2012). All of these sty-listic definitions remain to be clarified (Burtenshaw-Zumstein 2014). Alva noted there is great variationin the ceramic types said to come from theFormative Period middle Jequetepeque Valley andsuggested that the pieces illustrated probably spanseveral centuries (Alva 1986: 16). Burger writes:“Although some scholars once believed that theTembladera style might be post-Chavín because ofsimilarities with the Paracas style of the Late EarlyHorizon, this position has become less plausiblewith recent archaeological results from Jequetepequeand Kuntur Wasi,” thereby suggesting an Early-Middle Formative chronological association (Burger1995: 98, note 86).Nonetheless, a Late Formative Period association

for Tembladera figurines specifically (as opposed tothe more vaguely defined “Tembladera ceramicstyle”) remains in the scholarly literature (DenverArt Museum 1990; Morgan 2009; Quilter 2005).

Figure 11 Standing female (Group A).


128


The justifications for this temporal association arelimited, but should not be ignored: two figurines(Figures 9 and 10) have a carved face on the back sty-listically interpreted as Chavín-related (Kan 1972;Lapiner 1976). The characteristics of this carvedface (an agnathic mouth and up-turned eyes) indeedfind close parallels with the Raimondi Stela andBlack and White Portal at Chavín de Huántar, bothof which have been consistently attributed to latephases in the Chavín sequence (Rowe phases D andEF). More recently, Kembel (2001) has provisionallydated the Black and White Portal to the last monu-mental construction phase at Chavín de Huántar,although she places this final construction phase at750–500 B.C. or possibly earlier. Thus, even if thefigurines are coeval with the Black and White phaseat Chavín de Huántar, the associated absolute datesare between 1000–500 B.C. or the MiddleFormative rather than Late Formative Period. While

the other figurines of Groups A, B, and C do notfeature carved agnathic faces, they do share a largenumber of other traits with figurines 9 and 10, andmay be roughly contemporaneous with them.The association of the figurines with a

“Tembladera” or “Cupisnique” ceramic style ingeneral remains to be proven. Chronologically,suggested dates for the Tembladera figurines asbased on the Chavín comparison fall into the latterhalf of a broadly defined Cupisnique sequence(1500–500 B.C. [Elera 2009]). As is also mentionedbelow, however, the figurines share few or no icono-graphic or formal traits with human depictions seenon north-coast Formative Period sculptural vessels.Eye and mouth shapes, facial decorations, as well asthe detail of dress and adornment are unique to thefigurines (for example, see vessels depicted in Alva1986; Elera 2009; Jones 2010; Lapiner 1976). Thiswould suggest the existence of contemporaneous

Figure 12 Seated naked female (Group A).


129


but separate ceramic traditions. At least for themoment, we cannot convincingly tie the figurinesinto the general ceramic sequences suggested for thenorth coast (for example, the seven-phaseCupisnique sequence proposed by Toshihara 2002).Four figurines now located in the Reiss-Engelhorn

Museen (REM; in Mannheim, Germany) have beendirectly dated using thermoluminescence (TL) (seeHickmann 2008). One is a large figurine showing amale playing a double flute (Figure 5). It has herebeen attributed to the Group A figurines, but is asomewhat simplified version: the facial decoration isonly around the eyes, there is no white paint, thenecklace lacks the horizontal divisions, and the head-dress is more like that of some of the ocarina figurines(Group C). It has been TL dated to 400 B.C.Another figurine (Figure 32) is a human-shapedocarina and as such fits reasonably well into thedescriptions for Group C, except that it features

oversized, incised hands holding a panpipe, whichare colored bright red. The TL date is given as 800B.C. Two other figurines (not illustrated here) arealso miniature ocarinas, but both are atypical in com-parison to the rest of the corpus (hence here have beenassigned to Group X): one is almost gray in color andhas a crocodilian mask or head, the other a long neckand separate head with irregular eye shapes, as well asangular decoration all over the body. These two ocar-inas are dated to 300 B.C. (Hickmann 2008).5

None of the TL-dated figurines fits perfectly intothe descriptions for Groups A, B, and C, but thereare similarities with examples in Groups A andC. This would indicate that these kinds of figurineswere indeed made and used in the early-middle cen-turies of the first millennium B.C. (i.e. MiddleFormative). The 300 B.C. date for the atypicalocarina figurines suggests that new versions of theocarina figurines described in Group C may have

Figure 13 Seated female with child (Group A). Figure 14 Embracing pair 1 (Group A).


130



been made well into the Late Formative Period.Without grouping them as such, Morgan has hypoth-esized that the differences between more elaborate(i.e. Group A) and more simple (i.e. Group B)figurines might be due to a change over time(Morgan 2009: 39). However, there are also indi-cations that they are attributable to provenience (seebelow) and—as presently classified into GroupC—function.

Possible Proveniences

In 1967–1968 the sites around Tembladera saw anespecially intense period of looting, as a severedrought in the Jequetepeque region drove increasinglymore people to grave-robbing in order to sell artifactsfor cash. This resulted in the almost complete destruc-tion of the once rich Formative Period burials of the

area (Alva 1986). As mentioned already, of the 54 fig-urines known to the author, not a single one has beenretrieved from a controlled archaeological context.This also leaves open the inevitable possibility thatsome of the figurines are fakes.6

The proveniences given by Alva (1986) are basedon his conversations with informants, looters, andcollectors, rather than excavation, and thus are notnecessarily precise. Two large, elaborate figurinesillustrated in Alva are said to be from theJequetepeque Valley (Alva 1986: Figures 463, 466;see Figures 3 and 16—Group A). Two smaller,simpler figurines illustrated are said to be from theZaña Valley (Alva 1986: Figures 461, 462; seeFigures 19 and 21—Group B). Another two figurines(currently assigned to the “atypical” Group X) are saidto be from the Chancay (Lambayeque) Valley (Alva1986: Figures 464, 465; see Figures 22 and 23). Ifthese proveniences are accurate, these variations mayindicate regional stylistic differences, but the datasetis too small and the information too vague to becertain at this stage.Three figurines in the Museo de Arte Lima

(Figures 6, 8, and 10) are said to be from Puémape(Castillo and Pardo 2009: 86), a “Cupisnique” cem-etery on the coast between the Chicama andJequetepeque valleys (Elera 1998). It has not beenpossible to determine or validate the sources for thisattribution, i.e. whether this provenience is basedon excavation, information from looters, or assignedby the authors on the basis of perceived similarity.Figures 6 and 8 fit perfectly with the descriptionsfor Group A, while the third (Figure 10), asdescribed, stands out due to its bright red coloring,absence of post-fire paint, the circles decorating itsloincloth, and the agnathic face carved on the back.

Contexts of Figurine Use

Formative Period figurines are abundant inMesoamerica and coastal Ecuador, but much rarerin Peru, and the uses of figurines in the northernAndes are poorly understood. They have often beenconsidered as symbols of fertility/fecundity (Bruhns

Figure 15 Embracing pair 2 (Group A).


131


and Stothert 1999), used in household rituals, asvotive offerings or dedicatory “sacrifices” (Shady2005), charms, cult-objects, or healing/curing aids(Lesure 2011; Meggers 1966; Reichel-Dolmatoff1961). Based on ethnographic studies from lowlandSouth America, Stahl (1986) elaborates on this finalconcept, arguing that anthropomorphic figurinesfrom coastal Ecuador (in particular, Valdivia) func-tioned as repositories for spirits contacted or sum-moned by shamans during their ecstatic journeys.Their use in healing or other ceremonies was bytheir role as shamanic aids. Once used, they wereoften ritually broken and discarded (Stahl 1986:141). The earliest figurines from Peru date to theLate Preceramic Period (c. 2500–1800 B.C.). Theywere almost always encountered in the context ofpublic architecture where ceremonial activities werecarried out (Feldman 1991). Most figurines wereincomplete, interpreted as indicating meaningful

breakage, and were not found in burial or householdcontexts (Burger 2007).Because none of the “Tembladera” figurines was

excavated from a controlled archaeological context,it is impossible to know the contexts of their use;however, it is highly likely that many were lootedfrom tombs (Alva 1986), and the Museo de ArteLima figurines reportedly were looted from thePuémape cemetery (Elera 2009).The only ceramic figurines that have ever been

excavated from a controlled context in theJequetepeque region come from Tomb 6 atKuntur Wasi, a temple site in the upperJequetepeque Valley at 2,300 m above sea level.The tomb was dated to approximately 550–250B.C. (Onuki and Inokuchi 2011). The twohuman figurines were found together with twofeline figurines, which are unique for the periodand region (see Onuki 1995: Lamina 18; Onuki

Figure 16 Embracing pair 3 (Group A).


132


and Inokuchi 2010: 150, Catalog 81–84). Despitean assumed geographical and chronological proxi-mity, the figurines from Kuntur Wasi are remark-ably different from the “Tembladera” figurinesdescribed above, including Group X. The KunturWasi figurines range in color from black to gray-tan. One human figure sits in a cross-leggedposition; the other stands. They have nubbin-eyes,consisting of almond-shaped incised lines with around, appliqué nubbin of clay for the pupil.They lack elaborate dress or jewelry (the earlobesare elongated on the seated figure but contain noearrings). They do not have post-fire paint. Bodilyfeatures such as the hands and nose are larger andmore precisely modeled than those seen on the“Tembladera” figurines. It is worth noting that thefaces of the Kuntur Wasi figurines do resemblecertain figure vessels, some of which may be fromthe mid-Jequetepeque Valley (Alva 1986: Figure347, allegedly from the site of Quindén), although

vessels of that style also have been found in themid-Lambayeque Valley at Chongoyape (Donnan1992; Lapiner 1976: 26; Lothrop 1941) and atMorro de Etén on the coast (Elera 1994). Thus,the Kuntur Wasi figurines do not clarify thechronological placement of the Tembladera figurinesnor lead to a better understanding of the use of fig-urines other than as grave goods. However, they doappear to strengthen the hypothesis that the manu-facture and use of distinctive figurine styles inFormative Period north Peru was restricted inspace and, probably, in time.Unlike anthropomorphic figurines found at Aspero

and Caral located on the central coast of Peru, wherefigurines were associated with the ritual infilling oftemple enclosures (Feldman 1991), the Tembladerafigurines were not broken deliberately and no frag-ments have been found in public architecture or dom-estic refuse. At present, it seems probable that mostTembladera figurines were looted from graves,

Figure 17 Standing figurine (Group B).


133


although future investigations may alter this infer-ence. The functions of the Group A and Group B fig-urines are unknown. By contrast, it seems likely thatthe Group C figurines, as musical instruments, wereused in rituals, as music played—and still plays—akey part in ritual practices of the Andes (Baumann1996; Herrera 2010). Some rituals may have beenpublic events and others may have occurred in dom-estic or mortuary settings. The larger figurines alsomay have featured in ritual contexts, but their func-tion is harder to interpret. Their size and detailingimply that they were meant to be seen up close.

Links to the Archaeological Record

The detail of dress and jewelry depicted on theTembladera figurines, particularly among Group Aand Group B figurines, is unique among artistic rep-resentation of the Formative Period in northern Peru.

It has been argued that Formative Period burialsindicate a particular interest in personal adornment(Elera 1998). For example, abundant beads fromexotic stone (lapis and quartz) and shell, includingskirts made of thousands of beads, are known from“Cupisnique” contexts in the lower Chicama Valley(Elera 1998). Some individuals were buried wearingnumerous rings of carved bone, sometimes on allfive fingers of one hand (Elera 1998; Larco 1941).Shell adornments on clothing and bone pendantswith turquoise or shell inlay also have been found.Furthermore, roller and stamp seals used to paintskin have been reported, and anthracite mirrors arecommonly found (Elera 1993: 237). In the high-lands, personal adornments in burials also wereabundant: a shaft tomb at Cerro Blanco containedlapis bead necklaces (Burger 1995: 113), Tomb 4at Kuntur Wasi contained 2.5 kg of beads inturquoise, lapis, greenstone, and Spondylus

Figure 18 Standing figurine (Group B). Figure 19 Standing figurine (Group B).


134



(Kato 1993: 222), and finds at Chongoyape yieldedseveral pairs of gold ear-spools and crowns (Lothrop1941).However, except for the Tembladera figurines, depic-

tions of dress or jewelry other than ear-spools are rareamong portrayals of humans during the FormativePeriod in northern Peru, including among the figurinesfound at Kuntur Wasi. Figurative vessels showmodeledanimals, plants, fantastical creatures, and humansengaged in a variety of activities but, with the exceptionof just a handful of vessels, the represented personswear little more than a loincloth and occasionallyplain round ear-spools (see Alva 1986; Jones2010; Lapiner 1976). In this sense, the detail ofdress and ornaments depicted on the Tembladerafigurines, while echoing the archaeological record ofthe Formative Period north coast and highlands, setit apart from other figurative representation of thetime.7

For some of the jewelry and adornments depictedon Tembladera figurines (especially those describedin Groups A and B), exact material matches havebeen found in the archaeological record. Thecollars worn by the figurines are strikingly similarto a multi-layer shell and turquoise necklacehoused in the Larco museum (see Burger 2008:37). The feline and avian headdresses worn by themale figures of Group A anticipate the headdressesknown from the much later Moche culture (A.D.200–700). Depicted on numerous Moche vesselsand almost identical to the ones worn by theTembladera figurines, it seems that animal head-dresses had a long history of use in northern Peru.The construction of the Tembladera headdresses isnot known, however, discoveries at sites such asLoma Negra and San José de Moro yield someclues. Moche headdresses consisted of genuineanimal pelts stuffed with organic materials of fiber

Figure 20 Standing figure with collar (Group B).Figure 21 Standing figurine with garland necklace (Group B).


135



and cloth, with the real tail hanging down the back.The head and paws of the fox or feline were ren-dered in hammered and gilded copper (CarlosRengifo, personal communication 2009; Strongand Evans 1952). A rare example from Virú showsthat Moche bird headdresses also were made ofactual bird skins (Strong and Evans 1952: 159).Whether the Tembladera headdresses would havefeatured metal heads and paws is unknown.Sophisticated metalworking, especially of gold, haddeveloped by the Late Formative Period, andfinds from Chongoyape and Kuntur Wasi are testi-mony to the high level of technological and artisticskill exercised by these metalworkers in the latefirst millennium B.C. (Lavalle 1998: 57; Lothrop1941; Onuki and Inokuchi 2011). Conversely,Tembladera headdresses could have been madefrom only animal pelts, skulls, and mandibles,padded or stuffed with organic materials,

perhaps precursors to the later metal-embellishedones. Regardless, the artifacts depict how modes ofadornment had great continuity and temporaldepth.Headdresses of this kind were clearly a key feature

of ritual and the costume of priests or shamans andthe narratives enacted by them in later times(Donnan and McClelland 1999).8 How much thepractices and meanings associated with these head-dresses endured or changed over time is uncertain.Parallels are certainly conceivable for theTembladera figurines, which show individuals inhighly prescribed dress and poses, and engaged in avery limited range of actions, essentially music-making. This may indicate that the actors andrituals were also formalized and defined. As such, Isuggest that the figurines are indicative of a formaliza-tion and institutionalization of Formative Periodritual practice that has previously been inferred only

Figure 22 Red polished female plain (Group X). Figure 23 Red polished female covering both eyes (Group X).


136



from architectural comparisons to ethnographicexamples (Moore 2005).

Conclusions

A number of difficult issues and gaps in our knowl-edge surround the Tembladera figurines. At thetime of this writing, no Formative Period figurinehas ever been recovered from a controlled archaeologi-cal context on the north coast of Peru. The origin ofthe figurines here discussed therefore cannot be statedwith certainty. Allegedly the figurines’ proveniencesare the middle to lower Jequetepeque Valley and, insome cases, the adjacent Zaña and Chicama valleys.Their possible northern coastal provenience is bol-stered by the Tembladera figurines’ marked differencefrom figurines recovered in north highland sites, suchas Kuntur Wasi, or preceramic figurines found on thenorth-central coast. Thus, I have retained the label of“Tembladera” for these types of figurines, althoughtheir proveniences remain to be confirmed. Basedon current knowledge, however, it seems that this fig-urine tradition was relatively narrowly restricted bothin space and time.

Figure 24 Solid figurine with garland necklace (Group X).

Figure 25 Mini figure with face on headdress (Group C).


137



The exact chronological placement and culturalassociation of the Tembladera figurines is also amatter of uncertainty. Although the Tembladera fig-urines share some themes with highland KunturWasi and have been associated with coastal

“Cupisnique,” those commonalities are rather broadand unspecific. The only direct iconographic com-parison is the stylized face incised onto the back oftwo figurines, associating them to late in the Chavínde Huántar sequence (Figures 9b and 10b). The

Figure 26 Mini figure with cap (Group C).

Figure 27 Mini figure with no headdress (Group C).


138



Figure 28 Mini figure with front-peak headdress (Group C).

Figure 29 Mini bird figures (Group C). Figure 30 Mini sitting flutist figure (Group C).


139




close association between these and many of the otherfigurines, as well as the TL dates obtained for theREM pieces, suggest a tentative date of circa1000–400 B.C.

Despite such chronological and geographicaluncertainties, the analysis of the Tembladera figurinespresents insights into issues related to gender, music,ritual, and political leadership. For example,Tembladera figurines show both men and womenseemingly dressed in equally rich garments, wearingsome of the same jewelry (for example, the widecollar). Men and women also seem to be representedin approximately equal numbers, perhaps implyingthat there was not a simple, gender-based hierarchyof social statuses. On the other hand, male andfemale roles were different. Only males are shown asmusicians (Figures 2–5, 7–10), while only womenare depicted in a seated position (Figure 12) and/orwith children (Figure 13; see also figurine inLapiner 1976: Figure 46).9 Burger states that“Tembladera vessels” seem to place the same emphasison representing men and women (Burger 2008:25).10 Nonetheless, although men and women wereequally represented and religious leadership was notrestricted to males, men and women evidently heldand performed different social identities and roles—-males as musicians, females associated with child-rearing and, perhaps, fertility—yet both males andfemales are depicted as united and balanced. In thissense, the paired figurines seem to materialize anapparently ancient principle of complementarymasculinity and femininity, which—in its basicfeatures—resonates with more recent past and con-temporary Andean world views.

Figure 31 Mini figure with drum (Group C).

Figure 32 Mini figure with red hands (Group C).


140



The subject matter of Tembladera figurines wasnot the human body per se, but the elaboratelyadorned person, depicted in a very specific role.This was not the domestic body, but the body asa political instrument, part of a net of complex

social relations in which status and gender weresymbolized in an increasingly formal way duringthe Formative Period in northern Peru. The closeconnection between specifically the maleTembladera figurines and music, music and ritual,and ritual and leadership in Andean cosmologysuggests an interpretation of the figurines as repre-senting early elites or their idealized ancestors.This makes Tembladera figurines highly relevantfor understanding the role of ritual as the basis ofauthority in the Andes.The figurines’ elaborate costuming and musical

roles suggest a connection to leadership. As Burgernotes: “The association of early leaders withmusical instruments is explained by the specialrole played by music as a central element in reli-gious ceremony as opposed to everyday, profanelife” (Burger 2008: 25 [my translation]). Writingof a large, unique, ceramic figurine (now in theMuseo Nacional Chavín), Burger remarks that aspecific style of dress may have been associatedwith religious elites, observing that “[the figurine]is dressed in a tunic and loincloth and has acollar. The dress of the religious elite of earlyperiods was becoming increasingly defined overtime” (Burger 2008: 36 [my translation]).Although scholars have frequently applied the term“shamanism” to characterize the basis of eliteritual authority in the northern Andes (see Burger

Figure 33 Mini paired birds (Group C).

Figure 34 Mini paired figure (Group C).


141



2008; Cordy-Collins 1977; Elera 1994; Sharon andDonnan 1974; Staller and Currie 2001), theTembladera figurines may depict other, more

formalized forms of ritual authority (Moore 2005;Oyuela-Caycedo 2001). The Tembladera figurinesportray defined rituals and specific regalia images,

Table 1. Group A: details and permissions

Group A Title Collection/Museum Inv. No.

Measurements(cm) Image copyright/Source

H W D

Figure 2 Flutist with felineheaddress 1

Museum zu Allerheiligen,Eb15988

20.9 9.5 8.8 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Museum zuAllerheiligen, Schaffhausen

Figure 3 Flutist with felineheaddress 2

Brooklyn Art MuseumNYC 68.97

20.4 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Brooklyn ArtMuseum

Figure 4 Flutist with avianheaddress

Dallas Museum of Art,1971.19

15.9 8.9 7.0 © Wikimedia Commons FA2010 (published inDallas Museum 1983: 32, Figure 18; Morgan2009: 421, Plate 2)

Figure 5 Simple flutist Reiss-Engelhorn Museen,V Am 7352

17.5 © Martina Irion

Figure 6 Plain standingmale

Museo de Arte Lima2007.16.15

19.5 10.5 8.0 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Museo de Arte Lima

Figure 7 Conch shelltrumpeter 1

Denver Art Museum,189.1979

20.4 © Burtenshaw, redrawn from: Morgan (2009:421, pl. 2); Lapiner (1976: Figure 60); DenverArt Museum (1990: 28, Figure 8)

Figure 8 Conch shelltrumpeter 2


© Burtenshaw, courtesy of Museo de Arte Lima

Figure 9 Flutist with faceon the back

American Museum ofNatural History 41.2/8561

14.2 6.3 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Division ofAnthropology, American Museum of NaturalHistory

Figure 10 Red flutist withface on the back


18 8.0 7.7 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Museo de Arte Lima

Figure 11 Standing female Fowler Museum UCLAX90–493

18.7 9.4 © Fowler Museum at UCLA, photograph byDenis Nervig

Figure 12 Seated nakedfemale

Museum zu Allerheiligen,Schaffhausen EB15980

13.0 7.3 9.0 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Museum zuAllerheiligen

Figure 13 Seated femalewith child

(private collection) © Burtenshaw, redrawn from: Jones (2010: 423,Figure 5.73). Also Lavalle (1990: 64); Morgan(2009: 421)

Figure 14 Embracing pair 1 Museum zu Allerheiligen,Schaffhausen EB15858

16.6 9.5 5.6 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Museum zuAllerheiligen

Figure 15 Embracing pair 2 St. Louis Art Museum,Gift of Morton D. May,186: 1979

18.5 9.0 5.0 © St. Louis Art Museum

Figure 16 Embracing pair 3 (private collection) 16.5 © Burtenshaw, redrawn from: Lapiner (1968: 9,1976: 44, Figures 51–52); Alva (1986: 190,Figure 463); Morgan (2009: 421)

(not illust.) Flutist with feline(?) headdress 3

David Bernstein Collection,NY

(Published in Quilter 2005: 42)

(not illust.) Flutist figurine (Published in El Comercio 2001: 31)


142

Table 2. Group B: details and permissions

Group B Title Collection/Museum, Inv. No.

Measurements(cm) Image Copyright/Source

H W D

Figure 17 Standing figurine Museum zu Allerheiligen,EB15096

14.5 6.5 4.6 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Museum zuAllerheiligen Schaffhausen

Figure 18 Standing figurine Museum of the American Indian,NYC, 23/64/67

13.4 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of NationalMuseum of the American Indian,Smithsonian Institution

Figure 19 Standing figurine Giorgio Battistini (privatecollection)

© Burtenshaw, redrawn from: Alva (1986:Figure 461); Burger (2008: 12); Morgan(2009: 421, Plate 3)

Figure 20 Standing figurewith collar

Promised bequest GillettG. Griffin, Princeton UniversityArt Museum L1988.138

12.1 5.2 3.6 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of PrincetonUniversity Art Museum

Figure 21 Standing figurinewith garlandnecklace

Giorgio Battistini (privatecollection)

© Burtenshaw, redrawn from: Alva (1986:Figure 462); Burger (2008: 17, Figure 5);Morgan (2009: 421, Plate 3)

(not illust.) Sitting figurineholding child/phallus

(private collection) 14.0 (Published in Lapiner 1976: 46, Figur56–57; Morgan 2009: 421, Plate 2)

(not illust.) Standing figurine Museo de la Nacion, LimaMN-3571

12.2 5.5 (Published in Morgan 2009: 423, Plate 3)

Table 3. Group C: details and permissions

Group C Title Collection/Museum Inv. No. Measurements (cm) Image Copyright/Source

H W D

Figure 25 Mini figure withface on headdress

American Museum of NaturalHistory 41.2/1816 P

4.7 3.2 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Division ofAnthropology, American Museum ofNatural History

Figure 26 Mini figure withcap

American Museum of NaturalHistory 41.2/1816 R


Figure 27 Mini figure with noheaddress

American Museum of NaturalHistory 41.2/1816T

5.3 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Division ofAnthropology, American Museum ofNatural History

Figure 28 Mini figure withfront-peakheaddress

American Museum of NaturalHistory 41.2/1816 E


Figure 29 Mini bird figures(+ two not illust.)

American Museum of NaturalHistory 41.2/1816 O(41.2/1816 J)(41.2/1816 L)

4.3(7.0)(5.4)

3.2(3.0)

© Burtenshaw, courtesy of Division ofAnthropology, American Museum ofNatural History

Figure 30 Mini sitting flutistfigure

American Museum of NaturalHistory 41.2/8559

7.5 5.6 5.0 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Division ofAnthropology, American Museum ofNatural History

Figure 31 Mini figure withdrum

MzA Schaffhausen,Eb15783.01


Continued


143

Table 3. Group C: details and permissions (Continued)

Group C Title Collection/Museum Inv. No. Measurements (cm) Image Copyright/SourceH W D

Figure 32 Mini figure withred hands

Reiss-Engelhorn Museen, V Am7356

6.5 © Burtenshaw, redrawn from:Hickmann (2008, Catalog 1.3–51)

Figure 33 Mini paired birds American Museum of NaturalHistory 41.2/1816 Q

4.0 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Division ofAnthropology, American Museum ofNatural History

Figure 34 Mini paired figure The Metropolitan Museum ofArt, Gift of Conny and FredLandmann, 1992.60.2

4.5 © The Metropolitan Museum of Art,http://www.metmuseum.org

(notillust.)

Mini figure withcrest headdress

The Metropolitan Museum ofArt, Gift of Conny and FredLandmann, 1992.60.1

5.8 3.3 3.1 (Published in Alva 1986: Figure 468;Morgan 2009: 423, Plate 3; Museum ofPrimitive Art 1969: Figure 218)

(notillust.)

Mini figure withnecklace

Museo Enrico Poli Bianchi,Lima, ACEPB 497 (privatecollection)

4.2 (Published in Morgan 2009: 423, Plate3)

(notillust.)

Mini figure holdinghand to mouth


5.7 3.3 3 (Published in Morgan 2009: 423, Plate3)

(notillust.)

Mini figure withbent knees

Anonymous gift, PrincetonUniversity Art Museum Y1993-105

6.3 3.2 2.7

(notillust.)

Mini figure withbroad hornedheaddress

American Museum of NaturalHistory 41.2/1816 U

5.0

(notillust.)

4 mini figures withhats

American Museum of NaturalHistory (41.2/1816K)(41.2/1816 M)(41.2/1816 N)(41.2/1816 S)

5.54.44.24.5

3.13.02.93.0

(notillust.)

Mini figure withhead on head andhands to mouth


6.0 (Published at http://www.metmuseum.org)

Table 4. Group X “atypical figurines”: details and permissions

Group X Title Collection/Museum Inv. No.

Measurements(cm) Image Copyright/Source

H W D

Figure 22 Red polished femaleplain

Museo Enrico Poli Bianchi,ACEPB 72 (private collection)

19 7.2 © Alexandra Morgan

Figure 23 Red polished femalecovering both eyes


20.7 7.6 © Alexandra Morgan

Figure 24 Solid figurine withgarland necklace

Museum zu Allerheiligen,Eb15944


Continued


144

http://www.metmuseum.org










such as feline headdresses, facial decoration, anddouble flutes, and the objects appear to be coevalwith the developments of elite wealth, funerary elab-orations, and the creation of monumental publiccenters during the middle Formative Period.Indeed, several complex social processes characteriz-ing the northern Andes during the final two millen-nia B.C.—surrounding gender roles, religioussystems, and the associated hierarchical structure-s—appear to be more or less directly reflected inthe Tembladera figurines.

Notes

1. For a fuller discussion see Burtenshaw-Zumstein(2014). The most common cultural label forFormative Period north-coastal Peru is“Cupisnique” (see Burger 1995), with“Tembladera” and “Chongoyape” generally con-sidered to be sub-styles thereof (see Cordy-Collins 1998; Elera 1998, 2009; Jones 2010;Toshihara 2002). For varying definitions ofCupisnique, see Donnan 1992; Elera 1998;Jones 2010; Larco Hoyle 1941, 1948; Toshihara2002, 2004.

2. All Formative Period figurines supposedly originat-ing from the far north coast of Peru (lower-middleChicama, Jequetepeque, Lambayeque, and Zañavalleys) have been included. With the exception ofFigures 6, 8, and 10 (published as Cupisnique),and Figures 5 and 32 (published as Chavín), theywere labeled and/or published as “Tembladera.”

Closer examination indicates that they can allbe considered as part of the same corpus and there-fore have here been labeled as “Tembladerafigurines.”

3. Morgan additionally published five “post- or sub-classic” ones (Morgan 2009, following classificationsgiven by Lapiner 1976), which will not be con-sidered for the present study.

4. It must be noted, however, that some FormativePeriod north highland traditions (Huacaloma) alsofeature post-fire painting in incised zones (e.g. Seki1998: 152).

5. The thermoluminescence dating was commissioned bythe previous owner, Dieter Freudenberg, and carriedout prior to the acquisition of the figurines by theReiss-Engelhorn Museen (Michael Tellenbach,personal communication 2013).

6. None of the personally examined figurines providedany reason to question their authenticity, however,this is still far from conclusive proof. The mostunusual thing about the figurines in general is thelack of stylistic/iconographic parallels on ceramicvessels from Formative Period north Peru(Burtenshaw-Zumstein 2014).

7. As mentioned, the same is true for the way in whichhuman features (nose, eyes, limbs etc.) are rendered.

8. In Moche iconography the headdresses are associatedwith some key characters engaged in highly pre-scribed ceremonies, including sacrifices done by“Wrinkle Face” and his helper “Iguana,” wearingfeline/canine and avian headdresses respectively(Donnan and McClelland 1999). These headdressesalso are seen on warriors and ritual runners, butoccasionally they are associated directly withmusical instruments, as can be seen by two figures

Table 4. Group X “atypical figurines”: details and permissions (Continued)

Group X Title Collection/Museum Inv. No.

Measurements(cm) Image Copyright/SourceH W D

(not illust.) Figure with jaggeddeco holding head


5.5 (Published in Hickmann 2008: Catalog1.3–52)

(not illust.) Figure with crocodile(?) mask/head


6.0 (Published in Hickmann 2008: Catalog1.3–53)

(not illust.) Standing female (private collection) 14 (Published in Lapiner 1976: Figure 61;Morgan 2009: 423, Plate 3)

(not illust.) Solid figurine with“quiff”/ headdress


8.1 2.8 2.2 (Published in Alva 1986: Figure 469; Lavalle& Lang 1981: 120; Morgan 2009: 423,Plate 3)


145

wearing fox and bird headdresses playing a pair ofpanpipes (see Kutscher 1983: Figures 153–155).

9. The same subject (a female figure, seated with legsoutstretched) is represented on two FormativePeriod ceramic vessels. One is in the MuseoBrüning, the other in the Museo Larco. Both havebeen labeled “Cupisnique.” Regardless of such ill-defined cultural labels, the conceptual overlap withthe figurines may be significant in linking thevessels and figurines to a joint stylistic and/or culturalgroup, for better definition and chronological place-ment in the future.

10. At present, it is unclear what Burger means toinclude by the term “Tembladera vessels.” As a stylis-tic term, like “Cupisnique,” it has never been prop-erly defined. A full discussion of these terms and aproposed stylistic typology will be outlined in aforthcoming Ph.D. thesis (Burtenshaw-Zumstein2014).

References Cited

Alva, Walter1986 Ceramica temprana en el Valle de Jequetepeque,

norte del Peru/Frühe keramik aus demJequetepeque-Tal, Nord-Peru. Materialien zurAllgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie.C. H. Beck, Munich.

Baumann, Max Peter1996 Andean music, symbolic dualism and cosmology.

In Cosmologia y musica en los Andes, edited byMax Peter Baumann, pp. 15–66. Vervuert/Iberoamericana, Frankfurt am Main/Madrid.

Bruhns, Karen O., and Karen E. Stothert1999 Women in ancient America. University of

Oklahoma Press, Norman.Burger, Richard L.1995 Chavin and the origins of Andean civilisation.

Paperback ed. Thames and Hudson, London.2007 The emergence of figuration in prehistoric Peru.

In Image and imagination, edited by ColinRenfrew and Iain Morley, pp. 241–254.McDonald Institute for ArchaeologicalResearch, Cambridge.

2008 Los señores de los templos. In Señores de los Reinosde la Luna, edited by Krzysztof Makowski,pp. 13–38. Banco de Credito, Lima.

Burtenshaw-Zumstein, Julia T.2014 Cupisnique, Tembladera, Chongoyape, Chavin:

a typology of ceramic styles from FormativePeriod north Peru, 1800–200 B.C.

Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Sainsbury ResearchUnit, University of East Anglia, Norwich.

Castillo, Luis Jaime, and Pardo Cecilia (editors)2009 De Cupisnique a los Incas: el arte del Valle de

Jequetepeque. Museo de Arte de Lima, Lima.Cordy-Collins, Alana1977 Chavin art: its shamanic/hallucinogenic origins.

In Pre-Columbian art history: selected readings,edited by Alana Cordy-Collins and Jean Stern,pp. 353–362. Peek Publications, Palo Alto.

1998 The Jaguar of the Backward Glance. In Icons ofPower: Feline Symbolism in the Americas, editedby Nicholas J. Saunders, pp. 155–170.Routledge, London/New York.

Denver Art Museum1990 Little people of the earth: ceramic figures from

ancient America. Denver Art Museum, Denver.Donnan, Christopher B.1992 Ceramics of Ancient Peru. UCLA Fowler Museum

of Cultural History, Los Angeles.Donnan, Christopher B., and Donna McClelland1999 Moche fineline painting: its evolution and its artists.

UCLA Fowler Museum of Cultural History, LosAngeles.

Elera, Carlos1993 El complejo cultural Cupisnique: antecedented y

desarollo de su ideologia religiosa. SenriEthnological Studies 37: 229–257.

1994 El shaman del Morro de Eten: antecedentesarqueológicos del shamanismo en la costa ysierra norte del Perú. In En nombre del Senor.Shamanes, demonios y curanderos del Norte delPerú., edited by Luis Millones and MoisésLemlij, pp. 22–51. Biblioteca Peruana dePsicoanalisis, Lima.

1998 The Puémape site and the Cupisnique culture:a case study on the origins and developmentof complex society in the central Andes,Perú. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University ofCalgary.

2009 La Cultura Cupisnique a partir de los datos dePuémape. In De Cupisnique A Los Incas: El Artedel Valle de Jequetepeque, edited by Luis JaimeCastillo and Cecilia Pardo, pp. 68–111. Museode Arte de Lima, Lima.

Feldman, Robert A.1991 Preceramic unbaked clay figurines from Aspero,

Peru. In The New World figurine project, editedby Terry Stocker, pp. 5–20. Research Press, Provo.

Fux, Peter2012 Chavin: Perus geheimnisvoller Andentempel.

Scheidegger and Spiess, Zürich.


146

Herrera Wassilowsky, Alexander2010 Pututu and Waylla Kepa: new data on Andean

pottery shell horns. Proceedings of the MusicalPerceptions—Past and Present. OnEthnographic Analogy in Music Archaeology.Papers from the 6th Symposium of theInternational Study Group on MusicArchaeology, Ethnological Museum, StateMuseums Berlin, September 9–13, 2008.

Hickmann, Ellen2008 Klänge Altamerikas: musikinstrumente in kunst

und kult. Primus Verlag/Publikationen desReiss-Museums Mannheim, Darmstadt.

Jones, Kimberly L.2010 Cupisnique culture: the development of ideology

in the ancient Andes. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis,University of Texas, Austin.

Kan, Michael1972 The feline motif in northern Peru. In The cult of

the feline, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson,pp. 69–90. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

Kato, Yasukate1993 Resultados de las excavaciones en Kuntur Wasi,

Cajamarca. In El Mundo ceremonial Andino,edited by Luis Millones and Yoshio Onuki,pp. 203–228. Senri Ethnological Studies.National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka.

Kaulicke, Peter2010 Las cronologías del Formativo. 50 años de investiga-

ciones japonesas en perspectiva. PUCP, Lima.Keatinge, Richard, W.1980 Archaeology and Development: The Tembladera

Site of the Peruvian North Coast. Journal of FieldArchaeology 7(4):467–477.

Kembel, Silvia Rodriguez2001 Architectural sequence and chronology at Chavin

de Huantar, Peru. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis,Anthropological Sciences, Stanford University,Stanford.

Kutscher, Gerdt1983 Nordperuanische Gefässmalereien des Moche-Stils.

Materialien zur Algemeinen und VergleichendenArchäologie 18. C. H. Beck, Munich.

Lapiner, Alan C.1968 Art of ancient Peru. Arts of the Four Quarters Ltd,

New York.1976 Precolumbian art of South America. Harry

N. Abrams, New York.Larco Hoyle, Rafael1941 Los Cupisniques. La Crónica y Variedades, Lima.1948 Cronología arqueológica del norte del Perú.

Sociedad Geográfica Americana, Buenos Aires.

Lavalle, José Antonio (editor)1990 Trujillo precolombino. Odebrecht, Trujillo.1998 Cobre del Antiguo Peru / The Copper of Ancient

Peru. IntegraAFP Southern Peru, Lima.Lavalle, José Antonio, and Werner Lang (editors)1981 Culturas precolombinas: Chavin. Banco de

Credito, Lima.Lesure, Richard2011 Interpreting ancient figurines: context, comparison,

and prehistoric art. Cambridge University Press,New York.

Lothrop, Samuel K.1941 Gold ornaments of Chavin style from

Chongoyape, Peru. American Antiquity 6(3):250–262.

Meggers, Betty J.1966 Ecuador. Thames and Hudson, London.

Moore, Jerry D.2005 Cultural landscapes in the ancient Andes.

University Press of Florida, Gainesville.Morgan, Alexandra2009 The pottery figurines of pre-Columbian Peru.

Volume I: the figurines of the north coast. BARInternational Series. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Museum of Primitive Art1969 Precolumbian art inNewYork: selections from private

collections. Museum of Primitive Art, New York.Museum zu Allerheiligen1992 Idole, masken, menschen: frühe kulturen, alte welt

und neue welt. Museum zu Allerheiligen,Schaffhausen.

Onuki, Yoshio (editor)1995 Kuntur Wasi y Cerro Blanco: dos sitios del

Formativo en el norte del Peru. Hokusen-Sha,Tokyo.

Onuki, Yoshio, and Kinya Inokuchi2011 Los emelos pristinos. Fondo Editorial del Congreso

del Peru, Lima.Oyuela-Caycedo, Augusto2001 The rise of religious routinization: the study of

changes from shaman to priestly elite. InMortuary practices and ritual associations: shamanicelements in prehistoric funerary contexts in SouthAmerica, edited by John Edward Stallerand Elizabeth J. Currie, pp. 5–18. BAR 982.Archaeopress, Oxford.

Parsons, Lee A.1980 Pre-Columbian art: the Morton D. May and The

Saint Louis Art Museum collections. Harper andRow, New York.

Quilter, Jeffrey2005 Treasures of the Andes. Duncan Baird, London.


147

Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo1961 Anthropomorphic figurines from Colombia: their

magic and art. In Pre-Columbian art and archae-ology, edited by S. K. Lothrop, pp. 229–241.Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Seki, Yuji1998 El Periodo Formativo en el valle de Cajamarca.

Boletín de Arqueología PUCP 2:147–160.Shady Solis, Ruth2005 Caral Supe, Perú: la civilización de Caral-Supe:

5000 años de identidad cultural en el Perú.Instituto Nacional de Cultura, Proyecto EspecialArqueológico Caral-Supe, Lima.

Sharon, Douglas, and Christopher B. Donnan1974 Shamanism in Moche iconography. In

Ethnoarchaeology, edited by Christopher B.Donnan and C. William Clewlow, pp. 51–80.University of California, Los Angeles.

Stahl, Peter W.1986 Hallucinatory imagery and the origin of early

South American figurine art. World Archaeology18(1): 134–150.

Staller, John Edward, and Elizabeth J. Currie (editors)2001 Mortuary practices and ritual associations: shamanic

elements in prehistoric funerary contexts in SouthAmerica. BAR 982. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Strong, William D., and Clifford Evans, Jr.1952 Cultural stratigraphy in the Virú Valley northern

Peru: the Formative and Florescent epochs.Columbia University Press, New York.

Torres, Constantino Manuel2008 Chavin’s psychoactive pharmacopoeia: the icono-

graphic evidence. In Chavin: art, architecture andculture, edited by William J. Conklin and JeffreyQuilter, pp. 239–260. Cotsen Institute, UCLA,Los Angeles.

Toshihara, Kayoko2002 The Cupisnique culture in the Formative Period

world of the central Andes, Peru. UnpublishedPh.D. thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

2004 Cupisnique Iconography: Ideology and itsManifestations in an Ancient Andean Culture.Journal of Latin American Lore 22(1):39–83.


148

tembladera figurines

Documents