MOCHE SOCIOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS AND THE

ROLE OF LICAPA II, CHICAMA VALLEY, PERU

Michele L. Koons

Fieldwork at the Moche (A.D. 250–900) site of Licapa II in the Chicama Valley, Peru, has resulted in a more nuanced history
of the changing sociopolitical relationships among Moche centers. The distinct archaeological signatures of Moche society,
namely ceramics and huacas (monumental structures), have been interpreted as emblematic of an ethnic and political reality
and as evidence for a state. Nonetheless, scholars are now disentangling these assumptions, arguing that Moche society
was a complex mosaic of interacting settlements. My research at Licapa II combined surface collection, geophysical surveys,
excavation, and chronometric analysis to better understand this site within the context of broader Moche sociopolitical
dynamics. Ceramic and architectural evidence from Licapa II indicates that a shift in ideological organization occurred
around A.D. 650. This shift reflects changes seen throughout the Moche world. Licapa II is located on the border of the
northern and southern regions of Moche cultural development, and ceramic styles indicate that many of the interactions
between these regions could have occurred here. By comparing these findings to evidence of sociopolitical reorganization
seen elsewhere, research from Licapa II contributes to a non-state and decentralized view of the sociopolitical structure of
Moche society.

El trabajo de campo llevado a cabo en el sitio Moche (250-900 d.C.) de Licapa II, ubicado en el valle de Chicama, Perú, nos
presenta una historia más matizada de las relaciones sociopolíticas entre los centros Moche y los cambios de estos a través
del tiempo. Las características arqueológicas distintivas Moche, es decir, la cerámica y las huacas (edificios monumentales
hechos de adobe), han sido interpretadas como emblemáticas de una realidad étnica y política, y definidas como evidencia de
un estado. Sin embargo, los investigadores están ahora evaluando estas hipótesis, argumentando que la sociedad Moche pudo
haber sido un mosaico complejo de asentamientos de interacción. La investigación realizada en Licapa II combina la recolección
superficial, los estudios geofísicos, la excavación y el análisis cronológico para entender mejor el sitio dentro de un contexto

T
más amplio de la dinámica sociopolítica Moche. La evidencia cerámica y arquitectónica de Licapa II indica que alrededor
del 650 d.C. se produjo un cambio en la organización ideológica, que refleja los cambios vistos en todo el mundo Moche.
Licapa II está situado en la frontera de las regiones norte y sur Moches y los estilos cerámicos indican que gran parte de las
interacciones entre las regiones podrían haber ocurrido allí. Al comparar estos resultados con las pruebas de reorganización
sociopolítica en zonas fronterizas, la investigación en Licapa II contribuye a una visión no-estatal y descentralizada de la
estructura sociopolítica de la sociedad Moche.

he Moche civilization (A.D. 250–900) is
characterized by elaborately decorated
temple complexes, wealthy elite burials,
and exquisite ceramics found over 10 valleys in
the desert on the north coast of Peru (Figure 1;
Bawden 1996; Quilter 2010). The Moche have
long been considered a single archaeological cul-
ture and the first state-level society in South
America (Bourget, cited in Atwood 2010; Stanish
2001). Over the last 15 years, Luis Jaime Castillo
and Santiago Uceda (2008) have established that
Moche was not a single, homogeneous entity.
Michele L. Koons 䡲 Department of Anthropology, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 2001 Colorado Blvd., Denver,
CO 80205 (Michele.Koons@dmns.org)
Rather, it consisted of at least two major cultural
regions—the northern region and the southern
region—separated by the large Pampa de Paiján
desert (Figure 1). Differences in ceramic and ar-
chitectural styles between the two regions have
led scholars to contend that the northern region
was composed of a series of independent polities
(Castillo and Donnan 1994; Castillo and Uceda
2008; Swenson 2004). Research in the southern
region is starting to indicate a similar pattern, but
it has not reached the same level of nuance as re-
search in the north.

Latin American Antiquity 26(4), 2015, pp. 473–492

Copyright © 2015 by the Society for American Archaeology
DOI: 10.7183/1045-6635.26.4.473

473
474 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 26, No. 4, 2015

Figure 1. Map of the north coast of Peru showing the Moche sites mentioned in the text.

The research presented here on Licapa II chal-
lenges the Moche state model through an exami-
nation of a midsized ceremonial center in a critical
location between the northern and southern
Moche regions. By working within the framework
that similarities and differences in material culture
are indicative of site affiliations (Plog 1976; Smith
2003), this study compares architecture and ce-
ramics from Licapa II to patterns seen at other
Moche sites in both regions. This work tests the
validity of the boundary drawn between the north-
ern and southern Moche regions and challenges
current understandings of Moche political orga-
nization. Based on this comparative research and
new radiocarbon dates from Licapa II, I argue
that people residing in both the northern and
southern Moche regions were organized into a
series of independent and diverse polities that in-
teracted in dynamic ways throughout the duration
of Moche presence in Peru.
Koons] MOCHE SOCIOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS AND THE ROLE OF LICAPA II
When compared to surrounding sites, the
analysis of material culture obtained through sur-
face collection, geophysical surveys, excavation,
and radiocarbon dating at Licapa II reveals that a
major ideological reorganization occurred
throughout the Moche world sometime around
A.D. 600–650. Specifically, this reorganization
is reflected in a change in ceramic styles and ar-
chitectural patterns seen at Licapa II that has also
been identified at larger Moche centers to the
north and south. The earlier phase consisted of
highly visible monuments where elite-driven cer-
emonies focused on shared religious traditions.
The later phase had more intimate monumental
spaces with dedicated public areas for large-scale
feasting events (cf. Bawden 1977; Uceda and
Tufinio 2003).
In this paper, I compare Licapa II to two large
southern Moche sites: Huacas de Moche, located
in the Moche Valley, and El Brujo, in the Chicama
Valley (Figure 1). Huacas de Moche consists of
Huaca de la Luna, Huaca del Sol, and a large
“urban zone” or residential area between the hua-
cas (monumental structures). Previous studies at
the Huaca de la Luna maintain that the Huacas
de Moche was the capital of the southern Moche
state and the locus from which Moche sociopo-
litical influence spread to other valleys (Uceda
2010). The El Brujo complex is located on the
northern side of the mouth of the Chicama River,
adjacent to the coast. The site consists of Huaca
Cao Viejo and Huaca Cortada. Residential areas
and smaller buildings lie between and to the north
and south of the main huacas (Mujica 2007). No-
tably, the mural and architectural program of the
final phase of Huaca Cao Viejo is identical to the
final phase of Huaca de la Luna. Because of the
large size and architectural similarities of these
two centers and the abundance of finely decorated
Moche ceramics in these valleys, the Moche and
Chicama valleys are considered the heartland of
the Moche sphere of influence (Larco 1945).
Licapa II is a smaller huaca center in this
heartland, and it displays many of the architectural
characteristics of the southern centers of El Brujo
and Huacas de Moche. The site is located in the
northern Chicama Valley, on the border of the
northern and southern regions. The most signifi-
cant archaeological findings from this site are the
multiple ceramic styles, specifically those asso-
475
ciated with both the southern (Moche IV and V)
and northern region (Late Moche).
To date, few studies of the Moche archaeolog-
ical culture have been conducted with the aim of
(1) examining the changing dynamics of Moche
settlements through time, (2) uncovering the re-
lationships between the traditionally agreed upon
northern and southern regions, and (3) discussing
the role of differently sized settlements, specifi-
cally in the Moche heartland. By addressing these
three aims through multiple archaeological meth-
ods, this research contributes to understanding
how Moche sociopolitical relationships crosscut
physical boundaries and changed through time.
Licapa II presents an ideal test site for inves-
tigating these aims because: it was occupied for
the majority of Moche presence on the north
coast1; it is located in the northern Chicama Val-
ley, on the so-called border between the northern
and southern Moche regions; and it is the first
Moche ceremonial site of its size and kind to be
investigated in the heartland (see Giersz [2011]
and Makowski [1994, 2010] for examples of other
midsized centers outside the Moche heartland).
Ceramic and Architectural Style
Moche is broadly defined as a series of religious
traditions manifest in a shared suite of symbols in
the cultural products of people who lived along
the north coast of Peru between A.D. 250 and A.D.
900 (Bawden 1996; Donnan 2010; Quilter 2010).
These shared religious traditions have been linked
to a political dimension that led to the spread of
the Moche ideology. Early scholars maintained
that the mechanism of this spread was warfare and
conquest (Larco 1945). They often disregarded
other factors such as access to resources, trade
routes and partners, kinship ties, and marriage al-
liances. This political dimension is relevant to un-
derstanding how power was distributed, reinforced,
legitimized, and practiced in the Moche world and
is critical for elucidating Moche authority and in-
terregional interactions. A close comparison of ma-
terial remains, including ceramics and architectural
structures such as huacas with good chronological
control, reveals the dynamism of Moche geopoli-
tics over time and space.
Ceramic styles convey messages that can be
moved across the landscape and express ideas in-
476 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
tegral to the identity of a group (Hegmon 1992).
People move physical objects from place to place
through trade, exchange, and migration. Addition-
ally, aesthetic design can be emulated away from
the place of origin as a way to display the adoption
of a particular ideology. For example, elsewhere
I show that Moche IV vessels were made with
clays from numerous valleys but were manufac-
tured in the same form and with similar surface
decorations (Koons 2015). Christopher Donnan
and Donna McClelland (1999) have identified a
number of different artists on the basis of the dif-
ferent characteristics seen in the details of Moche
fineline art. It is very possible that these skilled
artists traveled around the Moche world to paint
vessels (see Houston 2015; Sillar 2000). The adop-
tion or rejection of particular ceramic aesthetics,
regardless of the clays used, often signifies group
inclusion and exclusion (Quilter 2010).
Unlike ceramics, huaca architecture is immo-
bile, but the façades convey messages of ideo-
logical affiliations. The visible exterior form and
painted façade can look the same as other huacas,
but any number of internal construction tech-
niques could have been used to achieve this goal,
which may signify nuances in the way labor was
organized and managed across sites. Furthermore,
although stationary, huacas were not static fea-
tures on the landscape. Many Moche huacas are
composed of multiple superimposed buildings.
Uceda and Tufinio (2003:202) have noted that
each building at Huaca de la Luna renewed the
power of the temple. Many burials are found in
the fill of each building, possibly as offerings to
the temples themselves, the gods, or a deceased
or new ruler. Architecture played an active role
in the production and reproduction of sociopolit-
ical life and stood as a monument to the past in
addition to the present authority.
Background on Moche Studies
In the early half of the twentieth century, Rafael
Larco Hoyle (1945), the pioneer of Moche studies,
was a vehement promoter of the Moche as a highly
advanced civilization and a conquest-based polity.
He envisioned a central authority located in the
heartland and argued that this polity used warfare
and religion to maintain control over the popula-
tions of other coastal valleys (Larco 2001:185–
[Vol. 26, No. 4, 2015
196). Work by Gordon Willey (1953), William
Duncan Strong and Clifford Evans (1952), the
Harvard Chan Chan Moche Valley Project (Mose-
ley and Day 1982), and David Wilson (1988) in
areas south of the Moche Valley reinforced Larco’s
view of a unified Moche and led to the develop-
ment of models that saw the Moche as a single
conquest state.
Larco’s (1948) five-phase ceramic sequence
tracked Moche development through time, and it
remains influential. The sequence is based on
changes in the shape of the spout and body of
stirrup-spout bottles, a ubiquitous vessel shape
throughout the precolumbian Andes. Larco iden-
tified five different phases based on his excava-
tions throughout the Chicama Valley. Nonethe-
less, he never stratigraphically excavated the
entire sequence in order. More recently, other at-
tributes, such as changes in the iconography on
the vessels corresponding to Larco’s phases, have
been identified (Donnan 1976:54–58; Donnan
and McClelland 1999; McClelland et al. 2007).
Until the 1990s, Larco (1945) and other scholars
thought that Moche expansion could be tracked
based on when ceramics of a particular phase
were adopted in each of the north coast valleys
(Moseley and Day 1982; Strong and Evans 1952;
Willey 1953; Wilson 1988).
Research in the last two and a half decades
has called into question Larco’s expansionary state
model (Bawden 1996; Castillo 2001; Castillo and
Donnan 1994; Castillo and Uceda 2008; Chapde-
laine 2001; Lockard 2005, 2009; Quilter 2002;
Shimada 1994, 2010; Swenson 2004). Investiga-
tions at sites such as San José de Moro in the Je-
quetepeque Valley (Figure 1) have demonstrated
that Larco’s five-phase ceramic sequence is not
an appropriate framework for ceramics in the
northern valleys, so scholars working there have
adopted a revised three-stage (Early, Middle, Late)
ceramic chronological sequence (Castillo 2001).
Based on differences in ceramic and architectural
styles, as well as settlement patterns, the northern
region is currently viewed as a series of indepen-
dent polities (Castillo and Donnan 1994; Castillo
and Uceda 2008; Swenson 2004).
Research on the southern Moche region has
not reached this level of nuance, but strides are
being made to obtain the data necessary to create
a more refined view of the cultural products of the
Koons] MOCHE SOCIOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS AND THE ROLE OF LICAPA II 477

Figure 2. Right, map of the Chicama Valley indicating the location of sites mentioned in the text; left, map of Licapa II
showing the location of the structures, canal, excavation units, and surface collection grids.

region (see Millaire 2010; Quilter and Koons
2012). The Moche I–V sequence is still used for
the valleys south of the Pampa de Paiján desert.
Nonetheless, Larco’s classification is currently be-
ing revised, given that recent research has shown
that it does not represent a true chronology cor-
roborated by radiocarbon dates (Koons and Alex
2014; Lockard 2009). Nonetheless, it does track
stylistic differences in the Moche world (Cole
2012; Donnan 2011). Researchers are investigating
what these different styles represent, which will
help us better understand how and if ceramic style
is related to Moche geopolitical interactions. Thus
far, our research at Licapa II supports Lockard’s
work and shows that Moche IV, V, and Late Moche
styles were all in use simultaneously.
Field Research at Licapa II
Licapa II is located on the southern foothills of
the Cerro Azul mountain in the northern portion
of the lower Chicama Valley (Figure 2).The mon-
umental core consists of two huacas, identified
as Huaca A and Huaca B. Huaca A measures 55
by 57 m at its base and is 9 m high, and Huaca B
measures 80 by 66 m at its base and is 6–7 m
high. Huaca A is located 300 m to the northeast
of Huaca B. The two huacas are very different.
A person standing on the summit of Huaca A is
quite visible from the ground surface, whereas
Huaca B consists of interior rooms that would
have hidden people from view. Between the hua-
cas is what appears to be a looted residential area.
To the west of both huacas is an area with two
smaller buildings, a possible platform cemetery
area, and a possible storage facility (Figure 2).
Geophysical survey data show that other struc-
tures once stood to the southwest of the extant
architecture (Koons 2012). A canal that dates to
the Moche period also runs through the site.
Field research at Licapa II took place in 2010
and, for this study, focused on architecture and
ceramics. Only diagnostic ceramics were col-
lected. These include rims, bases, decorated body
sherds, molds, instruments, and figurines. Com-
plete and fragmentary yet identifiable vessels
478 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
were recorded in the same way as sherds. All
non-diagnostic sherds were left onsite. For each
of the sherds, 39 attributes were recorded (Koons
2012:Appendix B.1). Nonetheless, for the purpose
of this article, the types of wares present and their
spatial distribution are the main interest.
In addition, 26 samples of charcoal for radio-
carbon analysis were collected to contextualize
the ceramics and architecture at the site and to
chronologically compare Licapa II to other Moche
sites. All dates presented in this article were cali-
brated with OxCal4.2 software (Bronk Ramsey
2009) using the ShCal13 calibration curve (Hogg
et al. 2013). Information about the radiocarbon
samples and their context is shown in Table 1.
Huaca A
Architecture and Chronology. Huaca A has a
stepped and elongated eastern façade. The other
three sides consist of steep and narrow steps,
making them appear almost vertical (Figure 3).
Excavations in the northwest corner (Unit 1 in
Figure 2) and along the eastern façade (Unit 2 in
Figures 2 and 3) revealed that the structure com-
prises at least two buildings. The earliest date
from Huaca A, cal A.D. 475–582 (AA94806),
comes from the lowest excavated floor in the
structure (Floor 4C; see Koons 2012). Lower
floors may exist that were not reached in 2010.
The remaining dates cluster between cal A.D.
550 and 650 (Table 1). When these are compared
with dates obtained from other site sectors using
Bayesian statistical methods, as is discussed in
detail below, they demonstrate that Huaca A is
the oldest structure on the site. Ceramic data con-
firm this chronological placement.
Ceramics. Of the 580 sherds recovered from
both units and all levels of Huaca A, 323 were
utilitarian wares. Midgrade and fine wares ac-
count for the remaining 257 sherds. The most
abundant diagnostic ceramic from Huaca A is a
style I call Licapa A, which is first defined here.
This ceramic style is characterized by a thick or-
ange paste with large temper and thick cream slip
(Figure 4). In addition to paste, the forms of Li-
capa A vessels are also distinct and include gob-
lets, a large basin, and a large paica (storage con-
tainer) of an atypical Moche form (Figure 4a).
At least 73 sherds of this style were recovered.
More may be present in the Licapa II sample,
[Vol. 26, No. 4, 2015
but this cannot be determined until a closer ex-
amination of the pastes of the non-decorated
sherds is conducted. Petrographic analysis shows
that pastes used for Licapa A ceramics are similar
to pastes from the ceramic workshop at Cerro
Mayal, also in the Chicama Valley (Koons 2015).
Although no Licapa A ceramics were recovered
at the workshop, this suggests that the Licapa A
paste is local to the Chicama Valley.
As discussed below, Moche IV and V fineline
ceramics are abundant throughout the rest of the
site. Nonetheless, only 15 Moche IV and V fine-
lines and 11 stirrups were found associated with
Huaca A, and all were in the uppermost rubble
levels. This suggests that Moche IV and V fine-
lines were introduced to the site after the main
use phase of Huaca A ended around A.D. 650.
Significance. Huaca A likely was an important
ceremonial structure in the Chicama Valley from
at least A.D. 475 to A.D. 650. A burial of a female
was found in the eastern elongated side of the
huaca (Figure 5). Above her was a series of su-
perimposed offerings of textiles, ceramics, llama,
and cuy (guinea pig). In a looter’s tunnel that
burrowed below the burial, one complete goblet
with a stylized bird motif was recovered and frag-
ments from at least eight others were also found
(Figure 4d). It is possible that these goblets were
from a looted tomb deeper inside the huaca and
below the series of offerings—the female burial
being one of these offerings. Placing superim-
posed offerings above an elite tomb is a common
Moche practice (see Castillo 2011; Millaire 2002;
Tufinio 2004:35–38). Likewise, the majority of
goblets with known provenience come from
tombs.
Although unique in form, the goblets have rat-
tle bases similar to those seen in fineline drawings
of the Sacrifice Ceremony and excavated else-
where (see Castillo 2001; Donnan and McClel-
land 1999). The Sacrifice Ceremony is known
from painted scenes found mainly on Moche IV
fineline ceramic vessels and involves anthropo-
morphized objects and animals slitting the throats
of prisoners and filling up goblets with their blood
(Donnan 2010:48; Donnan and McClelland
1999). The blood is then given to the priestess
and another participant to be presented to two
presumably higher-level priests. Although the
goblets themselves do not necessarily indicate
 Table 1. Radiocarbon Dates from Licapa II Calibrated with the ShCal13 Curve (Hogg et al. 2013).
Koons]

ShCal13
Fraction 1σ ranges
Lab Lab ID Sample ID Material δ13C Modern 14C (cal A.D.) Context
HUACA A: Unit 1
NSF AA94804 L2-U1-N4B-O1* Wood charcoal -27 .8346 ± .0037 1453 ± 36 601–660 (p = .682) Wood feature on low terrace of first
building, west façade Huaca A
Beta Beta-302515 L2-U1-N4B-O1* Wood charcoal -25.6 .8411 ± .0031 1390 ± 30 650–681 (p = .621) Wood feature on low terrace of first
749–754 (p = .061) building, west façade Huaca A
HUACA A: Unit 2
NSF AA94806 L2-U2-N4E-O3 Wood charcoal -26.1 .8215 ± .0037 1579 ± 37 475–582 (p = .682) Floor 4C
NSF AA94808 L2-U2-N7E-O1 Wood charcoal -25.5 .8291 ± .0037 1506 ± 36 581–640 (p = .682) Floor 7E
NSF AA94805 L2-U2-N4E-O4 Charred seed -22.3 .8270 ± .0037 1526 ± 36 548–559 (p = .089) Floor 4A
570–632 (p = .593)
NSF AA94807 L2-U2-SN10-T1-O1* Charred corncob -10.5 .8285 ± .0037 1512 ± 35 577–638 (p = .682) Inside ceramic basin overlaying burial in Tomb 1
Beta Beta-302517 L2-U2-SN10-T1-O1* Charred corncob -11.8 .8338 ± .0031 1460 ± 30 601–621 (p = .221) Inside ceramic basin overlaying burial in Tomb 1
626–654 (p = .461)
NSF AA94811 L2-U2-N3-O1 Charred corncob -11.2 .8308 ± .0037 1489 ± 36 591–645 (p = .682) Adobe Floor Level 3
Beta Beta-302516 L2-U2-N3-O2 Charred seed -22.8 .8411 ± .0031 1390 ± 30 650–681 (p = .621) Adobe Floor Level 3
749-754 (p = .061)
NSF AA94810 L2-U2-N1-O2-2 Burnt textile -24.4 .8266 ± .0040 1529 ± 38 548–561 (p = .111) Offering associated with Tomb 1, Unit 2
569–630 (p = .571)
NSF AA94809 L2-U2-N1-O2-1 Charred reed -27.3 .8320 ± .0046 1478 ± 45 589–650 (p = .682) Offering associated with Tomb 1, Unit 2

BETWEEN THE HUACAS: Unit 3

NSF AA94813 L2-U3-N6-O1 Small stick charcoal -26 .8264 ± .0037 1531 ± 36 545–630 (p = .682) From around a jar on sterile sand
Beta Beta-302518 L2-U3-N6-03 Charred seed -24.9 .8432 ± .0031 1370 ± 30 654–686 (p = .386) From around a jar on sterile sand
738–763 (p = .296)
NSF AA94818 L2-U3-N7-O4 Wood charcoal -26.7 .8389 ± .0036 1411 ± 34 642–679 (p = .682) From fire pit just below Floor 6
MOCHE SOCIOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS AND THE ROLE OF LICAPA II

NSF AA94817 L2-U3-N6-Fg1-O1 Wood charcoal -25.8 .8420 ± .0039 1382 ± 37 649–685 (p = .457) Fire pit associated with Floor 6
739–762 (p = .225)
NSF AA94816 L2-U3-N5C-O2-2 Charred seed -20 .8421 ± .0039 1381 ± 37 649–685 (p = .449) Fire pit associated with Floor 5C
739–763 (p = .233)
NSF AA94815 L2-U3-N5C-O2-1 Charred seed -23.1 .8475 ± .0039 1329 ± 37 681–766 (p = .682) Fire pit associated with Floor 5C
NSF AA94812 L2-U3-N4-R4-O4 Charred seed -26.9 .8568 ± .0038 1242 ± 36 774–820 (p = .32) From cuy pen
833–885 (p = .362)
NSF AA94814 L2-U3-N3D-RA-O1 Small stick charcoal -26.5 .8552 ± .0038 1256 ± 36 774–824 (p = .35) From hearth south of cuy pen
829–877 (p = .332)
479
 480 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 26, No. 4, 2015

the performance of this ceremony on Huaca A,

the shape and form of the huaca support this ar-
gument. A huaca with similar terracing and one
elongated side is seen in a rollout drawing from
a Moche vessel (Figure 6). The depiction of an
On sterile sand, first occupation in this area,

On sterile sand, first occupation in this area,

On sterile sand, first occupation in this area,

From inside vessel on Floor 3, Chamber 5

elite individual with a goblet seated atop the
huaca may hint at the kinds of ceremonies per-
formed on structures like Huaca A.
Overall, radiocarbon dates and architectural

Fill between Floor 5 and5B

and ceramic evidence indicate that Huaca A was
a highly visible structure probably used for events
associated adobe wall

associated adobe wall

associated adobe wall

like the Sacrifice Ceremony prior to A.D. 650.

This contrasts with what is seen at Huaca B and
the residential area to the south. The archaeolog-
Table 1. Radiocarbon Dates from Licapa II Calibrated with the ShCal13 Curve (Hogg et al. 2013).

Floor 5C
Floor 5B
Context

ical evidence is different and shows that these

areas were mainly occupied after A.D. 650.
Note: Adjacent samples marked with an asterisk (*) are duplicates run at two different laboratories (Beta Analytic and NSF-Arizona).

Huaca B
742–761 (p = .182)
ShCal131σ ranges

431–521 (p = .682)

479–510 (p = .141)
517–589 (p = .541)
601–649 (p = .682)

643–681 (p = .682)
630–675 (p = .682)
766–876 (p = .682)

648–684 (p = .5)

Architecture and Chronology. Huaca B consists

(cal A.D.)

of a series of rooms and chambers on different

levels that were remodeled numerous times. At-
tached to the immediate north side of Huaca B is
an elevated platform with a series of rooms or
patios measuring approximately 65 m north-south
1624 ± 35

1572 ± 35

1470 ± 30

1406 ± 35
1437 ± 34
1280 ± 30

1387 ± 36

by 50 m east-west. An adobe wall lines the west-

14C

ern side of the platform; no walls were found on

the northern or eastern side. Compared to Huaca
A, Huaca B appears to have been a much more
.8169 ± .0036

.8223 ± .0036

.8328 ± .0031

.8395 ± .0036
.8361 ± .0036
.8527 ± .0032

.8414 ± .0038

private structure with restricted access.

Fraction
Modern

Radiocarbon dates obtained from Huaca B and

the platform indicate that the structure was mainly
in use after Huaca A. The four architectural dates
range from cal A.D. 630 to 876. Three earlier
-21.4

Small stick charcoal -25.1

-25.9
-18.5

-25.8
δ13C

-10
-11

dates, ranging from cal A.D. 431 to 649

(AA94820, AA94819, and Beta-302529; see
Charred corncob

Charred corncob

Wood charcoal
Wood charcoal

Wood charcoal
Charred seed

Table 1) were obtained from materials found on

Material

sterile sand below the platform. These early dates

suggest that there was some activity in the area
prior to the construction of Huaca B.
Ceramics. In total, 1,032 diagnostic ceramic
sherds were recovered from all the excavated levels
L2-U5-N2-V1-O1
L2-U4-N7-O2-1*

L2-U4-N7-O2-1*
L2-U4-N7-O2-2

L2-U4-N5C-O1
L2-U4-N5B-O1
L2-U4-5PR-01

of Huaca B and the Huaca B platform. Of these,

Sample ID

271 were decorated fine wares. No Licapa A style

ceramics were encountered in this part of the site.
HUACA B PLATFORM: Unit 4

Twenty-eight of the 85 fine ceramics found on

Huaca B itself (Unit 5 in Figure 2) were finelines
and include figurative Moche IV, possibly Moche
Beta-302519

Beta-302520
AA94820

AA94819

AA94821
AA94823

AA94822
HUACA B: Unit 5
Lab ID

V, and Late Moche San José de Moro style. In ad-

dition, a style of ceramics was found only on Huaca
B that looks like an imitation of San José de Moro
NSF

NSF

NSF
NSF

NSF
Beta

Beta
Lab
Koons] MOCHE SOCIOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS AND THE ROLE OF LICAPA II 481

Figure 3. Photograph of Huaca A facing north and showing the location of Unit 2. Note the people standing in the fore-
ground for scale.

Figure 4. Licapa A style ceramics found in Unit 2.

482 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 26, No. 4, 2015

Figure 5. Burial encountered in Unit 2: (left) photograph facing north of the female individual and the ceramic basin;
(right) profile drawing showing the location of offerings above the burial.

Figure 6. Rollout drawing of a scene on a fineline ceramic vessel (Donnan and McClelland 1999:Figure 4.48). It shows
an elite figure holding a goblet seated atop a huaca that resembles Huaca A.

fineline. It seems to be unique to Licapa II and
suggests that people from this site were using ce-
ramics that experimented with the Moche theme.
Ceramic patterns on the platform to the north
of Huaca B (Unit 4 in Figure 2) were slightly
different from those in the huaca itself. There
were 58 examples of fineline Moche IV and V,
both in geometric and figurative styles, as well
as 128 other fine Moche ceramics of various
forms. Four hundred and three paica, olla, and
Koons] MOCHE SOCIOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS AND THE ROLE OF LICAPA II
jar sherds were found on the platform. Addition-
ally, four in situ paicas were recovered next to a
large cooking pit. This suggests that the activities
in this space included feasting and consumption.
Significance. Huaca B and its platform are
very different from Huaca A. The divided and
exclusive spaces of Huaca B attest to a less
inclusive—or less visible—setting than that at
Huaca A. The platform to the north of Huaca B
was an extension and may have been more public
than the huaca itself. The spaces were not resi-
dential in nature; rather, they were likely used
for some ceremonial or civic function. No evi-
dence for households, either elite or commoner,
was encountered. Food and drink preparation ac-
tivities for large-scale ceremonies or events ap-
pear to have occurred on the platform.
Residential Area
Five levels of occupation between the two huacas
followed a pattern suggestive of high-status res-
idences (Unit 3 in Figure 2). Well-made adobe
architecture, hearths, in situ paicas, a cuy pen, as
well as combs, pendants, and ceramics of very
high quality were found here. A total of 2,160 di-
agnostic ceramics were recovered from all occu-
pation levels. Of these, 732 were decorated fine
wares. At least 149 sherds were fineline Moche
IV and V styles. Significantly, Moche IV and V
were found together with no stratigraphic or tem-
poral distinction, making Licapa II the first site
at which they have been encountered mixed. This
discovery proves that the latter part of Larco’s
Moche I–V sequence is not chronologically ac-
curate. Rather, it represents stylistic differences.
This area of the site appears to have changed
in purpose and function over time. After residen-
tial use ceased, it was transformed into monu-
mental space through the construction of a small
platform. Materials directly associated with the
small platform were hard to recover since the up-
per levels of the site were so looted. The platform
abutted the canal. This canal was also likely in
use in earlier phases, given that its eastern wall
appears to have been reused and incorporated
into the later small platform, and the base of the
canal was below the level of the base of the orig-
inal wall.
Site organization at Licapa II is similar to pat-
terns seen at Huacas de Moche and El Brujo,
483
where the area between the huacas was used for
domestic and residential purposes. It is unknown
whether this space was occupied on a permanent
basis, temporarily inhabited at certain times of
the month or year, or just used as a staging ground
for ceremonies in association with the huacas.
The fine ceramics found in association with do-
mestic wares, hearths, and a cuy pen between the
huacas suggest that these features were used for
the preparation of food for ritual functions and
were not just features of the everyday Licapa II
houses. If people did live in this space perma-
nently, then they could be considered upper class
by Moche standards. They retained this same sta-
tus through the five occupations in the area and
until the small platform was built. Bayesian analy-
sis, detailed below, indicates that the entire resi-
dential sector postdates Huaca A and was mainly
occupied after A.D. 650 (Koons 2012).
Chronology of Licapa II
To test the likelihood that Huaca A is older than
Huaca B and the residential area, I set up a se-
quential Bayesian model stating that the dates
from Huaca A were from one phase that preceded
another phase with the dates from Huaca B and
the residential area. For this model I used only
radiocarbon dates that were from annual materials
and in direct association with Licapa A ceramics
(Huaca A) and Moche IV and V ceramics (Huaca
B and residential area dates).2 OxCal calculates
the probability distribution of each individual
date and then combines these distributions with
the prior knowledge in a statistical statement
(Bayliss et al. 2007; Bronk Ramsey 2009). The
model needs to have an index of agreement of at
least 60 percent. A low index of agreement can
occur because a date is an outlier (due to displaced
context or contamination) or because the assump-
tions of the model (e.g., relative chronology) are
incorrect. With an overall agreement index of
91.8%, the dates are consistent with the constraint
that Huaca A precedes Huaca B and the residential
area (Figure 7). This indicates that Huaca A was
likely built before Huaca B and the residential
area, but both sectors may have been in contem-
poraneous use for some time. Nonetheless, be-
cause calibration curve is not very precise in this
period, the extent of the overlap in use remains
unclear.
484 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 26, No. 4, 2015

Figure 7. Sequential Bayesian model comparing dates from Huaca A (Licapa A contexts) to dates from Huaca B and the
residential area (Moche IV and V contexts). The line down the center marks A.D. 650. The model estimates the start date
for use at Huaca A at cal A.D. 576–623 and the end date at cal A.D. 609–646. The modeled start date for use at Huaca B
and the residential area is cal A.D. 635–705 and the end is cal A.D. 690–829. Note that, as a result of Bayesian modeling,
the calibrated ranges of individual samples in this figure differ from those reported in Table 1.

Significance of Licapa II Huaca A. Activities associated with Huaca A in-

cluded ceremonies involving goblets akin to those
The results of the analysis of radiocarbon dates used in the Sacrifice Ceremony. The ceramics
and ceramics indicate that prior to A.D. 650 the were all of the newly defined Licapa A style. No
main building at the site was the highly visible fineline ceramics depicting narrative, artistic
Koons] MOCHE SOCIOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS AND THE ROLE OF LICAPA II
scenes of the Sacrifice Ceremony were directly
associated with the huaca; rather, the physical
goblets seen in paintings such as the one in Figure
6 were found.
After A.D. 650, the residential area was occu-
pied, and Huaca B was in its main phase of use.
Huaca B was a less open structure than Huaca A
and was associated with different activities, such
as large-scale feasting involving ritual ceramics.
With this expansion, Moche IV and V ceramics
were introduced at the site, which brought a new
way of expressing Moche religion. Late Moche
ceramics were also introduced, although in small
quantities. The portable objects now depicted im-
ages in fineline of the ceremonies that were once
likely performed on Huaca A. Nonetheless, no
Moche IV fineline goblets or other ceremonial
accoutrements were found. This may indicate that
this type of ceremony was no longer performed
at Licapa II; yet it was still commemorated
through activities such as feasting, as is evidenced
by the increase in food storage and serving ves-
sels, as well as by the plethora of highly charged
ritual ceramics. The different practices that oc-
curred in these two sectors of the site and the dif-
ferent phases of use for these two sectors suggest
that an ideological shift occurred at the site some-
time around A.D. 650.
Licapa II in the Moche World
Ceramics
Ceramic and radiocarbon data from Licapa II
clarify Moche ceramic chronology (Koons and
Alex 2014). Although Licapa II was not occupied
for the entire duration of Moche society, impor-
tant changes in social structure are inferred based
on the evidence from the site. Prior to A.D. 650,
Licapa II was characterized by Licapa A ceramics.
An analysis of radiocarbon dates indicates that
this style was contemporaneous with Moche III
and IV at Huacas de Moche and El Brujo (Koons
and Alex 2014:Figure 2). Around A.D. 650, a
major shift occurred at the site. This shift is seen
at other Moche sites starting around A.D. 600.
This date corresponds with the purported closing
of Huaca de la Luna, where Moche IV ceramics
were adopted for the final phase of use only
around A.D. 500–550 (Uceda 2010). Also around
485
A.D. 600–650 Moche IV ceramics were intro-
duced at El Brujo and the final huaca was con-
structed to mirror Huaca de la Luna (Mujica
2007). Prior to this time, the material culture of
El Brujo was more akin to that at Early Moche
sites, such as Dos Cabezas in the Jequetepeque
Valley (Donnan 2007). Data from Licapa II indi-
cate that Moche IV ceramics were introduced at
the site around A.D. 650—the same time the site
was expanded to include Huaca B and the resi-
dential area.
The initial spread of Moche IV reconfigured
north coast ideology around A.D. 600. The Moche
IV style persisted as the dominant style at Huacas
de Moche and at sites in the Santa Valley and
other southern valleys until A.D. 800–850
(Chapdelaine 2001, 2008, 2010a, 2011; Uceda
2010). Nonetheless, the Moche IV phenomenon
was quickly reinterpreted in additional locales,
as discussed below, and from these emerged the
Moche V and Late Moche styles beginning
around A.D. 650 (Koons and Alex 2014).
The contemporaneity of Moche IV and V has
been noted by scholars since the publication of
dates in the ninth century A.D. for Moche IV
from Huacas de Moche (Chapdelaine 2001;
Uceda et al. 2001; Uceda et al. 2007). Nonethe-
less, prior to work at Licapa II, there was no de-
finitive evidence that these two styles were in
use together at a single site. Although there are
no dates available from other Moche V sites in
the Chicama Valley, numerous examples of
Moche V pottery exist in the Larco Museum that
all come from this region and are strikingly sim-
ilar to the ceramics found at Licapa II. Sites with
Moche V materials in the Larco collection include
Paiján, Facalá, Santa Ana, Mocán, and Tchuín,
all located in the northern Chicama Valley (see
Figure 2).
The Moche V style outside of the Chicama
Valley is encountered only at a handful of sites
and in isolated surface finds. In the southern Je-
quetepeque Valley, just north of Licapa II (Figure
1), sites such as Pacatnamú (Ubbelohde-Doering
1958) and Huaca Colorada (Swenson and Warner
2012) have geometric and figurative Moche V
fragments. The phase corresponding to the use
of Moche V at Pacatnamú was not dated. The
14C dates for Huaca Colorada show that it was
occupied between cal A.D. 600 and 800 (Swenson
486 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
and Warner 2012). Edward Swenson and John
Warner (2012) found many examples of Moche
V sherds when they performed a reconnaissance
survey south of Huaca Colorada on the Pampa
de Paiján, which is geographically between Li-
capa II and Huaca Colorada. They also noted
roads in this region, suggesting a connection be-
tween the northern Chicama and southern Je-
quetepeque when Moche V was in use. Further
to the north, Pampa Grande (Shimada 1994) has
geometric Moche V and Late Moche fineline
sherds (Johnson 2010). Dates associated with
these materials were first reported by Shimada
(1994). Koons and Alex (2014) recalibrated these
dates using the ShCal13 curve and show that the
Moche V dates range from cal A.D. 683 to 805.
There also are some examples of isolated Moche
V finds, such as one sherd found on Cerro Chepén
in the Jequetepeque Valley, but these are rare.
To the south of Licapa II, Galindo also con-
tained examples of Moche V sherds (Bawden
1977; Lockard 2005, 2009). The majority of the
dates from the Moche occupation at Galindo
range between cal A.D. 673 and 764, which is
after the adoption of Moche V at Licapa II (see
Koons and Alex 2014). Moche V has also been
found along roads between the Chao and Santa
valleys (Figure 1), suggesting that there was some
movement further south (Pimentel and Paredes
2003), but the evidence in other southern valleys
is sparse to nonexistent.
Moche V ceramics are not found at Huacas de
Moche, and the Moche V presence at El Brujo is
poorly documented. Nonetheless, Moche V wares
have been found in the residential areas known as
Las Tinajas and Paradones, but this information
has not been fully published (Mujica 2007). A
few examples of Moche V have also been found
in the fill of the final phase of Huaca Cao Viejo at
El Brujo and suggest that the huaca had been
abandoned and interred prior to the adoption of
this ware at the site. Huaca Cortada, the other
Moche huaca at El Brujo, has not been excavated.
The abundance of Moche V sherds and vessels
in the northern Chicama Valley, along with the
early dates for this style from Licapa II
(AA94823; cal A.D. 630–675), suggest that
Moche V was developed and first produced in
the northern Chicama Valley, possibly around Li-
capa II. From here the style spread north and
[Vol. 26, No. 4, 2015
south around A.D. 650 (Castillo 2009; Cole
2012). The adoption of Moche V wares by some
sites and not others in the northern and southern
regions possibly relates to shared political, reli-
gious, social, ethnic, or kin relationships among
people at these disparate centers and indicates
that affiliations after A.D. 600–650 in the Moche
world were quite dynamic and complex. No
Moche V workshops have been found in the
northern Chicama Valley, but the hypothesis is
that future research will confirm that Moche V
originated here.
I note that the ceramics at Licapa II that were
brought to the site from the north are easily iden-
tifiable. A recent petrographic study of Moche
IV, Moche V, and Late Moche ceramics from the
Moche, Chicama, and Jequetepeque valleys
showed that differences in mineral inclusions in-
dicate that sources local to each valley were being
exploited (Koons 2015).
Research on northern and southern Moche ce-
ramics has shown that what was once thought to
be a monolithic Moche style is actually a series
of substyles or regional styles related to a shared
religious ideology (Benson 2003; Cole 2012;
Donnan 2011). Research from Licapa II builds
on this argument and confirms that Moche IV
and V are themselves distinct styles. Nonetheless,
these styles do postdate Moche I/II and III, which
also are contemporary (Koons and Alex 2014).
This research further supports the conclusion that
the Larco sequence should no longer be consid-
ered to represent progressive temporal phases of
Moche ceramic technological development.
No other site to date has been excavated with
Moche IV and V styles in such abundance. Fur-
thermore, evidence for Late Moche ceramics at
Licapa II and Moche V ceramics in the Jequete-
peque Valley demonstrates the need to rethink
the notion of boundaries such as the Pampa de
Paiján desert (Figure 1). We need to consider the
movement that occurred across the desert that
led to people at Licapa II using and developing
multiple ceramic forms and participating in a dy-
namic sociopolitical landscape.
Architecture
Licapa II has a layout similar to Huacas de Moche
and El Brujo. It has two major huacas and a res-
idential component between two huacas.
Koons] MOCHE SOCIOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS AND THE ROLE OF LICAPA II
Nonetheless, Licapa II is different than El Brujo
and Huacas de Moche in several ways. First, the
huacas themselves are less than half the size of
the huacas at the large centers. Second, the forms
of the huacas at Licapa II are distinct and not di-
rectly comparable to El Brujo, Huacas de Moche,
or any other studied Moche huaca. Third, at El
Brujo and Huacas de Moche, a distance of 500
m separates the two huacas, whereas there are
only 300 m between Huaca A and Huaca B at Li-
capa II. Fourth, the north-facing façades of the
final buildings at Huaca Cao Viejo and Huaca de
la Luna display the same elaborate mural pro-
gram, which confirms ideological ties between
the two sites. This mural program is not seen at
any other Moche site, including Licapa II. Finally,
the offset of the two huacas at Licapa II is differ-
ent from the offset at the large sites. At both El
Brujo and Huacas de Moche, the northernmost
huaca is located to the northwest of the south-
ernmost huaca at an angle of roughly 310º. At
Licapa II the huacas are offset by 29º and the
northern huaca, Huaca A, is located to the north-
east of Huaca B. The layout of Licapa II is unlike
any other studied and published Moche site and
therefore may prove to be unique to the site itself.
This may be related to the fact that it was oriented
with specific landscape features (Makowski 2008,
2010; Zighelboim 1995). The basic orientation
of the site (Huaca A to Huaca B) follows the base
of the imposing Cerro Azul immediately to the
west, suggesting that the placement of the huacas
was deliberate. The huacas are also oriented to-
ward the Quebrada de Cupisnique, the main ac-
cess between the Chicama Valley and the high-
lands. The angle of the architecture—24º east of
north—also may have had celestial significance
(see Seoane 2011).
Although different in the ways outlined above,
a similar shift in use patterns is apparent at Licapa
II and Huacas de Moche. Huaca A and Huaca de
la Luna were the first structures at the sites and
both appear to have been dedicated to worship
aspects of the Moche religion. Nonetheless, both
ceased to be used for religious ceremonies some-
time around A.D. 600–650. It was also around
this time that Huaca B and Huaca del Sol became
the prominent huacas at their respective sites.
The spaces associated with Huaca B are compa-
rable to those seen at Huaca del Sol (Tufinio et
487
al. 2012). These include public spaces for cere-
monies and feasts as well as restricted-access ar-
eas. It was also after A.D. 600–650 when the do-
mestic area between the huacas was first occupied
at both sites. Chapdelaine (2002) interprets this
change at Huacas de Moche as evidence for an
increase in the power of the urban class. Overall,
the changes through time seen at Licapa II, from
the construction of Huaca A to that of Huaca B,
reflect a similar pattern seen at Huacas de Moche.
Earlier sites (prior to A.D. 600–650) contain
large, highly visible huacas and large plazas.
These huacas were the center of all political and
religious activity at the site. As noted, many of
the earlier Moche huacas were stepped platforms
that increasingly grew in size through the super-
imposition of buildings. Uceda and Tufinio (2003)
have noted that each building at Huaca de la Luna
was interred as a way to renew the power of the
huaca. Burials are found in the fill of each build-
ing, possibly as offerings to the huaca itself or to
the deceased or new ruler. Architecture played
an active role in the production and reproduction
of social and political life and stood as a monu-
ment to the past and a symbol of the present au-
thority. The pre–A.D. 650 date of Huaca A, along
with the offerings and possible burial within this
huaca, suggest a similar function. Huaca A was
tied into the pre–A.D. 600–650 ideology exem-
plified by other sites throughout the Moche world.
Later sites (after A.D. 600–650) include huacas
but also incorporate other architectural features,
such as platform structures with multiple rooms,
extensive restrictive residential architecture, cor-
ridors that limit open movement, and storage areas
(Bawden 1977; Shimada 1994). It has been sug-
gested that these additional types of architecture
were housing for the more bureaucratic and less
religious arm of society (Bawden 1977; Uceda
and Tufinio 2003). Whereas religious and political
activities were blurred and undertaken in the same
structure in earlier times, a more strict division
existed between the religious and the political
later on. Therefore, the addition of these features
has been interpreted as the result of increased so-
cial segregation and secularization (Bawden 1977;
Chapdelaine 2001, 2002; Uceda 2010; Uceda and
Tufino 2003). Many scholars have noted that
Moche architecture consisted of more restricted
spaces through time (Bawden 1977; Chapdelaine
488 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
2002; Hecker and Hecker 1985; Moore 1996; Shi-
mada 1994; Swenson 2011). Swenson notes that
while huacas from earlier phases grew outward
and larger, the later structure of Huaca Colorada
in the Jequetepeque Valley retracted inward, with
increasingly narrow spaces and restricted access.
The same pattern of narrowing of spaces was
noted for Huaca B at Licapa II.
The patterns noted between early and late
Moche sites are present for the two different
phases of Licapa II. These patterns indicate that
a change in the political or religious structure oc-
curred at many sites around A.D. 600–650. It
should be noted that the changes in Moche soci-
ety, as reflected in the use of different artifacts,
did not occur uniformly. Different types of mate-
rial culture were adopted at different sites at dif-
ferent times. This is further evidence of the dy-
namic nature of Moche sociopolitical structure.
Conclusion
Licapa II, a midsized Moche ceremonial center
located on the northern boundary of the southern
Moche region, provides an excellent case study
for understanding inter- and intra-site dynamics in
the Moche world both before and after a major
ideological transition occurred ca. A.D. 600–650.
Research at Licapa II has helped to achieve three
major goals: (1) to examine changing Moche set-
tlement dynamics through time; (2) to better un-
derstand the relationships between the two regions;
and (3) to address the role of settlements of differ-
ent sizes, specifically in the southern region.
Around A.D. 600–650, significant changes oc-
curred not only at the site itself but also through-
out the Moche world. One of these changes was
the introduction of Moche IV ceramics outside
Huacas de Moche and the quick development of
Moche V, possibly in the northern Chicama Valley
and around Licapa II. Architectural changes also
occurred at the same time. Both at Licapa II and
elsewhere, highly visible structures were aban-
doned in favor of more intimate architecture with
restricted spaces. This shift in architecture and
ceramic styles may indicate a change in Moche
ideology. The next major step is to further inves-
tigate the catalysts for these changes.
In addition to the popular theory that environ-
mental instability led to internal strife (Bawden
[Vol. 26, No. 4, 2015
1996; Dillehay and Kolata 2004; Moseley and
Deeds 1982; Moseley et al. 2008; Shimada 1994),
the question of foreign influence has recently be-
come more prominent. Wari presence on the north
coast has been noted for a long time, but Wari in-
fluence over Moche society remains one of the
biggest questions in Andean Middle Horizon
(A.D. 600–1000) archaeology. Castillo et al.
(2012) note the same multidimensionality of
Moche society that I explore here at the onset of
the Middle Horizon. Their argument is that Moche
was not one polity, settlement, state, or society,
and the influences of Wari and other foreigners
on the Moche were just as varied and complex as
any other influence. Foreigners did not come in
and conquer the Moche; rather, they formed rela-
tionships with certain polities and sites. Chapde-
laine (2010b) notes that these foreign groups were
likely the source of exotic knowledge that was
incorporated into the politics and ideology of the
different Moche polities to varying degrees. In
fact, although Moche and other Andean societies
were contemporaneous, very little evidence of
foreign materials at Moche sites exists in the ar-
chaeological record (Castillo et al. 2012).
There are a few exceptions. A double-spout
and bridge vessel in the central coast style and a
possible Chancay figurine foot were recovered
at Licapa II. How these relate to the Moche oc-
cupation remains unknown. At San José de Moro,
Wari influence is seen in the ceramics found in
burials. After the initial introduction of Wari
Chakipampa wares, a hybrid Moche–Wari poly-
chrome style was developed and used for a short
period of time (Castillo et al. 2012). I noted this
style in the Chicama Valley while doing recon-
naissance work on the back side of Cerro Mo-
collope. A single polychrome sherd was also re-
covered from inside the canal at Licapa II. Many
Wari ceramics were recently found at Huacas de
Moche, also in burials (Santiago Uceda, personal
communication 2013), indicating that we have
much to learn about the relationship between
these two cultures and the potential influence
Wari had over Moche politics and ideology
around A.D. 600–650.
In addition to Wari, other local valley highland
groups interacted with Moche polities and would
undoubtedly have had influence on political de-
velopments (Billman 1996; Lau 2004; Ringberg
Koons] MOCHE SOCIOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS AND THE ROLE OF LICAPA II
2012; Vogel 2012). Defensive structures and out-
posts have been noted in the “buffer zones” be-
tween highland and lowland peoples (Lau 2004;
Proulx 1985; Topic and Topic 1983; Vogel 2012;
Wilson 1988). The headwaters of coastal canal
systems were also located in the upper and middle
valleys. María Rostworowski (1990:450) notes
that in the colonial era each valley had its own
highland–coastal relationship that was unique to
the hydrology and internal politics of that valley.
This topic merits much more attention for the
Moche period, especially in the Chicama Valley,
where highland-coastal relations are unstudied.
This scenario may help explain the nuances and
complexities we are beginning to see on the in-
dividual valley level. Due to the multidimension-
ality of Moche society, numerous and diverse
factors likely catalyzed the changes that are ap-
parent in the archaeological record around A.D.
600–650.
Through analyses of ceramics, architecture,
and radiocarbon dates, I have shown that Licapa
II was likely an independent center intimately
connected to a dynamic landscape of interrelated
nodes in an ever-changing and complex network
of sites. In this network, alliances and relation-
ships crosscut the northern and southern Moche
boundary, which needs to be reevaluated. We
should reconsider the way that ideas, people, and
artifacts moved across the landscape to create
webs of sociopolitical alliances.
Research at smaller Moche centers such as
Licapa II challenges the idea of a traditional set-
tlement hierarchy. The settlement patterns suggest
a hierarchical yet decentralized system (Castillo
et al. 2012; Giersz 2011; Makowski 1994, 2010).
This research demonstrates that small centers
could have been the locus of innovation, such as
the development of Moche V, and were not nec-
essarily under the control of a larger center. More
research at centers of various sizes, along with
more contextualized radiocarbon dates, will
deepen our understanding of how the people re-
siding at the different Moche centers interacted
with each other through time.
Acknowledgments. I would like to thank Jeffrey Quilter, Luis
Jaime Castillo, Santiago Uceda, Francisco Seoane, and all
the people who worked at Licapa II for making this work
possible. I thank Bridget Alex for her guidance on radiocarbon
dating. I also very much appreciate the editorial assistance
489
from Carina Stanton, Lawrence Conyers, Stephen Nash, and
the three anonymous reviewers. Fieldwork for this project
would not have been possible without the financial support
of the National Science Foundation (Dissertation Improve-
ment Grant 1032294), National Geographic Society (Com-
mittee for Research and Exploration Grant), Harvard Uni-
versity Peabody Museum Hemenway Award, Harvard
University Graduate Society Merit Fellowship, David Rock-
efeller Center for Latin American Studies Grant, and the Ge-
ological Society of America Graduate Student Research Grant.
References Cited
Atwood, Roger
2010 The Lord of Ucupe. Archaeology 63:21.
Bawden, Garth
1977 Galindo and the Nature of the Middle Horizon in
Northern Coastal Peru. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge.
1996 The Moche. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge.
Bayliss, Alex, Christopher B. Ramsey, Johannes van der Plicht,
and Alasdair Whittle
2007 Bradshaw and Bayes: Towards a Timetable for the
Neolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(1):1–
28.
Benson, Elizabeth P.
2003 Cambios de temas y motivos en la cerámica Moche.
In Moche: Hacia El Final Del Milenio II, edited by
Santiago Uceda Castillo and Elias Mujica, pp. 477–496.
Fondo Editorial PUCP, Lima.
Billman, Brian R.
1996 The Evolution of Prehistoric Political Organizations
in the Moche Valley, Peru. Ph.D. dissertation, Department
of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Bar-
bara.
Bronk Ramsey, Christopher
2009 Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon
51(1):337–360.
Castillo, Luis Jaime
2001 The Last of the Mochicas: A View from the Jequete-
peque Valley. In Moche Art and Archaeology in Ancient
Peru, edited by Joanne Pillsbury, pp. 307–332. National
Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
2009 El estilo Mochica Tardío de línea fina de San José de
Moro. In De Cupisnique a Los Incas: El Arte Del Valle
De Jequetepeque, edited by Luis Jaime Castillo and
Cecilia Pardo, pp. 208–253. Asociación Museo de Arte
de Lima, Lima.
2011 San José de Moro y la Arqueología del Valle de Je-
quetepeque. Fondo Editorial PUCP, Lima.
Castillo, Luis Jaime, and Christopher B. Donnan
1994 Los Mochica del norte y los Mochica del sur. In
Vicús, edited by Krzysztof Makowski, Christopher B.
Donnan, and Ivan Amaro Bullon, pp. 142–181. Colección
Arte y Tesoros Del Perú. Banco de Crédito del Perú,
Lima.
Castillo, Luis Jaime, and Santiago Uceda Castillo
2008 The Mochicas. In The Handbook of South American
Archaeology, edited by Helaine Silverman and William
H. Isbell, pp. 707–729. Springer, New York.
Castillo, Luis Jaime, Francesca Fernandini, and Luis Muro
2012 The Multidimensional Relations between the Wari
and the Moche States of Northern Peru. Boletín de Ar-
queología PUCP 16:53–77.
490 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Chapdelaine, Claude
2001 The Growing Power of a Moche Urban Class. In
Moche Art and Archaeology in Ancient Peru, edited by
Joanne Pillsbury, pp. 69–88. National Gallery of Art,
Washington, D.C.
2002 Out in the Streets of Moche: Urbanism and Sociopo-
litical Organization at a Moche IV Urban Center. In
Andean Archaeology I: Variations in Sociopolitical Or-
ganization, edited by William H. Isbell and Helaine Sil-
verman, pp. 53–88. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.
2008 Moche Art Style in the Santa Valley: Between Being
“a La Mode” and Developing Provincial Identity. In The
Art and Archaeology of the Moche: An Ancient Andean
Society of the Peruvian North Coast, edited by Steve
Bourget and Kimberly L. Jones, pp. 129–152. University
of Texas Press, Austin.
2010a Moche Political Organization in the Santa Valley:
A Case of Direct Rule through Gradual Control of the
Local Population. In New Perspectives on Moche Political
Organization, edited by Jeffrey Quilter and Luis Jaime
Castillo, pp. 252–279. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library
and Collections, Washington, D.C.
2010b Moche and Wari During the Middle Horizon on the
North Coast of Peru. In Beyond Wari Walls: Regional
Perspectives on Middle Horizon Peru, edited by Justin
Jennings and Luis Jaime Castillo, pp. 213–232. University
of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
2011 Recent Advances in Moche Archaeology. Journal of
Archaeological Research 19(2):191–231.
Cole, Ethan
2012 Moche Marks of Distinction: Time and Politics in
Painted Pottery Substyles of the Moche Culture, North
Coast, Peru A.D. 100–900. Ph.D. dissertation, Department
of Art History, University of California, Los Angeles.
Dillehay, Tom D., and Alan L. Kolata
2004 Long-Term Human Response to Uncertain Environ-
mental Conditions in the Andes. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 101(12):4325–4330.
Donnan, Christopher B.
1976 Moche Art and Iconography. UCLA Latin American
Center, University of California, Los Angeles.
2007 Moche Tombs at Dos Cabezas. Cotsen Institute of
Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
2010 Moche State Religion: A Unifying Force in Moche
Political Organization. In New Perspectives on Moche
Political Organization, edited by Jeffrey Quilter and Luis
Jaime Castillo, pp. 47–69. Dumbarton Oaks Research Li-
brary and Collections, Washington, D.C.
2011 Moche Substyles: Keys to Understanding Moche
Political Organization. Boletín del Museo Chileno de
Arte Precolombino 16(1):105–118.
Donnan, Christopher B., and Donna McClelland
1999 Moche Fineline Painting: Its Evolution and Its Artists.
Fowler Museum of Cultural History, University of Cali-
fornia, Los Angeles.
Giersz, Milosz
2011 Los guardianes de la frontera sur: La presencia
Moche en Culebras y Huarmey. In Arqueología de la
Costa de Ancash, edited by Milosz Giersz and Iván
Ghezzi, pp. 231–270.Warsaw University and Institut
Français d´ Études Andines, Lima.
Hecker, Wolfgang, and Giesela Hecker
1985 Pacatnamú y sus Construcciones: Centro Religioso
Prehispánico en la Costa Norte Peruana. Vervuert, Frank-
furt.
[Vol. 26, No. 4, 2015
Hegmon, Michelle
1992 Archaeological Research on Style. Annual Review
of Anthropology 21:517–536.
Hogg, Alan G., Quan Hua, Paul G. Blackwell, Mu Niu, Caitlin
E. Buck, Thomas P. Guilderson, Timothy J. Heaton,
Jonathan G. Palmer, Paula J. Reimer, Ron W. Reimer,
Christian S. M. Turney, and Susan R. H. Zimmerman
2013 Southern Hemisphere Calibration, 0–50,000 Years
cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1889–1903.
Houston, Stephen
2015 Crafting Credit: Authorship among Classic Maya
Painters and Sculptors. In Making Meaning, Making
Value: Techné in the Pre-Columbian World, edited by
Cathy L. Costin. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collection, Washington, D.C., in press.
Johnson, Ilana
2010 Households and Social Organization at the Late
Moche Period Site of Pampa Grande, Peru. Ph.D. disser-
tation, Department of Anthropology, University of Cali-
fornia, Los Angeles.
Koons, Michele
2012 Moche Geopolitical Networks and the Dynamic Role
of Licapa II, Chicama Valley, Peru. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cam-
bridge.
2015 External Versus Internal: An Examination of Moche
Politics through Similarities and Differences in Ceramic
Style. In Ceramic Analysis in the Andes, edited by Isabelle
Druc, pp. 57-82. Deep University Press, Blue Mounds,
Wisconsin.
Koons, Michele, and Bridget Alex
2014 Revised Moche Chronology Based on Bayesian
Models of Reliable Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon
56(3):1–17.
Larco Hoyle, Rafael
1945 Los Mochicas (Pre-Chimu, De Uhle y Early Chimu,
De Kroeber). Sociedad Geográfica Americana, Buenos
Aires.
1948 Cronología Arqueológica del Norte del Perú. Sociedad
Geográfica Americana, Buenos Aires.
2001 Los Mochicas. Museo Arqueológico Rafael Larco
Herrera, Lima.
Lau, George
2004 The Recuay Culture of Peru’s North–Central Highlands:
A Reappraisal of Chronology and Its Implications. Journal
of Field Archaeology 29(1/2):177–202.
Lockard, Gregory D.
2005 Political Power and Economy at the Archaeological
Site of Galindo, Moche Valley, Peru. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque.
2009 The Occupational History of Galindo, Moche Valley,
Peru. Latin American Antiquity 20(2):279–302.
McClelland, Donna, Donald McClelland, and Christopher B.
Donnan
2007 Moche Fineline Painting from San José De Moro.
Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California,
Los Angeles.
Makowski, Krzysztof
1994 Los señores de Loma Negra. In Vicús, edited by
Krzysztof Makowski, Christopher B. Donnan, and Ivan
Amaro Bullon, pp. 83–142. Colección Arte y Tesoros
Del Perú. Banco de Crédito del Perú, Lima.
2008 Andean Urbanism. In Handbook of South American
Archaeology, edited by Helaine Silverman and William
Isbell, pp. 633–658. Springer, New York.
Koons] MOCHE SOCIOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS AND THE ROLE OF LICAPA II
2010 Religion, Ethnic Identity, and Power in the Moche
World: A View from the Frontiers. In New Perspectives
on Moche Political Organization, edited by Jeffrey
Quilter and Luis Jaime Castillo, pp. 280–305. Dumbarton
Oaks Research Library and Collections, Washington,
D.C.
Millaire, Jean-François
2002 Moche Burial Patterns: An Investigation into Pre-
hispanic Social Structure. BAR International Series 1066.
Archaeopress, Oxford.
2010 Moche Political Expansion as Viewed from Virú:
Recent Archaeological Work in the Close Periphery of a
Hegemonic City-State System. In New Perspectives on
Moche Political Organization, edited by Jeffrey Quilter
and Luis Jaime Castillo, pp. 223–251. Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collections, Washington, D.C.
Moore, Jerry D.
1996 Architecture and Power in the Ancient Andes: The
Archaeology of Public Buildings. New Studies in Ar-
chaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Moseley, Michael E., and Kent C. Day (editors)
1982 Chan Chan, Andean Desert City. University of New
Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Moseley, Michael E., and Eric Deeds
1982 The Land in Front of Chan Chan: Agrarian Expansion,
Reform, and Collapse in the Moche Valley. In Chan
Chan, Andean Desert City, edited by Michael E. Moseley
and Kent C. Day, pp. 1–24. University of New Mexico
Press, Albuquerque.
Moseley, Michael E., Christopher B. Donnan, and David K.
Keefer
2008 Convergent Catastrophe and the Demise of Dos
Cabezas: Environmental Change and Regime Change in
Ancient Peru. In The Art and Archaeology of the Moche:
An Ancient Andean Society of the Peruvian North Coast,
edited by Steve Bourget and Kimberly L. Jones, pp. 81–
92. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Mujica, Elias
2007 El Brujo: Huaca Cao, Centro Ceremonial Moche en
el Valle de Chicama. Fundación Wiese, ING Fondos y
AFP Integra, Lima.
Pimentel, Victor, and María Isabel Paredes
2003 Evidencias Moche V en Tambos y Caminos entre los
Valles de Santa y Choa, Peru. In Moche: Hacia El Final
Del Milenio I, edited by Santiago Uceda and Elias Mujica,
pp. 269–306. Fondo Editorial PUCP, Lima.
Plog, Stephen
1976 Measurement of Prehistoric Interaction between
Communities. In The Early Mesoamerican Village, edited
by Kent V. Flannery, pp. 255–271. Academic Press, New
York.
Proulx, Donald A.
1985 An Analysis of the Early Cultural Sequence of the
Nepeña Valley, Peru. Research Reports No. 25. Department
of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Quilter, Jeffrey
2002 Moche Politics, Religion, and Warfare. Journal of
World Prehistory 16(2):145–195.
2010 The Moche of Ancient Peru: Media and Messages.
Peabody Museum Press, Harvard University, Cambridge.
Quilter, Jeffrey, and Michele L. Koons
2012 The Fall of the Moche: A Critique of Claims for the
New World’s First State. Latin American Antiquity
23(2):127–143.
Ringberg, Jennifer
2012 Daily Life at Cerro León, an Early Intermediate
491
Period Highland Settlement in the Moche Valley, Peru.
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University
of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Rostworowski de Diez Canseco, María
1990 Ethnohistorical Considerations about the Chimor. In
The Northern Dynasties, edited by Michael Moseley and
Alana Cordy-Collins, pp. 447–460. Dumbarton Oaks Re-
search Library, Washington, D.C.
Seoane, Francisco
2011 Del atardecer a la mañana: Replanteando el orden
del mundo en la sociedad Moche durante el Horizonte
Medio. Revista del Museo de Arqueolgía e Historia. Uni-
versidad Nacional De Trujillo, Trujillo.
Shimada, Izumi
1994 Pampa Grande and the Mochica Culture. University
of Texas Press, Austin.
2010 Moche Sociopolitical Organization: Rethinking the
Data, Approaches, and Models. In New Perspectives on
Moche Political Organization, edited by Jeffrey Quilter
and Luis Jaime Castillo, pp. 70–82. Dumbarton Oaks Re-
search Library and Collections, Washington, D.C.
Sillar, Bill
2000 Shaping Culture: Making Pots and Constructing
Households. An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Pottery
Production, Trade and Use in the Andes. BAR International
Series 883. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Smith, Adam T.
2003 The Political Landscape: Constellations of Authority
in Early Complex Polities. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Stanish, Charles
2001 The Origin of State Societies in South America.
Annual Review of Anthropology 30:41–64.
Strong, William Duncan, and Clifford Evans
1952 Cultural Stratigraphy in the Virú Valley, Northern
Peru: The Formative and Florescent Epochs. Columbia
University Press, New York.
Swenson, Edward R.
2004 Ritual and Power in the Urban Hinterland: Religious
Pluralism and Political Decentralization in Late Moche
Jequetepeque, Peru. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Chicago, Chicago.
2011 Changing Conceptions of Time: Moche Chronologies
versus Moche Temporalities. Paper presented at Times of
Change, Changes of Time: An Inquiry about Absolute
and Relative Chronologies of the Moche from Northern
Peru, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C.
Swenson, Edward R., and John P. Warner
2012 Crucibles of Power: Forging Copper and Forging
Subjects at the Moche Ceremonial Center of Huaca Colo-
rada, Peru. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
31(3):314–333.
Topic, John R., and Theresa L. Topic
1983 Coast–Highland Relations in Northern Perú: Some
Observations on Routes, Networks, and Scales of Inter-
action. In Civilization in the Ancient Americas: Essays in
Honor of Gordon R. Willey, edited by Richard Leventhal
and Alan Kolata, pp. 237–259. University of New Mexico
Press, Albuquerque.
Tufinio, Moises
2004 Excavaciones en la unidad 12a (Ampliación Norte),
plataforma I, Huaca de la Luna. In Investigaciones en la
Huaca de la Luna, 1998–1999, edited by Santiago Uceda
Castillo, Elias Mujica and Ricardo Morales, pp. 21–40.
Facultad de Ciencias Sociales Universidad Nacional de
Trujillo, Trujillo.
492 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Tufinio, Moises, Rony Vega, Carol Rojas, and Mirtha Rivera
2012 Excavaciones en la Sección 2 de Huaca del Sol. In
Proyecto Arqueológico Huaca de la Luna: Informe Técnico
2011, edited by Santiago Uceda and Ricardo Morales,
pp. 241–305. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales Universidad
Nacional de Trujillo, Trujillo.
Ubbelohde-Doering, Heinrich
1958 Berichtüberarchäologische. Feldarbeiten in Peru.
Ethnos 23 (2–4):67–99.
Uceda Castillo, Santiago
2010 Theocracy and Secularism: Relationships between
the Temple and Urban Nucleus and Political Change at
the Huacas de Moche. In New Perspectives on Moche
Political Organization, edited by Jeffrey Quilter and Luis
Jaime Castillo, pp. 132–158. Dumbarton Oaks Research
Library and Collections, Washington, D.C.
Uceda Castillo, Santiago, Claude Chapdelaine, Claude Chauchat,
and John Verano
2001 Fechas radiócarbonicas para el complejo arqueológico
Huaca del Sol y la Luna. In Informe Técnico 2001,
Proyecto Arqueológico Huaca de La Luna, edited by
Santiago Uceda and Ricardo Morales, pp. 217-230.
Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Nacional de
Trujillo, Peru.
Uceda Castillo, Santiago, Claude Chapdelaine, and John W.
Verano
2007 Fechas radiocarbónicas para el complejo arqueológico
Huacas del Sol y de la Luna: Una primera cronología del
sitio. In Investigaciones en la Huaca de La Luna 2001,
edited by Santiago Uceda, Elias Mujica, and Ricardo
Morales, pp. 213–224.Facultad de Ciencias Sociales Uni-
versidad Nacional de Trujillo, Trujillo.
Uceda Castillo, Santiago, and Moises Tufinio
2003 El complejo arquitectónico religioso Moche de Huaca
de la Luna: Una aproximación a su dinámica ocupacional.
In Moche: Hacia El Final Del Milenio, edited by Santiago
Uceda and Elias Mujica, pp. 179–228. Fondo Editorial
PUCP, Lima.
[Vol. 26, No. 4, 2015
Vogel, Melissa A.
2012 Frontier Life in Ancient Peru. University Press
Florida, Gainesville.
Willey, Gordon R.
1953 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Virú Valley,
Perú. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Wilson, David J.
1988 Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in the Lower Santa
Valley, Peru: A Regional Perspective on the Origins and
Development of Complex North Coast Society. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Zighelboim, Ari
1995 Mountain Scenes of Human Sacrifice in Moche Ce-
ramic Iconography. Journal of Steward Anthropological
Society 23(1–2):153–188.
Notes
1. The site was not occupied during the earliest known
phases of Moche, A.D. 200–400. Therefore, data from Licapa
II cannot aid in understanding the development of Moche in
this valley or elsewhere.
2. Beta Analytic consistently produced dates later than
those processed by the NSF-Arizona laboratory, even when
portions of the same material were sent to the two labs. This
is troubling and suggests that different protocols were used.
For accuracy, I chose to use only the NSF dates in my Bayesian
models, given that these dates were consistently more compa-
rable to dates from other Moche contexts and sites (see Koons
and Alex 2014).
Submitted July 14, 2014; Revised April 8, 2015; Accepted
October 20, 2015.