359

INDICES OF HOUSEHOLD MAIZE BEER

PRODUCTION IN THE ANDES
An Ethnoarchaeological Investigation
Bradley J. Parker
Department of History, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
Email: [email protected]

Weston McCool
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara

: Alcohol; Brewing; Ethnoarchaeology; Maize beer; Andes; Household

archaeology; Domestic economy

Recent literature on the role of alcohol in the ancient world has shown that the
production and consumption of fermented beverages played a key role in the
organization of many prehistoric political and household economies. The study
of alcohol as a lubricant in social dynamics is especially salient in the Andes,
where reciprocity is the primary form of traditional economic interaction. Despite
the fact that scholars studying ancient Peru have long acknowledged the central
role that the production and consumption of beer made from fermented grains or
fruits (collectively referred to as chicha) played in traditional Andean societies,
few field projects have focused on how to recognize the loci of small-scale chicha
production in the archaeological record. In this paper, which presents the results of
ethnoarchaeological research in eastern Cuzco province, Peru—where this type of
research has not previously been undertaken—we use both new data and existing
studies to identify fifteen independent indices capable of aiding archaeologists in the
recognition of domestic brewing in the archaeological record. To do so, this study
focuses on the material correlates of small-scale household chicha production,
with an explicit emphasis on quantitative, rather than qualitative, data, including
ceramic morphology and use wear; the particularities of vessel assemblages;
the preponderance of tools, refuse, and residues; and the characteristics of
brewing facilities. Previous studies demonstrate that, in spite of both variation in
technology and organization across the region and cultural differences through
time, ethnoarchaeological observations of modern production and consumption
of chicha in traditional settings can generate valuable information pertinent to the
interpretation of the archaeological record. This paper builds on these studies by
verifying as well as questioning previous findings and by proposing new analogs.
In doing so, this paper demonstrates that ethnoarchaeological observations of the
modern production of chicha can provide valuable interpretive information not
just for Andeanists but for any archaeologists seeking to identify and interpret the
archaeology of brewers and brewing.

Journal of Anthropological Research, vol. 71, 2015

Copyright © by The University of New Mexico
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/jar.0521004.0071.303

359

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
360 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH
L in the ancient world has shown
that the production and consumption of fermented beverages played a key role in
the organization of many prehistoric political economies (e.g., Dietler 1990, 1996,
2006; Hastorf and Johannessen 1993; Jennings and Bowser 2009; Jennings et al.
2005; Joffe 1998; Logan et al. 2012). From the Near East (Joffe 1998; Pollock 2003,
2012; Schmandt-Besserat 2001) to Africa (Arthur 2003; Bohannan and Bohannan
1968; Carlson 1990; Dietler 1990, 2001), Europe (Dietler 1990), North America
(Kelly 2001; Knight 2001), Mexico (Bruman 2000), the Amazon (Bowser 2000;
DeBoer 2001), and the Andes (Goldstein 2003; Jennings and Bowser 2009), many
scholars have explored how hospitality, generosity, and episodes of conspicuous
consumption have shaped social relations between men and women, households
and communities, and rulers and subjects (Arthur 2003; Bray 2003a; Carlson 1990;
Dietler and Hayden 2001; Goldstein 2003; Hayden 2001, 2003; Pollock 2012). Key
to this discussion is the work of Michael Dietler, who has argued that the creation
or manipulation of social contexts within which drinking takes place frequently
serves as an avenue for the creation of prestige and is therefore foundational to the
accumulation and maintenance of political power (1990, 1996, 2006).
The study of alcohol as a lubricant in social dynamics is especially pertinent
in the Andes since reciprocity is “the backbone of the traditional Andean economy”
(Jennings et al. 2005:242; cf. Allen 1988:91; Isbell 1978:167; Mayer 2002). In such
non-monetary societies as the Moche, Wari, Tiwanaku, Chimú, and Inca civilizations
of ancient Peru, beer made from grains or fruits—collectively referred to as
chicha—essentially performed as a currency of sociopolitical exchange.1 During the
Inca period, for example, officials at all levels of the imperial administration were
required to provide large amounts of chicha to local elites and their constituents at
feasts that worked to bind conquered peoples to the Inca imperial enterprise (Bray
2003b, 2009; Bray, ed. 2003; Costin and Earle 1989; Jennings 2005; Murra 1960,
1980; Morris 1982; Nash 2010; Valdez 2006). The elite did not have a monopoly on
the use of chicha as currency. In fact, the most common method of labor exchange
between households was underwritten through feasts and the distribution of chicha
(Camino 1987). This system bound households together by creating a system of
reciprocal debt (Allen 1988:116–18; Isbell 1978:167–77; Jennings and Bowser
2009: 242, 243; Hayden 2003; Lau 2002; Moore 1989:685; Murra 1980; Vaughn
2004). Spanish ethnohistorical records describing both the Inca and the colonial
periods, although often derisively ethnocentric, are riddled with references to the
importance of chicha in everything from daily meals to ritual feasts, communal
building projects, and even sowing and harvesting the fields (Figure 1A and 1C).2
In describing colonial Peru, the Spanish colonial administrator Bernabé Cobo
remarked, for example, that “the Indians are so addicted to their chicha that drinking
is the height of their glory . . . they never celebrate an event, whether joyful or sad, in
any other way than by dancing and drinking [it] in excess” (Cobo 1983 [1653]:28).
This and other examples show that power and prestige in many Andean societies
was based largely on an individual’s ability to reward allies, impress subordinates,
compensate laborers, and entertain guests with consumable surpluses such as chicha
(Logan et al. 2012).

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 MAIZE BEER PRODUCTION IN THE ANDES 361

Figure 1. Three of Guamán Poma’s drawings showing some of the

many uses of chicha by the Incas.
A: Depiction of an Inca harvest festival showing the Inca ruler drinking maize beer as a
fantastical flying being offers a drink to the solar deity. B: Depiction of an Inca captain
drinking chicha and toasting the sun before a battle. C: Depiction of an Inca work party
being served chicha while planting maize (Guamán Poma 2009 [1615]).

THE MATERIAL CORRELATES OF CHICHA PRODUCTION:

PREVIOUS STUDIES AND CURRENT GOALS

Despite the fact that scholars studying ancient Peru have long acknowledged the
central role that chicha played in traditional Andean societies (Morris 1979; Murra
1960), surprisingly little information on recognizing chicha production loci in the
archaeological record is currently available (Hayashida 2008, 2009; Logan et al.
2012). In fact, Hayashida recently called for an increase in “ethnographic research
into chicha production to complement and augment existing sources” (2008b:235;
also see Kuznar 2001). This is not to say that chicha has not been studied. To the
contrary, numerous scholars have examined the role of chicha and other alcoholic
beverages in Andean society. This includes a remarkable number of studies of
drunkenness (e.g., Butler 2006; Cavero Carrasco 1986; Camino 1987; Heath 1962;
Saignes 1993; Weismantel 1991). In addition, large-scale chicha production has been
documented in the archaeological record from the Moche, Wari, Tiwanaku, Chimú,
and Inca civilizations (Bray 2009; Cook and Glowacki 2003; Goldstein 2003;
Goldstein and Colman 2004; Goldstein et al. 2009; Gumerman 2010; Jennings and
Bowser 2009; Logan et al. 2012; Moseley et al. 2005). These archaeological studies
have provided a fairly detailed description of state-sponsored chicha production
and consumption by high-ranking individuals and their constituents (e.g., Goldstein
et al. 2009; Hastorf and Johannessen 1993; Moore 1989; Moseley et al. 2005).
However, ethnohistorical accounts document that chicha was common at all levels
of society (Cobo 1983 [1653]; Guamán Poma 2009 [1615]; Valdez 2006). Clearly,
ethnoarchaeological research aimed at illuminating the production of chicha has
potential for broad application to the archaeological past.

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
362 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Despite its importance, relatively few studies focus on the archaeological

correlates of chicha production (Tables 1 and 2). More than fifty years ago,
Nicholson (1960) studied the various types of maize used to make chicha in
different parts of Peru and discussed the basic steps of chicha production. After a
hiatus of twenty-nine years, Moore published what would become a pivotal work
on chicha (Moore 1989). In this study, Moore used both ethnoarchaeological and
ethnohistorical data to interpret the role of chicha production in a residential sector
at the site of Manchan in the Casma Valley in northern Peru. In doing so, Moore
established a number of archaeological correlates of chicha production that have
been widely cited since. Renewed interest in the role of chicha in Andean societies
began after 2004 when, using experimental archaeology, Goldstein and Colman
researched chicha production in an effort to investigate the deposition of S. molle
seeds in the archaeological record. (Molle fruits were used to make chicha de molle
[see note 1].) This was followed by a study by Jennings (2005) focusing on labor
costs and material inputs of feasting events involving chicha. The most extensive
ethnoarchaeological study of chicha production to date was published in 2008
by Hayashida. As did those of Moore and Jennings, Hayashida’s investigation
detailed the step-by-step process of chicha brewing. It also documented some of the
material correlates that may be visible archaeologically. Nevertheless, Hayashida’s
ethnoarchaeological work focused on economies of production, utilizing
qualitative interviews and general observations of space, scale, and production
equipment. Furthermore, although Hayashida did conduct interviews at a small
number of distribution locations (chicherías [n = 10]), her work is distinct from the
current study in that it concentrated on two large-scale production facilities—that
is, production locations that utilize the equipment and labor of multiple households
in specialized facilities. This important work was followed by Finucane’s (2009)
study of stable carbon isotopes and by the collection of essays edited by Jennings
and Bowser (2009) entitled Drink, Power and Society in the Andes, which includes
significant studies by Perlov, Bray, Goldstein, Goldstein and Williams, Jennings
and Chatfield, Hayashida, and Weismantel.
Although these and other scholars have laid the groundwork for understanding
the economics of fermentation, the processes of production, and have even taken
preliminary steps toward isolating archaeological signatures of brewing, we
contend that there is still much more to be done. To this end, this study focuses
exclusively on the material correlates of small-scale household chicha production,
with an explicit emphasis on quantitative, rather than qualitative, data, including
measures of materials, use wear, refuse, residues, and other diagnostic correlates
of brewing. Scholars have recently acknowledged the need for such research and
for innovative methodologies to enhance our understanding of the archaeology of
brewers and brewing (Dietler 2006; Finucane 2007, 2009; Finucane et al. 2006;
Hastorf and Johannessen 1993; Hayashida 2008, 2009; Jennings and Bowser
2009; Logan et al. 2012). Numerous scholars have noted the difficulties inherent in
identifying chicha production in the archaeological record. Hayashida (2008:172),
for example, laments that “Household production for daily domestic consumption
might be difficult if not impossible to identify in the archaeological record.” At

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 MAIZE BEER PRODUCTION IN THE ANDES 363
Table 1. Summaries of seven of the most commonly cited studies of chicha.

Finucane Focuses exclusively on stable isotope analysis in an attempt to address

2009 the relationship between intensive maize agriculture and sociopolitical
complexity.

Goldstein Focuses on the S. molle plant and chicha de molle production in an effort
and to investigate the deposition of S. molle seeds in the archaeological
Coleman record. Using experimental archaeology to measure material inputs, the
2004 authors estimate the intensity of chicha production in archaeological
contexts. They suggest that large amounts of S. molle seeds discovered in
archaeological contexts are an important indicator of chicha production.

Goldstein Describes the archaeology of brewing as discovered at Cerro Baúl.

et al. 2009 Variations in the materials used to make chicha as well as the production
process are investigated. Correlates from the archaeological record of a
large-scale chicha production facility are discussed.

Hayashida Examines chicha production at two large-scale production facilities on

2008 Peru’s North Coast (Piura and Lambayeque). Discussion of material
correlates in this ethnoarchaeological study is limited. Instead, the
primary focus is on production steps and labor and material inputs.

Jennings Focuses on the labor and material costs of feasting events. It outlines
2005 the process of chicha production but does little to illuminate the material
correlates of that production.

Moore Uses ethnoarchaeological and ethnohistorical data to examine the role

1989 of chicha production in a residential sector at the site of Manchan in
the Casma Valley in northern Peru. After the production process is
described, emphasis is placed on levels of production and the degree of
specialization in ancient households.

Nicholson Focuses on the types of maize used to make chicha and on the
1960 manufacturing process. Highland and lowland regions are compared.

the same time, other scholars have called attention to the lack of household-level
studies of chicha production and consumption, saying: “small-scale production
and consumption events have remained largely invisible (Hayashida 2008; Morris
1979), hampering our ability to understand whether or not maize spread throughout
the Andes in the form of chicha” (Logan et al. 2012:236).
Observations such as these have driven the research presented here. The
premise of this paper is that ethnoarchaeological research offers considerable
potential for sound and testable hypotheses that can aid archaeologists both to
design research and to interpret the archaeological remains (Brumfiel 2006;
Hayashida 2009; Parker 2011; Stahl 1993; Watson 1980). The goal of this study
is not simply to project ethnographic observations onto the past. Instead, our
goal is to highlight specific material remains around which to build hypotheses
that can be tested archaeologically (Parker 2011). To do so we combine and
compare data from previous ethnographic and archaeological studies with a large

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 Table 2. Commonly cited studies of chicha and their relationship to the 15 indices of chicha production discussed in this paper.
364

Indices
1. Vessel form and uniformity
2. Lack of sooting on fermentation vessels
3. Lack of pedestalled temper on interior surfaces of fermentation vessels
4. Rim attrition on fermentation vessels
5. Lack of scratching on internal surfaces of fermentation vessels
6. Lack of abrasion on exterior surfaces of fermentation vessels
Study 1 2 3 4 5 6
Finucane Briefly mentions specific types of vessels — — — — —
2009 associated with chicha production and
consumption.
Goldstein — — — — — —
and Coleman
2004
Goldstein A preponderance of the remains of large jars — — — — —
et al. 2009 and large cups noted in the archaeological
record of a large-scale brewing facility.
Hayashida Notes the presence of large jars and implies — — Rim attrition noted on some — Cooling pots (tinajas) are said to
2008 uniformity between vessel types. vessels but no quantitative be stationary and a lack of exterior
data are provided. abrasion on these vessels is noted.
Jennings 2005 Briefly mentions specific types of vessels — — — — —
JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

associated with chicha production and

consumption.
Moore 1989 — — — — — —
Nicholson Briefly mentions specific types of vessels — — — — —
1960 associated with chicha production and

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

consumption.
— no data gathered

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 Table 2. Continued—
Indices
7. Spike in ubiquity of very large jars in household assemblages
8. Spike in ubiquity of large cups in household assemblages
9. Presence of specialized tools in household assemblages
10. Presence of rocker-style grinding stones
Study 7 8 9 10
Finucane 2009 — — — —
Goldstein and — — — —
Coleman 2004
Goldstein A preponderance of the remains A variety of large — —
et al. 2009 of large jars noted in the drinking cups noted in the
archaeological record of a large- archaeological record of a
scale brewing facility. large-scale brewing facility.
Hayashida — — Stirring sticks, gourd ladles Noted but no quantitative
2008 noted but no quantitative data are data are provided.
provided.
Jennings 2005 — — Mentions some specialized tools —
but quantitative data are provided.
Moore 1989 Noted that large jars are a — Notes that “cloth or basketry Suggests that large
potential correlate to chicha sieves” and stirring implements “milling stones” are
MAIZE BEER PRODUCTION IN THE ANDES

production but did not record data are potential correlates of chicha a material correlate
on frequency or variation between production. of chicha production.
producing and non-producing However, no quantitative
households. data are provided
Nicholson — — Briefly mentions stirring —
1960 sticks associated with chicha

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

production and consumption.
365

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 Table 2. Continued—
366

Indices
11. Support holes in kitchen floors
12. Presence of second (boiling) hearth
13. Increased sooting on walls and in vent holes
14. Presence of maize isotopes
15. Drip lines on fermentation vessels
Study 11 12 13 14 15
Finucane — — — Examines maize isotopes in human —
2009 collagen but did not examine ceramics
for maize lipids.
Goldstein — — — — —
and
Coleman
2004
Goldstein — — — — —
et al. 2009
Hayashida Noted but no quantitative Hearths are noted but no quantitative — — —
2008 data are provided. data are provided.
Jennings — — — — —
2005
JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Moore 1989 — Notes that hearths are essential to the — — —

production process but does not discuss
the number or typology of hearths.
Nicholson — — — — —
1960

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 MAIZE BEER PRODUCTION IN THE ANDES 367

new dataset from a region in which ethnoarchaeological studies of small-scale

chicha production have yet to be carried out. This study, which presents data
from recent ethnoarchaeological research on chicha production in eastern Cuzco
province, Peru, thus utilizes both new data and existing studies to identify fifteen
independent indices capable of aiding archaeologists in the recognition of contexts
of domestic brewing in the archaeological record. Previous studies demonstrate
that, despite both variation in technology and organization across the region and
cultural differences through time, ethnoarchaeological observations of modern
production and consumption of chicha in traditional settings can generate valuable
information pertinent to the interpretation of the archaeological record. This paper
builds on these studies by both verifying and questioning previous findings and by
proposing new analogs. When combined with the growing body of literature on
alcohol and commensality, the ethnoarchaeological indices of chicha production
can contribute to a much more comprehensive methodology for identifying and
interpreting archaeological contexts of small-scale household brewing.

METHODOLOGY

Field research targeted two types of chicha facilities.3 First, we sought out multiple,
remote, small-scale household production locations that satisfied the criteria listed
below. And second, in order to gather a significant sample of specific types of
data, we investigated a large number of chicha distribution locations (chicherías)
even though they usually did not satisfy those criteria.4

Production Locations
Production locations were chosen carefully. Since our main goal was to record
patterns of household-level brewing, we set out to study locations in rural areas
where we could be reasonably certain that production was small-scale and geared
toward local consumption. We define small-scale, household-level production
as production carried out by members of a single household within a domestic
structure. Production locations that utilized non-resident labor and/or specially
constructed facilities were therefore excluded from this part of our analysis.5 To
ensure that the production locations included in this study fit these criteria, we only
studied households in villages or hamlets in remote or relatively remote locations.
We categorized settlements with fewer than 100 dwellings (visible from Google
Earth) as “villages.” We further classified a settlement as “remote” or “relatively
remote” based on distance from, and travel time to, a main road.6 At production
locations emphasis was placed on the documentation of facilities, equipment, and
patterns of debris around chicha production areas.7 We also set out to document
variations in the use of space and to record vessel assemblages. These data were
then compared with parallel studies of households that do not produce chicha.8

Distribution Locations
At distribution locations, our goal was to record data about size, form, use
alteration, organic residue accumulation, manufacturing, and firing characteristics

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
368 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

from a large sample of chicha fermentation vessels. Generally speaking a

chichería consists of a storefront or domestic structure located in a central area
(a street corner or a square) or on a main road. At such locations one or more
(female) members of an extended family or social network sell chicha. Often
chicha production took place at chicherías, but in many cases producers brought
chicha brewed at home to specific locations for sale.9 When chicha is available for
sale the sellers open a specially designated room of their dwelling or storefront to
customers (also see Camino 1987; Orlove and Schmidt 1995).10 This is indicated
by placing a red banner (usually a red piece of plastic) on a long pole at the
entrance to the chichería.11 In some cases customers come to these locations to
drink, but in other cases, and especially in more remote areas, customers bring
containers that they fill with chicha to take either to the fields or to their homes.
We also recorded data about chicha fermentation vessels at production locations
even though, as enumerated above, our primary purpose at these sites was to
observe the production process.12

QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DATA AND THEIR

ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

Fermentation Vessels
Many archaeologists operate under the assumption that chicha fermentation
vessels are represented in the archaeological record by very large jars. However,
no previous studies present detailed information on fermentation vessel size,
morphology, or distinguishing characteristics. Furthermore, although scholars
such as Nicholson (1960), Goldstein and Colman (2004), Gumernan (2010)
Hayashida (2008), Jennings (2005), and Finucane (2009) all mention specific
ceramic types associated with chicha production, transportation, or consumption,
none of these scholars presents quantifiable data on the frequency or uniformity
of vessel classes (Table 2).
This study shows that chicha fermentation vessels are extremely uniform
over a wide geographic area. Chicha fermentation vessels currently in use in
the study region are very large neckless jars with flaring rims, a squat stature,
and very wide apertures (Table 3; Figures 2, 3, 4).13 Fermentation vessels in our
dataset (n = 64) range between 47 and 80 cm in height (mean = 57.3), have rim
aperture diameters (excluding one outlier) between 42 and 67 cm (mean = 50.93
[Table 4, Figure 4]), and rim and neck thicknesses between 0.7 and 1.5 cm (mean
= 1.1) and 0.8 and 2.0 cm (mean = 1.3), respectively.14 The mean maximum
circumference of vessels in our sample (180.9 cm), which is more than three times
the mean vessel height (57.3), highlights the uniquely squat stature of this type of
vessel (Figure 5). The uniformity of the form of chicha fermentation vessels in
the study region is well illustrated by the standard deviations in all of the above
categories. For example, the standard deviation in vessel height is only 7.08 cm,
and the standard deviations of the rim aperture diameter (5.4 cm), maximum
circumference (16.0), rim thickness (0.1), and neck thickness (0.25) are equally
small (Table 4). These data contradict the statement by Jennings and Chatfield

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 MAIZE BEER PRODUCTION IN THE ANDES 369

(2009:202) that “most possible brewing and fermenting vessels fit within the
volume range of typical household pots in use today.” Although this difference
may be due to regional variation, it is significant that all of the fermentation
vessels recorded in this study are very large jars. Furthermore, this type of vessel
was very rare among the assemblages of non-producing households included in
this study (Table 3, and see below).
Archaeological Implications: As noted above, the chicha fermentation
vessels we studied have a very uniform morphology. Although parallels could
be drawn between the morphology of these ceramics and numerous large jars
emanating from the archaeological record, it is not our intention to draw relational
analogies between these two data sets. We can, however, say that analogies
between present and past chicha fermentation vessels can be made on functional
grounds. We believe that the similarities in morphology noted in the ethnographic
record are at least partially due to the relationship between vessel morphology and
function (Arthur 2003:522; Hopkins 2004:41; Morris and Thompson 1985:74;
Runnels 2005; Sinopoli 1991:84; Valdez 2006:59). Simply put, if present and past
brewers sought to overcome similar obstacles to brewing, their efforts likely led
to vessels of similar morphologies.
The ethnographic data collected as part of this project suggest that the size and
form of the fermentation vessels are relatively uniform because this morphology
is ideal for the creation of manageable batches of chicha in a domestic setting
(Jennings and Chatfield 2009:201).15 Since exposing fermenting chicha to open
air is an important part of the fermentation process (see Appendix 1), the most
effective fermentation vessels should be very large jars with an extremely squat
stature (Table 4, Figures 4a and 5). For the same reason, and because fermentation
vessels are not meant to be sealed, they should exhibit very wide apertures
(Figure 4b). Specialized ceramics such as the fermentation vessels studied here
are likely to be manufactured by specialists. Building, finishing, and firing large
vessels with a specific function in mind requires specialized knowledge, skill, and
equipment. It is therefore likely that a limited number of specialists manufactured
fermentation vessels, and for this reason we expect there to be relative uniformity
of such vessels over relatively wide areas.

Use Alteration
James Skibo (1992:42) defines ceramic use alteration as “all changes in the
ceramic (surface or sub-surface) resulting from physical or chemical processes
that cause either the addition, deletion, or modification of material.” Such changes
that occur during the use-life of a ceramic vessel are thought to “provide the
best information for reconstructing past activity” (Skibo 1992:33). Literature on
Andean ceramics, especially those related to chicha, is all but devoid of studies of
use alteration (Table 2). Although Hayashida noted rim attrition on some vessels
in her study, no statistics or discussion of frequency is provided.
This study is thus unique in that we recorded use alteration on a large
number of ceramic fermentation vessels in our study area (n = 65). Use alteration
on the rim of fermentation vessels was evident in 90.7% of our sample (Table 5;

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
370 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Figure 2. Fermentation vessels from various locations.

A: Village 8, Chichería 1, Vessel 1; B: Village 2, Chichería 2, Vessel 1; C: Village 5,
Chichería 1, Vessel 2; D: Village 7, Chichería 1, Vessel 1; E: Village 7, Chichería 1, Vessel
2; F: Village 10, Chichería 1, Vessel 1.

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 MAIZE BEER PRODUCTION IN THE ANDES 371

Figure 3. Fermentation vessels from various locations.

A: Village 1; Chichería 2, Vessel 2; B: Village 1, Chichería 2, Vessel 1; C: Village 1
Chichería 8, Vessel 1; D Village 1, Chichería 6, Vessel 2; E: Village 1, Chichería 5, Vessel
1; F: Village 7; Chichería 3, Vessel 1.

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
372 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Figure 4. Fermentation vessel height (left) and rim diameter (right).

Figure 5. Comparison of fermentation vessel height to aperture circumference.

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 Table 3. Vessel inventories from chicha-producing and non-producing households.

Code Number of Chicha Separate Number Plates Bowls Sm. Cup Med. Cup Lg. Cup Sm. Jar Med. Jar Lg. Jar
Inhabitants Producing Kitchen of Ovens (1-7 cmd) (7-12 cmd) (<12 cmd) (1-14 cmd) (14-30 (30-45
Structure cmd) cmd)
CPA2 3 no yes 1 7 11 14 0 0 1 0 0
CPA3 4 no yes 1 4 5 7 0 0 0 0 0
CPA4 7 no yes 1 4 0 7 0 0 0 0 0
CPA5 4 no Yes 1 6 1 13 0 0 0 0 0
CPA6 2 no yes 1 6 3 10 0 0 0 0 0
CPA7 6 no yes 2 4 6 5 0 0 9 5 0
CPA8 1 no yes 1 nd 3 2 0 0 0 1 1
CPM1 3 no yes 1 7 2 8 0 0 0 0 0
Total: 8 Average: 1.125 5.429 3.875 8.25 0 0 1.25 0.75 0.125
CPA1 5 yes yes 1 5 5 14 0 nd 0 0 0
CPM2 8 yes yes 2 17 28 23 0 15 0 0 2
MAIZE BEER PRODUCTION IN THE ANDES

CPQ1 6 yes yes 2 16 7 14 2 10 0 0 0

CPQ2 10 yes yes 2 6 6 8 0 10 0 0 0
Total: 4 Average: 1.31731 11 11.5 14.75 0.5 11.667 0 0 0.5

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

373

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 374

Table 3. Continued—
Code Sm. Pan Med. Pan Lg. Pan Sm. Med. Lg. Cookpot X-Lg. Basin Serving Sm. Grind Lg. Grind
(0-15 (15-30 (30-45 Cookpot Cookpot (30-45 cmd) Jar/Pot Jug Stone Stone
cmd) cmd) cmd) (1-15 cmd) (15-30 cmd) (<45 cmd)
CPA2 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 1 2 1 0
CPA3 1 1 0 4 4 0 0 2 2 1 0
CPA4 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 2 1 1 0
CPA5 0 1 0 4 4 1 0 6 1 1 1
CPA6 0 4 1 3 8 0 0 3 0 1 1
CPA7 0 2 0 4 4 0 1 3 0 0 0
CPA8 1 0 0 1 5 0 0 2 0 0 1
CPM1 1 3 0 3 7 3 0 1 2 0 0
Average: 0.375 1.5 0.125 2.75 5.25 0.5 0.125 2.5 1 0.625 0.375
CPA1 0 3 0 6 5 0 2 2 3 1 0
CPM2 1 0 1 7 20 1 3 8 n/d 1 1
CPQ1 0 1 0 5 8 2 4 4 1 0 1
JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

CPQ2 2 0 0 2 8 1 4 4 1 1 1
Average: 0.75 1 0.25 5 10.25 1 3.25 4.5 1.6667 0.75 0.75

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 MAIZE BEER PRODUCTION IN THE ANDES 375

Table 4. Fermentation vessel data summary (measurements in cm)

Rim Rim Neck
Height Diameter Circumference Thickness Thickness
N 64 64 62 61 61
Minimum 47 34 137 0.7 0.8
Maximum 80 67 230 1.5 2
Median 56.25 50 179.5 1.2 1.4
Mean 57.313 50.93 180.968 1.166 1.357
SD 7.087 5.464 16.077 0.199 0.255

cf. Arthur 2003). At the same time, only 12.3% of our sample exhibited any form
of use alteration (scratching, scraping, gouging, etc.) on the exterior surface of
the vessel body, and only 10.7% exhibited any form of use alteration on interior
surfaces. Organic residue was extremely prevalent in our sample. Only 1.5% of
analyzed vessels exhibited no organic residue; 49% had significant organic residue
and 47.6% of the sample exhibited clear drip lines.16 Sooting was completely
absent from our sample. We neither observed nor were told that fermentation
vessels could also be used to store water (contra Hayashida 2008:172), and in no
cases did we observe, nor were we told, that fermentation vessels were abrasively
scrubbed or cleaned with soap.
Archaeological Implications: Following Arthur (2003), our premise is that,
if ceramic vessels employed today functioned similarly to those employed in the
past, then similar use-alteration patterns may be exhibited. Use wear recorded on
fermentation vessels in the study area shows very clear patterns. To begin with,
fermentation vessels are almost always made of ceramic materials (94% of observed
fermentation vessels [cf. Hayashida 2008:164]). This is due to the process by which
chicha ferments. Chicha is “spontaneously fermented,” meaning that the yeasts that
convert sugars into alcohol are drawn from the open air and are not added artificially
(Hayashida 2008:165; Jennings 2005:244; Nicholson 1960:291). Although we did
observe brewers adding previously fermented chicha to new batches to quicken the
fermentation process (cf. Jennings and Chatfield 2009:207; Nicholson 1960:298),
all yeasts were initially wild. Ceramic fermentation vessels are suitable for brewing
because they are semiporous, and the pores within the ceramic material capture
and harbor wild yeasts. These yeasts, which enable subsequent batches to ferment,
would be destroyed if the vessel were heated. Ceramic fermentation vessels can
therefore never be heated—an observation that is supported by the fact that exterior
surface sooting was not observed on any of the fermentation vessels recorded in
this study. Additionally, none of the vessels examined exhibited pedestaled temper
or pitting on inside surfaces—those use alterations are usually the result of habitual
contact with fire (Skibo 1992).17
Rim and body attrition occur in equally clear patterns. In 90.7% of recorded
fermentation vessels, there was at least minor attrition (Table 5). Use alteration
on the rim and lip of vessels generally consisted of attrition along the top of the

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
376 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Table 5. Evidence of organic residue and attrition from use on fermentation vessels
N %
Organic Residue Accumulation
None 1 1.5
Minor 22 33.8
Significant 32 49.3
Drip lines 31 47.6
Total number of vessels with organic residue† 64 98.4
Attrition from Use
Minor rim attrition 21 32.3
Moderate rim attrition 7 10.77
Significant rim attrition 31 47.6
Subtotal: vessels with rim attrition 59 90.77
Subtotal: vessels with no rim attrition 6 9.23
Exterior surface attrition 8 12.3
Interior surface attrition 7 10.7
Subtotal: vessels with surface attrition† 10 15.38
Subtotal: vessels with no surface attrition 55 84.61
† The categories “residue accumulation” and “drip lines” are not mutually exclusive; some vessels
showed both types of organic residue. Also, some vessels showed both interior and exterior surface
attrition. The subtotals and totals reflect number of vessels rather than occurrence of each category.

rim and chipping along the vessel lip (Figure 6). This is almost certainly due
to the wishbone-shaped wooden rods that support the strainers used during
sieving (Figure 7, and see below). Significantly, very few of the vessels observed
exhibited any type of exterior or interior body attrition (Table 5). We believe
that the lack of use alteration on interior surfaces is due to the delicacy of the
wort during the fermenting process when the taste of the finished chicha may
be greatly affected by contact with extraneous materials such as stirring sticks
or even human hands. We believe that this is why we never witnessed brewers
stirring or otherwise manipulating the contents of a fermentation vessel during the
fermentation process. Although fermentation vessels are occasionally cleaned, no
cleaning agent other than water is used, thus minimizing the destructive impact
of cleaning on the yeasts preserved in a vessel’s pores (cf. Jennings 2005:245).
When vessels are cleaned, only soft sponges and warm water are used, creating
little or no detectable abrasion.18 Thus, in 89.3% of the vessels analyzed, the
interior surfaces were free of attrition patterns generally associated with pots
whose contents were heated and stirred: they exhibited no scratching or gouging,
and, as mentioned above, pedestalled temper, pitting, or surface flaking were not
observed (cf. Arthur 2003:524).
Exterior body use alteration was present in only 12.3% of vessels analyzed.

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 MAIZE BEER PRODUCTION IN THE ANDES 377

Although, several vessels contained too much exterior organic residue to determine
exterior use alteration, we suggest that this pattern is due to the permanence of
fermentation vessel’s placement in kitchens and in chicherías. Fermentation
vessels are very large (see above). Once in place, fermentation vessels are seldom
moved from their original locations and thus do not have intermittent contact

Figure 6: Types of use alteration on fermentation vessel rims.

Figure 7. Gourd ladle (left) and wooden sieve stand (right).

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
378 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

with neighboring vessels or features. In fact, more than 50% of the fermentation
vessels analyzed were located in permanent prepared pits (cf. Bowser and Patton
2004; Camino 1987; Hayashida 2008; Mohr Chávez 1984/1985).

Vessel Assemblages
Although Moore (1989) suggested that the remains of large jars are a potential
indicator of chicha production, and this premise was followed by Goldstein et
al. (2009) and Gumernan (2010), among others, none of them presents data on
vessel frequency or the variation in assemblages between producing and non-
producing households. One of the goals of this project was therefore to observe
and record vessel assemblages at chicha-producing households and juxtapose
those data with similar inventories recorded at non-producing households (Arthur
2006). We acknowledge that data on assemblages in modern households cannot
act as a proxy for interpreting assemblages recovered from the archaeological
record. Instead, following a suggestion made by Hayashida (2008:172) we hoped
to identify trends and isolate patterns that may aid archaeologists in distinguishing
between chicha-producing and non-producing households. Such an index may
include the presence/absence or ubiquity of certain functional categories within
and between household assemblages (Arnold 2003).19
Vessel assemblages were recorded at four chicha-producing households
and eight non-producing households (Table 3). The most striking, although
not unexpected, trends in the data appear in the categories of “large cup” and
“extra-large jar/pot.” Both of these categories are almost entirely absent from
non-producing households whereas they are quite prevalent at chicha-producing
households. This observation confirms Hayashida’s (2008:172) hypothesis that
households engaged in chicha production may have larger numbers of certain types
of vessels (cf. Jennings and Chatfield 2009). It is also supported by archaeological
and ethnographic work in the Philippines, where Junker and Niziolek (2010:40)
conclude that the ubiquity of sherds emanating from a particular type of very large
jar is indicative of the production of alcoholic beverages in elite households.20
Archaeological Implications: Vessels fulfill functions within the domestic
economy, and the assemblage in use in a household is a reflection of the domestic
tasks in which that household engages (Arnold 2003). Many daily tasks, such as
cooking, serving, and storage, are undertaken by all households. Other tasks, such
as boiling and fermenting, are not. The data gathered as part of this study suggest
that most households do not need extra-large jars or pots (see Arthur 2006:84).
For this reason, assemblages from normal domestic contexts should not include
substantial amounts of sherds belonging to this category. However, paralleling
Arthur’s work in Ethiopia (2003:523, 526), our data suggest that the presence of
large amounts of sherds from such vessels may be an indication that brewing or
some other specialized activity took place within a particular household (also see
Junker and Niziolek 2010:40; Valdez 2006:60). A similar argument can be made
for unusual numbers of very large cups (kero) used to serve chicha: unless these
vessels fulfill another function within the domestic economy, they are not likely
to be prevalent in domestic contexts.

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 MAIZE BEER PRODUCTION IN THE ANDES 379

Tools
Numerous tools associated with chicha production were recorded during our
ethnoarchaeological research. These data largely confirm the observations made by
Nicholson (1960), Moore (1989), Jennings (2005), and Hayashida (2008). Tools
associated with chicha production include most notably ladles, sieves, sieve stands,
stirrers, and jugs (cf. Hayashida 2008:172, Table 1). In some cases informants used
plastic ladles to transfer chicha from one vessel to another, to fill jugs for transport,
or to serve customers, but in most cases the ladle was made from a hollow gourd
(Figure 7a). Equally interesting is the use of wicker baskets filled with straw as
sieves (Figure 8 and Mohr Chávez 1984/1985:165; Moore 1989; Randall 1993).
These baskets are very uniform in size and shape. They are usually about 40 cm in
diameter and 30 cm in height and have flat bottoms. Wicker sieves are supported
over fermentation and “sleeping” vessels by carved wooden sieve stands (Figure
7b) fashioned from the intersection of two tree branches (see Appendix 1). On a

Figure 8. Fermentation vessel with straw-lined wicker sieve

resting on V-shaped wooden sieve stand.

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
380 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

number of occasions we observed brewers stirring metal boiling vessels with a

stirring stick (cf. Nicholson 1960; Hayashida 2008:163). These sticks were up to 70
cm long but otherwise had no distinguishing characteristics. Finally, brewers used
plastic or ceramic jugs for serving, transferring, and transporting chicha at various
stages of production and distribution.
Moore (1989) and Hayashida (2008) both mention large grinding stones
(Figure 9) in association with chicha production but provide no quantitative data.
Our data show a distinct trend in the presence of small and large grinding stones.
Small pestle/mortar grindstones, which are commonly used for crushing herbs,
were present in both producing and non-producing households (75% of the former
and 62.5% of the latter [Table 3]). Large rocker-style grindstones were present in
75% of chicha-producing households and only 37.5% of non-producing households
(Table 3 [cf. Arthur 2003; Cutler and Cardenes 1947; Moore 1989; Morris 1979:28;
Shimada 1994:222]).21 In one of the non-producing household with a large rocker-
style grindstone, the inhabitants informed us that their grandmother had used the
grindstone to make chicha. Since the grindstone is very large and quite heavy, our
informant said that she saw no need to remove it from her yard.
Archaeological Implications: This study confirms and refines observations
made by a number of researchers regarding the specialized tools associated with
chicha production (Goldstein et al. 2009: Table 6.4; Hayashida 2008: Table 1; Moore
1989: Table 1). Such tools identified in our study area include ladles, sieves, sieve
stands and large rocker-style grinding stones (Figures 7–9). The fact that all but

Figure 9. Grinding maize for chicha using a rocker-style grinding stone.

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 MAIZE BEER PRODUCTION IN THE ANDES 381

the last of these artifact types are composed of biodegradable materials means that
this category may be of limited utility to archaeologists. Only when archaeological
contexts allow for the preservation of organic materials can we hope to recover
ladles, sieves, and sieve stands. Nevertheless, when materials such as gourds,
wood, and basketry do occur, the recovery of these tools is a powerful indicator of
chicha production. Rocker-style mortar and pestle kits are an obvious exception. In
fact, Arthur (2003:522) has noted that the presence of unusual numbers of grinding
stones may be a strong material correlate of beer production in Ethiopia, and a
similar observation has been made by Morris (1979:28) and Shimada (1994:222)
for the Andes. In contrast to the North Coast of Peru, where Hayashida (2008:
Fig. 13) recorded the use of wooden mortars (with stone pestles), in the Cuzco
region we recorded only large stone mortars and pestles. Since grinding large
amounts of maize is exclusive to chicha-producing households, the presence of
large rocker-style grinding stones (mortars or pestles or both) is a strong indicator
of archaeological contexts associated with chicha production.

Space
One of the main components of this project was to document the characteristics
of household chicha production areas and to compare them with similar data
from domestic production spaces in households that do not engage in chicha
production. To reach this goal we focused on production area architecture,
spatial segregation, the use of space, and hearth typology. We also documented
the production debris and methods of its disposal. Multiple observations of
households at varying elevations showed that chicha production is focused in and
around domestic kitchens. Only at one location (largely excluded from this study),
where chicha production was at a larger scale and was clearly aimed at supra-local
clientele, did we find significant alteration of domestic space.22 In all other cases
we documented no significant alteration of domestic architecture to accommodate
chicha production. The only exception to this observation is in the placement of
boiling hearths (see below).
Modern houses in rural communities in our study area are essentially
rectangular or triangular adobe compounds composed of three or more free-
standing structures (Figure 10). The first is usually a large (ca. 3–4 m by 8–10
m) structure that invariably forms the front of the compound. Often a door faces
a street or similar buildings belonging to other house compounds. Although our
research did not focus on these structures, it is clear that this is the main sleeping
quarters. Behind this structure is usually a courtyard. In some cases one enters the
courtyard through the main structure; in other cases one enters through a gate at
the side of the main structure. One perimeter of the courtyard is usually formed by
a free-standing kitchen (Figures 10 and 11). All of the kitchens measured as part
of this project (n = 12) were between 2.5 and 3 m wide and 3.5 and 4.5 m long.
There is no significant variation between chicha-producing and non-producing
households in the size or shape of these structures. The rectangular or triangular
house compound is usually completed by the toilet and storage structures or
animal shelters. Countless casual observations of other house compounds suggest

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
382 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Figure 10. Schematic diagrams of two house compounds.

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 MAIZE BEER PRODUCTION IN THE ANDES 383

Figure 11. Schematic diagram of a kitchen.

that the general pattern described here is ubiquitous, especially in the more remote
villages of the study area.
During the fieldwork we closely examined twelve kitchens in house
compounds similar to those described above. The modern Andean kitchens we
observed are the locus of both cooking and eating. Although there is no notable
variation in the size and form of these structures, there is significant variation
between chicha-producing and non-producing households in the use of space
within and around them. To begin with, chicha-producing households must make
room for at least two very large jars (the sleeping vessel and the fermentation
vessel [Figure 11]) within the relatively restricted space of these structures. In
all cases, free-standing kitchen structures had dirt floors. To support the large
jars associated with chicha production, small holes were usually excavated in the
kitchen floors (cf. Bowser and Patton 2004; Camino 1987; Hayashida 2008; Mohr
Chávez 1984/1985).
Nash (2010:91–94, 100–101) recently used hearth typology at Cerro Mejía to
deduce the location of chicha-producing households in the archaeological record.
Interestingly, there is a significant difference between Nash’s assumptions and the
conclusions reached by Hayashida (2008, especially p. 163 and figs. 3 and 4), who
reported that in her study location boiling vessels were placed in an open fire rather
than on a kitchen hearth. In an effort to test these two observations, we paid special
attention to hearths and hearth typology in the course of our fieldwork. We conclude
that the presence and placement of a second chicha boiling hearth is a key difference
between chicha-producing and non-producing households in our study region.
Modern domestic cooking hearths in the study area usually consist of a
raised adobe or stone superstructure supporting two small burner holes over a
fire (Figure 12 right). Burner holes in hearth superstructures are invariably sized

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
384 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

for small to medium pots (ca. <25 cm). This type of domestic cooking facility
was present in all domestic kitchens examined in the study area. In addition to
these domestic cooking hearths, chicha-producing households also had a second,
larger hearth. These boiling hearths can be relatively simple affairs, consisting
of a few bricks around a fire pit, or more elaborate constructions consisting of
an adobe or stone superstructure with one large burner hole over a fire designed
to support a very large jar or pot (Figure 12 left). In many cases and especially
at higher elevations, boiling hearths were incorporated into or constructed beside
traditional cooking hearths (Figure 12). In some cases information about chicha
boiling hearths could not be collected (35.8% [n = 23]). When information about
boiling hearths was obtainable, the prevalence of such features was overwhelming:
in only two cases (3.8%) were chicha fermentation vessels observed in a house
compound that did not have a segregated boiling hearth. In all other cases (61.5%
[n = 40]) chicha fermentation vessels were in some way associated with boiling
hearths (Table 6). In addition, all chicha-producing households examined as part
of this study had separate boiling hearths (n = 4) whereas only one non-producing
household had a distinct secondary hearth, and in that case it was located in a yard
outside the kitchen structure (Tables 3 and 6).
This pattern is a direct result of the chicha brewing process. To make chicha,
the wort or primera agua must be boiled for a significant amount of time in order
to convert starches into sugars which the yeast will later consume and convert into
alcohol (see Appendix 1 and Hayashida 2008:165; Jennings 2005:244; Moore
1989:686; Nicholson 1960:291). This step in production can tie up a hearth for as

Figure 12. A boiling hearth (left) and a cooking hearth (right) with adobe superstructure.

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 MAIZE BEER PRODUCTION IN THE ANDES 385
Table 6. Presence of hearths
Hearths N % of hearths % of total
No hearth 23 35.38
Segregated boiling hearths 40 95.23
Other hearths 2 4.76
Subtotal hearths 42 64.62

much as a day. For this reason, brewing households need two hearths; one cooking
hearth, usually constructed to accommodate medium-sized pots, and one boiling
hearth constructed to accommodate large to very large pots.23 The placement of
boiling hearths in chicha-producing house compounds varied. In most cases the
boiling hearth was inside the kitchen near or next to the domestic cooking hearth
(Figures 11 and 12). In some cases, the boiling hearth was located in a courtyard
outside the kitchen. In one case, the boiling hearth was located in a separate area
at the perimeter of the house compound.
Archaeological Implications: Our observations indicate that houses were
not constructed with chicha production in mind. In fact, our data show that the
layout of traditional houses in our study area is more or less uniform. However,
chicha producers utilize existing space and technologies differently from non-
producers. To begin with, all kitchens we examined where chicha was produced
had small holes in the floors to accommodate one or more large jars.
Goldstein and Shimada (2010) recently commented that “hearth placement
and location relate significantly to the physical structures of sustenance, both
production and supply, at modern and ancient sites.” The greatest difference in
the use of space between chicha-producing and non-producing households in our
study area is the inclusion of an additional hearth by chicha producers. Heating
the wort (jora) often takes place over a period of many hours, requiring a hearth
for extended periods (see Appendix 1 and Cutler and Cardenas 1947:45–47;
Hayashida 2008:162–63; Nicholson 1960:296–97). Because chicha producers
must also cook food for their families during this time, brewers in nearly all
cases have constructed two discrete hearths, one solely for chicha production and
the other for all other cooking activities (Table 6). Chicha boiling hearths can
be distinguished from cooking hearths because they have larger apertures than
cooking hearths (to accommodate the extra-large pots typically used to boil the
jora). Hearths used for cooking have much smaller apertures (Figure 12). The
same observations reveal significant differences in the use of space within kitchen
structures between producers and non-producers. In all cases, chicha-producing
households dedicated considerable space to its production, most notably space
devoted to one or more very large fermentation vessels that were set into kitchen
floors in small divots or holes (Figure 11 and Bowser and Patton 2004).

Debris
Observations of cooking and boiling facilities confirm that chicha-producing
households create significantly more ash than non-producing households. On

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
386 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

six occasions we observed brewers clearing out ash from boiling hearths before
lighting a new fire to boil the wort. The same was not true of cooking hearths,
where ash appears to have been allowed to accumulate for several days. We also
noted that chicha-producing households accumulated large amounts of soot on
kitchen walls and around ventilation shafts. Although some soot was evident in
other kitchens, the overall accumulation of soot was far less than that in chicha-
producing kitchens. Another significant difference in debris production between
producing and non-producing households is the fact that chicha-producing
households create a significant amount of maize-based organic waste. This waste,
called alfrecho, consists of the twice-boiled remains of ground germinated maize
that is caught in a sieve after boiling (Appendix 1).
Archaeological Implications: The additional ash produced during the
boiling process as well as the organic waste associated with chicha production did
not prove to be reliable indices of chicha production in our study. However, our
ethnoarchaeological observations did show that in chicha-producing households
the process of boiling chicha wort created a significant amount of soot on kitchen
walls—far more than in non-producing households.
Despite the fact that large quantities of ash were created during the lengthy
process of boiling the wort, this debris was invariably collected by brewers and
scattered in household gardens. Furthermore, in all observed cases, the organic
waste by-product was fed to domestic animals, especially guinea pigs (cuy), which
often lived in or near the production areas (e.g., Hayashida 2008:164; Jennings
2005:245; Nicholson 1960:297; cf. Moore 1989:167). In contrast, Moore (1989)
documented large pits filled with the remains of alfrecho associated with domestic
structures and small-scale chicha production in the archaeological record.
Although our observations call into question one of Moore’s main
indicators of chicha production, it also brings up another potentially powerful
archaeological correlate. The consumption of alfrecho by domestic animals that
are in turn consumed by humans may cause an enriched maize isotopic signature
in human collagen. If inhabitants of chicha-producing households were indeed
consuming animals foddered on alfrecho, they may exhibit higher enriched C13
isotopic values than their neighbors. It may therefore be possible to reveal not
just household breweries, but the inhabitants of those households as well. Further
isotopic studies are needed to substantiate this hypothesis.

Organic Residues and Drip Lines

Our data also show that the exterior surfaces of fermentation vessels are more-or-
less in constant contact with large amounts of organic residue. In fact, of the 65
fermentation vessels examined as part of this study, 64 (98.5%) exhibited some
organic residue on exterior surfaces. Furthermore, more than half of our sample
51% (n = 33) had “significant” organic residue on exterior surfaces (Table 5).24
Organic residues were commonly concentrated around handles and on vessel
shoulders. In some cases organic residues were so thick and encrusted that the
surface of the vessel was completely obscured. In less extreme cases, clear and
frequent drip lines were noted, often extending from the rim of the vessel to

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 MAIZE BEER PRODUCTION IN THE ANDES 387

the base. In the majority of cases, there was a combination of solidified organic
residue and clear drip lines.
Archaeological Implications: The identification and analysis of organic
residues have significant implications for archaeological research. Isotopic
analysis of fermentation vessels have in many cases returned results indicating
the presence of maize (Burger and Van Der Merwe 1990; Finucane 2007, 2009;
Finucane et al. 2006; Hastorf and Johannessen 1993).25 In addition, although
none of the most often cited studies of chicha in the Andes has commented on
whether or how continual contact with organic residues may affect the physical
appearance of ceramics (Table 2), it is certainly possible that drip lines such as
those we observed may be visible on some ancient pots.26

SUMMARY

In sum, this study presents fifteen indices that are indicative of household chicha
production and, when used together, can aid archaeologists in the recognition of
loci of chicha production in the archaeological record. We chose the term indices
because we have sought multiple independent categories of data to aid in this
endeavor. We readily acknowledge that no ethnoarchaeological index or set of
indices can “prove” the existence of brewers or brewing in the archaeological
record. However, it is our position that the identification of one or more of the
archaeological indices enumerated in this paper would add clear and concrete
backing to such an identification. These indices are as follows:
1. Ancient fermentation vessels may share functional characteristics, which
may manifest as morphological similarities (especially size, form, and
aperture measurements), with fermentation vessels currently in use.
Furthermore, fermentation vessels should differ from storage vessels in
several of these morphological characteristics.
2. Chicha is fermented by yeasts harbored in the pores of ceramic vessels,
which can be killed by heating. For this reason, fermentation vessels,
whether ancient or modern, should not exhibit sooting.
3. Since fermentation vessels are never heated, they should not exhibit
pedestalled temper or interior flaking characteristic of vessels that are used
for cooking or boiling.
4. Habitual sieving of boiled jora into fermentation vessels should leave
clear and detectable use alteration in the form of abrasion and/or chipping
on the top of fermentation vessel rims.
5. Since the contents of fermentation vessels should never be stirred or
otherwise manipulated, such vessels should not exhibit scratching or
gouging on interior surfaces.
6. Fermentation vessels are rarely moved. For this reason, outside surfaces
of such vessels should not exhibit exterior abrasion that may be associated
with habitual contact with other vessels or features.
7. Vessel assemblages in and around chicha-producing households should
include a dramatic spike in sherds originating from extra-large jars/pots

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
388 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

with a squat shape, and this class of vessel should be virtually absent from
assemblages emanating from non-producing households.
8. Vessel assemblages in and around chicha-producing households may also
include a spike in sherds originating from very large cups. This class of
vessel should be much less prevalent in assemblages emanating from non-
producing households.
9. In archaeological contexts that allow for the preservation of organic
materials the discovery of gourd ladles, wicker sieves, and wooden sieve
stands would be an additional indicator of chicha production.
10. Tool assemblages around loci of chicha production should include large
rocker-style grinding stones, which are not normally part of the tool
assemblage associated with non-producing households.
11. Although kitchen architecture does not appear to be conditioned by
domestic chicha production, the presence of support holes in kitchen floors
may betray the segregation of space for large, stationary fermentation
vessels.
12. Chicha-producing households should have two hearths: one associated
with chicha production and one reserved for cooking. The second, larger
hearth (the boiling hearth) should be located in or near the household’s
kitchen and should be designed to accommodate extra-large jars/pots.
13. Since boiling hearths associated with chicha production create large
accumulations of soot on walls and ceilings of associated structures,
concentrations of soot identified archaeologically are an additional
indicator of the loci of chicha production.
14. When tested, sherds from ancient fermentation vessels will, under most
circumstances, exhibit chemical isotopic evidence of maize.
15. In some cases, the exterior surfaces of fermentation vessels may exhibit
drip lines and/or solidified organic accumulations associated with habitual
contact with chicha.

CONCLUSION

Applying ethnographic observations to the archaeological record is fraught with

seemingly insurmountable methodological and theoretical challenges (Binford
1967; Gould and Watson 1982; Wiley 1982, 1985). First and foremost, given
the depth of time, not to mention the diversity of geography, we acknowledge
that we can never know if the behaviors that produced the remains studied
ethnographically are actually comparable to those found in the archaeological
record (Hodder 1999:46). In fact, this problem is so acute that some scholars have
dismissed ethnoarchaeology out of hand, saying that the specific histories of past
and present societies “are always going to be idiosyncratic and quirky,” making
any ethnoarchaeological interpretation “subjective and contestable” (Matthews
2003:124). This being the case, what contributions do studies such this have to
offer? We submit that the answer to this question is testable hypotheses. This
project started with a very straightforward goal: to create a methodology that can

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 MAIZE BEER PRODUCTION IN THE ANDES 389

help archaeologists identify and interpret the archaeology of household brewers

and brewing. To do so, we combined new and existing data to pursue multiple lines
of evidence in an effort to develop the ethnoarchaeological indices summarized
above. Although we acknowledge that some of our suppositions may prove to be
unhelpful or even false, we argue that the data and interpretations we present not
only can be used to help guide excavation and sampling strategies, but they can,
and should, be applied to the formulation of hypotheses that can be tested through
archaeological fieldwork and analysis.

NOTES

This study was conducted under the auspices of the University of Utah (IRB number
00060310) and the pertinent local Peruvian authorities. We would like to thank the
Municipalidad Distrital de Cusco, Perú, for granting us permission to conduct this research.
This study was funded by a grant from the University of Utah’s University Research
Committee (URC). We are indebted to the committee and the Office of the Vice President
for Research at the University of Utah for their support. We would like to thank Timothy
Marti and Ascend Travel, as well as several friends in the Cusco region, for aiding us in
the logistics associated with working in the remote areas where much of this research was
conducted. We would also like to thank Professor Lawrence Straus for his comments and
for shepherding this paper through the review process. We offer our sincere gratitude to the
numerous anonymous reviewers, some of whom read several incarnations of this paper.
The comments and critiques given during the lengthy review process were invaluable.
Bradley would like to dedicate his efforts to “my little virtuoso” Tabitha Rose (La Folia is
next Tab!). He’d also like to say welcome to Max.
1. The ethnographic and ethnohistorical records attest to the wide diversity of fer-
mented beverages utilized in the Andes. Perhaps the most common of these is chicha de
jora, a fermented beverage made from germinated maize (for discussion see Goldstein et
al. 2009; Goldstein and Colman 2004; Gómez Huamn 1966; Jennings and Chatfield 2009;
Nicholson 1960). Note that although the term chicha can refer to a number of different fer-
mented beverages in the Andes, this study focuses on those made from germinated maize.
2. Sources include Atienza (1931 [1575?]); Cobo (1983 [1653]); Cieza de León
(2005 [1553]); Guamán Poma 2009 [1615]); Murúa (1946 [1590]).
3. This study was conducted under the auspices of the University of Utah (IRB
number 00060310) and the pertinent local Peruvian authorities. The ethnoarchaeological
observations considered in this paper were recorded during two extended field seasons and
two follow-up trips. The first was conducted in December 2012 and the second in June,
July, and August of 2013. Preliminary scouting for both field seasons was undertaken by
two local collaborators in August and November of 2012, and follow-up anecdotal data
collection and re-visits were conducted in January and July of 2014. Interactions with
participants were usually in Spanish but in some cases they were translated into Quechua
by a local collaborator. Potential participants were informed of our study before research
was conducted and observations were only undertaken with verbal consent of potential
subjects. No sound or video recording equipment was used. In order to ensure the com-
patibility of datasets from different households, we utilized standardized recording sheets
(David and Kramer 2001:68–69). Although the data we set out to gather was quite specific
(see below), we left the observation process relatively open-ended in order to explore so-
cial and economic aspects of brewing that we might not have considered relevant during

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
390 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

the process of planning this study (Stark 1994:172). The ethnoarchaeology observation
recording sheets (EOS) were developed by the authors over the course of three semesters
of reading and methodological preparation at the University of Utah prior to our first field
season. Photos were only taken of equipment, materials, and debris, and only with the
permission of participants. Raw data tables are available by contacting Bradley Parker
at [email protected] or by visiting http://opencontext.org/projects/b674332d-
d19b-4097-a99f-64c614e65b05. (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.6078/M79021P9).
4. We recorded data at six small-scale production households, eight non-producing
households, and 41 chicha distribution locations in 14 villages and towns spread across a
geographic region measuring approximately 87 by 35 km (ca. 53 by 26 miles) and rang-
ing in elevation from 2,830 to 3,870 m (ca. 9,300 to 12,700 ft). Note that our definition of
small-scale brewing does not match that of Hayashida (2008:163) in that Hayashida con-
siders chicherías to be household breweries (for our definitions and the distinction between
household and supra-house production, see the text).
5. For example, many of the chicherías described in the next section were also en-
gaged in production (although in several cases production took place in different locations
and chicha was then brought to the chichería for sale). However, since we invariably ob-
served that such facilities were engaged in production beyond the household level, we did
not consider them in our analysis of production locations.
6. We considered production locations to be “remote” if they were located more than
30 minutes by car from a main road. We considered production locations to be “relatively
remote” if they were located more than 20 minutes by car from a main road. We consider a
“main road’ to be a road over which we counted more than 10 cars passing per hour during
daylight hours.
7. This included the documentation of production installations and equipment, raw
material inputs per liter of chicha produced, variation in production methods, patterns of
ceramic use alteration, organic residues on ceramic vessels, ash accumulation, and patterns
of organic material discard.
8. The process of chicha production has been well documented by other researchers
(Moore 1989; Hayashida 2008; Jennings 2005; Nicholson 1960). For this reason, and since
describing the production process was not our primary concern, we relegate our description
of this process to Appendix 1.
9. See Appendix 2 for a discussion of gender. Also, we recognize that our catego-
ries of “production” and “distribution” locations could overlap. However, since this study
focuses on small-scale, household-level production, we only studied production locations
where we could be reasonably certain that production was small-scale and geared toward
local consumption (see text).
10. For a discussion of the history of chicherías in Cuzco, see Weismantel
2009:264–67.
11. Note that Hayashida (2008:162) recorded white flags being used for the same
purpose on Peru’s North Coast.
12. In recording ceramic data we emphasized multiple lines of inquiry. First, we
measured the size (height and maximum circumference), rim and neck thickness, aperture
diameter, and interior and exterior color (using a Munsell Color Chart). We also recorded
use alteration, patterns of organic residue deposit, manufacturing techniques, and firing
characteristics. In addition to recording the characteristics of the vessels themselves, we
also collected information on the vessel’s context, paying special attention to number of
hearths in use and whether or not the vessels were resting in prepared pits.
13. The ceramic terminology used in this study follows Rice 1987. Since the vessels

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 MAIZE BEER PRODUCTION IN THE ANDES 391

shown in Figures 2 and 3 were in use, only rim profiles (rather than whole pots) could be
drawn. The ceramic analysis focuses on fermentation vessels because (as discussed in the
text) boiling and transport vessels are now largely made of other materials.
14. Note the parallels between the fermentation jars we observed and those described
in Mohr Chávez’s (1984/1985) ethnoarchaeological study of potters in Raqch’i, Peru.
15. Note the parallel with fermentation vessels in the Philippines (Junker and
Niziolek 2010).
16. The accumulation of organic residue may therefore help to distinguish fermenta-
tion vessels from storage vessels, which may have similar overall morphologies but would
not exhibit these sticky residues.
17. Note the contrast here with the data reported by Arthur (2003:524–25) from
Ethiopia, where severe pitting and erosion was recorded on vessels used for brewing. Per-
haps the vessels recorded by Arthur were used exclusively for boiling (not studied here)
rather than fermentation.
18. This observation was confirmed by examining fermentation vessels before and
after cleaning.
19. Household vessel inventories were recorded using a modified version of the
typology presented by Bray (2003b). Since our aim was to make generalizations about
the ubiquity of certain functional categories regardless of the material of manufacture,
we based our classifications on dimensions and performance characteristics (Hally 1986;
Rice 1987). The typology thus utilizes various sizes (very small, small, medium, large,
extra-large) of vessel types (cups, plates bowls, jars) grouped into performance categories
(production, serving, storage, and transport). See Table 3 for results.
20. The numbers of plates, bowls, small cups, and various sizes of cookpots appear
to be only loosely correlated with the number of inhabitants in each household.
21. Cutler and Cardenas (1947:41) describe rocker-style grinding stones associated
with chicha production: “The maize grains are usually ground by hand, often with a half-
moon-shaped stone rocker on a flat stone.”
22. This is analogous to the pattern discussed by Hayashida (2008); the two chicha-
production locations she studied were also large-scale production centers for supra-local
clientele. At each of these locations, brewers made significant alterations to production
spaces. The alteration of space may, therefore, be an indication of larger-scale production.
23. At Sialupe on Peru’s North Coast, Goldstein and Shimada (2010:162, 171–72)
interpret a hearth pattern consisting of frequent small cooking hearths and less frequent
large hearths as representing the remains of household and “supra-household food produc-
tion,” which included the production of chicha.
24. We characterize organic residue accumulation to be “significant” when it cov-
ered at least 50% of the vessel’s exterior surface.
25. See Staller et al. 2010 for similar studies in Mesoamerica.
26. On both of the discarded fermentation vessels we encountered, drip lines were
clearly visible, even years after they had been used.
27. Compare these observations with those of Hayashida (2008:162) and Jennings
(2005:244). Hayashida notes that informants reported much shorter germination times (7
to 10 days in one case and 6 to 8 days in another) on Peru’s North Coast (although weather
and season were not reported). Jennings states that this process takes 5 to 6 days, although
little other information is given. Nicholson (1960: 295, 297) states that this process takes
about 3 days in lowland regions and 8 to 15 days in highland regions.
28. The data presented here from the Cuzco region vary significantly from that from
Peru’s North Coast, where Hayashida (2008:162–63) reports not only very wide variations

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
392 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

in boiling times but also much longer boiling times of from 1 to 10 hours in one case and 7
to 15 hours in another. Cutler and Cardenas (1947:45–47) report periodic boiling for up to
3 days, whereas Nicholson (1960:296, 297) reports initial boiling time of 3½ hours at low
elevations and about 6 hours at high elevations. This is followed by longer boils at lower
heat. Variation in boiling time recorded in the ethnographic and ethnohistoric records is
also reported by Gillin (1947) and Moore (1989:689).
29. Investigating large-scale production facilities, Hayashida (2008:163–64) reports
that one batch of chicha takes four days to complete in one area and two to three in another.
30. Note the significant difference between this observation and that reported by
Jennings (2005), who, citing Cutler and Cardenas (1947), states that the fermentation pro-
cess takes between 1 and 6 days.

APPENDIX 1: THE PROCESS OF CHICHA PRODUCTION

Both our observations and our interviews confirm that the chicha production process is
extremely uniform over a relatively wide area and over large elevation differentials. The
process consists of the following 13 steps: drying maize cobs; removing, soaking, and
germinating the kernels; drying the germinated kernels and grinding them; boiling, cooling,
and sieving the primera agua; boiling, cooling, and mixing the segunda agua; and fermenting.
Our observations have both significant similarities to and important differences from those
of Jennings (2005), Jennings and Chatfield (2009), Hayashida (2008), Moore (1989) and
Nicholson (1960). These data can also be compared with Arthur’s (2003) work in Africa.
For this reason we present a brief description of the various steps of production here.

The Process Prior to Germination

Unlike brewers observed by Hayashida (2008:162), only one of the participants observed
in this study purchased milled maize flour from vendors (see below). In all other cases
brewers started with freshly picked cobs and undertook the drying and milling processes
as part of domestic chicha production. The time necessary for drying the harvested maize
cobs varies depending upon the season. Maize is usually placed on a balcony or in an empty
room or some other covered area for drying. During some parts of the year maize can be
seen drying in almost every house compound in rural areas. Cobs best suited for chicha
production are first selected from maize cob piles. In all of our observations, drying piles
contained multiple varieties of corn. On one occasion we counted twenty-five different
varieties drying in a single house compound. Local informants described the characteristics
of each variety. In addition, one of our informants told us that in more traditional settings
at higher elevations, and especially when a family uses its production for subsistence,
the maize fields usually consist of multiple varieties planted together in the same field.
This is apparently better for the soil and militates against crop failure. In locations where
maize is grown for sale to middlemen (usually at lower elevations), maize varieties are
planted separately (cf. Nicholson 1960:293). All agree that several large-kernelled yellow
and white varieties are best for making chicha. On several occasions informants told us
that these varieties ferment faster and taste better than other varieties. Nevertheless, we
observed brewers using at least a few other varieties along with the preferred white or
yellow kernels. On one occasion the brewer told us that this adds taste and character to her
chicha and that her customers prefer it over that of other sellers. We recorded 62 cobs of
various sizes being used to produce 6.5 kg of dried maize for that day’s batch of chicha.
Ten varieties of maize were included, although approximately 80% were from the white
and yellow varieties; the other 20% was a mix of the other eight varieties.

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 MAIZE BEER PRODUCTION IN THE ANDES 393

After cobs were selected, kernels were manually removed from the cobs and piled
together. The kernels were then put in a large basin and saturated with water. Multiple
observations confirm that kernels are left in this state for approximately 12 to 15 hours.
This time period corresponds with that reported by Hayashida (2008:162) and Jennings
(2005:244–45), although Nicholson (1960:295) reports that in highland regions this
process takes three days and nights. After this step is complete, brewers place the soaked
kernels on a plastic tarp in a designated location (next to other germinating maize) in a
nearby yard, courtyard, or balcony that receives ample sunlight (cf. Nicholson 1960:295).
Brewers line the plastic with straw upon which the soaked kernels are spread. Multiple
observations show that the soaked kernels are then covered with maize husks. Finally, a
tarp held down by stones is used to cover the husks. In two cases, informants told us that
it is detrimental for the plastic to come into contact with the germinating kernels, and
we observed that germination is more effective when kernels are in contact with maize
husks. The goal of this system is to retain moisture, produce warmth, and deprive the
grains of sunlight. Similar or identical germination processes were observed (on multiple
occasions) at eight production locations. However, at one high-elevation location (above
12,000 ft), we observed grain germinating in the corner of a kitchen (on separate visits,
in the Peruvian winter and summer). We were told that the temperature is too low at this
elevation for the kernels to germinate and that this practice is common at high elevations.
Multiple informants reported that the germination process takes between 7 and 21 days
to complete, depending upon the weather, temperature, and elevation. Observations
confirmed germination time fell within this range depending on these variables.27

The Process after Germination

In preparation for the production of a batch of chicha, brewers choose germinated kernels
from maize put down for germination in the previous weeks. In all cases, we observed
that germinated kernels were considered ready for further processing when the roots were
between 5 and 10 cm in length and tasted sweet. No weighing equipment was employed by
the brewers to measure the amount of germinated kernels to be used in the day’s batch. Our
observations suggest that brewers either filled a bag or counted the handfuls of germinated
kernels they were to use. On several occasions, team members weighed the germinated
kernels selected for brewing. On these occasions the amounts were between 7.5 and 8
kg. At another location a brewer informed us that she used 12 kg of maize although this
amount was not observed.
The next step is to dry the germinated kernels. To do so the selected kernels are laid
on a plastic tarp in a yard. On a sunny day it is only necessary to dry the kernels for 2 or 3
hours. In other weather conditions we were told that this process can take as much as 6 to
7 hours (cf. Nicholson 1960: 295–96, 297). Once the germinated maize is sufficiently dry
the grinding process can begin. All of the production locations observed had access to large
rocker-style grinding stones (Cutler and Cardenas 1947:41), but one of our informants
also had a mechanical grinder and another bought ground maize from a supplier. Grinding
using a rocker-style grinder is relatively labor intensive. It can take more than an hour of
intensive labor to grind enough dried germinated maize for a batch of chicha consisting
of approximately 25 to 30 l (see below). Ground germinated maize (the jora) is added to
between 18 and 20 l of boiling water to create the wort or primera agua. The resulting
liquid is boiled intensively for between 30 minutes and 1.5 hours.28 Although the initial boil
is relatively short, we observed that the wort was left over the coals “to cool” for another 5
to 6 hours in some cases, and in one case the wort was left overnight.
Sieving is traditionally accomplished by placing a basket lined with straw on a

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
394 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

V-shaped wooden implement (the sieve stand) over a ceramic vessel known as a “sleeping
vessel” (Moore 1989; Nicholson 1960). The cooled liquid is then poured through the
basket to separate the wort from the mash (Jennings 2005:245). The wort is allowed to
“rest” (Cutler and Cardenas 1947) while, in a significantly different process than that
described by Nicholson (1960), the alfrecho remaining in the sieve is boiled a second time
to create the segunda agua (cf. Hayashida 2008). The segunda agua is created by adding the
previously boiled alfrecho to approximately half the amount of water used in the original
boil. Observed boiling times varied between 30 and 60 minutes.
To create the final mixture that is fermented to create chicha, brewers adopted one
of two strategies. One strategy, which was only observed at one location, involved adding
previously fermented chicha into a batch at the beginning of the fermentation process (cf.
Jennings and Chatfield 2009:207; Nicholson 1960:298). In all other cases, the yeast that
is harbored in the coarse pores of the ceramic material is the sole source of fermentation.
All fermentation vessels were left exposed to open air, drawing in airborne yeasts to aid
in the process.
Generally, the brewer sampled the mixture in order to determine how much of the
segunda agua to add. Our observations suggest that all or most of the segunda agua is
added to produce the final mixture. The entire post-germination process described here is
completed in a single day.29 Once the final mixture is complete it is left in the fermentation
vessel for 6 to 12 hours, after which it is considered ready for consumption (cf. Cutler and
Cardenas 1947:47; Jennings 2005:245; Nicholson 1960:296).30

APPENDIX 2: GENDER

In each of the 41 distribution locations (chicherías) we visited, and in each of the six
production locations we studied, chicha production and distribution was exclusively in
the hands of women. This gendered patterning of labor closely follows that observed by
numerous scholars in other parts of Peru (Allen 1988; Camino 1987; Gómez Huamán 1966;
Hayashida 2008, 2009; Jennings 2005; Jennings and Chatfield 2009; Moore 1989; Nicholson
1960; Orlove and Schmidt 1995; Velásquez 1996), and in Bolivia (Perlov 2009), Ecuador
(Lentz 1999; Weismantel 1988, 1991, 2009), the Amazon (Bowser 2000), and Africa (Arthur
2003; Bohannan and Bohannan 1968; Carlson 1990). At four production locations we were
told that chicha production is women’s work because it takes place within the home, and
in at least four cases male members of the family worked outside the home (usually doing
agricultural labor). At distribution locations, the woman responsible for the production of
the chicha usually sat on a low stool next to her fermentation vessel and carefully distributed
chicha to customers. In fact, laughter often ensued when the (male) authors sat there to record
vessel attributes. On two occasions we were told that the seat in front of the fermentation
vessel is “a feminine place” (un lugar femenino). Although we did not seek information
about the percentage of the household income that was generated by women making and
selling chicha in comparison to that earned by their male counterparts, chicha production
was clearly an important and significant portion of the household income (Perlov 2009). Our
study suggests that nearly every aspect of household chicha production observed as part of
this study was performed by females. This observation supports similar assumptions based
on ethnographic and ethnohistorical data made by numerous authors. This brings us to a
fundamental question about the nature of domestic production in the ancient Andes: were
women in charge of brewing? Although a number of gender historians have gone to great
lengths to demonstrate that many ancient domestic activities were done by females, questions
about gendered roles in the ancient world remain unresolved.

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 MAIZE BEER PRODUCTION IN THE ANDES 395

REFERENCES CITED

Allen, C. J. 1988. The hold life has: Coca and cultural identity in an Andean community.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Arthur, J. W. 2003. Brewing beer: Status, wealth and ceramic use alteration among the
Gamo of south-western Ethiopia. World Archaeology 34:516–28. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/0043824021000026486
———. 2006. Living with pottery: Ethnoarchaeology among the Gamo of Southwest
Ethiopia. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Atienza, L. de. 1931 [1575]. “Compendio historical del estado de los Indios del Perú,”
in La religión del imperio de los Incas. Edited by J. Jijon, and E. Caanano. Quito:
Tipográficas Salesiana.
Binford, L. R. 1967. Smudge pits and hide smoking: The use of analogy in archaeological
reasoning. American Antiquity 32:1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/278774
Bohannan, P., and L. Bohannan. 1968. Tiv economy. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University
Press.
Bowser, B. J. 2000. From pottery to politics: An ethnoarchaeological study of political
factionalism, ethnicity and domestic pottery style in the Ecuadorian Amazon.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7:219–48. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1023/A:1026510620824
Bowser, B. J. and J. Patton. 2004. Domestic spaces as public places: An ethnoarchaeological
case study of houses, gender, and politics in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Journal
of Anthropological Method and Theory 11:157–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/
b:jarm.0000038065.43689.75
Bray, T. 2003a. “To dine splendidly: Imperial pottery, commensal politics and the Inca
state,” in The archaeology and politics of food and feasting in early states and
empires. Edited by T. Bray, pp. 93–142. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-306-48246-5_5
———. 2003b. Inka pottery as culinary equipment: Food, feasting, and gender in imperial
state design. Latin American Antiquity 14:3–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/972232
———. 2009. “The role of chicha in Inca expansion A distributional study of Inca
aríbalos.” In Drink, power, and society in the Andes. Edited by J. Jennings, and
B. Bowser, pp. 108–32. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5744/florida/9780813033068.001.0001
Bray, T. (ed.) (2003). The archaeology and politics of food and feasting in early states and
empires. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/b100538
Bruman, H. J. 2000. Alcohol in ancient Mexico. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Brumfiel, E. M. 2006. Cloth, gender, continuity and change: Fabricating unity in anthropology.
American Anthropologist 108:862–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/aa.2006.108.4.862
Burger, R. L., and N. Van Der Merwe. 1990. Maize and the origin of highland Chavín
civilization: An isotopic perspective. American Anthropologist 92:85–95. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1525/aa.1990.92.1.02a00060
Butler, B. 2006. Holy intoxication to drunken dissipation: Alcohol among Quichua
speakers in Otavalo, Ecuador. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Camino, L. 1987. Chicha de maíz: Bebida y vida del Pueblo Catocaos. Piura: Centro de
Investigación y Promoción de Campesinado.
Carlson, R. G. 1990. Banana beer, reciprocity, and ancestor propitiation among the Haya of
Bukova, Tanzania. Ethnology 29:297–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3773600
Cavero Carrasco, R. 1986. Maíz, chicha y religiosidad Andina. Ayacucho: Universidad

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
396 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Nacional de San Cristóbal de Huamanga.

Cieza de León, P. C., and F. Pease. 2005 [1553]. Crónica del Perú: el señorío de los Incas.
Ayacucho: Fundación Biblioteca.
Cobo, B. F. 1983 [1653]. History of the Inca Empire: an account of the Indians’ customs and
their origin, together with a treatise on Inca legends, history, and social institutions.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Cook, A., and M. Glowacki. 2003. “Pots, politics and power: Huari ceramic assemblages
and imperial expansion,” in The archaeology and politics of food and feasting
in early states and empires. Edited by T. Bray, pp. 173–202. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-306-48246-5_7
Costin, C., and T. Earle. 1989. Status distinction and legitimation of power as reflected
in changing patterns of consumption in late prehispanic Peru. American Antiquity
54:691–714. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/280677
Cutler, H., and M. Cardenas. 1947. Chicha, a native South American beer. Harvard
University Botanical Museum Leaflet 13:33–60.
David, N., and C. Kramer. 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in action. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316036488
DeBoer, W. R. (2001). “The big drink: Feast and forum in the upper Amazon,” in Feasts:
Archaeological and ethnographic perspectives on food, politics and power. Edited
by M. Dietler and B. Hayden, pp. 215–39. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution
Press.
Dietler, M. 1990. Driven by drink: The role of drinking in the political economy and the
case of early Iron Age France. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9:352–406.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0278-4165(90)90011-2
———. 1996. “Feasts and commensal politics in the political economy: Food, power, and
status in prehistoric Europe,” in Food and the status quest: An interdisciplinary
perspective. Edited by P. Wiessner and W. Schiefenhovel, pp. 135–52. Naples:
Cahiers du Centre Jean Berard Institute.
———. 2001. “Theorizing the feast: rituals of consumption, commensal politics, and
power in African contexts,” in Archaeological and ethnographic perspectives
on food, politics, and power. Edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden, pp. 65–114.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
———. 2006. Alcohol: Anthropological/archaeological perspectives. Annual Review of
Anthropology 35:229–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123120
Dietler, M., and B. Hayden, eds. 2001. Feasts: Archaeological and ethnographic perspectives
on food, politics, and power. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Finucane, B. C. 2007. Mummies, maize, and manure: Multi-tissue stable isotope analysis
of late prehistoric human remains from the Ayacucho Valley, Peru. Journal of
Archaeological Science 34:2115–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2007.02.006
———. 2009. Maize and sociopolitical complexity in the Ayacucho Valley, Peru. Current
Anthropology 50:535–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/599860
Finucane, B. C., P. Maita Agurto, and W. H. Isbell. 2006. Human and animal diet at
Conchopata, Peru: Stable isotope evidence for maize agriculture and animal
management practices during the Middle Horizon. Journal of Archaeological
Science 33:1766–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2006.03.012
Gillin, J. 1947 Moche: A Peruvian coastal community. Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Institution.
Goldstein, D. J. 2003. “From stew-eaters to maize-drinkers: The chicha economy and the
Tiwanaku expansion,” in The archaeology and politics of food and feasting in early

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 MAIZE BEER PRODUCTION IN THE ANDES 397

states and empires. Edited by T. Bray, pp. 143–72. New York: Kluwer Academic/
Plenum. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-306-48246-5_6
Goldstein, D. J., and R. C. Colman. 2004. Schinus molle L. (Anacardiaceae) chicha
production in the central Andes. Economic Botany 58:523–29. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1663/0013-0001(2004)058[0523:SMLACP]2.0.CO;2
Goldstein, D. J., and I. Shimada. 2010. “Feeding the fire: Food and craft production in the
Middle Sican period (AD 950–1050),” in Inside ancient kitchens: New directions in
the study of daily meals and feasts. Edited by E. A. Klarich, pp. 161–89. Boulder:
University Press of Colorado.
Goldstein, D. J., R. C. Goldstein, and P. R. Williams. 2009. “You are what you drink: A
sociocultural reconstruction of pre-Hispanic fermented beverage use at Cerro Baúl,
Moquegua, Peru,” in Drink, power, and society in the Andes. Edited by J. Jennings
and B. Bowser, pp. 133–66. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5744/florida/9780813033068.003.0006
Gómez Huamán, N. 1966. Importancia social de la chicha como bebida popular en
Huamanga. Wamani 1:33–57.
Gould, R. A., and P. J. Watson. 1982. A dialogue on the meaning and use of analogy in
ethnoarchaeological reasoning. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:355–81.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0278-4165(82)90002-2
Guamán Poma de Ayala, F. 2009. The first new chronicle and good government: On the
history of the world and the Incas up to 1615. Edited and translated by Roland
Hamilton. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Gumerman, G. 2010. “Big hearths and big pots: Moche feasting on the North Coast of
Peru,” in Inside ancient kitchens: New directions in the study of daily meals and
feasts. Edited by E. A. Klarich, pp. 111–31. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Hally, D. J. 1986. The identification of vessel function: A case study from Central Georgia.
American Antiquity 51:267–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/279940
Hastorf, C. A., and S. Johannessen. 1993. Pre-Hispanic political change and the role of
maize in the Central Andes of Peru. American Anthropologist 95:115–38. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1525/aa.1993.95.1.02a00060
Hayashida, F. M. 2008. Ancient beer and modern brewers: Ethnoarchaeological
observations of chicha production in two regions of the North Coast of Peru.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27:161–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jaa.2008.03.003
———. 2009. “Chicha histories: Pre-Hispanic brewing in the Andes and the use of
ethnographic and historical analogues,” in Drink, power, and society in the Andes.
Edited by J. Jennings and B. Bowser, pp. 232–56. Gainesville: University Press of
Florida. http://dx.doi.org/10.5744/florida/9780813033068.003.0009
Hayden, B. 2001. “Fabulous feasts: A prolegomenon to the importance of feasting,” in
Feasts: Archaeological and ethnographic perspectives on food, politics and power.
Edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden, pp. 23–64. Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Institution Press.
———. 2003. Were luxury foods the first domesticates? Ethnoarchaeological perspectives
from Southeast Asia. World Archaeology 34:458–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/004
3824021000026459a
Heath, D. B. 1962. “Drinking patterns of the Bolivian Camba,” in Society, culture, and
drinking patterns. Edited by D. Pittman and C. R. Snyder, pp. 22–36. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Hodder, I. 1999. The archaeological process: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
398 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Hopkins, L. 2003. Archaeology at the north-east Anatolian frontier, vol. VI: An

ethnoarchaeological study of Sos Höyük and Yiğittaşı village. London: Peeters.
———. 2004. “Agriculture and economy in a highland village: An ethnoarchaeological
approach,” in Ethnoarchaeological investigations in rural Anatolia, vol.1. Edited
by T. Takaoğlu, pp. 39–53. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.
Isbell, B. J. 1978. To defend ourselves: Ecology and ritual in an Andean village. Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland.
Jennings, J. 2005. La chichera y el patron: Chicha and the energetics of feasting in the
prehistoric Andes. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological
Association 14:241–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/ap3a.2005.14.241
Jennings, J., and B. Bowser. 2009. “Drink, power, and society in the Andes: An
introduction,” in Drink, power, and society in the Andes. Edited by J. Jennings
and B. Bowser, pp. 39–53. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5744/florida/9780813033068.003.0001
Jennings, J., and M. Chatfield. 2009. “Pots, brewers, and hosts,” in Drink, power and society
in the Andes. Edited by J. Jennings and B. Bowser, pp. 39–53. Gainesville: University
Press of Florida. http://dx.doi.org/10.5744/florida/9780813033068.001.0001
Jennings, J., K. L. Antrobus, S. J. Atencio, E. Glavich, R. Johnson, G. Loffler, and C. Luu.
2005. Drinking beer in a blissful mood: Alcohol production, operational chains,
and feasting in the ancient world. Current Anthropology 46:275–303. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1086/427119
Joffe, A. 1998. Alcohol and social complexity in ancient Western Asia. Current
Anthropology 39:297–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/204736
Junker, L., and L. Niziolek. 2010. “Food preparation and feasting in household and political
economy of pre-Hispanic Philippine chiefdoms,” in Inside ancient kitchens: New
directions in the study of daily meals and feasts. Edited by E. A. Klarich, pp. 17–53.
Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Kelly, L. S. 2001. “A case of ritual feasting at the Cahokia site,” in Feasts: Archaeological
and ethnographic perspectives on food, politics, and power. Edited by M. Dietler
and B. Hayden, pp. 334–67. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Knight, V. J. 2001. “Feasting and the emergence of platform mound ceremonialism in
eastern North America,” in Feasts: Archaeological and ethnographic perspectives
on food, politics, and power. Edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden, pp. 311–33.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Kuznar, L. A. 2001. Ethnoarchaeology of Andean South America; contributions to
archaeological method and theory. Ann Arbor, MI: International Monographs in
Prehistory.
Lau, G. F. 2002. Feasting and ancestor veneration at Chinchawas, north highlands of Ancash,
Peru. Latin American Antiquity 13:279–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/972112
Lentz, C. 1999. “Alcohol consumption between community ritual and political economy:
Case studies from Ecuador and Ghana,” in Changing food habits: Case studies from
Africa, South America and Europe, vol. 2. Edited by C. Lentz, pp. 155–78. London:
Taylor and Francis.
Logan, A. L., C. A. Hastorf, and D. M. Pearsall. 2012. Let’s drink together: Early
ceremonial use of maize in the Titicaca Basin. Latin American Antiquity 23:235–58.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.23.3.235
Matthews, R. 2003. The archaeology of Mesopotamia: Theories and approaches. London
and New York: Routledge.
Mayer, E. 2002. The articulated peasant: Household economies in the Andes. Boulder:

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 MAIZE BEER PRODUCTION IN THE ANDES 399

Westview.
Mohr Chávez, K. L. 1984/1985. Traditional pottery of Raqch’i, Cuzco, Peru: A preliminary
study of its production, distribution, and consumption. Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of
Andean Archaeology 22/23:161–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/naw.1984.22-23.1.005
Moore, J. D. 1989. Pre-Hispanic beer in Costal Peru: technology and social context
of prehistoric production. American Anthropologist 91:682–95. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1525/aa.1989.91.3.02a00090
Morris, C. 1979. “Maize beer in the economics, politics, and religion of the Inca Empire,”
in Fermented food beverages in nutrition. Edited by C. F. Gastineau, W. J. Darby,
and T. B. Turner, pp. 21–34. New York: Academic Press.
———. 1982. “The infrastructure of Inka control in the central highlands,” in The Inca and
Aztec states, 1400–1800. Edited by G. A. Collier, R. Rosaldo, and J. D. Wirth, pp.
153–70. New York: Academic Press.
Morris, C., and D. E. Thompson. 1985. Huánuco Pampa: An Inca city and its hinterland.
London: Thames and Hudson.
Moseley, M. E., D. J. Nash, P. R. Williams, S. D. deFrance, A. Miranda, and M. Ruales.
2005. Burning down the brewery: Establishing and evacuating an ancient imperial
colony at Cerro Baúl, Peru. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA)
102:17264–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0508673102
Murra, J. V. 1960. “Rite and crop in the Inca state,” in Culture in history: Essays in honor of
Paul Radin. Edited by S. Diamond, pp. 397–407. New York: Columbia University
Press.
———. 1980. The economic organization of the Inca state. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Murúa, M. 1946 [1590]. Historia general del Perú, origen y descendencia de los Incas.
Madrid: Biblioteca Americana Vetus.
Nash, D. J. 2010. “Fine dining and fabulous atmosphere,” in Inside ancient kitchens: New
directions in the study of daily meals and feasts. Edited by E. A. Klarich, pp. 83–
109. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Nicholson, G. E. 1960. Chicha maize types and chicha manufacture in Peru. Economic
Botany 14:290–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02908039
O’Neal, L. M. 1976. Notes on pottery making in highland Peru. Ñawpa Pancha: Journal of
Andean Archaeology 14:41–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/naw.1976.14.1.003
Orlove, B., and E. Schmidt. 1995. Swallowing their pride: Indigenous and industrial beer
in Peru and Bolivia. Theory and Society 24:271–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
BF00993399
Parker, B. J. 2011. Bread ovens, social networks and gendered space: An ethnoarchaeological
study of Tandɪr ovens in southeastern Anatolia. American Antiquity 76:603–27.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7183/0002-7316.76.4.603
Perlov, D. C. 2009. “‘Working through daughters’: Strategies for gaining and maintaining
social power among the Chicheras of Highland Bolivia,” in Drink, power and society
in the Andes. Edited by J. Jennings, and B. Bowser, pp. 49–74. Gainesville: University
Press of Florida. http://dx.doi.org/10.5744/florida/9780813033068.003.0003
Pollock, S. 2003. “Feasts, funerals, and fast food in Early Mesopotamian states,” in The
archaeology and politics of food and feasting in early states and empires. Edited
by T. Bray, pp. 17–38. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/978-0-306-48246-5_2
———. 2012 .Between feasts and daily meals. Toward an archaeology of commensal
spaces. eTopoi: Journal for Ancient Studies 2:1–20. Available at http://journal.topoi.
org/index.php/etopoi/article/viewFile/61/94

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
400 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Randall, R. 1993. “Los dos vasos: Cosmovisión y política de la embriaguez desde el

inkanato hasta la colonia,” in Borrachera y memoria: La experiencia de lo sagrado
en los Andes. Edited by T. Saignes, pp. 73–112. La Paz: Hisbol/IFEA.
Rice, P. M. 1987. Pottery analysis: A sourcebook. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
Runnels, C. 2005. “Ethnoarchaeology as a sub-discipline of archaeology,” in
Ethnoarchaoelogical investigations in rural Anatolia, vol. 2. Edited by T. Takaoğlu,
pp. 7–14. Istanbul: Ege Yayinlari.
Saignes, T., ed. 1993. Borrachera y memoria: La experiencia de lo Sagrado en los Andes.
Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos.
Schmandt-Besserat, D. 2001. “Feasting in the ancient Near East,” in Feasts: Archaeological
and ethnographical perspectives on food, politics, and power. Edited by M. Dietler
and B. Hayden, pp. 391–403. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Shimada, I. 1994. Pampa Grande and the Mochica culture. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Sinopoli, C. M. 1991. Approaches to archaeological ceramics. New York: Plenum Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9274-4
Skibo, J. M. 1992. Pottery function: A use-alteration perspective. New York: Plenum
Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-1179-7
Stahl, A. B. 1993. Concepts of time and approaches to analogical reasoning in historical
perspective. American Antiquity 58:235–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/281967
Staller, J. E., R. H. Tykot, and B. F. Benz, eds. 2010. Histories of maize in Mesoamerica:
Multidisciplinary approaches. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Stark, M. 1994. “Pottery exchange and the regional system: A Dalupa case study,” in
Kalinga ethnoarchaeology. Edited by W. A. Longacre and J. M. Skibo, pp. 169–207.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Valdez, L. M. 2006. Maize beer production in Middle Horizon Peru. Journal of Anthropological
Research 62:53–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/jar.0521004.0062.103
Vaughn, K. J. 2004. Households, crafts, and feasting in the ancient Andes: The village
context of early Nasca craft consumption. Latin American Antiquity 15:61–88.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4141564
Velásquez, O. 1996. Cultura, tradición e idiosincrasia del poblador Piurano. Trujillo:
Universidad Nacional del Trujillo, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales.
Watson, P. J. 1980. The theory and practice of ethnoarchaeology with special reference to
the Near East. Paléorient 6:55–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/paleo.1980.4259
Weismantel, M. J. 1988. Food, gender, and poverty in the Ecuadorian Andes. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
———. 1991. Maize beer and Andean social transformations: Drunken Indians, bread
babies, and chosen women. MLN 106:861–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2904628
———. 2009. “Have a drink: Chicha, performance and politics,” in Drink, power and society
in the Andes. Edited by J. Jennings and B. Bowser, pp. 257–77. Gainesville: University
Press of Florida. http://dx.doi.org/10.5744/florida/9780813033068.001.0001
Wylie, A. 1982. An analogy by any other name is just as analogical: A commentary on the
Gould-Watson dialogue. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:382–401. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/0278-4165(82)90003-4
———. 1985. The reaction against analogy. Advances in Archaeological Method and
Theory 8:63–111.
Yakar, J. 2000. Ethnoarchaeology of Anatolia: Rural socio-economy in the bronze and iron
ages. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.

This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on October 30, 2016 11:22:55 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).