438 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST • VOL. 101, No. 2 • JUNE 1999

ronmental problems, and internal stress. Bawden handles thesetwo chapters quite well, despite the difficulty of obtaining con-crete evidence of internal stress and an overemphasis on the seri-ousness of environmental factors. Again, in his view, the north-ern valleys fared better during this transitional period.

In the final chapter, Bawden cites the legacy that the Mocheleft on later cultures, including modern-day Peru. Examples ofthis legacy include Chimu blackware derived from Moche Vblackware and reed boats that are still used along portions of thenorth coast. The most enduring legacy, however, is the practiceof shamanism, which Bawden sees as directly tied to the Mocherulers' roles as shamans in maintaining a balance between thereal world and the spirit world.

In sum, Garth Bawden has provided a thorough and stimulat-ing volume that offers much food for thought concerning one ofancient Peru's most interesting civilizations. Overall, the bookis well done. My major complaint is that the half-tone reproduc-tions are of poor quality, often too dark to discern much detail.Despite this reservation, this book deserves a place on the book-shelves of all persons, scholars, and laypersons alike who havean interest in ancient Peru. •»

Archaeologica Peruana: Prehispanic Architecture and Civili-zation in the Andes. Elisabeth Bonnier and Henning Bischof,eds. Mannheim, Germany: Reiss-Museum, 1997.236 pp.

JERRY MOORE

California State University-Dominguez Hills

Sometimes the best thing an archaeologist can do is to draw agood map, and this is amply illustrated in Prehispanic Architec-ture and Civilization in the Andes. The outgrowth of a sympo-sium at the 1988 International Congress of Americanists, thevolume contains 11 papers in Spanish and English edited byElisabeth Bonnier and Henning Bischof.

As Bonnier observes in the introduction (p. 10), the sympo-sium unintentionally exposed two different trends in archae-ological approaches to architecture: "The European archaeolo-gists were giving more attention to formal analysis anddefinition of construction sequences. . . [whereas] their Ameri-can colleagues. . . wouldratherfocusonsettlementpatternsandthe social and economical aspects of the architectural study."Five authors (Wurster, Reindel, Fuchs, Bischof, and Tellenbach[unfortunately, most of Dr. Tellenbach's article was missingfrom my review copy]) emphasize formal analysis and con-struction techniques, three authors (Shimada, Cavallaro, andGreider) discuss social and economical aspects, and Bonniercontributes two articles, one from each approach. One articlefalls outside of this very loose framework; Elera provides an ex-cellent overview of the Peruvian Formative Cupisnique andSalinar cultures, but scarcely mentions architecture.

Before discussing individual articles, I must emphasize thehigh quality of the publication. Architectural studies depend ontheir illustrations, and the authors and the Reiss-Museum are tobe thanked for the excellent photographs, plans, and sections.Some illustrations are actually beautiful, and all the artwork iscompetent and useful to archaeologists.

The papers focusing on formal analysis and constructiontechniques include Fuchs's detailed discussion of buildingstages at Cerro Sechin in the Casma Valley, Peru. Long-knownfor its bas-reliefs showing ax-bearing warriors and their muti-lated victims, scant chronological data about Cerro Sechin havebeen available. Fuchs's detailed construction sequence span-ning ca. 2500-2300 B.C. to 300-200 B.C. (pp. 157-159) is awelcome addition to Andean archaeology. Similar in its focuson building sequences, Reindel suggests a sequence for NorthCoast monumental architecture based on changes in adobebricks and morphological changes in building plans. Althoughinteresting, it does not produce a chronological alternative to ce-ramic sequencs, which is Reindel's stated goal (p. 91).

Bischof s article on the site of Cerro Blanco, in the NeperiaValley on Peru's coast, is an excellent photographic survey ofthe site. Historic photographs culled from hacienda archivesshow various stages in the site's excavation—and its deteriora-tion. Bischof examines iconographic motifs depicted in nownearly destroyed polychrome reliefs and argues that coastal siteslike Cerro Blanco contain important information about the re-ligious and sociopolitical dimensions of the Early Horizon'sChavin tradition.

Bonnier, in her article on construction sequences at the LatePreceramic (ca. 3000-1800 B.C.) site of Piruru, shows thecom-plex history of ritual architecture at the site and expands her dis-cussion of the Mi to religious architectural style. Bonnier's com-parison of Piruru and other sites (Kotosh, La Galgada) suggeststhe Late Preceramic Mito religion unified the north-central Pe-ruvian Andes.

Wurster presents architectural and settlement data from thelittle-known Topara Valley, located on the south coast of Peru.Wurster's brief article only hints at the rich data he and his col-leagues have obtained. The majority of the Topara Valley sitesdate to Late Intermediate period (ca. A.D. 900-1470) and LateHorizon (ca. A.D. 1470-1530). The largest site, HuaquinaEste,is an architectural complex covering some 500 x 200 meterswith dwellings, public plazas, and multiroom compounds usedfor both residential functions and funerary rites. Wurster's su-perb architectural plans are an important contribution to Andeanarchaeology.

Cavallaro critiques seriations of the large royal compounds(ciudadelas) at Chan Chan, the Late Intermediate period capitalof the Peruvian Chimu Empire. Although Cavallaro's researchhas been published elsewhere, this version is particularly clear.Cavallaro concludes that at best one can separate the royal com-pounds into Early, Middle, and Late ciudadelas, not a unilinealsequence. This section of Cavallaro's article is tightly argued,but there is no reason to think—as Cavallaro does—that the dif-ficulties of seriating Chan Chan's ciudadelas indicate dual po-litical organization. The penultimate section of the article offersan unconvincing analysis of dual organization at the Inka site ofHuarmco Pampa that does nothing to advance Cavallaro'sclaims.

The weakest paper in the volume is Terence Grieder' s article,"On Two Types of Andean Tombs," which contrasts above-ground funerary structures (chullpas) and subterranean shaftand chamber tombs. In a free-form use of South American eth-nography that blithely hops across millenia, Grieder argues thatthe shaft and chamber tombs symbolized wombs and that thechullpas are phalli, and that a supposed shift in funerary forms

BOOK REVIEWS / Archaeology 439

reflects a conceptual change from one "essentially uterine andcave-like to one essentially phallic and axial" (p. 117). Perhaps.

The strongest papers in the volume combine formal analysisand theoretical concerns. Izumi Shimada explores how pat-terned variations in "makers' marks" on adobe bricks indicatediachronic changes in the organization of group labor. Sinceadobe constructions were among the largest public works ofNorth Coast polities, understanding the organization of grouplabor directly illuminates the changing nature of North Coastpolitical organization. One suggested hypothesis (the "LaborTax Model") holds that marked adobes reflect the brick produc-tion of different corvee groups. Shimada accepts the Labor TaxModel for Late Gallinazo (ca. A.D. 100-300) and the earlystages of the Moche sequence but argues that changes in con-struction techniques and patterns in marked bricks indicate amore centralized organization of the work force in later periods.

In her article "Morfologfa del espacio aldeano y su expresidnen los Andes Centrales," Bonnier shows that the apparent homo-geneity of Andean domestic structures and their spatial contextspartly results from the flexibility of activity areas. She writes,"Asi nos parece dificil concebir como una organization tan flex-ible y variable podria llevar a un modelo arquitectonico fijo ylimitante" (p. 33). Informed by a theoretical perspective thattreats domestic space as an expression of social interaction,Bonnier analyzes late prehispanic structures from the centralAndean region of Chinchaycocha 0ocated between Junfn andTarma) and contrasts them with regions to the south and north.Strongly argued based on her own data, Bonnier's analysis islimited by the lack of comparative architectural data from otherregions.

Prehispanic Architecture and Civilization in the Andes con-tains architectural data of interest to Andean archaeologists. Thearticles would have broader interest if the authors had addressedany theoretical issues relating to architecture and the built envi-ronment. The only reference to the theoretical literature regard-ing architecture is one sentence in Bonnier's introduction. Thereare nascent theoretical bits here and there, but no discussiondrawing on relevant ideas of Edward T. Hall, Amos Rapoport,Denis Cosgrove or others whose works were available when theoriginal symposium was organized. This oversight reflectsmore than the difference between how European and Americanarchaeologists approach ancient Andean monuments; it reflectsa general need for integrating data, methods, and theory in un-derstanding prehistoric architecture. •»•

Gender in Archaeology: Analyzing Power and Prestige.Sarah Milledge Nelson. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press,1997. 240 pp.

ROSEMARY A. JOYCE

University of California-Berkeley

Often said to have started with a major article by MargaretConkey and Janet Spector published in 1984 ("Archaeology andthe Study of Gender," Advances in Archaeological Method andtheory 7:1-38), the archaeology of gender has seen explosivegrowth in recent years, fueled primarily by conferences publish-ed as edited volumes of papers. Few book-length studies have

been included in this outpouring of work, notable exceptions be-ing Janet Spector's What this Awl Means (Minnesota HistoricalSociety, 1994) and Roberta Gilchrist's Gender and MaterialCulture: The Archaeology of Religious Women (Routledge,1994). Sarah Nelson's contribution, the first extended synthesisof this burgeoning literature, is an ambitious attempt to providea single narrative overview of a rapidly changing body of workthat may, in fact, be too diverse to be easily summarized.

Nelson addresses two distinct goals referenced by the "powerand prestige" of her subtitle. She presents the feminist critique inarchaeology, which argues that women's roles in past societieshave been systematically ignored in part because of the gendercomposition of the field, leading to androcentric biases aboutwhat is important or knowable. In this sense, the analysis ofpower and prestige is an analysis of the contemporary practiceof archaeology. However, the book also proposes a somewhatless obvious, and perhaps incompletely theorized, argumentabout power and prestige in the past as topics of inquiry. As Nel-son puts it, in this second sense "power and prestige" refers to "afocus on men's (assumed) activities in the past and the (attrib-uted) greater power and prestige of male activities within ourown culture" (p. 18). The implication is that (male) archaeolo-gists, by concerning themselves primarily with the powerful andwith presumed sites of power and prestige in the past, and bygendering those male, have produced an incomplete and dis-torted picture of past societies that can be corrected by attentionto the activities of those presumed less powerful and prestigious,that is, women.

These overarching themes are largely subordinated to a dif-ferent goal, more clearly signaled by the book's structure, ofproviding an introduction to the state of knowledge about a gen-dered past. The book is divided into three sections. The firstthree chapters serve to introduce the projects outlined above, thenext five chapters provide an overview of published works or-ganized according to a cultural evolutionary framework, and thefinal chapter suggests some future directions for an archaeologyof gender, including a critique of evolution as a framework thatessentializes gender. The central section provides a textbook-style summary of a number of recently published articles ongender in archaeology, set off by critiques of normative archae-ological approaches to topics such as the origins of agricultureand the position of women in states. While these chapters canprovide a beginning point for students interested in specific top-ics, none of them provide complete coverage, and the basis forselection of articles mentioned is not always obvious. Becauseof the sweeping scope of the book, most topics are treated in asketchy fashion. Students could easily consider these conversa-tional, almost chatty, chapters coherent, authoritative narrativesabout what happened in prehistory. This is unfortunate, sincemany of the works cited are in fact contradictory. For example,Bettina Arnold's argument that the Iron-Age "Princess of Vix"may have been buried with weapons because these were appro-priate to her social status, not because she was personally a war-rior (p. 147), calls into question JeannineDavis-Kimball's inter-pretation of Sauramatian burials as women warriors based onthe inclusion of weapons (p. 140). The problems here are notunique to a gendered archaeology; mortuary analysis has alwaysstruggled to develop a way to use burial goods as evidence forpast social life. One clear advantage of gendered perspectives onarchaeology is the introduction of diverse explanatory ap-