Ceremonial Households and Domestic Temples: "Fuzzy" Definitions in the Andean Formative Emily Dean and David Kojan Introduction Houses are difficult things to think about. So many of our own cultural values and assumptions are linked to households and the activities that take place within them. Questions such as what is a family, what is the difference between mundane subsistence activity and special ritual activity all revolve around our conception of the household. Traditionally, archaeologists have drawn a sharp boundary between subsistence or domestic activity and ritual behavior. A common refrain in many archaeological reports is the interpretation that a particular area is a "ritual" site while another is typical of a "domestic" activity area. From an analysis of archaeological, ethnographic, and theoretical literature, along with our own archaeological research, we have come to see the dichotomy between ritual and domestic spaces as an artificial one in many cases. The Formative site of Chiripa in the Titicaca Basin of Bolivia (Fig. 1), especially the earliest component of the site known as Santiago (Fig. 2), offers a particularly interesting site at which to investigate the role of households as both shelter and temple. Chiripa occupies an important position in the study of Andean prehistory. As one of the earliest sites in the Titicaca Basin with evidence of monumental architecture, agriculture, and ceramic production it provides rich data with which to address the later development of large-scale state-like societies. Interpretations about the past life-ways at Chiripa have implications for our understanding of Andean prehistory in particular and cultural dynamics in general. Defining Ritual Perhaps the biggest obstacle in studying ritual and looking for archaeological evidence of it is the definition of the term itself. The concept of ritual can include a wide range of cultural phenomena (Bell 1992). At one end of the spectrum are the traditional ceremonies reported in ethnographic literature and experienced in our own lives. Marriage ceremonies, rites of passage, inaugurations, and funerals, for example, are all easily grouped into a classical definition of "ritual" and have been well-examined by scholars such as Victor Turner (1969) Towards the other end of the spectrum lie more ambiguous cultural behaviors that challenge an understanding of "ritual." Many would include such activities as shamanistic healing ceremonies as 110 Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers No. 85 ritual action, but when we turn our attention to hospitalization, physical exams or the taking of blood pressure, the definition becomes more problematic. A physical exam is an activity that is introduced to members of the culture from a young age. It has a certain programmatic order in which both patients and doctors carry expectations about what activities will be performed, and it requires a large degree of faith by patients about the benefit of the exam without a concrete understanding of most of the ideas behind it. But if this is considered ritual behavior then the definition could easily extend to brushing one's teeth, eating breakfast, or virtually any repeated activity to the point that ritual is not defined as special behavior at all. It is this "soupiness" that makes any universal study of ritual so difficult. To confound this problem even more, archaeologists have often adopted an altogether independent definition of ritual. With archaeology's emphasis on ecological and adaptational explanations, the explication of ritual and other more symbolic aspects of human culture has been viewed as difficult and of low priority. In many archaeological studies, in particular in the Andes, ritual has come to define any artifactual remains that cannot be neatly interpreted as serving a utilitarian function. A pit which contains a figurine, for example, might be viewed as a "ritual" context regardless of other artifacts that the pit might contain or the relative position of the pit to other archaeological features. In many ways "ritual" has become a garbage category and an interpretive black box, indicating that a particular group of data should be separated from other evidence with little hope of understanding its real meaning. Fortunately, ritual need not be rigidly or universally defined to be a useful concept or an important goal in archaeological research. But we need to be able to live with a large degree of ambiguity. The crucial step in looking at ritual is in recognizing its inseparable relationship with the "everyday" world. Towards a Ritual Definition of the Household If archaeological definitions of ritual tend toward "soupiness" and applicability to almost anything, definitions of "household," especially those from the processualists, often seem limited and limiting, denying the symbolic and metaphorical aspects of human behavior. Here we examine various anthropological looks at what constitutes the household and conclude by discussing what sort of household we may have at Santiago. The Processual House When household archaeology appeared on the archaeological scene in the late 1 960s the primary concern was with obtaining information on class structure, Dean and Kojan Ceremonial Households and Domestic Temples 111 population patterns, and specialized production (Flannery and Winter 1976; Wilk and Rathje 1982). A decade later archaeologists were emphasizing the importance of households as the "fundamental elements of human society" (Ashmore and Wilk 1988:1) and as a way to address questions of culture processes. However, while there was a growing sense that households were fundamental to the study of prehistoric society; there was a wide diversity of opinion on how one should identity and define them. The problem with defining a household in the archaeological record is that it cannot simply be equated with a structure (Ashmore and Wilk 1988). A building itself does not tell you much if you have no understanding of its significance (Bender 1967). In their early attempts to define households, archaeologists differentiated households from such things as "co-residential domestic groups," defined as "those who share the same physical space for the purpose of eating, sleeping, and taking rest and leisure, growing up, child rearing and procreating" (Hammel and Laslett 1974:76). A household, on the other hand, was seen as composed of people who shared in activities that might include co-residence and reproduction, but also involved production, consumption, generational transmission of land and possessions and/or distribution of resources. Increasingly, archaeologists also stressed the importance of using functions, such as production, distribution, socialization and transmission, to define households (cf. Flannery and Winter 1976; Wilk and Rathje 1982). Production and distribution, easily correlated to archaeologically visible "activity areas," were especially emphasized. Although this emphasis upon process, function, and evolution continues to characterize many current household studies (c.f. Aldenderfer and Stanish 1993; Blanton 1994; Kent 1990), by the late 1970s and early 1980s there was a backlash against these functionalist interpretations of the house and a call for "meaning." The Structuralist House As structuralist theory became commonplace in the anthropological literature during the 1980s and 1990s, household anthropologists wielded it as a way to address "meaning." Archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, and ethnologists used the household as a vehicle with which to discuss correspondences between the body and space, gender distinctions, and the ordering of the cosmos (cf. Blier 1987; Bourdieu 1978). In an interesting structuralist analysis Susan Blier (1987) addresses how Batammaliba houses are imbued with meaning via the anthropomorphism of building, design, decor, symbolism, and use. The life cycle of the house parallels human development and rite of passage rituals. A sense of proper human proportions is of central concem in the design process of each structure. Structures of the house 112 Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers No. 85 suggest the cranium, the womb, the solar plexus, and the heart. The psyche of the house is even split into three aspects: liguani the soul, uba the ancestor, and libo the deity. Houses are so vital to the ritual of everyday life among the Batammaliba that they even provide homes for the soul, lisenpo mounds (Blier 1987:132). These miniature houses serve as conceptual portraits of individuals and are remade and moved throughout their owners' lives. Blier's analysis is similar to Bordieu's seminal 1978 analysis of the Kabyleh house and suffers from some of the same problems. Like most structural household analyses, they are intriguing but idealized. There is no tension or dissent within the households described. The authors are so busy identifying the rules of space that they ignore the ways in which meanings and structures can transform and change. While structuralist accounts of the house certainly give more weight to the symbolism and meanings of houses than did processualist ones, they often fall into a sense of immutability and timelessness. As Rapaport (1980:9) reminds us, although the built environment can be neutral, inhibiting, or facilitating to behavior, it should not be thought of as determining behavior. Structuring Houses Structuration theory, which appeared in archaeological discourse in the 1990s, is sensitive to criticisms of structuralist approaches by suggesting that these underlying systems of symbols and shared beliefs are only guiding principles that can be, and are, broken. By inserting a time frame into structuralism and addressing historical contextuality, structuration theory attempts to chart how small, everyday practices change larger processes (Moore 1986) and how those practices are in turn embedded in the context of preexisting social and spatial relationships (Pred 1990). Thus the production of a place is both the mediation and outcome of human agency and social relations. Examining architecture, kinship, and cultural categories as they are brought together in the house and then exploring the different ways in which houses and people are connected, Carsten and Hugh-Jones (1995) broaden the definition of "household" in their introduction to About the House: Levi-Strauss and Beyond. They flex the rigid and timeless structuralist household by conceiving of houses as social and physical structures that undergo change through time. For our purposes, one especially interesting article in their book is Bloch's (1995) analysis of transformations of the Malagasy house during the French 19th century colonial occupation of Madagascar. Bloch argues that the Malagasy house was inextricably linked to the inhabitants' ancestors and that there were structural parallels between the growth of a marriage and the solidification of the conjugal Dean and Kojan Ceremonial Households and Domestic Temples 113 house. As both the house and the marriage grew, the spatial layout of the house moved from an open to a closed plan. The body of the house and of the marriage became solidified through time and internal space increased at the expense of permeability. The parallel male and female strengthening of the house did not end when the original married couple died; the house maintained a ritual role in the lives of the couple's descendants. Bloch concludes his article by discussing what happened when the French colonial government destroyed the traditional homes and the very connections to the ancestors became threatened. Although the "households" ceased to function as dwellings, the sense of place they embodied was so strong that the locations still held great symbolic significance years later. We believe that a similar phenomenon may have occurred at Santiago, where we see what was once a living area and temple at 1300 BC being utilized as a burial ground several hundred years later (Hastorf 1999). The meaning and function changed, but the special nature of the place remained. Households and the Ancestors While not defined by a distinct philosophical approach, a number of the household analyses addressed the relationship between the living household and the ancestral past. Kus and Raharijoana (1990), for example, use a hermeneutic perspective to connect architecture and the use of space with the Betsileo of Madagascar's symbolic system. They compare and contrast the dwellings of the living with the dwellings of the dead, elaborating upon the conceptual links between the two structures. In his look at the process of "Neolithization" in Europe, Hodder (1990) discusses the shift from a house centered, private, nurturing, "wild" society (domus) to an agricultural society (agros) that emphasized marking and possessing land as a means to, among other things, create and maintain links with the ancestors. In her 1986 book The Fame of Gawa, Nancy Munn posits that households or gardens may be considered slices of condensed space-time where ancestors are perceived to retain productivity and a spatial presence into the ongoing present (1986:84). This happens, as in the case with Gawan gardens, because of associations with the ancestral past. In the Gawan case, the ancestral stones must be maintained in specific places in the garden so that the land will stay "heavy," an attribute necessary for the retention of reproductive capacities from one garden to the next (Munn 1986:10). While these studies differ markedly in their geographic and temporal locales, they all discuss the interplay between the houses of the ancestors and the settlements of the living. Santiago, with its very early occupations and close proximity to the Lake Titicaca (considered an origin place in many Andean myths), may have become associated with the ancestors in the minds of later Chiripenlos who then chose to bury their dead there, strengthening their connections to the past. 114 Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers No. 85 Households and Ritual In her work at Cerro Palenque, Honduras, Rosemary Joyce examines nested levels of ritual and the crucial role of common ritual at each level of the community from household to temple (1991:71). Rare for the world of household archaeology, Joyce is interested in the role of ritual in the definition and maintenance of the household. But while she distinguishes between monumental structures exhibiting some domestic functions (preparation and consumption of food) and residential groups with evidence of ritual activity, she still maintains the distinction between civic-ceremonial centers and residential areas (Joyce 1991:75). At Santiago this distinction is confounded. Our Definition of Household Previous work on defining households is directly related to questions we have raised about our own findings at Chiripa, specifically at Santiago. Do we have households at Santiago? And if so, what type? We certainly don't have clearly demarcated architectural remains as many of the definitions of "household" demand. Nor can we unequivocally state that we are dealing with familial groups. We have activity areas, but how many constitute a house? Does it matter if they appear to be associated with outside, rather than inside, surfaces? People were eating, preparing food, and making and using tools at Santiago, but they were also living on the edge of a semi-subterranean structure and burying offerings beneath their floors (Hastorf 1999). "Household" is an ambiguous term that may not be the most appropriate definition for our eroded adobe patches, ephemeral hearths, cache-like trash pits, and rich mix of domestic and ritual artifacts. However, Santiago certainly has "domestic activity areas" and with further analysis these may transform into households. We concur with Wilk and Rathje (1982) that households are the smallest unit of social production and distribution, but we would add structuralism's emphasis upon meaning and symbol and structuration theory's acceptance and explanations of transformation and change into the household mix. Of special interest to our analysis at Santiago are Munn (1986), Kus and Raharijoana (1990) and Hodder's (1990) acknowledgment of the crucial roles played by the ancestors and the dead in the organization and spatial placement of settlements and households. Finally, we hope that our analysis of domestic activity in a ritual context at Chiripa can further the proposition put forward by Joyce (1991) that there ought to be a ritual definition of the household. Dean and Kojan Ceremonial Households and Domestic Temples 115 Introduction to the Site The site of Chiripa has played a central role in the understanding of the Formative Period of the Andes. Dating from about 1500 BC to 100 BC, Chiripa is one of the earliest sites in the Titicaca Basin with evidence of such archaeologically important characteristics as ceramic production, plant domestication, and monumental architecture. It is also an important site because of its role as a precursor to the nearby monumental site of Tiwanaku, which flourished in the Titicaca Basin from about 100 BC to AD 1000 (Fig. 1). Chiripa is most famous for its large mound structure, the Monticulo, first excavated by Wendell Bennett in 1933 (Bandy 1999). However, recent evidence shows that the Monticulo is actually the youngest of a series of structures at the site (Hastorf 1999). The oldest part of the site yet uncovered is the Santiago area which was first discovered in 1992 and further excavated in 1996 and 1998. Recent Investigations at Chiripa In 1992 Christine Hastorf established the Taraco Archaeological Project (TAP.) with the primary goal of identifying and analyzing the previously unstudied domestic occupations at Chiripa. By means of a systematic surface collection and excavations outside the main area of the mound, TAP hoped to find evidence of Formative domestic activities from early, middle, and late Chiripa phases. While evidence of early domestic occupations was uncovered, the remains of two ritual enclosures older than the main mound were also found. Excavations at Santiago In order to illustrate how reluctant most archaeologists are to allow ritual and domesticity to cohabitate, we now share a personal "intellectual history" of our excavations at Santiago. Towards the end of the 1992 field season excavators uncovered part of a substantial stone wall at area Santiago. Although one surface of the wall, what the 1992 excavators referred to as the "outside" surface, was plastered, it was described and interpreted as a "terrace wall." This interpretation fit with the image of the area they had been constructing for the past several months. Prior to the discovery of the terrace wall they had excavated several "living surfaces." The lithic and ceramic analysts characterized the artifacts recovered from these surfaces as domestic (Hastorf 1999). There were agricultural hoes, scrapers, groundstones, and large cortical flakes of debitage. All of this suggested that both production of stone tools and processing of foodstuffs was occurring on site. The ceramics, in contrast to what had been recovered from the Mound at Chiripa in the 1970s (see Chavez 1980, 116 Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers No. 85 Browman 1978), were relatively unelaborated with little surface decoration. A domestic function was also ascribed to them. The many pit burials cutting through the upper strata at Santiago earned the label "intrusive" and were considered more of a nuisance than anything else. In 1996 when TAP returned to area Santiago with different excavators, specifically the authors of this paper, we saw something a bit different. This time we started with the wall and were impressed with its extent and fine construction. We encountered more burials, including two that were earlier than the "intrusive" Tiwanaku burials of 1992. As we dug the fill to the west of the wall, what was then called the outside, we uncovered a stratigraphic succession of fancy artifacts dating from Tiwanaku era objects in the upper levels to Middle Chiripa era items in the lower levels. Intact bronze pins, beautiful decorated Tiwanaku and Late Chiripa pots and incensarios had all been purposefully dumped to the west of the wall. They looked like offerings, but why would they have been placed outside of a terrace wall? More questions occurred to us: why so many burials in a mundane, everyday living area? Why would people build houses immediately adjacent to a steep drop off? But because we were still convinced we had a "domestic" area we concentrated on exposing an Early Chiripa living surface. We found ephemeral hearths, ash deposits, broken and burnt llama, guinea pig, and fish bones, more hoes, more plainware ceramics, lovely but utilitarian bone needles, awls, and weaving implements. Domestic harmony was restored. Then we hit the caches. One cache consisted of broken groundstone. Another cache, covered with a broken groundstone slab painted with red ochre, contained thousands of fish bones. And then there was the discovery of an infant skeleton well below the intrusive Tiwanaku levels, adjacent to what we had first thought was a trash pit. Blue sodalite beads, finely worked intact projectile points, curious stone implements known in the Andean literature as "trombos" and what appeared to be llama gall stones (items still important in contemporary Aymara rituals) littered our "domestic" occupation surfaces. We became somewhat frustrated, arguing over the significance of these items, whether or not we had adobe melt, and if the burials were directly "associated" with our site. We continued to follow the terrace wall north and behold, it went on and on for meters and made a right angle to the west. We turned around and followed it to the south and discovered that it made another right angle. Suddenly we had a rectangular semi-subterranean structure on our hands and were forced to abandon our terrace hypothesis. For some time we comforted ourselves with the thought that the semi- subterranean structure had "cut" into earlier domestic surfaces. We held to this conviction for months, until a careful stratigraphic analysis and examination of Dean and Kojan Ceremonial Households and Domestic Temples 117 ceramic and radiocarbon dates forced us to concede that yes, our structure and our living surfaces were contemporaneous. A domestic/ritual/occupation/temple? Could we construct a convincing argument for something which seemed to fly in the face of most definitions of both households and of ritual? What follows is our attempt to justify the ambiguity of our data. Introduction to the Data and Methodology Our 1992, 1996, and 1998 excavations at Santiago produced a large and varied sample of lithic, human bone, faunal, ceramic, and botanical samples. These materials, in conjunction with architectural features such as the semi-subterranean structure, two fieldstone walls, highly eroded adobe and numerous trash pits, caches and ephemeral hearths, are the evidence we draw upon in our discussion of the co- existence of ritual and daily-life activities at Formative Chiripa. Architecture and Features One of the most important questions at Santiago, especially as it relates to the issue of ritual/domestic activity, is the relationship between the various architectural and occupational features (Fig. 3). In close proximity to the site are the semi- subterranean structure (Architectural Sub-division 18), parts of two other walls (Architectural Sub-divisions 17 and 18), evidence of an eroded adobe wall (locus 'B- 13') and a dense occupation layer (locus 'B-16') associated with numerous pits and in situ burned areas (Dean and Kojan 1999). The interpretation of these features is especially critical because it will affect the interpretation of the other lines of evidence. At this point the best explanation of the Santiago features is that Architectural Sub-Division (ASD) 18 represents the wall of a semi-subterranean structure. To the east of this wall the 'B-16' surface and its related features formed an exterior occupation zone centered around an area of heavy activity extending away toward the periphery. To the east of this area, ASDs 17 and 18 may represent the exterior walls of other domestic structures. The high density of Formative ceramics recovered from surface collection 20 meters to the east also supports this interpretation (Hastorf 1999). At this point it seems clear that the semi-subterranean structure was a classically defined ritual structure closely related to a more domestic area. Understanding the relationship between these two areas of the site will be an important part of the study of ritual and domestic activity at Santiago. Micromorphology Micromorphological analyses have been successfully used by household archaeologists to provide information on the depositional history of surfaces, distinguish between inside and outside surfaces and detect activities such as 118 Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers No. 85 sweeping, resurfacing, and destruction episodes (Courty et al. 1989). Melissa Goodman (1999) completed micromorphological analyses of two profiles at Santiago. She analyzed six slides from the south-eastern wall-N 1086, E 975-and three slides from the central N 1094 baulk (see Fig. 3 for locations of column samples). In general, the B16 soils from Santiago contain a high concentration of anthropogenic features such as fragments of bone (predominately fish), charcoal and ceramic, as well as aggregates of dense material, which Goodman interprets as fragments of construction materials. Additionally, the presence of earthworms in buried layers suggests that a very high organic content was once present, indicative of middens, or threshing or burning areas. While the B13 soils were devoid of almost all artifacts, their structure was consistent with highly eroded adobe brick. All of her conclusions support our supposition that the B13 and B16 events at Santiago represent evidence of a dense, domestic occupation. Ceramics The most abundant data set from Santiago is the ceramic assemblage. Based on Lee Steadman's analysis (1999), the ceramics associated with the B16 surface lie securely within the Early Chiripa period. The ceramics associated with this surface tend to be unelaborated plain-ware ceramics. Many of these shards show evidence of charring and appear to be the remains of large cooking vessels. Food was obviously being prepared and consumed at Santiago during the Early Chiripa time phase, but it is more difficult to say whether this had a domestic or ritual function. While the charred plainware shards suggest "everyday" cooking, it is also possible that they represent the remains of feast preparations. Some suggestion of more traditional ritual activity can be seen in the highly decorated "fancy" wares associated with the later Tiwanaku burials that cut through the Early Chiripa surfaces. Lithics Preliminary data from Matt Bandy's 1998 lithic analysis indicate that Santiago contains a high proportion of cortical flakes and primary reduction flakes. In an analysis of ritual and domestic activity such information is particularly interesting because it indicates that this was not just a special-purpose site but that it is also associated with subsistence activity. Dean and Kojan Ceremonial Households and Domestic Temples 119 Faunal Data The analysis of faunal remains by Katherine Moore, David Steadman and Susan deFrance (1999) provides another line of evidence that undermines a sharp distinction between domestic and ritual activity. Santiago contains a very large quantity of animal bone food waste, particularly from camelids and various fish species. The assemblage of camelid bones contains a high proportion of meat- yielding long bones and long bones fractured for marrow extraction. This indicates that these large mammals were slaughtered and butchered elsewhere, while Santiago was primarily a place of meat consumption. At Santiago there are several pits filled with fish bone, also indicating the consumption of the meat. Based on the density of bone remains, fish was probably the most important source of dietary meat. There are also a large number of bone tools in various stages of manufacture, implying that Santiago was a location of bone tool production. But along with the strong evidence of meat consumption and bone tool production, we have signs of traditionally-defined ritual behavior. Associated with the semi-subterranean structure, there were several shallow pits containing whole articulated guinea pigs. These pits are likely the remains of animal offerings in which animals are ritually sacrificed and buried, a common Andean ceremony. We also found caches of intact and well-worn bone tools such as awls and needles, indicating the intentional discard of perfectly usable tools. Thus at Santiago we have faunal evidence of activity that would be traditionally defined as purely subsistence behavior and clear evidence of ceremonial or ritual behavior in direct association with one another. Botanical Data Although the paleoethnobotanical analysis is ongoing, there are some preliminary observations that shed light on the occupation of Santiago. In general Santiago is characterized by high densities of plant food remains, much higher than any other area of the Chiripa site (Whitehead 1999). This supports the faunal evidence indicating that Santiago was a place of heavy food preparation and consumption, in other words, what we think of as a classic "domestic" context. Human Burials Deborah Blom has analyzed skeletons recovered from 61 archaeological contexts during the 1992 and 1996 excavations of area Santiago (Blom and Bandy 120 Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers No. 85 1999). While most of these skeletons are associated with Tiwanaku phases and clearly postdate our Chiripa occupation, five were from the Early Chiripa phase, one from the Middle Chiripa phase and one from the Late Chiripa phase. The high concentration of tombs in the Santiago area (no human remains were recovered from other areas of the site in the 1992 and 1996 field seasons) indicates that the area was used as a formal cemetery and also suggests an association between the burial locations and ASD-18, the semi-subterranean structure. Blom and Bandy (1999) point out that in the Late Chiripa period at the Monticulo there was a clear association between public constructions and tombs. A similar pattern may have characterized the Early Chiripa occupation at Santiago. The re-use of grinding stones as capstones for Early and Middle Chiripa tombs is also intriguing. Nearly all of the grinding stones recovered during our excavations came from tombs. This inclusion of implements of daily life and subsistence in mortuary ritual suggests to us that the separation of ritual from domestic life was not valid in Formative Andean contexts. The sheer number of burials associated with a relatively small area of 150 square meters suggests that Santiago held such significance for multiple generations of Chiripenfos that they transformed what was once a domestic living area into a burial ground. Perhaps this was a way subsequent generations strengthened and/or created ancestral claims and links to the past (cf. Salomon 1995). Examples of the Ritual/Domestic Overlap in the Andes While we may be somewhat more conscious of and interested in explicating the overlap between ritual and domestic spheres in Andean households, we certainly tread in the footsteps of others. This section of our paper summarizes some analogies gathered from other regions and time periods in the Andes that we have utilized in our interpretation of Santiago. Archaeological analogies Although many Andean sites with household-type structures have been excavated, generally very little attention has been given to the houses themselves. Andean archaeology has overwhelmingly emphasized monumental architecture and large-scale phenomena of cultural history and evolution. Formative coastal sites with Mito Tradition architecture such as La Galgada and Kotosh, in particular, have domestic structures that could be studied more in depth. It would be interesting to examine the artifactual remains of the houses and to study their role in these early Formative cultures. But the excavations at those sites have not addressed these questions. Dean and Kojan Ceremonial Households and Domestic Temples 121 The most dedicated effort to address the household scale in Andean archaeology to date has been conducted by Marc Bermann (Bermann 1994; Bermann and Castillo 1995). In his fieldwork in Bolivia at the sites of Lukurmata and San Andres, Bermann focused on the household as his primary unit of investigation. His work stands out in contrast to most Andean archaeology, which has typically concentrated not only on the monumental architecture of "complex" societies, but also on the archaeological "site" as the primary unit of analysis. At both sites Bermann excavated individual small structures and identified house floors, hearths, trash pits, burials, postholes and point provenienced artifacts. His excavations were noteworthy for their attention to differences in artifact assemblages and densities between inside and outside contexts. He also drew upon the resources of ethnography, ethnohistory and social history to situate his own work and strongly advocated for the need for more attention to the household level. However, like most archaeological work in the Andes, Bermann's analytical focus was directed toward macro-scale, processual, and evolutionary concems. Bennann principally used his analysis of household remains as an altemative window into macro-scale cultural evolution. His main conclusions with the excavations at Lukurmata were that the settlement pattern changed as the community entered and exited the Tiwanaku "system," while the individual household production was increased but qualitatively unchanged. He made little attempt to understand the cultural dynamics at the household level; instead, his primary concern was the large- scale political evolution of the region. Similarly, Stanish (1989) has used the household as a means to a macro-scale end. In his advocacy of the household as an appropriate level of archaeological analysis he pointed out that it can be a useful tool for analyzing questions of verticality and cultural adaptation. "The use of the household to define ethnic differences is a powerful tool for modeling the complex processes of zonal complementarity" (Stanish 1989:21). In 1993 an entire volume devoted to household archaeology in the Andes, Domestic Architecture, Ethnicity, and Complementarity in the South-Central Andes (Aldenderfer 1993), was published. Although this volume was a welcome addition to the archaeological literature of the region, it primarily adopted a traditional processualist view, focusing almost exclusively upon questions of ecological adaptation and the onset of political complexity. In their introduction to the volume, Aldenderfer and Stanish recapitulated Bender's (1967) and Wilk and Rathje's (1982:622-631) definitions of households. To their minds, the "four primary household functions" are production, distribution, transmission and reproduction (1993:6). While appreciative of the benefits that household oriented studies can bring 122 Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers No. 85 to Andean archaeology, the theoretical questions they posed tended to ignore symbolic aspects of human behavior. Utilizing an explicitly "scientific" discourse, Aldenderfer and Stanish wrote: We identify five sets of archaeological problems in the south-central Andes which the analysis of domestic architecture can be particularly useful in resolving. These problems center on (1) testing models of zonal complementarity, (2) defining the processes of core-periphery relationships in imperial contexts, (3) defining the processes of elite group formation in pre-Hispanic contexts, (4) analyzing changes in the structure and composition of households that may reflect suprahousehold organization changes, and (5) examining the processes of ethnic group formation. (1993:8) These were certainly important questions to consider, but ideology, cosmology, and ritual practices were given short shrift. Ritual at the household level was only addressed (and then rather cursorily) in three of the twelve chapters. For example, buried in Don Rice's discussion of "Late Intermediate Period Domestic Architecture and Residential Organization at La Yaral" (Rice 1993:66-82) were references to guinea pig and llama offerings interred in terrace walls and in rooms built on top of the terraces. His team recovered more than 40 Guinea pig offerings, as well as eight camelids buried in association with turquoise, silver, wood, and feather artifacts and fish and shellfish remains (Rice 1993:77-78). While these finds might scream RITUAL to many, Rice noted that since the majority of archaeological remains were clearly domestic, he felt more comfortable interpreting these terraces as "domestic occupations." They probably were, but undoubtedly ritual also played an important role in the use, meaning, and function of those "domestic" areas. Another example from the volume is Paul Goldstein's analysis of a Tiwanaku Colony at Omo M12, Moquegua (1993:25-41). It provided tantalizing glimpses of domestic ritual contexts in early Tiwanaku phases. He noted that certain houses of Omo's South Community were associated with "all the accouterments of ceremony: ochre face painting, coca, an incense burner, large vessels for the storage of vast quantities of maize beer, and an elaborate set of matched drinking vessels" (Goldstein 1993:36). Goldstein acknowledged the likelihood of ritual drinking and feasting bouts (ala Abercrombie 1986, Hastorf 1993), even suggesting that "certain households in M12's South Community were at least part-time specialists in ritualized hospitality" (Goldstein 1993:36). He seemed reluctant to stress an overtly ritual interpretation of the area, however, instead analogizing the households as "chicherias, or beer houses," in which politico-ritual activities accompanied the redistribution of goods and the mechanisms of state provincial administration. What interests us in our interpretation of ritual domestic activity at Santiago, is that even at Dean and Kojan Ceremonial Households and Domestic Temples 123 this relatively late date of AD 600 (compared to Santiago's Early Chiripa occupation of c. 1300 BC), the religious and administrative roles of Tiwanaku's colonial elite were not clearly separated from the domestic sphere. In the same volume Garth Bawden wrote that it was possible to identify the "implicitly structural principles of society" by analyzing "the perception and use of residential space" (1993:45). His argument is a familiar one in household archaeology; namely, that an increase in the compartmentalization and partitioning of households, combined with growing spatial distinctions of activity areas, indicates a shift away from a more communitarian and egalitarian social organization. Of special import to our thesis in this paper is Bawden's discussion of semi-sedentary groups of the Amazon basin. These groups occupy large communal houses lacking significant interior partitions. In these communal houses, Bawden wrote, "community rituals may take place in another part of the same structure or outside...there is no formal architectural definition of ritual space" (1993:44). Bawden feels that this same general treatment of social space may be found in other societies where kinship ties prevail as the organizing principles of small, interrelated groups (1993:45). While his analysis of the Tumilaca data did not turn up much archaeological evidence clearly related to ritual activities, he did remark on the lack of "spatial specificity" in the Estuquina phase of his site. Units often contained no internal walls; features and artifacts did not abide by rigid distributional patterns. He believed that this was significant: Such generality of spatial organization and use suggests the operation of conventions of domestic behavior shaped by communally ordered social structure. This structure is most characteristic of societies in which folk institutions of economic and political hierarchy are unconsolidated or absent and traditional kinship principles dominate. (Bawden 1993: 53) Although there is clearly some sort of demarcation of ritual space at Santiago (why else build a semi-subterranean enclosure?) there appears to be greater permeability between domestic and ritual artifacts and activities here than during the Late Chiripa phase in the Monticulo area, and certainly more than one sees at Tiwanaku sites. What does this suggest about Early Chiripa organizing principles and social space? Ethnographic analogies If archaeological data on ritual-domestic activities in the Andes is scarce and hard to come by, the area literature is awash in rich and wonderful ethnographic and 124 Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers No. 85 ethnohistoric examples. While one must be cautious with overextending ethnographic analogies, it is difficult to resist the temptation to "run" with some of the examples discussed below. In our defense, five hundred years after the Conquest, one can still find instances of what appear to be Incaic, and possibly earlier, ritual practices persisting in contemporary practice (though modified). Symbols have a long life in the Andes. While one can never be absolutely sure if "the" meaning has remained the same, the presence of trophy heads, staff gods, jaguar motifs, and llama offerings over the course of several thousand years does suggest a certain continuity in symbolic expression. In the Andes one of the strongest links between the mundane world of food production and land rights and the spiritual world of ceremony and religious belief is the worship of, and interaction with, one's ancestors. Ancestors are at the center of both religion and subsistence production. Salomon (1995) writes that many Andean cultures view the living as the present caretakers of the social and political structure and rights to land and water in a long line of ancestors and descendants. The ancestors are responsible for good harvests when they are pleased and poor harvests when they are angry. So as not to disturb this link, when people die it is seen more as a transition than a sharp break, the gradual passing of responsibility from one generation to the next. Burial of one's parents, grandparents and more distant ancestors beneath the floor is a reminder and affirmation of one's rights and responsibilities to the physical world. Thus rituals such as funerals or reburial ceremonies are not separate from food production and consumption, architecture, or tool production, but rather are intertwined. Andean Ethnography While not exclusively focused on households numerous ethnographies of native Quechua and Aymara Indians (cf. Allen 1988, Bastien 1978, Isbell 1978) document the importance of ritual in everyday life. Drinking, eating, coca-chewing, and agricultural labor all involve libations, invocations, and connections to the spiritual world. Events utilizing community labor, whether fiestas, harvests, plantings, the marking of herd animals, or the building of houses, all have their ritual aspect. In a wonderful article entitled "House Rethatching in an Andean Annual Cycle: Practice, Meaning and Contradiction," Peter Gose (1991) undertakes a structural analysis of what, at first glance, appears to be a utilitarian and necessary aspect of home repair: replacing the roof. He convincingly illustrates how this practice can be "best understood through its position in the annual cycle of agrarian Dean and Kojan Ceremonial Households and Domestic Temples 125 labor and ritual" (Gose 1991:39). As Gose explicates his thesis, the adobe walls and thatched roof of the humble Andean house expand until the dwelling encompasses the ritual/agricultural calendar and the ongoing tension between collective production and private household appropriation. Of especial interest to us is his discussion of how some "household" rites, while conducted within the confines of one dwelling, invoke and propitiate the greater outside world of agricultural and pastoral lands. By making offerings of food, drink and other "every-day" items, ritual specialists propitiate the apus, the ancestors and spirits that control fertility and prosperity. Denise Arnold addresses similar themes in her 1991 paper, "The House of Earth-bricks and Inka-stones: Gender, Memory and Cosmos in Qaqachaka." She examines how the cultural practices and ritual libations that accompany traditional Aymara house-building invoke the family and mythic past and construct and order the Qaqa cosmos. Arnold claims that during the house-building process "the house itself becomes a representation of the cosmos, a metaphor for the world mountain, an axis mundi, and an organizing structure around which other structures revolve" (Arnold 1991:5). The house embodies ideal notions of gender, history, and spatial organization. As in Gose's paper, Arnold's analysis of the Qaqa household demonstrates how the house connects to the wider world. Spatially, this connection is manifested in the small shrine sites placed in the house structure, its associated patio area and the surrounding countryside. In terms of power, location, and geographical distance, these intra-house shrines are nested; in the center lies the house itself. At the broadest level there is a household's offering place to its mountain guardian, its uywiri. This mountainside shrine is paired with an iskina, a household shrine located in the corner of the courtyard. Finally, on a niche inside the house lies the house devotion or riwusyuna, a statue of the household saint. This household shrine receives offerings each week as well as at the annual household rites during Carnival. These three ritual places are remembered at the opening of any household libations: "for the mountain guardian, for the corner, for the devotion" (Arnold 1991:10). We were also struck by the importance of the patio area and the interior courtyard in the Aymara household. As we discussed in the first section of our paper, traditional household archaeology often overemphasizes house interior areas, ignoring the fact that in some regions, the Andes for instance, the vast majority of productive activity occurs outside the house proper. While we do not have a well- defined patio area at Santiago, it does appear that activities such as food preparation, lithic production, and weaving occurred on what are outside surfaces, as they do today. 126 Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers No. 85 Finally, we were intrigued by the discussion of the placement of offerings in the foundations of the house during house construction and the placement of valuables inside wall cavities during the life of the house (Arnold 1991:17-19). Miniature seed deposits, pirwa, are hung inside the roof space so that the new household will never be short of food (Arnold 1991:27). The "house" lineage is memorialized by the burying of the placentas of all children born there in a hole just inside the threshold of the door opening (Arnold 1991:20). Arnold records that some of the people she interviewed claim to remember burying the dead inside the four walls of the house (Arnold 1991:37). This custom of living with one's ancestors perhaps can be used to explain the burial of human bodies at Santiago. Amazonian Ethnography Although more removed culturally and ecologically, some of the modern cultures of the Amazon Basin also offer an interesting comparison to the prehistoric highland evidence of domestic and ritual activity. In the history of ethnography, Amazonia has been one of the principle sites for examining the cultural role of the house. Beginning with Levi Strauss's pioneering work on "house societies" (1982), anthropologists have recently come to view the living structures of many different cultural groups as integral parts of the larger culture. From long-houses and large men's houses to smaller temporary family huts, Amazonian architecture is both the direct product of culture and a constant reminder of cultural ideals, reproducing and recreating the culture itself. Bourdieu's concept of habitus (Bourdieu 1977, 1978) as a cultural mnemonic illustrates how living structures can be a crucial component in maintaining and creating culture. One of the most interesting points of comparison to an archaeological study of the ritual life of houses is the ethnographic work in the Amazon on the role of houses as an idealized cultural model of the society and the cosmos. In many Amazonian societies houses are constructed as representations of kin affiliations, gender roles, the organization of the cosmos, and the narrative of creation stories. In Christine Hugh-Jones's 1979 study of the Barasana, the house serves as an axis mundi for many different levels of cultural organization. At the broadest level the house is built as a retelling of the Barasana's own history, mapping out the path of the founder of their people, Anaconda, as it swam up-river into their present homeland. The house is also a more literal map of their surrounding area, with an upstream door and a downstream door positioned around the central hearth. At a smaller scale the house serves as a model of social and gender organization. With the house divided into male and female parts, it is both a symbol of idealized gender roles and a physical reinforcer of them. Seen from another perspective, because the structure of the house is so central to all parts of Barasana life, perhaps the cosmos and their social organization are just as much constructed as models of the house. Dean and Kojan Ceremonial Households and Domestic Temples 127 In Tukanoan culture the house, normally a site of food preparation, sleeping, and shelter, is transforned during shamanic rituals into the cosmos and the world of myth complete with earth, sky, mountains, and rivers (Hugh-Jones 1995). In normal life the house serves as a place of mundane daily work and existence where people cook, sleep, and safely store their possessions. On special occasions it is a site of the most important rituals, feasting, gift giving, and healing. Thus the house serves as shelter and temple and probably everything in between. In practice the Tukanoan house is never seen as a separate entity from either daily subsistence or the world of shamanism and myth. For example, the staple manioc bread is prepared daily in a central hearth of the house, but in cultural terms the hearth is a metaphorical womb where the manioc is cooked, just as a child is "cooked" in its mother's belly. Their creation story recounts that a feather house was created first forming a "womb" for the gestation of both people and their manioc bread and beer (Hugh-Jones 1995:233- 238). Thus daily life carries on surrounded by markers of ritual significance while special rituals are conducted in the context of daily life. This is not to say that Tukanoan people recognize no difference between ritual occasions and daily life. On the contrary, the demarcation between daily life and special rituals may be even sharper when an ordinary, working, messy house is transformed into a sacred place. In the terms of Victor Turner (1969) the liminality of this kind of home ritual may be even greater than if the two worlds are kept at great distance from one another. Conclusion In his Outline of a Theory of Practice, Bourdieu complains that ritual concepts are "fuzzy" and that they ultimately degenerate (1977:112-120). The same ambiguity of definition plagues household archaeology. As anthropologists we spend much of our theoretical lives struggling to define things, whether by increasingly broad definitions or detailed trait lists. However, perhaps on occasion it is necessary to accept that one's data are ambiguous, easy definitions are not forthcoming and think about why this may be. In the case of Santiago, and possibly also for other Andean archaeological sites, it could be that we have created artificial dichotomies between concepts that really belong together. Why must ritual be spatially distinct from the domestic, the sacred separate from the profane? Perhaps we should acknowledge the possibility of ceremonial households and domestic temples. Although the analyses and interpretations of the Santiago data are still in the early stages, the site has already raised interesting questions about domestic life in the Formative and its relationship to the ritual world. Most importantly, the proximity and contemporaneity of the excavated occupation surfaces to, and with, the semi- subterranean structure indicate that there was not a sharp demarcation between ritual and domestic structures and activities at this early Formative site. Llama bone concentrations, burials, guinea pig offerings, "fine" domestic wares, sodalite beads, 128 Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers No. 85 and ochre-painted "killed" metates coexist with evidence of everyday food preparation, lithic tool production, and textile and farming implements. Ethnographic and ethnohistoric research from the region has shown that even the "common" adobe household, from its walls to its rafters and thatch, is imbued with ritual and symbolic significance, creating and reflecting the Aymara cosmological order. Strict divisions between the sacred and the mundane did not necessarily apply in the past either. We encounter evidence of domestic structures associated with "temple-like" structures at other early Andean sites, such as El Paraiso. But because households have not received much attention in Andean archaeology until quite recently, it is difficult to address the fine-resolution questions of domestic activity. The archaeological remains from Santiago blur the division between ritual and domestic, between places of worship and places of daily life. N )~~~~~~~~~~~NN '_ ? > ? 3 -200 m ntourintal ,t,...--.. t./ 1~~~~~~~Vich --- Rivenlsady Figure 1: The Taraco Peninsula and the southern Titicaca Basin Dean and Kojan Ceremonial Households and Domestic Temples 129 1250.00 Santago 1200.00 . . 1150i00 1100000 1050.00 - 100.00 MNTN 50 m 0.25 mewe contou 900a00 950.00 1000.001 1050.00 1100.00 1 150.001 1200.00 1250.00 1300.00 Figure 2: The Formative site of Chiripa 130 Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers No. 85 Am i E/rm% In IM si If Figure 3: The Santiago Area Dean and Kojan Ceremonial Households and Domestic Temples 131 References Cited Abercrombie, Thomas 1986 The Politics of Sacrifice: An Aymara Cosmology in Action. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago. Aldenderfer, Mark S., and Charles Stanish 1993 Domestic Architecture, Household Archaeology, and the Past in the South-Central Andes. In Domestic Architecture, Ethnicity, and Complementarity in the South-Central Andes. M. S. Aldenderfer, ed. Pp. 1-12. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. Allen, Catherine J. 1988 The Hold Life Has: Coca and Cultural Identity in an Andean community. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Arnold, Denise Y. 1991 House of Earth-Bricks and Inka Stones: Gender, Memory, and Cosmos in Qaqachaka. Journal of Latin American Lore 17(1-2):3-69. Ashmore, Wendy, and Richard R. Wilk 1988 House and Household in the Mesoamerican Past: An Introduction. In Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past. W. Ashmore and R. R. Wilk, eds. Pp. 1-28. Abuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Bandy, Matthew S. 1999 History of Investigations at the Site of Chiripa. In Early Settlement at Chiripa, Bolivia: Research of the Taraco Archaeological Project. C. A. Hastorf, ed. Pp. 9-16. Berkeley: Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Number 57. Bastien, Joseph William 1978 Mountain of the Condor: Metaphor and Ritual in an Andean Ayllu. St. Paul: West Publishing Company. Bawden, Garth 1993 Residential Architecture of the Tumilaca Valley (c. 1000 BC). In Domestic Architecture, Ethnicity, and Complementarity in the South- Central Andes. M. S. Aldenderfer, ed. Pp. 42-54. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. Bell, Catherine M. 1992 Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York: Oxford University Press. 132 Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers No.85 Bender, D. 1967 A Refinement of the Concept of Household: Families, Co-residence, and Domestic Functions. American Anthropologist 69:493-504. Bermann, Marc 1994 Lukurmata: Household Archaeology in Prehispanic Bolivia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bermann, Marc, and Jose Estevez Castillo 1995 Domestic Artifact Assemblages and Ritual Activities in the Bolivian Formative. Journal of Field Archaeology 22:389-398. Blanton, Richard E. 1994 Houses and Households: a Comparative Study. New York: Plenum Press. Blier, Suzanne Preston 1987 The Anatomy of Architecture: Ontology and Metaphor in Batammaliba Architectural Expression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bloch, Maurice 1995 The Resurrection of the House amongst the Zafimaniry of Madagascar. In About the House. J. Carsten and S. Hugh-Jones, eds. Pp. 69-83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blom, Deborah E., and Matthew S. Bandy 1999 Human Remains and Mortuary Practices. In Early Settlement at Chiripa, Bolivia: Research of the Taraco Archaeological Project. C. A. Hastorf, ed. Pp.117-122. Berkeley: Contributions of the University of Califomia Archaeological Research Facility, Number 57. Bourdieu, Pierre 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1978 The Berber House. In Rules and Meanings, the Anthropology of Everyday Knowledge. M. Douglas, ed. Pp. 98-110. London: Penguin. Browman, David 1978 The Temple of Chiripa. In III Congreso Peruano "El Hombre y La Cultura Andina," Volume 2. R. Matos, ed. Pp. 807-813. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Carsten, Janet, and Stephen Hugh-Jones, eds. 1995 About the House. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chavez, Karen L. Mohr 1980 The Significance of Chiripa in Lake Titicaca Basin Developments. Expedition 30(3):17-26. Dean and Kojan Ceremonial Households and Domestic Temples 133 Courty, M. A., P. Goldberg, and R. Macphail, eds. 1989 Soils and Micromorphology in Archaeology. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dean, Emily, and David Kojan 1999 Santiago. In Early Settlement at Chiripa, Bolivia: Research of the Taraco Archaeological Project. C. A. Hastorf, ed. Pp. 37-42. Berkeley: Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Number 57. Flannery, K., and M. Winter 1976 Analyzing Household Activities. In The Early Mesoamerican Village. K.V. Flannery, ed. Pp. 34-47. New York: Academic Press. Goldstein, Paul 1993 House, Community, and State in the Earliest Tiwanaku Colony: Domestic Patterns and State Integration at Omo M12, Moquegua. In Domestic Architecture, Ethnicity, and Complementarity in the South-Central Andes. M. S. Aldenderfer, ed. Pp. 2541. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. Goodman, Melissa 1999 Micromorphology of Depositional Sequences from Monticulo and Santiago Excavations. In Early Settlement at Chiripa, Bolivia: Research of the Taraco Archaeological Project. C. A. Hastorf, ed. Pp. 51-60. Berkeley: Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Number 57. Gose, Peter 1991 House Rethatching in an Andean Cycle: Practice, Meaning, and Contradiction. American Ethnologist 17(1):39-66. Hammel, E., and P. Laslett 1974 Comparing Household Structure over Time and between Cultures. Comparative Studies in Society and History 16:73-109. Hastorf, Christine Ann 1993 Agriculture and the Onset of Political Inequality before the Inka. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Hastorf, Christine, ed. 1999 Early Settlement at Chiripa, Bolivia: Research of the Taraco Archaeological Project. Berkeley: Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Number 57. Hodder, Ian 1990 The Domestication of Europe: Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies. Oxford: Blackwell. 134 Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers No. 85 Hugh-Jones, Christine 1979 From the Milk River. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hugh-Jones, Stephen 1995 Inside-Out and Back-to-Front: the Androgynous House in Northwest Amazonia. In About the House. J. Carsten and S. Hugh-Jones, eds. Pp. 226-252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Isbell, Billie Jean 1978 To Defend Ourselves: Ecology and Ritual in an Andean Village. Institute of Latin American Studies, University of Texas at Austin: University of Texas Press. Joyce, Rosemary A. 1991 Cerro Palenque: Power and Identity on the Maya Periphery. Austin: University of Texas Press. Kent, Susan 1990 A Cross-Cultural Study of Segmentation, Architecture, and the Use of Space. In Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: an Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study. S. Kent, ed. Pp. 127-152. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kus, Susan, and Victor Raharijoana 1990 Domestic Space and the Tenacity of Tradition among some Betsileo of Madagascar. In Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: an Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study. S. Kent, ed. Pp. 21-33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levi-Strauss, Claude 1982 The Way of the Masks. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Moore, Henrietta L. 1986 Space, Text, and Gender: an Anthropological Study of the Marakwet of Kenya. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moore, Katherine M., David Steadman, and Susan deFrance 1999 Herds, Fish, and Fowl in the Domestic and Ritual Economy of Formative Chiripa. In Early Settlement at Chiripa, Bolivia: Research of the Taraco Archaeological Project. C. A. Hastorf, ed. Pp. 105-116. Berkeley: Contributions of the University of Califomia Archaeological Research Facility, Number 57. Munn, Nancy D. 1986 The Fame of Gawa: a Symbolic Study of Value Transformation in a Massim (Papua New Guinea) Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dean and Kojan Ceremonial Households and Domestic Temples 135 Pred, Allan Richard 1990 Making Histories and Constructing Human Geographies: the Local Transformation of Practice, Power Relations, and Consciousness. Boulder: Westview Press. Rapaport, A. 1980 Vernacular Architecture and the Cultural Determination of Form. In Buildings and Society. A. King, ed. Pp. 283-305. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Rice, Donald 1993 Late Intermediate Period Domestic Architecture and Residential Organization at La Yaral. In Domestic Architecture, Ethnicity, and Complementarity in the South-central Andes. M. S. Aldenderfer, ed. Pp. 66-82. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. Salomon, Frank 1995 "The Beautiful Grandparents": Andean Ancestor Shrines and Mortuary Ritual as seen through Colonial Records. In Tombs for the Living: Andean Mortuary Practices. T.D. Dillehay, ed. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research. Stanish, Charles 1989 Household Archaeology: Testing Models of Zonal Complementarity in the South Central Andes. American Anthropologist 91:7-24. Steadman, Lee 1999 The Ceramics. In Early Settlement at Chiripa, Bolivia: Research of the Taraco Archaeological Project. C. A. Hastorf, ed. Pp. 61-72. Berkeley: Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Number 57. Turner, Victor 1969 The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Chicago: Aldine. Whitehead, William T. 1999 Paleoethnobotanical Evidence. In Early Settlement at Chiripa, Bolivia: Research of the Taraco Archaeological Project. C. A. Hastorf, ed. Pp. 95- 104. Berkeley: Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Number 57. Wilk, Richard R., and William L. Rathje 1982 Household Archaeology. In Archaeology of the Household: Building a Prehistory of Domestic Life. R.R. Wilk and W.L. Rathje, eds. Pp. 617- 640. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.