ArchaeologyInka Pottery As Culinary Equipment Food, Feasting, and Gender in Imperial State DesignAuthor(s) Tamara L. Bray

Society for American Archaeology
Inka Pottery as Culinary Equipment: Food, Feasting, and Gender in Imperial State Design Author(s): Tamara L. Bray Reviewed work(s): Source: Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Mar., 2003), pp. 3-28 Published by: Society for American Archaeology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/972232 . Accessed: 04/02/2013 12:20
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Latin American Antiquity.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Mon, 4 Feb 2013 12:20:03 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INKA POTTERY AS CULINARY EQUIPMENT: FOOD,FEASTING,AND GENDERIN IMPERIALSTATEDESIGN

TamaraL. Bray
In this paper, the imperial Inka ceramic assemblage is examined in terms of its functional and culinary significance. Information culledfrom ethnohistoric sources, archaeological reports, and ethnographicstudies is used to drawfunctional inferences about Inka vesselforms and to outline thefeatures of an imperial "hautecuisine." In the Inka empire, the relationshipbetween rulers and subjects was largely mediated throughthe prestation offood and drink. The elaboration of a distinctive state vessel assemblage suggests a conscious strategy aimed at creating material symbols of class difference in the context of state-sponsoredfeasting events.An empire-wideanalysis of the distributionof Inka vessels indicates the particular importanceof the tallneckedjar form (arEbalo)to state strategies in the provinces. Analyzing Inkapottery as culinary equipmenthighlights the links amongfood, politics, and gender in the processes of state formation. Such an approach also illuminates the importantrole of women in the negotiation and consolidation of Inka state power. En este artEculo se examinael conjuntodistintivode cera'micaInkaica imperialen te'rminos de su significacionfuncional y culinaria. Se presenta informacionetnohistoricay etnograficasobre la alimentacionandinajunto con datos arqueologicossobre las formas de vasijas inkaicas, su distribucion,y sus contextos de hallazgo. Las diferentesIfneasde evidenciai ayudan a esbozar los razgos de una cocina de la e'liteandina, inferirla funcionalidad de las formas inkaicas,y sugerir como la alfarerfaInkaicay las actividades de acuerdo al ge'nerode cocinar y servir podrfan haberfigurado en los procesos de formacion estatal. Un ana'lisis distribucionalde las vasijas inkaicas de todas partes del imperiosugiere la importanciadel arfbalo inkaicopara las estrategias estatales en las provincias.Dentrodel imperioinkaico, las relaciones entrelos gobernantesy los sujetos del estadofueron mediadas a trave's de la prestacion de la comida y las bebidas (chicha). La elaboracion de un conjuntodistintivode ceramica estatal sugiereuna estrategfaconscientecon el propositode crearsfmbolosmaterialesde clases sociales en el contextodefiestas estatales. Cuandose analiza la ceramica inkaica como equipo culinario, se destaca las conexiones entre la comida, la polftica, y el ge'nero en los procesos de formacion estatal. De esta manerase iluminatambie'n el papel importantede las mujeresen la negociacion y la consolidacion del poder estatal Inka.
ceramiccomplexassociatedwiththe Inka statehas long been notedfor its uniformand repetitivenature (Fernandez 1971;Morrisand Thompson1985:76;Pardo1957;Rowe 1944;Ryden 1947; Sempe de Gomes Llanes 1986:55). Indeed, Rowe (1944:8) once suggestedit was so consistent thata whole jar could confidentlybe reconstructed froma single sherd,while Kroeber (1952:293-294), somewhatless generously,describedthe Inkastate assemblageas "chaste," "limited," and "deficient in imaginationand ambitionsor objectivesotherthan technical ones." Thisoft-noted adherence to strict formalandstylisticcanonshasbeencasuallyinterpreted asevidenceof massproduction, in somecases (Jones 1964:8; Rowe 1944:48), and as exemplaryof corporateartin others(e.g., Moseley 1992). Relatively
The
little systematic comparativeanalysis of imperial Inkapotteryhas been undertaken thatwould allow us to evaluate these and other commonly held assumptions aboutits significance (though see Costin andHagstrum 1995;D'AltroyandBishop 1990;and D'Altroy et al. 1994, for recentexceptions). In this paper,I look at the classic polychrome vessels associated with the imperialInka state in terms of their functionalsignificanceand consider theirrole in the broader contextof empirebuilding. I focus on threedimensionsof the ceramicassemblage not normallydiscussedin studiesof Inkapottery: culinary significance, material symbolic significance,and genderedassociations.I suggest thatviewingimperial Inkapotteryas culinary equipment offers a window into the ways in which food,
Tamara L. Bray * Departmentof Anthropology,Wayne State University,Detroit, MI 48202 LatinAmericanAntiquity, 14(1), 2003, pp. 3-28 CopyrightC) 2003 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology
LATINAMERICAN ANTIQUITY
[Vol. 14, No. 1, 2003
feasting, and gender figured in the negotiationof state power. To better understandhow pots functioned as political tools in the Inka state, I present ethnohistoric and ethnographic information on Andeanfoodways, and archaeological dataon Inka vessel types,theirdistribution around theempire,and the contextsin which they arefound.These lines of evidenceareusedto drawfunctional inferences about Inkavessel forms, outlinethe featuresof an imperial Inka "hautecuisine,''l and consider the role of women in the developmentof the Inkastate. Feasting in Early States
Foodandfeastingareincreasingly recognized as havingplayeda prominent rolein theemergence of social hierarchiesand the negotiation of power (Dietler 1996;Gero 1992;Goody 1982;Gummerman 1997; Hayden1996;WiessnerandShieffenhovel1996).A numberof recentstudiesfocusing on the commensal politics of early statesandempireshighlightthe potentialof such approaches. Dietler (1990, 1997, 1998), for instance,illuminatesthe complexitiesof imperialentanglement in the Mediterranean world throughinnovativeanalysesof drinkingequipment, wine consumption, andlocal feastingpractices. Pollock (2003) offersnew insightsintothepoliticaleconomic transformations occurring within early Mesopotamian statesby focusing on elite banquets andthedistribution of mass-produced, bevel-rimmed bowls. Nelson (2003), in a studyof funerary assemblages from ancient China, demonstrates how the Shangeliteendeavored to createandingratiate ancestorsthrough themediumof food anddrink to advance the politicalagendasof the living. I^heseand other recentworksunderscore thevalueof viewingpottery as culinary equipment andtheways in whichsuchan approach can enrich,engender, andadddetailto our understanding of earlyimperialpractices. In the Andean context, the importanceof reciprocity,hospitality, and feastingas key components of Inkastatecraft was firstdiscussedby Murra (1980 [1955]). The labor servicesowed the stateby local communities,which could range from cultivating fieldsto massivepublicworksprojects, weretypically couched in terms of the reciprocalobligations of chiefly generosity. An important aspectof reciprocal Material Symbols laborobligations in theAndeswas theunderstanding thattheworkpartywouldbe fully provisioned by the Oneof theprincipal contributions of post-processual sponsor in termsof rawmaterials, tools,andfood and approaches to archaeology has been theirinsistence drink(Murra1980:97,121-134). uponthe activenature of material culturein the con-
These assumptions have been borneout archaeologically at Inka state administrative centers like HuanacoPampawhereimmensequantities of imperial Inkajar and plate fragments,suggestinglargescale chicha (corn beer) consumption and food serving activities, reportedlyhave been found in structures associatedwith the centralfocus of the site the main plaza (Morris 1982; Morris and Thompson 1985:83-91). These structures,which also yielded unusuallyhigh percentagesof widemouthedjars associated with chichaproduction, were identifiedas the houses of the Inka's"chosen women"(MorrisandThompson1985:77-80). The investigators at Huanacosuggest that Inka provincial centerstypicallyincorporated largeamountsof spaceas the settingfor "whatwas essentiallya form of hospitalityraisedto the state level" (Morrisand Thompson1985:91;see also D'Altroy 1981, 2001 on HatunXauxa).The presentstudybuildson Morris andMurra's important observations regarding the role of hospitalityandpublicfeastingin Inkastatecraft,offering an analysis of imperialInka pottery thatexpandsthegeographical scope of the argument and extendsit to incorporate concernswith gender, agency,andthe meaningof materialculture. In developingthis study,I drawheavilyuponthe theoreticalinsightsof a specific genre of anthropological worksthatfocus on food. The studyof foodways has a long historyin anthropology (Douglas 1966, 1975, 1984; Fortes and Fortes 1936; LeviStrauss 1966, 1968, 1970; Richards 1932, 1939). Foodhas stood at the centerof so manystudiesprecisely becauseit is so fundamental to the reproductionof society(see Goody 1982).Withinthisoeuvre, a number of recent works highlight the political dimensionsof food preparation anddistribution and the ways in whichculinary practices reflect,respond to, and invoke political change (e.g., Adams 1990; Counihan1999;Dietler 1996;Goody 1982;Hastorf 1990, 1993; Mintz 1985;Weismantel1988). These studiesserveto underscore the fact thatfood is one of thestrongest markers of ethnicity, status, andclass. They also suggest thatcooking and cuisine constitutefertilegroundfor the materialsymbolization of ideologicalandpoliticaldiscourse.
Tamara L. Bray]
INKA POTTERYAS CULINARYEQUIPMENT
structionof social relationsand identities(Hodder 1982a,1982b,1987;ShanksandTilley1987).Rather thansimply reflectingsocial circumstances, material cultureis understood as actively involvedin the creation,maintenance, andtransformation of social contexts. As various authorshave noted (GravesBrown2000; Hebdige 1979;McCracken1988),the ambiguity andinconspicuousness of material culture gives it certainadvantagesas a mode of communication. McCracken(1988) suggests thatthese features make materialculture an unusuallycunning devicefortherepresentation of fundamental cultural beliefs, principles,and "truths." Thecovertqualityof material cultureallows it to carrymeaningsand messages thatcould not be put moreexplicitly"withoutthe dangerof controversy, protest, or refusal" (McCracken 1988:69). This makesmaterial cultureanidealmediumforthecommunication of politicalmessages,whichcanbe projected with diminished risk of counterstatement. Hodder (1982c) suggests that material symbols, becauseof theirmultivocal,ambiguous,and valueladennature,areparticularly important in ideological and political strategies.As he puts it, "artifacts mean differentthings to differentpeople and carry contradictory meanings,so theycanbe usedto reveal socialdistinctions andto hidethematthe sametime, to simultaneously represent andmisrepresent" (Hodder 1982c:214).These commentsoffer insightinto how materialculturecan communicateauthority in sotto voce, objectify social status and social relations, and subtly"fix"meaning. Potteryas CulinaryEquipment Potteryfrom archaeologicalcontextshas not often been analyzedeither for its active role in the construction of socialrelationsor as culinary equipment (thoughsee Blitz 1993; Johannessen1993; PauketatandEmerson1991;Potter2000, for exceptions). Studies of archaeologicalceramics have, instead, tendedto focus on aspectsof style (or appearance) construedas emblematicof ethnicityacross space andtime (Wright1991). While a few scholarshave underlinedthe importanceof pots as tools (e.g., Braun 1983; Skibo and Schiffer 1995), prehistoric ceramicshavereceivedrelatively littleattention from eithera functionalor technologicalstandpoint comparedto, for instance,lithics. As Wright (1991) has suggested, the dearthof suchtechno-functional studiesmay relateto generic
associations of pottery withwomen,cooking,andthe domesticsphereof activity.The unspokenassumption is that activitiescontrolledby women are not important to the studyof largersocialprocesses(see Hastorf 1991; Skibo and Schiffer 1995; Wright 1991).Occasionally, thisunderlying premiseis stated outright, as in the followingquote:"[Inka] architectureis directlysymbolic of the state and the world thatit represented [while]the distribution of pottery . . . suggests its relationship to the more mundane realmof statehospitality, reciprocity, andlabormanagement"(Morris1995:420). Thoughthe notionof separate publicanddomestic spheresmay seem entirelynatural to us, thisparticular form of social organizationhas not been proven universalacross either time or space (see BrumEiel 1991; Wright 1991). As a firmlyembeddedelementof Western ideology,however, it demonstrably pervades our thinking about all other societies,pastandpresent. Consigning culinary concerns to the realm of the domestic, which is commonly understood as outsidethe realmof the active andthe political,obscuresthe significanceof cooking andfood prestation in Inkastatecraft. This great oversighthas begunto be rectifiedin recentyearsin worksfocusing,for instance,on the significanceof plantremains andpaleoethnobotanical datafortracking sociopolitical changein theAndes(Hastorf1990, 1991,1993; HastorfandJohannessen 1993) andthe centrality of the kitchenin modern Andeancontexts (Vokral1991;Weismantel1988). The present study continues this trend by approaching Inkacooking andcuisine as a key cultural domain for understanding the Cuzqueno approach to statecraft. By placingcooking, cuisine, and culinary artifactsat the center of the present study, I hope to illuminate and engender another dimensionof Inka statecraft. Contrary to Morris's (1995:422)assertion thatInkaceramicscarried "relatively minor and simple meanings [vis-a-vis] the overallstylerepertory of therulinggroupandits system of power,"I believe that the imperialassemblage was an integralcomponentof imperialstate strategies of legitimization andcontrol.In analyzing Inkapottery as culinary equipment andmaterial symbols of the state, I highlight the intimate links betweenfood,politics,andgender. I developtheidea thatthe Inkaelaborated a specific elite, or "haute," cuisineanda distinctive, anddistinguishing, ensemble of ceramiccooking, service,andstoragevessels
[Vol. 14, No. 1, 2003
as a conscious strategyaimedat creatingvisible differencesbetween social classes. I also contendthat the selectionof culinaryequipment as a mediumfor thematerial expression of classdifference wasdeeply entwinedwith the way genderwas used by the state to model social hierarchy(see Silverblatt1987). In thenextsection,I outlinetheparameters of sixteenthcenturyAndean cuisine and cooking practices in orderto establisha culinaryand functionalcontext for the imperialInkaassemblage. Andean Foodways and Inka Haute Cuisine The importance and ubiquityof ceramiccontainers in the Andes is attestedboth by the archaeological recordandscattered referencesthroughout the writings of early Spanish commentators.Cobo (1964 [1653]:Bk.11, Ch.6:20),for instance,wrotethatthe average Indian's household furnishingsconsisted primarily of "pots,largejars,pitchers,andcups." An earlierpassagereferring specificallyto the northern highlandsdescribesa typicalhouseholdas follows: "Inthe secondroom of the house they [theIndians] have their storeroomfull of large and small pots, some on top of the ground,othersburiedin the earth as vats for straining and preparingtheir wines"2 (Atienza 1931[1575?]:52-53). Despite such useful observations,referencesto specific vessel forms and associatedfunctionsare decidedly rarein ethnohistoricsources. It is likely thatthe very commonplacenatureof these objects, as well as the gender of the chroniclers,rendered themall butinvisible.Fortunately, however,theculinaryhabitsandsubsistence practices of Andeanpeoples were apparently of more interest.The patterns of food preparation, consumption,and storagethat can be reconstructed fromthe documentary records offer considerable insight into ceramic vessel requirements and use in the precolumbian Andes. Oneof theprincipal sourcesI haveusedforinformation on nativeAndean culinarypracticesis the JesuitscholarBernabe Cobo (1964 [1653]),who left one of the most detailedaccountsof daily life in the Andes. Cobo arrivedin Peru in 1599, moving to Cuzcoin 1609 andtraveling extensivelyin the highlandsfor the next severaldecades.He is considered by many to be amongthe most reliablechroniclers of Inka culture(Rowe 1946:194; Urton 1999:31). Othersources I rely upon include Fray Martinde Murua(1946 [1590]), who provides useful information on Inka customs, Pedro de Cieza de Leon
(1962 [1553]), one of the earliestand most observantof all the Spanishchroniclers, andFelipe Guaman Poma de Ayala (1936 [1613]), an indigenous author whose letterto the Kingof Spainis filled with illustrations of dailylife thatoffermanyinsightsinto Andeanculture.The ethnohistoric dataare supplementedwith modernethnographic andethnobotanical observations wheretheseofferusefulinsightsor clarifications (i.e., Antunez 1985; Estrella 1988; Towle 1961;Vokral1991;Weismantel1988). Below I reviewtheethnohistoric references relating to Andean culinary practices and habits. The information is arranged according to the majorfood categories comprising theindigenous diet.Eachfood categoryis consideredwith respect to methods of preparation, modes of servingandeating, and storage practices. The focus throughout is on habitsand techniquesthatwould have affectedvessel usage. The Native Andean Diet The basic Andeandiet is summedup in the following passagewrittenbyananonymous sourcein 1573 "Their usualsustenance is wine madeof maize .... and some herbswhich they call yuyo and potatoes, andbeans,andcookedmaize;theirdailybreadis any of these cooked with a little salt,andwhattheyconsideras a good seasoningto putin theirstewedfoods, is red pepper"(Anonimo 1965 [1573]:226). Maize.Cornwas by farthemosthighlyesteemed cropin the Andes.Virtually every accountof native subsistencelists maize as one of the main items in the precolumbiandiet (Acosta 1954 [1590]:109; Anonimo 1965 [1573]:226;Cobo 1964 [1653]:Bk. 11, Ch. 6:21, Bk. 4, Ch. 3:159; Garcilaso 1945 [1609]:Bk. 2:48; Rodriguez Docampo 1965 [1650]:75).After it was dried,maize could be preparedin a numberof different ways, two of the most commonmethodsbeing boiling andtoasting.Cobo (1964 [1653]:Bk.14, Ch.5:244) notesthatcornkernels were toasted in "perforated clay casseroles." Toastedmaize, or cancha, was often ground into flour that was then used in a varietyof ways (Garcilaso 1945 [1609]:Bk.2:177). Cobo (1964 [1653]:Bk.14, Ch.3:160)mentions, forinstance, that maize flourwas used to make tortillas,which were "toasted or cookedin clay casserolesset in the fire.'' One of the most important uses of maize in the Andes was for the production of chicha (cornbeer; in Quechua,aka).3The elaborationof chicha was seen as one of the fundamentalculinary tasks of
Tamara L. Bray]
INKA POTTERY AS CULINARY EQUIPMENT
Andeanwomen anduniversallyassociatedwith the female domain(Gomez Huaman1966:35;Sachun 2001;Silverblatt 1987:39; Vokral 1991:202).Besides being the daily beverage of the local population, chichawas an important element of social and ceremonial gatheringswhere ritual drunkennesswas often obligatory (Morris 1979; Rowe 1946:292; Salomon 1986:75-79). Native peoples reportedly had more accoutrements for makingandstoringchichathanfor any otherpurpose. Accordingto Cobo (1964 [1653]:Bk. 14,Ch.4:242),theyused "clayjars,thelargestbeing fourand six arrobas,4as well as othersmallerones . . . a largequantity of largeandsmalljugs, andthree or fourtypes of cups and glasses"in the process.In his Aymaradictionary, Bertonio(1879 [1612]) differentiates between vessels used to hold the masticated pulp used in making chicha, which he described as a small,wide-mouthed olla, andthejars in whichthefinishedproduct(as well as water)were stored.Tschopik(1950:202)reportsthatamongthe modern peasantsof the Chucuito region,twojarsare still employed for producingchicha, one for fermentationand one for storage.The latterhas a narrower mouth and longer, more restricted neck, featuresthatfacilitateclosureandreducethe rateof evaporation. Todayin thecentral Peruvian highlands, threeceramicvessels areinvolvedin the production process: the hatun manca, which holds some 45 liters,theazuana,in whichthemashis decocted,and the manca,in which waterto be addedto the decoction is heated(Antunez1985:94-95). Oncereduced andcooled,theliquid,knownas upi, is decantedinto narrow-mouthed jars where it fermentsfor several weeks (ibid). Potatoes and Other Root Crops. Cieza (1959 [1553]:44)statesthat"ofthe nativefoodstuffs,there are two which, aside from maize, are the main staples of the Indian'sdiet: the potato. . . and another verygood food theycall quinoa." Potatoesandother tubers,includingoca, ulluco? mashua(or anu), and maca, togetherwith quinoa, are the only cultigens native to the high altitudesof the Andes. Without thesetubers, humanoccupation of thesezoneswould probablyhave been impossible(Murra1975:46). Potatoescould be eaten green, roasted,cooked, or in stews (Cobo 1964 [1653]:Bk.4, Ch. 13:168). Those not eaten soon afterharvestwere preserved througha process of alternate exposureto sun and frost. The tubers dehydratedin this fashion were
knownas chunoandcouldbe storedfor manyyears. Chunowas used for thickeningsoups among other things(CiezadeLeon1959 [1553]:164).Cobo(1964 [1653]:Bk.4, Ch.13:168) also mentions thata very fine flourcould be madefromrehydrated chunoby toastingand then grindingthe bleachedpotatoes. Quinoa.The othermost important high-altitude crop,quinoa,providedthe basic grainfor the highlandpopulations. Accordingto Ciezade Leon (1959 [1553]:44, 271; also Rodriguez Docampo 1965 [1650]:75),quinoa"produces tinyseeds . . . of which they makedrinksandwhich they also eat boiled, as we do rice." Quinoawas often cooked with herbs andaji orredpepperto makea stewknownaspisqui (Cobo 1964 [1653]:Bk.14,Ch.5:244), andwas also usedto makechicha(Bk.4, Ch.4:162).Otherimportanthigh-altitude grainsoftheAndes includekaniwa andkiwicha,both of which addedhigh-quality protein to the native diet in similarfashion to quinoa (NationalResearchCouncil 1989:129-147). Beans. Beans (purutus)of various types were another important elementin theprecolumbian diet. They could be soakedandeatenraw,driedfor storage, stewedor boiled (Cobo 1964 [1653]:Bk.4, Ch. 27:174).Theycould also be toastedandgroundinto a flour and used medicinallyin drinksor poultices. Tarwi(also known as chochos or altramuces)was cultivated on a small scale for its seeds. Tarwiseeds are very similarto beansbut quitebitterand had to be soaked in waterfor severaldays priorto being eaten (Yacovleffand Herrera1934-35:305). RedPepper. Cobo (1964 [1653]:Bk.4, Ch.25, p. 172) statesthat aftermaize, red pepper,or ajf, was the most widespreadand highly esteemed cultigen in the Andeanregion. "Ajf,prepared as a delicious salsa,is so pleasingto the indiansthatit makesanythingedible, even wild andbitterherbs;they eat not only the fruitof thisplant,butalso the leaves,which they add to theirstews like parsleyor yerbabuena; they eat the ajf raw and also preserveit in several ways:it canbe pickled. . ., dried,or ground" (Cobo 1964 [1653]:Bk.4, Ch. 25, p. 173). Salt. Saltwas a universal andindispensable component of the native diet. Atienza (1931 [1575?]:6748) commentsthat"nomatter how drab andhumbletherestof theirmeal maybe, theyenjoy it as muchas any luxury,as long as they can season it with aji, theirprincipalspice, andsaltto cool their body heat,anda littlechichato drink." Accordingto Cobo(1964 [1653]:Bk.3,Ch.4:112),theIndians rec-
[Vol. 14, No. 1, 2003
In general,the ethnohistoric sourcesconvey the sense that maize was special, desirable,and even viewed as holidayfood by the highlandpopulations (Murra1960:397). Reportsof royalgifts involvingfood offerfurther insightintothesymbolicweighting of Andean dietary elements.The InkarulerAtahualpa, for instance,is said to have sent llamas,cooked llama meat, dried ducks,maizebread,andvessels of chichato Pizarro upon his landingat Tumbez(Coe 1994:214).Elsewhereit wasreported thattheroyalfood (tupacocau) givenby the Inka"tothepeoplethathe sentabroad," consistedof a smallbag of maizebelievedto be particularlynutritiousbecause it came from the Inka himself (GonzalezHolguin 1952 [1608]:369).It is apparent from vanous sourcesthatmaize and meat were considered the food of the gods, andby extension, of the Inka.Ethnohistoric sourcesclearlystate thatthe nobilityate moremeatand maize thantheir subjectswho dined primanlyon tubersand greens Inka Haute Cuisine (GuamanPoma 1936 [1613]:55; Garcilaso 1945 Variouschroniclers of Andeancultureoffer hintsas [1609]:Bk. 2:124; Paz Ponce de Leon 1965 to what may have constitutedInka"hautecuisine," [1582]:237). Though maize was apparentlyconthough none addressthe matterdirectly.Guaman sumedacrossthe social spectrum, it does not seem Poma (1936 [1613]:332),for instance,tells us that, to have been an item of everydayfare for the com-
ognized threedifferenttypes of salt: sea salt, mineral salt, and salt collected from springsby boiling the waterin pots. Meat. Meatwas apparently consumedon a limited basis. Cobo (1964 [1653]:Bk. 14, Ch. 5:244) states thatit was eaten only rarelyby the common people, implying that the elite had greateraccess (see also Estrella 1988:313, 319; Guaman Poma 1936 [1613]:55; Gummerman 1991; Paz Ponce de Leon 1965 [1582]:237; Vokral 1991:76). Modern ethnographic evidencefromthe southern highlands indicatesthatcamelidmeatconstitutes10 percentof the campesinodiet (Antunez1985:63);archaeological evidence from the centralsierraalso indicates that commonershad some access to meat, though they apparently consumedpoorercuts thanthe elite (Sandefur 2001). While game animalssuch as deer, rabbit,partridge,and water fowl were reportedly abundant (Anonimo 1965 [1573]:220; Cobo 1964 [1653]:Bk.9;GuamanPoma 1936 [1613]:204 207), sources suggest that hunting,and thus game consumption,was strictlyregulatedby the Inka(Cieza 1962 [1553]:400; Rowe 1946:217). Domesticated animalsincludeddog, Muscovyduck,camelids,and guinea pig (cuy). Camelidsand guineapigs, which were by farthe most common,constituted a regular componentof most Indianhouseholds,butthe meat of these animalswas usuallyreservedfor mealsthat marked specialoccasions.Freshanddriedfish were also a common element of the native diet among those who lived near the sea, lakes, or rivers(e.g., Estrella1988:332-338). Cobo(1964 [1653]:Bk.14, Ch.5:244) notes thatdriedfish was frequently used as "meat" to make locro. According to Cobo (1964 [1653]:Bk. 3, Ch. 4:113, Bk. 14, Ch. 5:244; also Acosta 1954 [1590]:136; SalazarVillasante 1965 [1565?]:132) the numberof ways meat was preparedwas fairly limited. Generally speaking, it was either stewed (typically in locro with aji and other vegetables), dried (as charqui), or barbecued.Roasting in an earthenpit oven (pachamanca)was also a common methodof preparation.
the [sapa] Inca . . . ate selected maize that is capyaatco sara, and papas manay[early potatoes], . . . and llama called white cuyro,and chiche[tiny fish], white cuy, and much fruit and ducks, and very smooth chicha which took a month to mature and was called yamor aca. And he ate other things which the Indians were not to touch upon pain of death.
Murra(1960) notes that maize was generally accordeda muchhigherstatusby the Inkaandtheir subjectsthanpotatoesandothertubers,which actually formedthe staplesof theAndeandiet.A descriptionof thefirstInkaqueen,MamaOcllo'sdailyrepast givenby Murua (1962:29)providesfurther evidence of the elite connotations of maize in the Inkadiet,
Her daily food was usually maize taken either as locrosanca [seagull/hawk(?) stew] or mote [boiled maize kernels], mixed in diverse manners with other foods, cooked or otherwise prepared. For us these are coarse and uncouth foods, but for them they were as excellent and savory as the softest and most delicate dishes put on the tables of the monarchs of Europe. Her drink was a very delicate chicha, which among them was as highly esteemed as the Elne vintage wines of Spain.
Tamara L. Bray]
INKA POTTERY AS CULINARYEQUIPMENT
Table 1. Vessels Explicitly Mentionedin EthnohistoricSources. Vessel Type (Spanish) Olla Cazuela(Quechua,chua) Cazuelasde barroagujereadas Tinajas Cantaros; Cantarillos Vasos y Tazas;Cantaricos Platos (Quechua, puco) Vessel Type (English) Pot Casserole Casseroles, perforated Jars (large and small) Jugs (large and small) Glasses and cups (varioussizes) Plates CulinaryActivity Stewing;Boiling Toasting Toasting Chichaproduction Chichaproduction Chichaconsumption Serving
moners(Coe 1994:220;Murra1960), while access to meatseems to havebeen limitedandfairlytightly controlled(Rowe 1946, 1982; Sandefur1988). The dividebetweentheregular consumption of meatversus vegetableshas been theorizedas a fundamental marker of thedivisionbetweensocialclassesby some scholars(i.e., Goody 1982) and between men and womenby others(i.e., Adams 1990). Inaddition to thetypesof foodsconsumed, another aspect of Andean hautecuisineseemsto haverevolved around the concept of "variety."According to GonzalezHolguin(1952 [1608]:238-239),the ability to prepare and serve eithera varietyof different dishesina singlemealorto prepare a singlemealusing a variety of ingredients was key to the notionof "dining splendidly." Thereare also hintsthatthe amount of time investedin the preparation of foods, as in the case of the yamor aca mentionedabove, the complexityof the dishesserved,andthe costlinessof the ingredients all figuredintothe equation of whatconstituted aneliterepast. Insum,Inkahautecuisinedoes not appearto have differedradicallyfrom the baselineAndean dietintermsof basiccomponents. Rather, it seems to havebeen definedon the basis of quality, quantity, anddiversityof foodstuffs,anddifferences in modesof preparation, consumption, anddisposal. Andean Culinary Practices In the reviewof sixteenth-and seventeenth-century sourcespresentedabove, boiling clearly standsout as the most common method of preparingfood. Boiled foods wereusuallyeatenin theformof stews or soups.Commentsreferring to guisados,or stews, far outnumber any other references to prepared dishes. In Bertonio's Aymara dictionary (1879 [1612]), one vessel type, chamillku,is specifically definedas an "ollaused for cooking stews." Roasting was anotherfairly common cooking technique, and the comments indicate that foods were typically roasteddirectlyin the coals. Parch-
ing or toastingwas also an important culinarytechnique.Anothervessel type listed in Bertonio'sdictionary is definedas an "ollafortoastingsomething" (cited in Tschopik 1950:203). A wide-mouthed, short-walledvessel made specifically for toasting was still being manufactured by the modernAymara population in the Chucuitoregionas recentlyas the mid-twentieth century(Tschopik1950:20S207), as well as in theMantaro regionof thecentral highlands (Hagstrum1989). Some foods were simply toasted andeaten,butin othercases, parching constituted an intermediate step in the preparation of specific staples, most notablymaize flour. Foodpreparation likely was a verytime consuming activity.Many productsrequiredseveralstages of processing.Dependingon the food, these steps mightincludedrying, soaking, rinsing, mixing,parching orboiling,andreheating. Eachcouldconceivably haverequired different types andsizes of vessels. Food Preparation Vesselsexplicitlynamedin theethnohistoric sources in connectionwithcookingandfood preparation are listedinTable1.Ollasarespecifically associated with stewingand boiling, casserolesare namedin reference to toasting,andjugs, jars, and glasses in connectionwithchichaproduction andconsumption. As notedearlier, thenativepeopleshadmorevessels and equipmentfor producingchicha; i.e., chicha production was the most elaboratedculinary task in Andeancuisine. In addition to those vessels specifically mentioned, it is possible to infer the presenceor additional functions of several others from the data available on dietary habits and practices. Several foodstuffs,for instance,required soakingandwashing. We may inferfromthis the need for bothlarg-eand medium-sized,unrestricted containerssuch as bowls or basins. We also could posit an additional short-termstorage function for the wide-mouthed
10
[Vol. 14, No. 1, 2003
cooking ollas. Similarly,the production of salt may vessels is implied by referenceto certainculinary haverequired specialbasinsorollasto facilitate evap- techniques mentioned above. Soaking beans, for instance,wouldhaverequired the use of a vessel for oration. a periodof up to severaldays. Productsmade into Serving preserves, such as ajf and camote, presumably With respectto the types of vessels thatcomprised requiredlonger term storage containers.The ferthe nativeAndeantable service, we have this valu- mentingandagingof chicharequired theuse of storable description: age jars from one to severalweeks. Standard food preparation tasks used large quantities of water, There are only two or three types of pieces that implyingthepresenceof waterstoragecontainers in they use for this purpose: unglazed clay pots the house compound. (ollas) on which they used to carve various Elgures, the same as they did on jars and other vesThe above review of ethnohistoric referencesto sels; plates made from dry calabashes,that were Andeanfoodwaysandculinarytechniquessuggests the size of small china plates, from clay, and the many ways in which potterywas likely used in from wood-those of wood are called meca, and the precolumbian Andes. The diversityof tasks in those of clay they call pucu; and medium-sized ceramic casseroles that they call chuas. The whichceramicvessels wereemployedimpliesa cortable service of the noblemen and chiefs were respondingdiversityin the rangeof vessel shapes. made of silver and gold in former times [Cobo The following passageoffers valuableinsightsinto 1964 (1653):Bk. 14, Ch. 4:243]. the native classification of the domestic pottery Occasionalremarksaboutthe customarymodes inventory: of presenting andeatingfoodsprovidefurther insight Nor did they make the same distinctions in intovessel requirements. Cobo [1964 (1653):Bk.14, earthenwarethat we use, but speak only of pots (ollas) andjugs (cantaros),which they differenCh.5:245]reports thattheIndians typicallyatetwice tiate in terms of size (larger and smaller) and a.day,once in the morningandonce in the lateafterdecoration (some have been sculpted with fignoon. Husbandsand wives would sit back to back ures and designs); small, plain plates (platillos); on theground, withthewife facingthefood andservand small shallow plates (patenas). The rest of ing her husband upon request. Atienza their vessels correspond to the types that the (1931[1575?]:4143) notes that"themen nevereat Spaniardsusually make from clay, which they [the Indians] made from silver, gold, wood, and fromone platewith theirwomen,andindeedwould dried calabashes; not even in their ancient sepconsiderit a disgrace,andtakeit as such,if theywere ulchers, in which they buriedtheir dead with all forced to do so." At social gatheringsand public forms of food and drink, does one find vessels feasts, Cobo reportedthat each family broughtits other than the types referredto here [Cobo 1964 own food anddrink,thoughsharingwas apparently (1653):Bk. 3, Ch. 6:114-115]. This passage suggests that beyond gross moran institutionalized practice.It was customary,for of instance, when drinking chicha either ritually or phological distinctions,the ethno-classification revolvedprimarily around vessel size andthe socially to offer a toastto yourcompanionor guest. pottery This observation Thispractice involvedtakingtwo tumblers andoffer- presenceor absenceof decoration. of pottery corresponds with ing one to thepersonwithwhomyou wishedto share on theemic organization the definitionsof vessel types providedby Bertonio a drink(see Betanzos 1968 [1551]:55). (1879 [1612]) in his Aymaradictionary. His definiStorage tions also rely primarilyon the criteriaof size and in describing anddifferentiating between Besides their importancein food preparation and decoration vessels. In addition, Bertonio defines a. few vessels serving,pots andjars were also used as storagecontainersin Andean households.Regardingthe stor- with respectto the foods with whichthey were genstudies of age of food staples,Cobo (1964 [1653]:Bk. 14, Ch. erally associated.Modernethnographic 4:242) notes thatbasic foods such as maize, chuno, potteryproductionand consumptionin the central andquinoawere usuallystoredin largeceramicjars Andes yield similarfindingswith regardto indige(e.g., Costin eitherinsidethe houseor in a separate areadesigned nous taxonomiesof ceramiccontainers and Hagstrum1995:631-2; Hagstrum1989). for storagejust outside. These observationsoffer useful guidelines for The need for othershort-and long-termstorage
Tamara L. Bray]

11
interpreting the significanceof ceramic variability in the archaeological recordand workingtowarda culturallymeaningfultaxonomy of precolumbian pottery.Cobo's statementalso argues for the conservatism of Andeanculinary equipment andthepatterns describedabove. In a sense his observations offerajustification forusingtheethnohistoric record to interpret the archaeological one. Functional Analysis of Imperial Inka Pottery Withthe ethnohistoric backdropof Andeancuisine in place, I turn to the culinary significanceof the imperialInka ceramic ensemble, offering a functional analysis of the differentvessel forms comprisingthe statepotteryassemblagethatdrawsupon boththeethnohistoric dataandgeneralstudiesof the mechanicalperformancecharacteristics of pottery (e.g., Braun 1983; Hally 1986; Smith 1985). Each Inkavessel type is analyzedin termsof its morphological attributes, physical properties,and patterns of use wear.The physical features,in conjunction with the culinaryinformationfound in the ethnohistoricsources,are used to suggest possible functionalroles for the differentvessel forms.Based on the informationpresented above, it is likely that ceramicvessels were utilizedin the following culinary activities:cooking, processing,fermentation, serving,eating, wet and dry storage,transportation of liquids,andwashing. Thistasklist servesas a baselinein discussingprobable functions of imperial Inka vessel forms. One of the basic assumptions is thatthe form of a ceramic container is strongly influenced by its intendedfunction.The functionalnatureof pottery can be analyzed along several dimensions. These include shape, physical propertiesdeterminedby attributes such as wall thicknessandpastecomposition, patternsof use wear, and patternsof associationorcontext.InBraun's(1983) discussionof "pots as tools," i.e., containers, he suggests that the mechanicalperformance characteristics of a pot, as withanytool,aredetermined to a considerable extent by its morphologicaland physical properties.The "performance characteristics" of a vessel, in turn, help to determinehow well suitedit is for a particularuse (Hally 1986). Specific dimensionsof vessel performance identifiedby Hally (1986) include vessel stability, volumetric capacity, overallsize, ease of access to vessel contents,ease of removalof contents,tendencyto spill,eff1ciency of heatabsorption,
heat retention,rate of evaporation, ability to close the orifice,andthermalshockresistance. In my discussion of the imperialstate ceramic assemblage,I adopttheInkavessel shapecategories defined by Albert Meyers (1975). In contrast to Rowe's (1944) typologicaland taxonomicclassification of Inka pottery,which accordedprimacyto surfacetreatment anddecorative style in the fashion ofthe day(see ColtonandHargrave 1937),Meyers's classificationscheme focuses principallyon vessel form.LikeRowe,Meyersutilizedtheceramic assemblage from the ceremonial-fortress complex of Saqsaywaman to construct his classificatory scheme. In this, he relies primarily on the publishedreports of archaeological materials excavated atthesitefrom the mid-1930s throughthe early 1970s (Valcarcel 1934,1935;Valencia1970,1975;YabarandRamos 1970). These reports describe the archaeological materials recovered in detailandarewell illustrated. ThecollectionfromSaqsaywaman hastheadvantage of being from the imperialcapital;it also containsthe full rangeof Inkavessel forms,comes from a well-documented archaeological context,and has a securechronologicalposition.While it is possible thatundecorated orutilitarian potterymayhavebeen under-collected and/orunder-reported by the original investigators, it is worthnotingthatat least three of the vessel categories in Meyers's classification scheme(Forms9,10, and 12) aredescribedas cooking vessels lacking in decoration and frequently exhibitingcarbonon the exteriorsurfaces.Together, these threevessel types comprise 18 percentof the total assemblage(Meyers 1975:23). InMeyers'ssystem,theInkaceramicassemblage is dividedinto sevenformalclasses:(a) aribalos;(b) narrow-necked vessels; (c) wide-mouthedvessels; (d) wide-mouthedpots (ollas); (e) vessels with or withoutfeet; (f) plates and bowls; and (g) glasses. Eachcategorycontainsone to severalformsto each of whichMeyersassigneda specificnumber. Intotal, 14 distinctmorphological typesarerecognized(Figure 1). I use Meyers's numerical designations throughout the remainder of this discussion.Figure 2 correlates Meyers'sterminology with othernames for these Inkavessel types in the literature. Meyers's Form 1 is regularlyreferredto as the Inkaaribalo, a name first used by nineteenthcenturyscholarsand latermade semi-officialby Bingham(1915) withhispublication ofthe MachuPicchu materials. Whilethe termmay notbe entirelyappro-
2003 1, No. 14, [Vol.
ANTIQUITY AMERICAN LATIN

12
--
A
1
2 B
{--bE -
E 10
ll
c}
F 12 13
14
form categories Figure 1. Inka vessel used in this study (after Meyers 1975).
Source
l0
lZ
13
14
Tamara L. Bray]
13
(f
(3 Face neck jar Type 131z, d 3ug --Puina ---
4 Long-neeki bottle Type 13h Jug l:3eposlto Atsana Puchuela Shape D
7 2 One-handli vessel ----hjchi Shape C
Meyers (19763 Bingham (19153 Fernandez (1971) Pardo (1957) Rowe (1944)
Inca jar Type 1 Aryballus Makas Matas Shape A
Long-necked vase ---Florere Florero Tticachuranas Shape fiI
Short-necked bottle Type 13a Jug Deposit Aisana Puchuela ---
Two-iMled vessel Type 6 Pelike jug Jarron

1JCi
Shape B
= .
..
.......
NIeyers (l976) Bingham (l915) Fernandez

(1971)
C()nical-based olla Wide-mouffi aryballus hqui Ulpu Shape 13
Roundbased olla ppes 7-l0
One-footed olla Type 2 Bea!er olla Olla caliz Chullanchaqui manca Shape J
Two-handled bowl Type 4 l:)eep dish Qocha Manca Shape F

.. .
Tnv}-handled plate Type 4d -------
Shallow plate/boutl Types ll & 12 l)rinking ladle C:huappucu lucu Shape G

lucu
Cup Type lSb Q'em Q8ere Shape I

.
Ollas cyliSricos Manca ---
Pardo (1957) Rowe

(19X)
Figure 2. Cross-correlationof terms used to describe Inka vessel folms.
priatewith respectto its historicaland descriptive conIlotations, it is nonethelesswidely used andrecognized.The arlbalon with its tall flaringneck,high pronounced shoulders,and conical base is the best known and most characteristic of the Inka vessel forms. Most investigators assume that it was used as a container forchicha,theubiquitous andsociallyindispensablecornbeerof theAndes.This interpretation is supported by various morphological features of the vessel.Theelongatedshapeindicatesa concernwith theefficientutilization of spacecharacteristic of storage vessels. The tall, flaredneck and restricted vessel orificeemphasizecontainment of vessel contents attheexpenseof accessibility. Theflared rimandconical base wouldfacilitatethe pouringof liquids.The characteristic sidehandlesandlug also suggesta carryiIlgfunction.Directevidencein the formof representational arton pottery andmodern usageindicates how these featuresfunctionedfor the transport liquids(e.g., Kauffmann Doig 1983:726). Theproposed functionof the arlEaloas a storagecontainer is furthersupported by contextualinformation from sev-
eralhighland sites(D'AltroyandHastorf1984;Morris 1967). The four vessel types includedin Meyers'ssecond category(B), the narrow-necked jar forms,are not nearly as common in the overall Inka assemblage as the arlbaloand severalother forms. The morphological featuresof these vessels suggestthat theyprobably servedas containers for liquids.Their low centersof gravityand flat bases may indicate theiruse in moreheavilytrafficked areasandlor their regularplacementon prepared (i.e., hard,flat) surfaces (Lischka 1978:227; Smith 1985:267, 277). Giventherelativescarcityof the tall-necked vessels in this class (the short-necked,flat-bottomedjar [Form5] beingconsiderably morecommonthanthe otherthreetypes),it can be assumedthattheirfunction was restricted and theiruse perhapslimitedto moreuncommonevents. The thirdclass of vessels, the wide-necked jars withflatbasesandone ortwo straphandles,arealso relatively rare,thoughForm6 is morecommonthan Form7. Bingham(1979:162)recovered a fairlylarge numberof (n = 78) two-handled pitchers(Form6)
.:\ ;D, AS' rr 1
.) (
2> *, < '
?0
C > so tJ tZ /
>
14
Xbeh 1t X Ch, ss@ -
12
Pe8 w
"
V*y a X> P
14
[Vol.14, No. 1, 2003
<jz
t_
$ El Qthche 4 a
1t
t La C K
. r :
I l,#
t
' _ .e
F, <
K
6 T_<1
z
tt (:JJ
J,
IC8
vey
;\
.) $
j;e
1$ ",
j$
XTs
31
Figure 3. Map indicating locations of Inka sites included in distnbutional analysis of Inka potteryX
fromMachuPicchu.One-third of thesewerereportedly associated with burials while the remainder came from the vicinity of the city. He notes thatin generalffiis vessel categorywas 44not as elaborately decorated as the dishes" (Bingham 1979:162). Examplesof these wide-neckedInkajarformshave alsobeenrecorded atOllantaytanboSaqsaywaman, Isla del Sol, and Quito(Figure3). These vessels also likely servedas containers for liquids,but the morphological diSerencesbetween this class andthe two previouslymentionedsuggest at least some differencein function.The largerrim diameters of the ClassC as compared to the ClassA
and B vessels may reflect a greaterconcern with ease of access to vessel contents,often associated with a higher frequencyof access events (Braun 1980; Smith 1985). The flat base could again be interpreted as evidencefor intended use on prepared surfaces.The morphological attributes of the widemouthedjars suggest a possible decantingor serving function. Meyers'sForm 8 is anotherrelativelyraretype knownprimarily from the Cuzco area,thoughseveralexampleshavealso beenreported fromEcuador (Meyers1976). Pardo(1939) refersto these vessels by the Quechuaterm urpu, which, accordingto a
Tamara L. Bray]
15
modernQuechuadictionary, denotes a large earthenware vessel used for the fermenting of chicha (Guardia1980). The form is essentially that of a large,conical-basedolla. In many ways it recalls a truncated, wide-mouthedversionof the arlEalo, as it frequentlycarriesthe same types of polychrome decorationand likewise comes equippedwith two side handlesand a stylized lug. Mostauthors attribute a food processingfunction to this vessel, acknowledgingits probablerole as a container for upi, or unfermented chicha,duringthe processof chichaproduction (Fernandez 1971;Meyers 1975; Pardo1939). The morphological traitsof thisform,whichincludethelargerimdiameter, high, slightly convergingvessel walls, and side handles, do not contradict this interpretation, but could also suggest use for transporting dry foodstuffssuch as maizeor tubers.The transport of liquidsalso is possible because the evertedangle of the rim hints at some provisionfor closing or coveringthe vessel. Meyers'sForm9 vessels are likely to have been Inkautilitarian wares. These round-bottomed ollas lack both decorativetreatment and standardization of form,uncommoncharacteristics for the imperial statepotteryassemblage.Thisvessel typeis also frequentlyfound with remnantcarbonon its exterior surface.While this vessel categoryis recordedby both Binghamand Valcarcelat MachuPicchu and Saqsaywaman, respectively,it is not likely thatthe sherdsof these vessels would be readilyrecognizable as Inkapotteryoutside of the Cuzco area(see Costin 1986 for detaileddiscussionof local utilitarian waresfromthe Inkaperiodat Wankasites in the centralhighlands).The variousreportsof miscellaneousorunidentified cookingwaresfromprovincial Inka sites could refer to either this Inka utilitarian type or local varietiesof cooking vessels. The morphologicalfeaturesof this type of pot reflecta concernwith containment (slightlyrestricted neck) and the suitabilityof the pot for suspensionabove a fire for cooking purposes (roundedbase, presence of handles)(Linton1944; Smith 1985). In contrastto the nondescript character of these pots, the pedestal-base olla (Form10), whichis also considered a cookingvessel, is a commonandhighly diagnosticInkaform.This vessel is knownin the literatureby a variety of names including "chalice" (Pardo 1939) and "beaker-shaped olla" (Bingham 1915). Diagnosticfeaturesincludea flaredpedestal base, a large straphandleobliquelyattachedto the
vessel shoulder, anda simpleapplique designlocated on the shoulderopposite the handle that typically consists of a serpentfigureor a pairof small protuberances.The pedestal-baseolla is often equipped with a lid andfrequently exhibitscarbonresidueon its exteriorsurface. Thesevessels arereported in relativelyhigh frequenciesat nearlyevery site with an Inkacomponent. Thesepercentages couldbe skewed by the fact this form may be more readilyidentifiable in a fragmentedstate than others,though the same caveatwould applyto severalother-Inka vessel types as well. Thefooted ollas arefoundin grave lots as well as residential sectors,thoughthosefrom burialssometimeslack evidence of use wear (Bray 1991:361-392). Morphologically, the slightly restricted formsuggestsa concernwithcontainment. The relativeflatness of the bottom portion of the bowl makes the form suitablefor long periods of heating in thefire(Linton1944).Thestrongly everted rimandthecommonlyassociated potlidscouldindicate a concernwith spillageor the use of these vessels as short-term storagecontainers for perishables (Smith 1985). The contrastsbetween this vessel and the preceding one suggest thatthese two types of cooking pots were eitherused for preparing differentkinds of foods or in different methodsof food preparation. Meandifferences in the volumetric capacityof these two vessel formsis also significant andlikelyrelates to who the intendedconsumerswere,i.e., a groupor an individual(Bray2003). Given thatcooking vessels probablyare amongthe most conservative elements of any ceramiccomplex (Linton 1944), the ubiquityanduniqueness of thefootedolla arehighly significant. Itsdistribution is suggestiveof theimportance attachedto a particular food categoryandlor food preparation techniquevis-a-vis Inka or elite identity,and the extent to which the state had succeeded in exportingor imposing its culinarypractices. The fact thatthe footed olla is the only cooking vessel elaborated in a distinctivestatestyle suggests thatthe viandprepared in it wouldhavebeen highly esteemed.Giventhe importance theInkaattached to maize, it is possible thatthis vessel was associated with the preparation of a maize-baseddish. Its typically small-to-medium size, togetherwith certain diagnosticfeatures,such as the large oblique strap handleandassociatedlid, suggestindividually sized portionsand a concernwith portability. The sum of
16
[Vol. 14, No. 1, 2003
its featuressuggest thatthe pedestal-base olla may have figuredin state obligationsto provide corvee laborerswith a fittingcooked (reheated?) repast. The two-handled deep dish or cazuela(Form11) is anothercommon componentof the Inka assemblage. This form usually carriespolychrome painting, thougha few undecorated exampleswerefound at Saqsaywaman. This was the thirdmost common vessel form recoveredat MachuPicchuand half of those found were associatedwith burials. Bingham (1979:156) suggests that they were likely used as servingcontainers for soupsandporridges. Fernandez(1971:18) believesthese vessels were manufacturedfor ceremonialdrinkingpurposes.He notes thatmodernQuechuaherdsmenin the Cuzco area buyauthenticreproductions of these forms and use them at certainfestivalsfor chichaconsumption. As an unrestricted form,the morphological features of the two-handleddeep dish reflect concerns with access,visibilityof contents, portability, andstability. These characteristics imply a high frequency ofaccess, the manipulationof the contents with hands orutensils,frequent movement ortransference of the vessel, and use in heavily trafficked areas and/or locations with prepared surfaces (Smith 1985). The form suggeststhatthe vessel may have been usedas a servingcontainer, orpossiblyin foodprocessing tasks,thoughthepresenceof polychrome decoration makesthelatter suggestion less likely.lhe directness of therim seemsto indicatea lackof concern with pouringproperties or vessel closure. Meyers'ssixthclass of vessel typesincludesboth shallow bowls and plates. The flat-bottomedplate with short everted walls and two horizontalstrap handles (Form 12) is a relativelyuncommonform known primarily fromtheimperial heartland, though examples from the Titicaca region and southern Ecuador havebeendocumented. Thisvesselcategory typically lacks decorationand probablybelongs to the localdomesticInkaassemblage. Theunrestricted form and low walls suggest a toastingor parching function, or possiblyheatingfor evaporation (Smith 1985:276). In contrast,the otherunrestricted vessel in this class, the shallowplate(Form13), is one ofthe most frequently occurring components of theInkaceramic assemblage. Theseplatesprobably exhibitthe greatest freedom of stylisticexpressionseen on any Inka vessel form.Decorative designsemploybothpainted and plastic techniques. Meyers (1975:15) divides
this form into five subcategories based on the type of handle.The most commonvarietyhas a stylized zoomorphichead(typicallya bird)as a handlewith a pairof protuberances locatedon the rim opposite. Almostas commonareplatesthathavesimple opposing sets of double nubbinson the rim. Verticaland horizontalloop handlesare also found,thoughthis varietyis not as common. The largest sample of these plates comes from Machu Picchu where they were the second most common vessel form recovered (Bingham 1979:132).Binghamreportsthat 60 percentof the approximately 300 specimenscamefromburial contexts in whichtheywerefrequently foundin matched pairs. He refersto these vessels as "drinking ladles" andsuggeststhey were probablyused for consumingsoupsand stews.The morphological featuresof this formemphasize easeof accessandhandling, and reflect a lack of concernwith spilling or spoilage. Additionally, the height of the vessel, which averages 2.6 cm (Bray 2003), and the low angle of the walls indicatea lackof suitability for containing liquids. Themorphology anddecorative treatment suggest that they may represent individual serving platters forsolidor semi-solidfoods,possiblymeats. The last vessel form in Meyers's classification scheme is the tall cup with flaringwalls commonly known by the Quechuaname kero.This shape is reminiscent of earlier Tiwanaku formsandmay represent the conscioususe of anachronism by the Inka elite. The form was not limited to the ceramic medium and was probablymore commonly produced in wood and metal.While it appearsto us a natural form for drinking, its relative rarity and restriction to specific contexts suggest that it may have had a more specializedor limitedfunction. Basedon morphological considerations, thepresence or absenceof decoration, andthe evidencefor use wear (i.e., carbonand food residues),different functions havebeenpositedforthedifferent Inkavessel forms discussed above. These functionalinterpretations are summarized in Table2. Briefly,Inka Forms 9, 10, and possibly 12 are belie.ved to represent cookingvessels. Form8 fits the criteria for vessels used in food-processing tasks, specifically fermentation, andmayhavealso beenusedfortransporting dry goods. Forms 1A, 6, and 7 all exhibit characteristics typicalof containers designedto hold liquids. Form 1 exhibitsfeaturesthat are also well adapted for the transport of liquids,as well as either
Tamara L. Bray]
17
Table 2. FunctionalInterpretation of the InkaVessel Assemblage. Vessel Cooking Form Boiling Toasting
1
Process
Ferment
Serving/Eating Solids Liquid

X
Storage Wet Dry

X
Transport (Liquid)
X
2 3 4
S
X X X
X
6 7 8
9 10 11 X X
X X X X X
12 13 14
X X X
dry or wet storage.Forms 6, 7, and 11 (depending on size) may representserving vessels. Forms 13, 14, andpossibly FormsS and 11, are likely to have been used as individualeating or drinkingvessels. While the imperialInkaassemblagedoes appearto containseveralvessel types relatedto cooking and food-processingactivities,it is clearthatthe bulkof the distinctivestaterepertoire was dedicatedto vessels intendedto be used in servingandconsumption contexts.This emphasishighlightsthe significance of commensaleventsin the eyes of the stateandthe contribution of the vessels themselvesto the materializationof the idea of an Inkahautecuisine. Distribution of Imperial Inka Vessel Forms The patterned distribution of specific forms in the imperialcore (the CuzcoregionandUrubamba Valley) versus the provincial sectors provides added insightintotheroleof Inkapottery in imperial expansion. Forthis componentof the study,I utilizedpublishedreports containing quantitative orquantifiable dataon Inkapotteryas well as information derived from the firsthandstudy of several archaeological collections.The dataset, while neithercompletenor fully random, encompassesinformation on imperial Inka pottery from the length and breadth of the empire. The sites included are listed in Table 3 togetherwith the associatedreferences;their locations are indicatedin Figure3. The assembleddata are adequateto ascertainwhetherdifferencescould be discernedin the distribution of imperialvessel forms at the gross geopoliticallevel of Inka heartlandversusprovinces.
The publications examinedspanmanyyearsand varygreatlywith respectto the types andamountof information imparted. They reflect changes in acceptable standards of archaeological research, differentdisciplinary emphases,andthe diversebackgroundsof the variousinvestigators. All the reports, however, contained sufficient detailin eitherthetext, illustrations, or appendicesto assign the Inka pottery to one of the 14 formal categoriesdiscussed above.Generallyspeaking,only completeor nearly completevessels were includedin this study. Table4 presentsavailableinformation on the frequencies of differentstate vessel forms recovered fromInkasitesaround theempire. All systematically excavated sites with adequatelyreportedceramic data were included. The counts may be taken as approximate representations of the totalassemblage at each site. As it was impossibleto extractquantitativedatafromthepublished reports formanysites, a presence/absence chartof vessel forms was also constructedto check suggestedpatterns(Table5). Figure4 shows the distribution of the differentvessel types comprisingthe composite, empire-wide assemblage. The graph indicates that the aribalo (Form1) accountsfor nearlyhalf of the totalvessels in the sample.The shallow plate, the single footed olla, and the two-handledcasserole,Forms 10, 13, and 11, respectively, arethe nextmostcommonvessel types. Overall,these four vessel forms account for 92 percentof the tabulated pots. Significantdifferencesare noted in the relative proportionsof vessel types among the most commonformsin the imperialcore versusthe provinces
18
[Vol. 14, No. 1, 2003
Table 3. List of Sites and PublishedReferences Used in Distributional Analysis. Sector Heartland Site Name Saqsaywaman Cuzco (general) Ollantaytambo Chinchero Machu Picchu Choquepukio Maucallacta Mt. Ampato Chincha Ica La Centinela Inkawasi Pachacamac Hatunqolla Titicaca Pallimarca Puno Tiquischullpa,so. Titicacaregion Mt. Llullaillaco NW Argentina(NOA) Pucarade Lerme, Prov. de Tucuman Chicoana,Valle de Lerme, Prov.de Tucuman La Paya, Valle Calchaqui,NOA E1Plomo La Reina PucaraChena HuanacoPampa HatunXauxa La Plata Quito E1Quinche Rumicucho Tomebamba Ingapirca
-
References Francoand Llanos 1940; Valcarcel1934-35; Valencia 1970 Pardo 1939, 1959 (gravelot);Sawyer 1966 (1 gravelot);Schmidt 1929 Llanos 1936 Rivera 1976 Bingham 1915, 1979; Eaton 1916 McEwan Collection, Museo Inka, Cuzco Bauer 1990 PereaChavez2001;Ampato Collection, MuseoSantuarios Andinos, UCSM Menzel 1966, 1971; Sandweiss 1992; Uhle 1924b Menzel 1971, 1976; Uhle 1924a Menzel 1966 Hyslop 1985 Uhle 1903; Uhle Collection, UMPAA Hyslop 1976, 1979; Julien 1983 BandelierCollection, AMNH Ryden 1947 Tschopik 1946 Parssinenand Siiriainen 1997 Reinhardand Ceruti2000 Bennettet al. 1948; Bregante 1926; Calderariand Williams 1991; Debenedetti 1917; Fock 1961; Outes 1907; von Rosen 1924 Boman 1908 Fock 1961 Ambrosetti1902, 1907-08; Boman 1908; Bennett et al. 1948 Figueroa 1958; Medina 1958 Mostny 1955 Stehberg 1976 Morris 1967; Morrisand Thompson 1985 D'Altroy 1981, 2001 Dorsey 1901; McEwan and Silva 1989 Jijony Caamanoand Larrea1918;Jijony Caamano1914;Meyers 1976; Stubel and Reiss 1889 Jijon y Caamano1914; Meyers 1976 Almeida and Jara 1984; Almeida 1999 Bamps 1879; Bray 1996; Idrovo2000; Meyers 1976 Meyers 1976
-
Cuntisuyu
Collasuyu
Chinchaysuyu
(Figure5). The arEbalo, for instance,comprises52 percentof the totalnumberof identifiableInkavessels in the provincialdistrictsand only 29 percent in the core region. The only vessels besides the arfbalo that occur with any frequency in the provincesare the shallow plate (Form 13) and the pedestal-basecooking pot (Form 10). These three forms appearto constitutethe minimalassemblage for any Inka-affiliated groupor individualresiding in the hinterlands. The overallratioof the four most common vessel types(arlEalos, shallowplates,pedestalpots,and the two-handled casserole) in the provinces is roughly100:33:48:7.In the core areaof the empire,
the ratiosbetweenthese four vessel types is generally morebalanced(100:81:46:61).The biggestdifference between the two regions is in the relative proportion of arlEalos to othervessels and the significantly higherfrequencies of shallowplates(Form 13) and two-handleddeep dishes (Form 11) in the heartland. The fact thatthe arlEalo is found in higherproportionsin the outlying sectors of the empire suggests that it was of particular importanceto some aspect of the imperialexpansionprocess.As mentioned earlier,this vessel form is generallyassociated with storage and the transportof chicha,a productelaborated by women. The Inka,following
Tamara L. Bray]
19
Table4. Frequencyof InkaVessel Forms at Different Sites. Sector Central Site Name
20
10
2 3 3
3 1
4 6
5 4
6 3
Saqsaywaman Ollantaytambo Machu Picchu Choquepukio HeartlandSub-Total Cuntisuyu (west/SW)
7 5
-
8 4
-
9 7
1
10 15
5
11 22
1
450 3 483
2 73 3 79
-
5 78 9 81
1
- 9 30 204 271 1 1 1 2 6 14 39 224 296

2
s -
12 13 6 59 - 29 7 300 1 6 14 394
1 -
14 Total 10 165 1 47 12 1,441 7 22 30 1,674

19
Collasuyu (south)
Chinchasuyu (north)
Maucallacta 3 Mt.Ampato 8 La Centinela 8 Old Ica 7 Pachacamac 24 Hatunqolla 50 Pallimarca 60 Llullaillaco 3 Chicoana,LermaValley S E1Plomo 3 La Reina 30 HuanacoPampa 376 HatunXauxa 237 La Plata 2 E1Quinche S Rumicucho 577
1 3
4
1 -
7
1
1 2 1
4
6 1 1
2 3
4 8 5
1
3 15 3
10
8 18 6 13 34 40 25
10
1 3 1
34 27 35
90
107 96
19
2 7 2
5
2 1
42 3
50
55
3
55
17
-
17 2
1
26
111
8 88 419 420
10
557
69
6 2 67
12 - 1,270
S 8 13 4 5 4 - 679 104 1 461 1,398 5 22 2,709 8 87 21 85 11 18 39 903 400 1S 855 52 4,383 1,882 8 Note: Vessel counts obtainedfrom following sources: Heartland: Saqsaywaman(Meyers 1975:23)- Ollantaytambo (Llanos 1936); Machu Picchu (Bingham 1979:117-179); Choquepukio(photo-documentation by T. Bray of G. McEwanCollection, Museo Inka, Cuzco, 2000); Cuntisuyu:Maucallacta(Bauer 1990); Mt. Ampato (PereaChavez 2001; photo-documentation by T. Bray of Ampato Collection, Museo Santuarios Andinos, UCSM, Arequipa,2002); La Centinela(Menzel 1966)- Old Ica (Menzel 1971, 1976; Uhle 1924a); Pachacamac(Uhle 1903:94; photo-documentation by T. Bray of Uhle Collection, UPMAA, Philadelphia,2001); Collasuyu:Hatunqolla(Julien 1983); Mt. Llullaillaco (Reinhardand Ceruti2001); Pallimarca(Ryden 1947); Chicoana(Fock 1961); El Plomo (Figueroa 1958; Medina 1958); La Reina (Mostny 1955); Chinchasuyu:Huanaco Pampa(Morris 1967, App. 3); HatfinXauxa (D'Altroy 1981:454); La Plata (Dorsey 1901); El Quinche (Jijon y Caamano 1914); Rumicucho(Almeida and Jara 1984; Almeida 1999). Provincial Sub-Total
Total
_ _ _ _ _ 7 _ _ _ _
ancientAndeannorms, assumedthe responsibility of providing food anddrinkforcorveelaborers (e.g., Mowis 1982; Murra1975,1980; Rowe 1982). The disproportionate numberof arlobalos found in the provinces might indicate that state prestationsof chicha was of greaterimportancein the outlying regionsthanin the core of the empire(see also Bray 2000). Giventhatthe production of chicha was one of theprincipal tasksof Andeanwomen,it linksthem to imperialstrategiesof organization andcontrolin a fundamental way. The two-handledcasserole (Form 11), while a commonelementin the collectionsfromCuzco and its vicinity,is relatively rarein the provincial assemblages.OutsideoftheInkahearfand, examplesofthis formhavebeenreported atHatunqolla, Hatun Xauxa, Pachacamac, Old Ica, La Centinela,Pallimarca, E1 Quinche, andRumicucho (Figure 3).All of thesesites were administrative and/orreligious in natureand
liely housedindividuals of somerank withintheInka political hierarchy. At Machu Picchu,thetwo-handled deep dish was equallycommonin bothburialcaves andresidential middens, andwasoftenfoundin associationwith the pedestal-based olla (Form10) in the former context (Bingham 1979:156). This fact, togetherwith the rangeof sizes in which this vessel was made and its fairlylimiteddistribution, suggest thatit may have constituted an elementof a higherstatusindividual's personaldinnerservice. The aboveinformation suggeststhatthreevessel typesin particular comprised thecoreof theInkapotteryassemblage.These areForms1, 10, and 13, the arlobalo, thepedestal-base pot,andthe shallowplate. Thesethreevessel formsareminimallypresentat all LateHorizonsiteswithevidenceof Inkaoccupation. Functionally, thisbasicsetlikelyrepresents theactivities of chicha storageandtransport, cooking (boiling),andeating(solidfoods).Theensemblesuggests
ANTIQUITY LATINAMERICAN
20
[Vol. 14, No. 1, 2003
Table 5. Presence/AbsenceChartof InkaVessel Forms at Different Sites. Site Name Saqsaywaman

Cuzco
Sector Central
1 X
X
2 X
X
3 X
X
4 X
X
5 X
X
6 X
X
7 X
X
8 X
X
9 X X X X X
10 X
X
11 X
X
12 13 14 X X X
X X
Ollantaytambo Choquepukio Chinchero Machu Picchu Cuntisuyu Maucallacta Mt. Ampato ChinchaValley Ica Valley LaCentinela Pachacamac Inkawasi Hatunqolla Collasuyu Titicaca (Islas del Sol, Luna) Tiquischullpa Pallimarca Puno Mt. Llullaillaco NW Argentina LaReina PucaraChena Chinchasuyu HuanacoPampa HatunXauxa La Plata Quito El Quinche Rumicucho Ingapirca Tomebamba
X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X
X X
X X X X X
X X
X X X X X X X
X X
X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X
X X
X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X
X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X
X X
X X X X X X
X X
X X
X X X X
X X X X
food categories thattwo, andpossiblythree,different were involvedas componentsof an elite repast.We also note thatthis basic Inkaceramicsuite contains serviceelements.The andindividual bothcommunal archaeologicalevidence, thus, appearsto correlate on Inkahaute information well withtheethnohistoric cuisine insofaras the core suite of Inkavessels may to the distribas functionallyadapted be interpreted ution of chicha(Form 1), the consumptionof meat (Form 13), and the cooking or reheatingof maize kernelsor a maize-basedstew (Form 10). Discussion The intent of this paperhas been to offer a better understandingof Inka pottery and its role in the dynamicprocessesof imperialstatedesign. To this end, the Inkaceramicassemblagewas examinedin terms of its functional and culinary significance. Informationculled primarily from ethnohistoric reportswas used to draw sourcesand ethnographic
inferencesaboutInkavessel formsandto functional outline the features of an imperialhaute cuisine. Meat and maize were, by all accounts, the most highlyesteemedfoodstuffsin theInkadietandlikely comprisedthe basic elementsof Andeanhautecuisine in the fifteenth century.The sum of the evidence, however,indicatesthat elite cuisine did not radically differ from the baseline Andean diet in terms of basic elements. Rather,it seems to have been defined on the basis of quality,quantity,and diversityof foodstuffs,anddifferencesin modes of anddisposal. serving,consumption, preparation, Food andfeastingin theAndes has been considof power(see Costin eredcriticalto theconsolidation andEarle1989;Gero1990,1992;Moore1989;Mor1977:24>244). 1960;Rostworowski ris 1982;Murra between Duringthe Late Horizon,the relationship food and politics was manifestin the Inkaelaboraservice,storensembleof ceramic tionof a distinctive age, and, to a lesser extent,cooking vessels. While
Tamara L. Bray]
21
50
45 40
-
35 30 25
20 15 10 5
|
I
T - -
F1
F4
F6
F9
F10
F11
F13
F14
Inca Forms
Figure 4. Distribution of Inka vessel forms comprising a composite, empire-wide assemblage (n = 4383). Note: Vesselcategories representingless than one percent of the entire assemblageare omittedfromgraph (these include Forms 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 12).
stylisticallydistinct,Inka potteryconformedfunctionallyto widespread Andeanculinaryand subsistence patterns. The production and distribution of a highlyrecognizablestatepotteryensemblesuggests a consciousstrategy aimedat creatingmaterial symbols of social hierarchy andclass difference. The decision to encode such differencein culinaryequipment is probably not accidental. Therelationship between the rulers and the people who servedthem was to an important extentboth mediatedandmaterialized throughthe prestation of food anddrinkwithinthe contextof ritualcommensality. In traditional Andeansociety,cooking and the productionof chicha, both for everydayconsumption and for offeringsto the huacasand ancestors,was the primary responsibility of women. In a groundbreaking work on gendersystems in the Andes, Silverblatt(1987) argued that women were integralto the construction of empireand the creationof social classes in the Inka state. As an Andeanpeople, the Inkawell understood the principles of sexualcomplementarity andgenderparallelism thatstructured traditional socialorganization. Inherstudy,Silverblatt(1987:4s108)demonstrates how the Inka,throughthe shrewdmanipulation of Andean orthodoxy, transformedancestral under-
standings of complementary difference intonew systems of social hierarchythroughthe idiom of gender.Costin (1996) builds on these insightsinto the relation betweenInkastatepoliciesandgenderin her analysisof the gendereddivisionof laborin the late precolumbian Andes. Focusingon the organization of textileproduction, she alsodemonstrates how specific statepracticesreinforceda developinggender ideology based on hierarchyratherthan complementarity. By dividingthe universeinto separategendered spheres,the Cuzquenosremainedfaithfulto traditionalAndeanconceptswhile simultaneously incorporatingthe new reality of power (as opposed to prestige)differencesand social classes. The gender parallelismof Inkaideology constructed the queen (coya) as the royaldaughter of theMoon andplaced her at the headof the empire'sfemale subjects,mirroringthe role of the sapa Inka,who as the Sun's son, reignedover the male citizenry(see Pachacuti Yamqui's diagram of Inka cosmology, 1968 [1613]:158). Given the ideology of sexual complementarity, theInkaqueenwas as essentialas theking in the social and political configuration of Tawantinsuyu. According to historic sources, the queen paralleled herhusband the sapa Inkain nearlyevery
22
[Vol. 14, No. 1, 2003
60
@ >
50 40 20
o
zV 30
2
Q 10 F1 F4 F6 F10 F11 F13 F14
E11 leartland * Provinces Inca Forms
Figure 5. Relative proportion of Inka vessel forms in imperial heartland versus provinces.
regard,from the size andbeautyof her palacesand temples,to the ritualsshe performed for specifically female deities, to the feasting of imperialsubjects, to the venerationof her mummifiedremainsafter death(Silverblatt1987:40-66). But women were also essential to the imperial projectin anotherway that involved their simultaneousveneration andimprisonment withinthe state institutionof"chosen women" (aclla). Girls from throughout the empirewere collected as tributeand housedin speciallyconstructed buildingsknownas acllawasi whereintheyperformed laborforthe state until such time as they might be chosen for sacrifice or given by the king as wives to imperialsubjects. As Silverblatt(1987:91-92; see also Cieza 1959:160) notes, the constructionof an acllawasi to house the locally appropriated women was one of the first tasks undertaken by the stateupon conquest of a new territory. Accordingto thechroniclers, theworkperformed by theacllakunaincludedspinning, weaving,andthe preparation of chichaandspecialfoods (Cieza 1959 [1553]:95, 192, 213; Guaman Poma 1936 [1613]:298-300; Murua1946 [1590]:248-255; Silverblatt1987:81-108). It was the productsof these women'slabor,specificallycloth andcornbeer,that underwrote the imperialproject.In bestowingthese most highlyvaluedproducts of the chosen women's hands,the Inkaobligatedand rituallysubordinated statesubjects through thecomplexweb of socialrelationsengendered by thegift (see Mauss1990[1950]). Buttheroleof theaclla, in particular, andwomen, moregenerally,in Inkastatecraft went beyondsimple exploitation.Gose (2000) arguesthatwithinthe boundariesof the state, Inkadominationwas actu-
ally articulated through thefemaleactivitiesof cooking andbrewing.This is most evidentin the context of labortribute andthereciprocal obligations of state hospitality. "Whenthe Inkastatepresenteditself as a benevolentproprietor towardsits conqueredsubjects, offeringthemfood anddrinkin return fortributary labor, it exercised powerin a specifically female form "following the gendered logic of mink'a"5 (Gose 2000:86) It accomplishedthis throughthe mediumof the chosen women, who often servedas the state'shosts (Murra1980:164).In the ideological constructionof state reciprocity,authoritywas communicated in the feminine register.This is not to suggest thatwomen and men necessarilyshared equallyin the materialbenefitsof statelargesse,as indicated in Hastorf's (1991) importantstudy on shifts in consumptionpatternsfollowing imperial incorporation. Rather it underscores thefactthatgenderedroles and ideology were criticallyimportant in the calculationof statestrategiesandpolicy. By placingcooking,cuisine,andculinary artifacts at the centerof this study,we illuminate andengenderanother dimensionof Inkastatecraft. Whilewarfare and conquest were clearly important (and stereotypically masculine)elementsof Inkaimperialism,so too were the female-controlled domainsof cooking,serving,andfeasting.AnalyzingInkastate potteryas culinaryequipment forces us to consider thewaysin whichgender systems, gendered tasks,and genderedobjects were implicatedin the imperial process. Such an approach necessarilycomplicates monolithicevolutionaryexplanationsof the emergence of the state and social classes, and promises more nuancedand contextual understandings of the workingsof precapitalist statesandempires.
Tamara L. Bray]
23
Viewingtheimperial Inkaceramicassemblageas an instrument for the propagation of state ideology also takesus beyondthe standard dichotomyof public versusdomesticspheresof activitiesandtheirrelativeranking. In the use of statepotteryfor culinary quapoliticalpurposes, thelordsandladiesof theInka nobilityappearto have been drawinguponAndean ideologies of genderedactivities, materiallyreferencingthe complementarity andpowerof bothmen andwomenin the construction of empire.The feminineactivitiesof cooking and servingthatour society consignsto therealmof the domesticwas clearly a centraland essentialcomponentof the Inkapolitical economy. The household and the state were intrinsically andindivisiblylinked,while the power of thestatewasbothexpressedandobscured through the dynamicsof gender. As ConkeyandGero(1991) note, thereis potentiallymuchto be gainedfrominquiring into the cultural and ideological meanings embedded in gendered activitiessuchas cooking.Considering the politicalsignificanceof cuisine bringsthe activities of food collection, preparation, processing,distribution, and consumptioninto the broaderarenasof publicand politicallife. As the Inkacase suggests, the domestic and politicalrealmsare not necessarily everywhereand always divided, distinguished, anddifferentially valued.It may actuallybe thatthe principles, behaviors, andideologiesassociatedwith thedomesticspherewereintegrally andinextricably linkedwith the public and politicalrealmsof society throughout much of humanhistory.
References Cited
Acosta,Jose de 1954 [1590] Historianaturalymoral de las indias.Biblioteca de AutoresEspanoles,vol. 73. EdicionesAtlas, Madrid. Adams,Carol go The Sexual Politics of Meat. ContinuumPress, New York. Almeida,Eduardo 1999 Estudios arqueologicos en el PucaraRumicucho. Banco Centraldel Ecuador, Quito. Almeida,Eduardo, and HoguerJara 1984 El Pucara de Rumichucho. MiscelaneaAntropol6gica Ecuatoriana, SerieMonografia1, Museo del Banco Central del Ecuador, Quito. Ambrosetti, Juan 1902 El sepulcrode La Paya utimamente descubierto en los valles Calchaquies,provinciade Salta.Anales del Museo Nacional 8:119-148. 1907-08 Exploraciones arqueol6gicas en la ciudad prehist6ricade La Paya (valle Calchaqui,provinciade Salta). Revistade la Universidad de BuenosAires,Tomo8.
* , .
Anommo
Acknowledgments. I am indebtedto ConstanzaCeruti,Antonio Chavez, Gordon McEwan, and Johan Reinhard for granting me permission to study firsthandthe Inka pottery recovered from theirarchaeologicalinvestigationsin PeruandArgentina. For facilitating access to the other museum collections included in the present study, I gratefully acknowledge the help of AntoniaAyerbeand RoxanaAbril of the Museo Inkain Cuzco; Ruddy Perea Chavez and Key Palacios of the Museo Santuarios Andinos in Arequipa;ErnestoSalazarof the Museo de Jijon y Caamanoat the Catholic University in Quito; Chip Stanish, then of the Field Museum in Chicago; and Bill Wierzbowski of the University Museum of Pennsylvania. I would also like to thankthe manyanonymousreviewerswhose general expertise and critical insights have shaped the final form of this paper,though all errorsand omissions of course remain my own, and Latin American Antiquity coeditor Suzanne Fish for seeing this work throughto publication.
1965 [1573] La cibdadde SantFranciscodel Quito.In Relaciones geograficasde indias, editedby MarcosJimenezde la Espada,pp. 205-232. EdicionesAtlas, Madrid. Antunezde Mayolo, Santiago 1985 La nutricion en el antiguoPeru.FondoEditorial, Banco Centralde Reservadel Peru,Lima. Atienza,Lope de 1931 [1575?] Compendiohistoricaldel estadode los indios del Peru.In La Religiondel Imperiode los Incas, editedby Jacinto Jijon y Caamano.Escuela TipograficaSalesiana, Quito. Bamps,Anatole 1879 Las antiguedades ecuatorianas del Museo Real de Antiguedades de Bruselas. Congreso lnternacional des Americanistas,3, Brussels,tomo II, p.47-ff. Bauer,Brian lsso StateDevelopmentin the CuscoRegion:Archaeological Researchon the Incas in theprovinceof Paruro.Ph.D. dissertation, Universityof Chicago.UniversityMicrofilms, Ann Arbor. Bennett,Wendell,EverettBleiler,and FrankSommer 1948 NorthwestArgentineArchaeology. YalePublications in Anthropology No. 39. Yale UniversityPress,New Haven. Bertonio,Ludovico 1879[1612] VocabulariodelalenguaAymara.LaPaz. Betanzos,Juande 1968 [1551] Suma y narracio'n de los Incas. Biblioteca de AutoresEspanolesVol. 209. EdicionesAtlas, Madrid. Bingham,Hiram 1915 Typesof MachuPicchu Pottery. AmericanAnthropologist 17:257-271. 1979 [1930] MachuPicchu: Citadelof the Incas. HackerArt Books, New York. Blitz, John 1993 Big Pots for Big Shots:Feastingand Storagein a MississippianCommunity. AmericanAntiquity 58:8S96. Boman,Eric 1908 Antiquite's de la Re'gionAndine de la Re'publiqueArgentine et du Desertd 'Atacama. Paris.Reprinted in Spanishby the UniversidadNacional de Jujuy,transl. Delia Gomez Rubio, 1991. Braun,David 1980 Experimental Interpretation of CeramicVessel Use on
24
[Vol. 14, No. 1, 2003
theBasis of Rim andNeck FormalAttributes. In TheNavajo Project: ArchaeologicalInvestigations, editedby Don Fiero et. al., pp.171-231. Museumof Northern ArizonaResearch PaperNo. 11. Flagstaff,Arizona. 1983 Pots as Tools. In ArchaeologicalHammersand Theories,editedbyArthur KeeneandJamesMoore,pp.107-134. AcademicPress,New York. Bray,Tamara L. 1991 Inca Imperialismon the NorthernFrontier. Ph.D. dissertation,StateUniversityof New York,Binghamton. UniversityMicrofilms,Ann Arbor. 1996 Notes on Photo-documentation of Inca pottery in Ecuadorian Collections, July 1996. Manuscripton file, Anthropology Department, WayneStateUniversity, Detroit. 2000 ImperialInca Iconography: The Art of Empirein the Andes. RESAnthropology andAesthetics38:168-178. 2003 MaterializingIdeology: Form,Function,and Style in the ImperialIncaCeramicAssemblage.Manuscript on file, Anthropology Department, WayneStateUniversity, Detroit. Bregante,Odilla 1926 Ensayo de clasificacion de la ceramica del Noroeste Argentina.Estrada y Cfa,BuenosAires. Brumfiel,Elizabeth 1991 Weavingand Cooking:Women'sProductionin Aztec Mexico. In Engendering Archaeology,editedby JoanGero and Margaret Conkey,pp. 224-253. Blackwell,Oxford. Calderari, Maria,andVeronica Williams 1991 Re-evaluacionde los estilos ceramicosincaicos en el noroesteArgentino.RevistaComechingonia 9:75-95. Cieza de Le6n, Pedro 1962 [1553] La cronica del Peru. Primeraparte. Editorial Espasa-Caspe, Madrid. 1959 [1553] TheIncas of PedroCiezade Leon.Translated by Harriet de Onis and editedby VictorWolfgangvon Hagen. Universityof OklahomaPress,Norman. Cobo, Bernabe 1964 [1653] Historiadel NuevoMundo. BibliotecadeAutores Espanoles,Tomo 91-92. EdicionesAtlas, Madrid. Coe, Sophie 1994 America'sFirst Cuisines.Universityof TexasPress, Austin. Colton,Harold,andLyndonHargrave 1937 Handbook of Northern Arizona Pottery Wares. Museum of NorthernArizona Bulletin No. 11. Flagstaff, Arizona. Conkey,Margaret, andJoanGero 1991 Tensions, Pluralities,and EngenderingArchaeology: An Introduction to Womenand Prehistory. In Engendering Archaeology, editedby JoanGeroandMargaret Conkey,pp. 3-30. Blackwell,Oxford. Costin, Cathy 1986 From Chiefdomto EmpireState: CeramicEconomy amongthePrehispanicWanka of HighlandPeru.Ph.D. dissertation, Universityof California, Los Angeles. University Microfilms,Ann Arbor. 1996 Exploringthe RelationshipbetweenGenderand Craft in Complex Societies: Methodological and Theoretical Issues of GenderAttribution. In Genderand Archaeology, editedby RitaWright,pp. 111-142. Universityof PennsylvaniaPress,Philadelphia. Costin,Cathy,andTimothyEarle 1989 Status Distinction and Legitimation of Power as Reflectedin ChangingPatterns of Consumption in LatePrehispanicPeru.AmericanAntiquity 54:691-714. Costin,Cathy,and Melissa Hagstrum 1995 Standardization, LaborInvestment, Skill, andtheOrga-
nizationof CeramicProduction in Late Prehispanic HighlandPeru.AmericanAntiquity 60:619-639. Counihan, Carole 1999 TheAnthropology of Food and Body. Routledge,New York. D'Altroy,Terence 1981 EmpireGrowthand Consolidation: the XauxaRegion of PeruundertheIncas.Ph.D.dissertation, University of California,Los Angeles. UniversityMicrofilms,Ann Arbor. 2001 State CeramicAssemblage. In Empireand Domestic Economy,edited by TerenceD'Altroy and ChristineHastorf,pp. 242-264. KluwerAcademicPress,New York. D'Altroy,Terence,and RonaldBishop 1990 The ProvincialOrganization of InkaCeramicProduction.AmericanAntiquity 55:120-137. D'Altroy,Terence,andChristineHastorf 1984 TheDistribution andContents of IncaStateStorehouses in the Xauxa Region of Peru. American Antiquity 49:334-339. D'Altroy,Terence,Ana MarfaLorandi,andVeronica Williams 1994 Producciony uso de ceramicaen la economiapolitica inka. In Tecnologfay organizacio'n de la produccion de cera'mica prehispa'nica en los Andes, edited by Izumi Shimada,pp.395u141. FondoEditorial de la PontificaUniversidadCatolicadel Peru,Lima. Debenedetti,Salvador 1917 Investigaciones arqueologicasen los vallespreandinos de la Provinciade SanJuan.Facultad de Filosofiay Letras, Publicacionde la Seccion AntropolbgicaNo. 15, Buenos Aires. Dietler,Michael 1990 Drivenby Drink:The Role of Drinkingin the Political Economy and the Case of EarlyIronAge France.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology9:352406. 1996 Feasts and CommensalPolitics in the Political Economy. In Food and the StatusQuest,editedby Polly Wiessner andWulf Shieffenhovel,pp. 65-114. Berghahn Books, Providence,RhodeIsland. 1997 The Iron Age in MediterraneanFrance: Colonial Encounters, Entanglements, and Transformations. Journal of World Prehistory11:269-358. 1998 Consumption,Agency, andCultural Entanglement: TheoreticalImplications of a Mediterranean ColonialEncounter. In Studiesin CultureContact:Interaction, CultureChange, and Archaeology,edited by James Cusick, pp. 288-315. Centerfor ArchaeologicalInvestigation, OccasionalPaper No. 25. Universityof SouthernIllinois,Carbondale. Dorsey,George 1901 Archaeological Investigations on theIslandof LaPlata, Ecuador.Field ColumbianMuseum PublicationNo. 56, Anthropological SeriesVol. II, No. 5, Chicago. Douglas, Mary 1966 Purityand Danger.Routledge,London. 1975 Decipheringa Meal. In ImplicitMeanings:Essays in Anthropology, editedby MaryDouglas,pp.249-275. Routledge, London. 1984 Food in the Social Order.Sage, New York. Eaton,George 1916 The Collectionof OsteologicalMaterials from Machu Picchu. Memoirsof the Connecticut Academyof Arts and Sciences 5:3-96. Estrella,Eduardo 1988 Elpan deAme'rica: Etnohistoria de los alimentosaborigines en el Ecuador.EdicionesAbya-Yala,Quito. Fernandez Baca, Jenero 1971 Motivosde ornamentacion de la ceramicainca-Cuzeo.
Tamara L. Bray]
25
Libreria Studium,Lima. Figueroa,Gaston 1958 Ceramica de los sitios arqueologicos PiedraNumerada y Cerroel Plomo. In HallazgosArqueologicosen el Cerro Plomo,editedbyAntonioMedina Roja.Arqueologia Chilena 4:43-72. Fock, Nils 1961 InkaImperialismin NorthwestArgentina,and Chaco burialforms.Folk3:67-90. Fortes,Meyers,and Sally Fortes 1936 Food in the Domestic Economyof the Tallensi.Africa 9:237-276. Franco,Jose M., andLuis Llanos 1940 Trabajos arqueologicos en el Departamento del Cusco: Sajsawaman. Revistadel Museo Nacional 9(1):22-31. Garcilaso de la Vega,el Inca 1941-1946 [1609] Comentariosreales de los incas. Libreria e Imprenta Gil, Lima. Gero,Joan 1990 Pottery,Power and Parties!at Queyash,Peru.Archaeology Magazine,March:52-55. 1992 Feasts and Females: Gender Ideology and Political Meals in the Andes. Norwegian Archaeological Review 25:1-16. Gomez Huaman, Nilo 1966 Importancia social de la chicha como bebidapopular en Huamanga.Wamani 1(1):33-57. GonzalezHolguin,Diego 1952 [1608] Vocabulario de la lenguageneralde todo el Peru' llamadalengua Qquichuao del inca. Institutode Historia, Universidad NacionalMayorde San Marcos,Lima. Goody,Jack 1982 Cooking, Cuisine, and Class. CambridgeUniversity Press,London. Gose, Peter 2000 The State as a ChosenWoman:Brideserviceand the Feedingof Tributaries in theInkaEmpire. American Anthropologist 102:84-97. Graves-Brown, Paul(editor) 2000 Matter,Materiality,and Modern Culture.Routledge, New York. GuamanPoma de Ayala,Felipe 1936 [1613] Nuevavoronicay buengobierno.Institut de Ethnologie, Paris. Guardia Mayorga,Cesar 1980 Diccionario:Kewsha-Castellano. EdicionesPopulares los Andes, Lima. Gummerman, George 1991 Subsistence and Complex Societies: Diet Between Diverse Socio-EconomicGroupsat Pacatnamu.Ph.D. dissertation, Universityof California, Los Angeles. University Microfilms,Ann Arbor. 1997 Food and ComplexSocieties. Journalof Archaeological Methodand Theory4(2):105-139. Hagstrum, Melissa 1989 TechnologicalContinuity and Change: CeramicEthnoarchaeologyin the PeruvianAndes. Ph.D. dissertation, Universityof California,Los Angeles. UniversityMicrofilms, Ann Arbor. Hally,David 1986 The Identificationof Vessel Function:A Case Study fromNorthwestGeorgia.American Antiquity 51 :267-295. Hastorf,Christine 1990 The Effectof the InkaStateon SausaAgricultural Production and Crop Consumption. American Antiquity 55:262-290.
1991 Gender, Space,andFoodin Prehistory. InEngendering Archaeology, editedbyJ. GeroandM. Conkey, pp. 132-159. Blackwell,Oxford. 1993 Agriculture and the OnsetofPoliticalInequalityBefore the Inka.Cambridge UniversityPress,Cambridge. Hastorf,Christine, and Sissel Johannessen 1993 Pre-Hispanic PoliticalChangeand the Role of Maize in the CentralAndes of Peru. AmericanAnthropologist 95:115-138. Hayden,Brian 1996 Feasting in Prehistoricand TraditionalSocieties. In FoodandtheStatusQuest,editedby PollyWiessner andWulf Shieffenhovel, pp. 23-64. BerghahnBooks, Providence, RhodeIsland. Hebdige,Dick 1979 Subsultures: TheMeaningof Style.Methuen,London. Hodder,Ian 1982a Theoretical Archaeology: A Reactionary View.InSymbolic and Structural Archaeology, editedby IanHodder, pp. 1-16 Cambridge UniversityPress,Cambridge. 1982b SymbolsinAction Cambridge University Press,Cambridge. 1982c ThePresentPast Pica Press,New York. Hodder,Ian (editor) 1987 TheArchaeologyof Contextual Meaning. Cambridge UniversityPress,Cambridge Hyslop,John 1976 An ArchaeologicalInvestigationof the Lupaca Kingdom and Its Origins.Ph.D. dissertation, ColumbiaUniversity,New York.UniversityMicrofilms,Ann Arbor. 1979 El area Lupaca bajo el dominio incaico: un reconocimiento arqueologico. Historica3(1):3-79. 1985 Inkawasi: The New Cuzeo. British Archaeological Reports,International Series No. 234. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Idrovo,Jaime 2000 Tomebamba: arqueologia e historia de unaciudadimperial. Edicionesdel Banco Centraldel Ecuador, Cuenca. Jijony Caamano, Jacinto 1914 Contribucion al conocimientode los aborfgenesde la Provinciade Imbabura. Blas y Cia, Madrid. Jijony Caamano, Jacinto,and ManuelLarrea 1918 Un cementario incasicoen Quitoy notas acercade los incasenel Ecuador. Imprenta de laUniversidad Central, Quito. Johannessen, Sissel 1993 Food, Dishes, andSociety in the MississippiValley.In Foragingand Fartning in the EasternWoodlands, editedby Margaret Scarry,pp. 182-205. UniversityPressof Florida, Gainesville. Jones,Julie 1964 Art of Empire:TheInca of Peru.Museumof Primitive Art,New York. Julien,Catherine 1983 Hatunqolla: A Vifew of IncaRulefromtheLakeTiticaca Region.Universityof California Publications in Anthropology Vol. 15. Universityof California Press,Berkeley. Kauffmann Doig, Federico 1983 Manualde ArqueologfaPeruana.Ediciones,Lima. Kroeber, Alfred 1952 GreatArt Styles of Ancient South America. In The Natureof Culture,editedby Alfred Kroeber, pp. 289-296. Universityof ChicagoPress,Chicago. Levi-Strauss, Claude 1966 The Culinary Triangle.PartisanReview33:586-95. 1968 The Origin of Table Manners. English trans. 1988. Harper andRow, New York.
26
[Vol. 14, No. 1, 2003
1970 TheRawand the Cooked.Harper andRow, New York. Linton,Ralph 1944 NorthAmericanCookingPots.American Anthropologist 9:369-380. Lischka,Joseph 1978 A Functional Analysis of Middle Classic Ceramicsat Kaminaljuyu. In Ne Ceramics of Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala, editedby RonaldWetherington, pp.223-278. Pennsylvania StateUniversityPress,UniversityPark. Llanos,Luis 1936 Informe sobre Ollantaytambo. Revista del Museo Nacional 5(2):123-156. Mauss,Marcel 1990 [1950] Ne Gift.W.W.Norton,New York. McC>cken,Grant 1988 Clothingas Language: An ObjectLesson in the Study of the ExpressiveProperties of Material Culture. In Culture and Consumption, editedby GrantMcCracken, pp. 57-70. IndianaUniversityPress,Bloomington. McEwan, Colin, and MariaIsabel Silva 1989 Que fueron a hacer los incas en la costa central del Ecuador? In Relacionesinterculturales en el area ecucatorial del Paefficodurantela epoca precolombina,editedby JeanFrancois Bouchard andMercedes Guinea,pp.163-185. Proceedingsof ffie 46th International Congressof Americanists, Amsterdam.BAR InternationalSeries No. 503. OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford. Medina Roias,Antonio 1958 Hallazgos arqueologicosen el Cerro Plomo. Arqueologia Chilena4:43-72. Menzel, Doroffiy 1966 Potteryof Chincha.Nawpa Pacha 4:77-153. 1971 Estudiosarqueologicos en los vallesde Ica, Pisco, Chincha, y Canete.Arqueologiay Sociedad,No. 6. 1976 PotteryStyleand SocietyinAncientPeru. Universityof CaliforniaPress,Berkeley. Meyers, Albert 1975 Algunos problemasen la clasificacion del estilo incacio. Pumapunku 8:7-25. 1976 Die Inkaen Ekuador. BonnerAmerikanistiche Studien No. 8, Bonn. Spanishtranslation published1998, Los inkas en el Ecuador:ana'lisis de los restosmateriales,Abya-Yala, Quito. Mintz, Sydney 1985 Sweetnessand Power.VikingPress,New York. Moore, JerryD. 1989 PrehispanicBeer in Coastal Peru. AmericanAnthropologist 91 :682-695. Morris, Craig 1967 Storagein Tawantinsuyu. Ph.D.dissertation, University of Chicago.UniversityMicrofilms,Ann Arbor. 1979 MaizeBeer in the Economics,Politics, andReligionof the Inka Empire.In Fertnented Food Beverages,edited by CliffordGastineauet al., pp. 21-35. Academic Press,New York. 1982 The Infrastructure of InkaControlin the Peruvian Central Highlands.In The Inca and Aztec States, 140a1800, editedby GeorgeCollieretal.,pp.153-171. AcademicPress, New York. 1995 Symbols to Power: Symbols and Media in the Inka State.In Style,Society,and Power,editedby ChrisCarrand Jill Neitzel, pp. 419-433. PlenumPress,New York. Morris, Craig,andDonaldThompson 1985HuanacoPampa.Thamesand Hudson, London. Moseley, Michael 1992The Incas and TheirAncestors.Thames and Hudson, London.
Mostny,Grete 1955 Un cementarioincaico en Chile central. Boletfn del Museo Nacional de HistoriaNatural23:17-41. Murra, JohnV. 1960 Rite andCropin the IncaState.In Culture and History, edited by Stanley Diamond,pp. 393-407. ColumbiaUniversityPress,New York. 1975 El controlverticalde un maximo de pisos en la economiade las sociedadesandinas.In ecologicos Formaciones economicasy politicas del mundoandino, edited by John Murra, pp.59-115. Institutode EstudiosPeruanos,Lima. 1980 [1955] Economic Organization of the Inka State. Jai Press,Greenwich,Connecticut. Murua, Martinde 1946 [1590] Historiageneraldel Peru', origeny descendencia de los incas... BibliotecaAmericana Vetus,Madrid. 1962 Historia Generaldel Peru, Origeny Descendenciade los Incas. BibliotecaAmericana Vetus,Madrid. National ResearchCouncil 1989 Lost Crops of the Incas: Little-Known Plants of the Andes with Promisefor Worldwide Cultivation.National AcademyPress,Washington, D.C. Nelson, Sarah 2003 FeastingtheAncestorsin ShangChina. In ThePolitics andArchaeologyof Food and Feastingin Early Statesand Empires,edited by Tamara Bray.KluwerAcademicPress, New York,in press. Outes, Felix 1907 Alfarerias del noroesteArgentina Analesdel Museode la Plata, Tomo1. Universidad de la Plata,BuenosAires. Pachacuti Yamqui,Joande Santacruz 1968 [1613] Relacionde antiguedades deste reynodel Peru'. Bibliotecade AutoresEspanoles,Vol 209. Editorial Atlas, Madrid. Pardo, Luis 1939 Arte Peruano: Clasificacionde la ceramicaCuzquena (epocaincaica).Revistadel InstitutoArqueologico del Cuzeo 4(6-7):3-27. 1957 Historiay arqueologiadel Cuzeo,Tomo II. Ediciones,
Cuzco.
1959 InformesobreunaTumbaIncaica.Revista del Museoe InstitutoArqueologico (UniversidadNacional de Cuzco) 18:101-114. Parssinen, Martti,andAri Siiriainen 1997 Inka-Style Ceramics and Their ChronologicalRelationshipto the Inka Expansionin the Southern Lake TiticacaArea (Bolivia).LatinAmericanAntiquity 8:255-271. Pauketat, Timothy,andTim Emerson 1991 The Ideology of Authorityand the Power of the Pot. American Anthropologist 93-919-941. Paz Ponce de Leon, Sanchode 1965[1582] Relaciony descripcionde los pueblosdel Partidode Otavalo. InRelacionesGeograficas de Indias,edited by MarcosJimenezde la Espada,pp. 233-241. Ediciones Atlas, Madrid. Perea Chavez,Ruddy 2001 Analisis morfologicoy comparativo del contextode la ceramicaen las ofrendasde Alta Montana. Manuscript on file, Museo Santuarios Andinos,Arequipa,Peru. Pollock, Susan 2003 Feasts,Funerals andFastFood in EarlyMesopotamian States.In ThePolitics andArchaeologyof Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires,edited by TamaraBray. KluwerAcademicPress,New York,in press. Potter, JamesM. 2000Pots, Parties,and Politics: Communal Feastingin the AmericanSouthwest.American Antiquity 65:471-492.
Tamara L. Bray]
27
Reinhard, Johan,andConstanzaCeruti 2000 Investigaciones arqueologicas en el Volcan Llullaillaco. EdicionesUniversidad Catolicade Salta,Argentina. Richards, Audrey 1932 HungerandWork in a SavageTribe. Methuen,London. 1939 Land,Labour, andDiet inNorthern Rhodesia.Methuen, London. RiveraDorado,Miguel 1976 La Ceramicainca de Chinchero. In Arqueologfade Chinchero:Ceramicay otros materiales, Vol.2, edited by JoseAlcinaFranch, pp.27-90. Memoriasde la MisionCientificaEspanolaen Hispanoamerica, Madrid. RodriguezDoCampo,Diego 1965 [1650] Descripciony relaci6ndel estado eclesiastico del Obispado de San Francisco de Quito. In Relaciones geograficas de Indias, edited by Marcos Jimenez de la Espada,Tomo 3:3-78. EdicionesAtlas, Madrid. Rostworow ski, Mariade Diez Canseco 1977 Etniay Sociedad.Instituto de EstudiosPeruanos, Lima. Rowe, JohnH. 1944 An Introduction to theArchaeology of Cuzoo.Papersof the PeabodyMuseum of AmericanArchaeologyand Ethnology Vol. 27, No. 2. Harvard University,Cambridge. 1946 Inca Cultureat the Time of the SpanishConquest.In Handbookof SouthAmerican Indians,editedby JulianSteward,pp. 183-330. Bureauof AmericanEthnology,Bulletin No. 143, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1982 Inca Policies and Institutions Relatingto the Cultural Unificationof the Empire.In The Inca and Aztec States, 1400 1800, editedby GeorgeCollier,RenatoRosaldo,and JohnWirth,pp. 93-118. AcademicPress,New York. Ryden,Styg 1947 Archaeological Researchesin theHighlandsof Bolivia. ElandersBoktryckeri Aktiebolag,Gottenberg. SachunCedeno,MariaTeresa 2001 La chichaen Moche. BoletEn de Lima 124:8-11. SalazarVillasante,Juande 1965 [1565?] Relaciongeneralde las poblacionesEspanoles del Peru.InRelacionesgeograficasde indias,editedby Marcos Jimenezde la Espada,Tomo 1, pp. 121-146. Ediciones Atlas, Madrid. Salomon,Frank 1986 NativeLordsof Quitoin theAgeof theIncas.Cambridge UniversityPress,New York. Sandefur, Elsie 1988 AndeanZooarchaeology:Animal Use andtheInkaConquestof the UpperMantaroValley. Ph.D. dissertation, Universityof California,Los Angelos. UniversityMicrofilms, Ann Arbor. 2001 AnimalHusbandry andMeatConsumption. In Empire and Domestic Economy,edited by TerenceD'Altroy and ChristineHastorf,pp. 179-202. KluwerAcademic Press, New York. Sandweiss,Daniel 1992 TheArchaeology of Chincha Fisherman: Specialization and Statusin InkaPeru.CarnegieMuseumof NaturalHistoryBulletin29. Pittsburgh, PA. Sawyer,Alan 1966 Ancient Peruvian Ceramics, The Nathan Cummings Collection.Metropolitan Museumof Art,New York. Schmidt,Max 1929 Kunste Kulturvon Peru.Propylaen-Verlag, Berlin. Sempe de Gomes Llanes,MariaCarlotta 1986 Analisis del estilo inca: nuevos enfoques. Comechingonia 4:53-61. Shanks,Michael,andChristopher Tilley (editors)
1987 ReconstructingArchaeology. CambridgeUniversity Press,Cambridge. Silverblatt, Irene 1987 Moon, Sun, and Witches:Gender Ideologies in Inca and ColonialPeru.Princeton UniversityPress,New Jersey. Skibo, James,andMichaelSchiffer 1995 The Clay Cooking Pot: An Explorationof Women's Technology.In ExpandingArchaeology,edited by James Skibo, WilliamWalker,andAxel Nielsen, pp. 8s91. Universityof UtahPress,Salt LakeCity. Smith,Marion 1985 Toward anEconomicInterpretation of Ceramics: Relating Vessel Size and Shapeto Use. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics,edited by Ben Nelson, pp. 254-309. Southern IllinoisUniversityPress,Carbondale. Stehberg,Ruben 1976 La fortaleza Chena y su relacion con la ocupacion incaica de Chile central.Museo Nacionalde HistoriaNatural,PublicacionOcasional,No. 23. Stubel,Alphons,andWilhelmReiss 1889 Kultur undIndustrie Sudamerikanischer Volker. Berlin. Towle,Margaret 1961 TheEthnobotany of Pre-Columbian Peru.VikingPublicationsinAnthropology No.30. Wenner-Gren Foundation, New York. Tschopik,Harry 1950 AnAndeanCeramicTradition in Historical Perspective. American Antiquity15:196-218. Tschopik,Marion 1946 Some Notes on the Archaeologyof the Department of Puno. Papersof the PeabodyMuseumof American Archaeology and EthnologyVol. 27, No. 3. HarvardUniversity, Cambridge. Uhle, Max 1903 Pachacamac:Reportof the WilliamPepperPeruvian Expeditionof 1896. Universityof Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 1924a Notes on IcaValley.University of CaliforniaPublications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 21(3):121-132. 1924b Explorations atChincha.University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 21(2):57-94. Urton,Gary 1999 Inca Myths.Universityof TexasPress,Austin. Valcarcel, Luis 1934 Los trabajosarqueologicos del Cusco, Sajsawaman redescubierto, II. Revista del Museo Nacional 3:3-36, 211-233. 1935 Los trabajosarqueologicos en el Departamentodel Cusco,Sajsawaman redescubierto, m-Iv. Revista delMuseo Nacional 4:1-24, 161-203. Valencia,Alfredo 1970 Dos tumbasde Saqsaywaman. RevistaSaqsaywaman 1:173-177. 1975 Alfareria de Saqsaywaman. ArteyArqueologfa.Academia Nacional del Cienciasde Bolivia 3-4:217-225. Vokral, Edita 1991 Qoni-Chiri:la organizacionde la cocina y estructuras simbolicasen el altiplanodel Peru.Abya-Yala, Quito. von Rosen, Eric 1924 A PopularAccount of ArchaeologicalResearchduring the Swedish Chaco-CoridilleraExpedition, 1901-1902. Stockholm. Weismantel, Mary 1988 Food, Gender,and Povertyin the EcuadorianAndes.

ArchaeologyInka Pottery As Culinary Equipment Food, Feasting, and Gender in Imperial State DesignAuthor(s) Tamara L. Bray

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ArchaeologyInka Pottery As Culinary Equipment Food, Feasting, and Gender in Imperial State DesignAuthor(s) Tamara L. Bray

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Society for American Archaeology

INKA POTTERY AS CULINARY EQUIPMENT: FOOD,FEASTING,AND GENDERIN IMPERIALSTATEDESIGN

[Vol. 14, No. 1, 2003

INKA POTTERYAS CULINARYEQUIPMENT

[Vol. 14, No. 1, 2003

INKA POTTERY AS CULINARY EQUIPMENT

[Vol. 14, No. 1, 2003

INKA POTTERY AS CULINARYEQUIPMENT

[Vol. 14, No. 1, 2003

INKA POTTERY AS CULINARYEQUIPMENT

2003 1, No. 14, [Vol.

ANTIQUITY AMERICAN LATIN

INKA POTTERYAS CULINARYEQUIPMENT

(3 Face neck jar Type 131z, d 3ug --Puina ---

4 Long-neeki bottle Type 13h Jug l:3eposlto Atsana Puchuela Shape D

7 2 One-handli vessel ----hjchi Shape C

Inca jar Type 1 Aryballus Makas Matas Shape A

Long-necked vase ---Florere Florero Tticachuranas Shape fiI

Short-necked bottle Type 13a Jug Deposit Aisana Puchuela ---

Two-iMled vessel Type 6 Pelike jug Jarron

NIeyers (l976) Bingham (l915) Fernandez

C()nical-based olla Wide-mouffi aryballus hqui Ulpu Shape 13

Roundbased olla ppes 7-l0

Two-handled bowl Type 4 l:)eep dish Qocha Manca Shape F

Tnv}-handled plate Type 4d -------

Shallow plate/boutl Types ll & 12 l)rinking ladle C:huappucu lucu Shape G

Cup Type lSb Q'em Q8ere Shape I

Ollas cyliSricos Manca ---

Pardo (1957) Rowe

Figure 2. Cross-correlationof terms used to describe Inka vessel folms.

.:\ ;D, AS' rr 1

2> *, < '

Xbeh 1t X Ch, ss@ -

[Vol.14, No. 1, 2003

INKA POTTERY AS CULINARY EQUIPMENT

[Vol. 14, No. 1, 2003

INKA POTTERY AS CULINARYEQUIPMENT

Serving/Eating Solids Liquid

Storage Wet Dry

[Vol. 14, No. 1, 2003

INKA POTTERY AS CULINARY EQUIPMENT

Saqsaywaman Ollantaytambo Machu Picchu Choquepukio HeartlandSub-Total Cuntisuyu (west/SW)

- 9 30 204 271 1 1 1 2 6 14 39 224 296

14 Total 10 165 1 47 12 1,441 7 22 30 1,674

[Vol. 14, No. 1, 2003

Table 5. Presence/AbsenceChartof InkaVessel Forms at Different Sites. Site Name Saqsaywaman

INKA POTTERYAS CULINARYEQUIPMENT

[Vol. 14, No. 1, 2003

Q 10 F1 F4 F6 F10 F11 F13 F14

E11 leartland * Provinces Inca Forms

INKA POTTERY AS CULINARYEQUIPMENT

[Vol. 14, No. 1, 2003

INKA POTTERY AS CULINARYEQUIPMENT

[Vol. 14, No. 1, 2003

INKA POTTERY AS CULINARY EQUIPMENT

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen