THE “TEMBLADERA” FIGURINES: RITUAL, MUSIC, AND ELITE IDENTITY IN

FORMATIVE PERIOD NORTH PERU, CIRCA 1800–200 B.C.

Julia T. Burtenshaw-Zumstein

Despite featuring in numerous publications and exhibitions since the 1970s, Tembladera figurines have never been
studied in and for themselves. This article collects together all published as well as some previously unpublished examples
in order to describe the features that characterize these figurines. Groupings and a chronological attribution are suggested
based on formal characteristics (size and iconography). In light of lacking proveniences, the subsequent discussion picks
out themes such as gender, adornment, and music, and investigates the insight which can be gained from a formal study
of the figurines. It concludes that the figurines can significantly inform our understanding of the role of music and the
nature of emergent elites in Formative Period north Peru, 1800–200 B.C.

A pesar de hallarse en numerosas publicaciones y en diferentes exposiciones desde la década de 1970, las llamadas
“figurinas de Tembladera,” hasta la fecha nunca habían sido estudiadas con detenimiento. El presente artículo recoge la
información sobre las figurinas en sus diferentes publicaciones, así como algunos ejemplos inéditos, con el fin de describir
los rasgos que caracterizan a estas figurinas. Agrupaciones descriptivas se sugieren en base a las características formales
(tamaño e iconografía). En vista de que carecen de procedencia arqueológica, el debate posterior escoge temas como
género, adorno personal, y música. A la misma vez, se investiga la idea de que se puede obtener información válida
de un estudio formal de las figurinas. Se concluye que las figurinas pueden brindar información significativa sobre
la base de nuestras interpretaciones, especialmente sobre el papel de la música y del carácter de las elites emergentes
durante el Período Formativo entre 1800–200 a.C. en el Norte del Perú. Se nota brevemente algunas comparaciones
estilísticas con los imprecisamente definidos estilos y/o culturas de “Cupisnique” y“Chavín.” Al fin, se puede sugerir una
atribución cronológica entre 1000–400 a.C. aproximadamente para las figurinas.

I n the 1960s, a large number of well-made pre-

Columbian ceramics appeared on the antiquities
market, supposedly originating from Tembladera in
the middle Jequetepeque Valley and dating to the
Formative Period (Figure 1; see Lapiner 1976).
These included elaborately modeled figurative
vessels as well as the iconic figurines that are the
subject of this article. Most of these were quickly

Julia T. Burtenshaw-Zumstein, Sainsbury Research Unit, Sainsbury Center for the Visual Arts, University of East Anglia,
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK, j.zumstein@uea.ac.uk

Ñawpa Pacha, Journal of Andean Archaeology, Volume 33, Number 2, pp. 119–148. Copyright # 2013 Institute of Andean Studies. All rights reserved.

119
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
Figure 1 Map of north coast Peru.
dispersed to diverse collections around the world.
While some scholarly attention has been given to
the vessels, many of which were linked to the
Cupisnique and Chavín traditions, little is known
or has been published about the figurines. Of the
54 examples known to the author, not a single one
has been retrieved from a controlled archaeological
context, and many remain in private collections.
This article considers these so-called “Tembladera”
figurines in greater detail. First of all, for descriptive
purposes, the figurines are grouped into categories
based on size and formal characteristics. Thereafter,
possible proveniences and contexts of use are dis-
cussed, before briefly exploring the kinds of inferences
that can be made from the figurines as human rep-
resentations, in isolation and in context. This article
explores what the figurines tell us about the people/
society which made and used them and, indeed,
what their traits can contribute towards our
120
Volume 33, Number 2
understanding of pre-Columbian beliefs, practices,
and socio-political developments during the
Formative Period more generally. Having drawn
together and analyzed this dataset in comparison
with Formative Period north Peruvian ceramic rep-
resentations in general, it is argued that Tembladera
figurines are particularly notable for the detailing of
their clothing and adornments, their gender-specific
iconography, and a conspicuous link to music and
musicians.
Despite almost a century of research, the cultures
and styles of the Formative Period of northern Peru
are still a cause for debate. This article does not aim
to define Tembladera as a ceramic style or culture in
general, nor can it prove that these kinds of figurines
do indeed originate in/around Tembladera.
Nonetheless, by considering the figurines in and of
themselves, the foundations for future cultural and
stylistic attribution are laid. Comparison with other
 Burtenshaw-Zumstein: The “Tembladera” figurines
Figure 2 Flutist with feline headdress 1 (Group A).
human representations from Formative Period north-
ern Peru (on ceramics labeled as either “Cupisnique,”
“Chongoyape,” or “Chavín,” for example) are alluded
to, however problematizing the definition of such cul-
tural or stylistic labels is beyond the scope of this
article.1 Although chronological and geographic
origins are clarified and/or tentatively proposed, the
subsequent discussion does not rely on an exact cul-
tural association.
The Figurines
The present article draws together the largest sample
of Formative Period figurines from north-coast Peru
thus-far considered collectively—54 in total. This
dataset is comprised of all previously published
examples known to the author, as well as a large pro-
portion of unpublished pieces located in publicly
available museum collections in the USA and
121
Switzerland, which have been personally examined
by the author.2
Descriptive Groupings
Based on empirical observation of the formal, techno-
logical, and iconographic traits, the figurines here
have been divided into three general groups (A, B,
and C). These groups are useful to more accurately
discuss the characteristics of the figurines and their
implications, but these categories are not definitive
and there is some degree of variability within them.
The purpose of this study is not to address each vari-
ation but to introduce the figurines, make a first broad
interpretation, and set the stage for future studies.
Group A is the most elaborate and most of the discus-
sion below will focus on the figurines of this group.
Group B figurines are not as elaborate or large as
those of Group A, but show significant similarities
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
Figure 3 Flutist with feline headdress 2 (Group A).
as well as differences compared with those in Group
A. Group C consists of small ocarinas in human as
well as animal shapes. This article maintains that,
given their similarities, all these figurines ought to
be considered as part of one dataset. An additional
few figurines have been published as “Tembladera fig-
urines;” however, they differ from the rest of the
corpus in a number of formal, technological, and ico-
nographical features and, therefore, have been
assigned to a provisional “atypical” group (Group X)
for further subdivision and analysis in the future.
The figurines illustrated in Figures 2–34 are a repre-
sentative sample of the larger corpus of figurines.
Group A includes the largest and most elaborate
figurines (Table 1; Figures 2–16). Based on three
examples of paired figurines it is possible to assign
gender to the figurines of Group A (Figures 14–16).
One of each pair appears to wear a loincloth, the
other a full-length dress, leading us to interpret
them as male and female, respectively. Further
122
Volume 33, Number 2
attributes reinforce this gendered identification,
both in the paired and individual figurines of
Group A. The distinction between the represented
male and female persons is evident based on their
gender-distinctive clothing and hairstyle or head-
dresses, but also their pose and actions, as will be out-
lined below. Also worth noting is that, in the paired
figures, the male is always positioned on the right,
with the female on the left side as they face.
The figures in Group A are 15–20 cm tall. They
each have a large, round air-hole at the top of the
head, plus another air hole either on the abdomen
(navel) or at the base (feet or in one case, anus).
The faces of all figurines in Group A are incised
and/or zone-colored with elaborate, asymmetrical
markings of steps, waves, and pulse-motifs. Traces
of both white and red post-fire paint remain on the
figurines’ faces and clothing. The elaborate clothing
is particularly notable: all male figurines wear a
white loincloth, with a long vertical band at the
 Burtenshaw-Zumstein: The “Tembladera” figurines
Figure 4 Flutist with avian headdress (Group A).
front and shorter bands or a knot at the sides and
back; female figurines wear full-body dresses (or
skirts and blouses) decorated with circles, and sashes
that run diagonally across their bodies. The only
exception to this is one figurine showing a sitting
female who appears to be naked (Figure 12). The
male figurines wear some form of headdress (some
of which are finely detailed feline or avian head-
dresses), while the females have straight, shoulder-
length hair. All figures in Group A wear a broad neck-
lace/collar with multiple layers of thin rectangular
elements (with the exception of Figure 5). All of the
male figures except one (Figure 6) hold flutes or
shell-trumpets and most of these musicians in
addition wear multi-component earrings and
bracelets.
Aside from the sitting female already mentioned,
two figurines stand out and, in the future, they may
be recognized as regionally or chronologically
123
Figure 5 Simple flutist (Group A).
different manifestations of this figurine tradition.
Both show standing male figures in loincloths, have
rectangular slit eyes, and are playing flutes
(Figures 9 and 10). What distinguishes them is the
double-crest headdress and, on the back of the
head, both have an incised agnathic face, with fangs
and upturned eyes. Figure 10 further differs from
the rest of Group A due to its bright red color and
the circle-and-dots that decorate the loincloth, neck-
lace, and flute (this figurine was allegedly looted
from Puémape, as were Figures 6 and 8, as discussed
further below).
The figurines assigned to Group B are smaller and
lack the clothing, accessories, and distinctive actions
presented by the figurines of Group A (Table 2,
Figures 17–21). Nonetheless, they can be closely
linked to or even considered as part of the same
corpus of figurines: the figurines of Group B wear a
broad necklace/collar with multiple layers of
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
Figure 6 Plain standing male (Group A).
rectangular elements that is virtually identical to that
worn by the figurines of Group A (with the exception
of Figure 21). As with Group A, Group B figurines
bear traces of post-fire white paint, sometimes also
red paint, and they have a large, round air-hole on
the abdomen. As seen in Group A, Group B figurines
have facial markings, but these can be both asymme-
trical and symmetrical and consist of curvilinear
rather than stepped/pulse designs. Their eyes consist
of rectangular slits with round pupils, just as in
Group A. However, in Group B there are additional
pierced holes at the corners of the eyes and mouth.
At 12–14 cm tall, the figurines of Group B are
smaller than those in Group A (compare Tables 1
and 2). Unlike the figurines of Group A, clothing is
not represented, and thus we cannot confidently
assign gender to the figurines of Group B. All have
long hair, sometimes with finely incised lines at the
fringe and wider strands at the back. The arms are
124
Volume 33, Number 2
Figure 7 Conch shell trumpeter 1 (Group A).
bent at right angles such that their empty hands are
held on the abdomen. Unlike Group A, no Group
B figurines hold musical instruments.
The third group of figurines, Group C, is quite
different from those described above and the figurines
are also ocarinas (Table 3, Figures 25–34). They are
conical and have a large hole on the back, plus two
small holes at the shoulders and ankles (five holes
in total), comprising the mouth and finger holes of
an ocarina, respectively. At 4–6 cm tall, these are
much smaller and lack the detailed features (e.g.
modeled noses or adornments) of the figurines of
Groups A and B. Their eyes are either rectangular
slits with pin-prick pupils (as seen in Groups A and
B) or made up of a circle and dot, and some
ocarina figurines feature both (see Figures 25 and 34).
Aside from having the same alleged proveniences as
the other figurines (discussed below) there are a
number of parallels that enable us to link these
 Burtenshaw-Zumstein: The “Tembladera” figurines
Figure 8 Conch shell trumpeter 2 (Group A).
pieces with the Group A and Group B figurines. The
tan paste, surface color, and smooth finish are identi-
cal to the other Tembladera figurines, and there are
traces of post-fire white paint and sometimes also
red or black paint. The circle and dot eyes seen on
some of these ocarinas are also seen on the feline
and avian headdresses of the figurines described in
Group A. Remarkably, there is a paired figurine-
ocarina (Figure 34) where one figure appears to
wear a full-length dress with circle decoration, as
seen on the large (Group A) paired figures.
It is worth noting that, in addition to the human
figurines, there are a number of bird ocarina-figurines
(Figures 29 and 33), but these can be classified to
Group C with confidence: they are of the exact
same size, have the same conical body-shape, circle-
and-dot eyes, white and red or black post-fire paint,
and the same arrangement of air and finger holes.
Particularly notable is a paired bird figurine
(Figure 33).
125
The figurines that have provisionally been assigned
to Group X are “atypical” pieces, i.e. figurines that
cannot be adequately described within the other
groups (see Table 4: Figures 22–24, plus others not
illustrated). Future study may enable us to assign
these to new groups, or reveal some of them as fakes.
Figures 22 and 23 are closely associated to one
another. They are of a dark red, almost purple, color
and have a polished, reflective surface finish. Traces
of cream-colored paint are reported (Alva 1986: 98).
No air holes or perforations are visible on the fronts
or sides of the figurines. Both are seemingly dressed
in long tunics that completely and tightly wrap their
bodies from neck to toe, decorated with one or two ver-
tical bands. These appear to depict female figures (Alva
1986; Lavalle and Lang 1981; Morgan 2009). One of
them covers her eyes with both hands, a gesture
unknown from any other north Peruvian Formative
representation. The other figurine has incised, oval
eyes with incised, upturned pupils, quite distinct
from the figurines of Groups A, B, or C. Stepped,
asymmetric facial markings around the mouth, on
the other hand, are vaguely reminiscent of those
observed for Group A. Another figure is similar to
those just described, but shows a tan color and lacks
the polish of Figures 22 and 23 (see Lapiner 1976:
Figure 61). Figure 24 as well as one piece first illus-
trated in Lavalle and Lang (1981: 120) are solid
rather than hollow, and thus—despite the fact that
Figure 24 shows some similarity with figurines of
Group B, especially the collar of Figure 21—must be
considered as “atypical” within the corpus currently
available for study.
Manufacture
With the exception of the two “atypical” pieces just
mentioned, all the figurines are hand-made and
hollow. While admittedly difficult to determine
with certainty, they appear not to have been made
using a mold, which is consistent with the manufac-
ture of sculptural vessels from the Formative Period
(Donnan 1992; Elera 1998). The number and pos-
ition of the air holes vary and could not always be
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
Figure 9 Flutist with face on the back (Group A).
ascertained on the specimens known only from pub-
lications; however, there is a tendency to place the
holes on top of the head and at the base and/or
navel. In some cases, even for the large Group A
and Group B figurines, these holes are said to form
part of the figurines’ function as ocarinas (Morgan
2009), but it must be noted that air holes are necess-
ary on all hollow ceramic bodies to facilitate the firing
process and prevent breaking. Based on personal
examination of the figurines, it seems that, except
for the ocarina figures described in Group C, these
holes do not serve as a whistling mechanism.
The paste color varies from a pale tan to orange
(and dark brown for Group X), and is fairly coarse
with a sandy temper. There is no slip, but the
surface is often smoothed or burnished and many of
the figurines show traces of white and/or red post-
fire paint. On some of the Group C figurines, traces
of black also remain. The colors are applied in
126
Volume 33, Number 2
zones bounded by lines incised into the damp/
drying paste.
The figurines’ visual impact derives primarily from
the skill of the artisan and character of the iconogra-
phy. The elaborate and delicate features of the figur-
ines indicate that they were probably made by a
specialist; however, as their manufacture involves no
complex techniques or access to rare materials, it has
been suggested that their manufacture was unlikely
to have been controlled by an elite patron (Morgan
2009). Being hand-modeled rather than mold-
made, they were also not mass-produced like later fig-
urines (for example, Moche figurines, see Morgan
2009).
Previous Research
Tembladera figurines have appeared in a number of
publications and exhibitions, however, interpretations
 Burtenshaw-Zumstein: The “Tembladera” figurines
Figure 10 Red flutist with face on the back (Group A).
or discussions have been brief. The first research was
by Lapiner (1976) who published eight figurines,
assigning the label “Tembladera-style” not just to
the figurines, but also to a diverse set of figurative
vessels. In 1986, Walter Alva included nine figurines
in his publication of some 470 Formative Period cer-
amics from the Jequetepeque and adjacent valleys,
albeit without reference to Tembladera as a style or
site of origin (Alva 1986). Most subsequent publi-
cations only feature isolated examples of the now
so-called Tembladera figurines, leaving common
characteristics and their potential implications unexa-
mined (see Burger 2008; Denver Art Museum 1990;
Kan 1972; Lavalle and Lang 1981; Parsons 1980;
Quilter 2005).
One exception is Alexandra Morgan (2009) who
considered Tembladera figurines as part of her exten-
sive study of north Peruvian figurines. Morgan illus-
trated 24 “classic” Tembladera figurines.3 A detailed
127
description of the group as a whole was followed by
a discussion of some specific traits, including eye-
shapes, facial markings, hairstyle, headdresses, cloth-
ing, and hand positions. Without defining stylistic
or cultural labels in general, Morgan pointed out
that, based on the figurines, “Tembladera” was dis-
tinct from the more frequently cited Cupisnique tra-
dition of the north coast, writing: “it is remarkable
that no similar figurines were found further south,
in the general area of the Cupisnique culture, in
spite of strong similarities between ‘Tembladera’ and
Cupisnique ceramics … In contrast to the wealth of
figurines from the Jequetepeque Valley, no figurines
at all have yet come to light from a Cupisnique
context in the Moche-Chicama valley” (Morgan
2009: 38–39).
Morgan’s work is an invaluable first compilation
and description of a number of Tembladera figurines,
and she situates them within the wider context of
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
Figure 11 Standing female (Group A).
figurine-making traditions in north Peru. She points
out basic trends and features, such as the uniqueness
of the paired male-female figurines, but does not elab-
orate on the significance of this, above and beyond
noting that “male/female dualism is a fundamental
concept in Pre-Columbian Peru” (Morgan 2009:
37). One key observation she makes is the clear associ-
ation of the figurines with music, indeed, Morgan
interprets the majority of figurines (14 of her 24
classic Tembladera figurines) as ocarinas themselves
(Morgan 2009: 38), an interpretation which, as
noted, is refuted here for all except the Group C fig-
urines classified.
Dating and Chronology
The chronological frameworks for the Formative
Period of northern Peru remain matters of debate
(Kaulicke 2010). When “Tembladera” ceramics and
128
Volume 33, Number 2
figurines first appeared in the academic sphere they
were dated, on the basis of stylistic similarities with
Chavín and Paracas, as “Late Chavín, 700–400
B.C.” (Kan 1972; Keatinge 1980; Lapiner 1976;
Lavalle and Lang 1981; Parsons 1980). Kan (1972)
associated them with the “feline cult” practiced at
Chavín de Huántar. Stylistic similarities with
Paracas were also noted: “The zoned-incised, post-
fire painting technique surprisingly parallels contem-
porary Paracas pottery far to the south and is other-
wise absent on the North Coast” (Parsons 1980:
256).4 In summary, these stylistic similarities placed
Tembladera ceramics and figurines in the Late
Formative Period, contemporary with or post-dating
the apogee of Chavín de Huántar.
It must be noted that several scholars have referred
to a “Tembladera style” of ceramics in general, as
opposed to figurines specifically. More recently, this
“Tembladera” material culture (however defined,
but mostly left undefined) has been associated with
the Early/Middle Formative periods, connecting it
closely to north-coast ceramics usually referred to as
“Cupisnique” (Burger 1995, 2008; Cordy-Collins
1998; Donnan 1992; Jones 2010; Torres 2008)
and dating to approximately 1500–500 B.C.
(Burger 1995; Elera 2009; Fux 2012). All of these sty-
listic definitions remain to be clarified (Burtenshaw-
Zumstein 2014). Alva noted there is great variation
in the ceramic types said to come from the
Formative Period middle Jequetepeque Valley and
suggested that the pieces illustrated probably span
several centuries (Alva 1986: 16). Burger writes:
“Although some scholars once believed that the
Tembladera style might be post-Chavín because of
similarities with the Paracas style of the Late Early
Horizon, this position has become less plausible
with recent archaeological results from Jequetepeque
and Kuntur Wasi,” thereby suggesting an Early-
Middle Formative chronological association (Burger
1995: 98, note 86).
Nonetheless, a Late Formative Period association
for Tembladera figurines specifically (as opposed to
the more vaguely defined “Tembladera ceramic
style”) remains in the scholarly literature (Denver
Art Museum 1990; Morgan 2009; Quilter 2005).
 Burtenshaw-Zumstein: The “Tembladera” figurines
Figure 12 Seated naked female (Group A).
The justifications for this temporal association are
limited, but should not be ignored: two figurines
(Figures 9 and 10) have a carved face on the back sty-
listically interpreted as Chavín-related (Kan 1972;
Lapiner 1976). The characteristics of this carved
face (an agnathic mouth and up-turned eyes) indeed
find close parallels with the Raimondi Stela and
Black and White Portal at Chavín de Huántar, both
of which have been consistently attributed to late
phases in the Chavín sequence (Rowe phases D and
EF). More recently, Kembel (2001) has provisionally
dated the Black and White Portal to the last monu-
mental construction phase at Chavín de Huántar,
although she places this final construction phase at
750–500 B.C. or possibly earlier. Thus, even if the
figurines are coeval with the Black and White phase
at Chavín de Huántar, the associated absolute dates
are between 1000–500 B.C. or the Middle
Formative rather than Late Formative Period. While
129
the other figurines of Groups A, B, and C do not
feature carved agnathic faces, they do share a large
number of other traits with figurines 9 and 10, and
may be roughly contemporaneous with them.
The association of the figurines with a
“Tembladera” or “Cupisnique” ceramic style in
general remains to be proven. Chronologically,
suggested dates for the Tembladera figurines as
based on the Chavín comparison fall into the latter
half of a broadly defined Cupisnique sequence
(1500–500 B.C. [Elera 2009]). As is also mentioned
below, however, the figurines share few or no icono-
graphic or formal traits with human depictions seen
on north-coast Formative Period sculptural vessels.
Eye and mouth shapes, facial decorations, as well as
the detail of dress and adornment are unique to the
figurines (for example, see vessels depicted in Alva
1986; Elera 2009; Jones 2010; Lapiner 1976). This
would suggest the existence of contemporaneous
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
Figure 13 Seated female with child (Group A).
but separate ceramic traditions. At least for the
moment, we cannot convincingly tie the figurines
into the general ceramic sequences suggested for the
north coast (for example, the seven-phase
Cupisnique sequence proposed by Toshihara 2002).
Four figurines now located in the Reiss-Engelhorn
Museen (REM; in Mannheim, Germany) have been
directly dated using thermoluminescence (TL) (see
Hickmann 2008). One is a large figurine showing a
male playing a double flute (Figure 5). It has here
been attributed to the Group A figurines, but is a
somewhat simplified version: the facial decoration is
only around the eyes, there is no white paint, the
necklace lacks the horizontal divisions, and the head-
dress is more like that of some of the ocarina figurines
(Group C). It has been TL dated to 400 B.C.
Another figurine (Figure 32) is a human-shaped
ocarina and as such fits reasonably well into the
descriptions for Group C, except that it features
130
Volume 33, Number 2
Figure 14 Embracing pair 1 (Group A).
oversized, incised hands holding a panpipe, which
are colored bright red. The TL date is given as 800
B.C. Two other figurines (not illustrated here) are
also miniature ocarinas, but both are atypical in com-
parison to the rest of the corpus (hence here have been
assigned to Group X): one is almost gray in color and
has a crocodilian mask or head, the other a long neck
and separate head with irregular eye shapes, as well as
angular decoration all over the body. These two ocar-
inas are dated to 300 B.C. (Hickmann 2008).5
None of the TL-dated figurines fits perfectly into
the descriptions for Groups A, B, and C, but there
are similarities with examples in Groups A and
C. This would indicate that these kinds of figurines
were indeed made and used in the early-middle cen-
turies of the first millennium B.C. (i.e. Middle
Formative). The 300 B.C. date for the atypical
ocarina figurines suggests that new versions of the
ocarina figurines described in Group C may have
 Burtenshaw-Zumstein: The “Tembladera” figurines
Figure 15 Embracing pair 2 (Group A).
been made well into the Late Formative Period.
Without grouping them as such, Morgan has hypoth-
esized that the differences between more elaborate
(i.e. Group A) and more simple (i.e. Group B)
figurines might be due to a change over time
(Morgan 2009: 39). However, there are also indi-
cations that they are attributable to provenience (see
below) and—as presently classified into Group
C—function.
Possible Proveniences
In 1967–1968 the sites around Tembladera saw an
especially intense period of looting, as a severe
drought in the Jequetepeque region drove increasingly
more people to grave-robbing in order to sell artifacts
for cash. This resulted in the almost complete destruc-
tion of the once rich Formative Period burials of the
131
area (Alva 1986). As mentioned already, of the 54 fig-
urines known to the author, not a single one has been
retrieved from a controlled archaeological context.
This also leaves open the inevitable possibility that
some of the figurines are fakes.6
The proveniences given by Alva (1986) are based
on his conversations with informants, looters, and
collectors, rather than excavation, and thus are not
necessarily precise. Two large, elaborate figurines
illustrated in Alva are said to be from the
Jequetepeque Valley (Alva 1986: Figures 463, 466;
see Figures 3 and 16—Group A). Two smaller,
simpler figurines illustrated are said to be from the
Zaña Valley (Alva 1986: Figures 461, 462; see
Figures 19 and 21—Group B). Another two figurines
(currently assigned to the “atypical” Group X) are said
to be from the Chancay (Lambayeque) Valley (Alva
1986: Figures 464, 465; see Figures 22 and 23). If
these proveniences are accurate, these variations may
indicate regional stylistic differences, but the dataset
is too small and the information too vague to be
certain at this stage.
Three figurines in the Museo de Arte Lima
(Figures 6, 8, and 10) are said to be from Puémape
(Castillo and Pardo 2009: 86), a “Cupisnique” cem-
etery on the coast between the Chicama and
Jequetepeque valleys (Elera 1998). It has not been
possible to determine or validate the sources for this
attribution, i.e. whether this provenience is based
on excavation, information from looters, or assigned
by the authors on the basis of perceived similarity.
Figures 6 and 8 fit perfectly with the descriptions
for Group A, while the third (Figure 10), as
described, stands out due to its bright red coloring,
absence of post-fire paint, the circles decorating its
loincloth, and the agnathic face carved on the back.
Contexts of Figurine Use
Formative Period figurines are abundant in
Mesoamerica and coastal Ecuador, but much rarer
in Peru, and the uses of figurines in the northern
Andes are poorly understood. They have often been
considered as symbols of fertility/fecundity (Bruhns
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
Figure 16 Embracing pair 3 (Group A).
and Stothert 1999), used in household rituals, as
votive offerings or dedicatory “sacrifices” (Shady
2005), charms, cult-objects, or healing/curing aids
(Lesure 2011; Meggers 1966; Reichel-Dolmatoff
1961). Based on ethnographic studies from lowland
South America, Stahl (1986) elaborates on this final
concept, arguing that anthropomorphic figurines
from coastal Ecuador (in particular, Valdivia) func-
tioned as repositories for spirits contacted or sum-
moned by shamans during their ecstatic journeys.
Their use in healing or other ceremonies was by
their role as shamanic aids. Once used, they were
often ritually broken and discarded (Stahl 1986:
141). The earliest figurines from Peru date to the
Late Preceramic Period (c. 2500–1800 B.C.). They
were almost always encountered in the context of
public architecture where ceremonial activities were
carried out (Feldman 1991). Most figurines were
incomplete, interpreted as indicating meaningful
132
Volume 33, Number 2
breakage, and were not found in burial or household
contexts (Burger 2007).
Because none of the “Tembladera” figurines was
excavated from a controlled archaeological context,
it is impossible to know the contexts of their use;
however, it is highly likely that many were looted
from tombs (Alva 1986), and the Museo de Arte
Lima figurines reportedly were looted from the
Puémape cemetery (Elera 2009).
The only ceramic figurines that have ever been
excavated from a controlled context in the
Jequetepeque region come from Tomb 6 at
Kuntur Wasi, a temple site in the upper
Jequetepeque Valley at 2,300 m above sea level.
The tomb was dated to approximately 550–250
B.C. (Onuki and Inokuchi 2011). The two
human figurines were found together with two
feline figurines, which are unique for the period
and region (see Onuki 1995: Lamina 18; Onuki
 Burtenshaw-Zumstein: The “Tembladera” figurines
Figure 17 Standing figurine (Group B).
and Inokuchi 2010: 150, Catalog 81–84). Despite
an assumed geographical and chronological proxi-
mity, the figurines from Kuntur Wasi are remark-
ably different from the “Tembladera” figurines
described above, including Group X. The Kuntur
Wasi figurines range in color from black to gray-
tan. One human figure sits in a cross-legged
position; the other stands. They have nubbin-eyes,
consisting of almond-shaped incised lines with a
round, appliqué nubbin of clay for the pupil.
They lack elaborate dress or jewelry (the earlobes
are elongated on the seated figure but contain no
earrings). They do not have post-fire paint. Bodily
features such as the hands and nose are larger and
more precisely modeled than those seen on the
“Tembladera” figurines. It is worth noting that the
faces of the Kuntur Wasi figurines do resemble
certain figure vessels, some of which may be from
the mid-Jequetepeque Valley (Alva 1986: Figure
347, allegedly from the site of Quindén), although
133
vessels of that style also have been found in the
mid-Lambayeque Valley at Chongoyape (Donnan
1992; Lapiner 1976: 26; Lothrop 1941) and at
Morro de Etén on the coast (Elera 1994). Thus,
the Kuntur Wasi figurines do not clarify the
chronological placement of the Tembladera figurines
nor lead to a better understanding of the use of fig-
urines other than as grave goods. However, they do
appear to strengthen the hypothesis that the manu-
facture and use of distinctive figurine styles in
Formative Period north Peru was restricted in
space and, probably, in time.
Unlike anthropomorphic figurines found at Aspero
and Caral located on the central coast of Peru, where
figurines were associated with the ritual infilling of
temple enclosures (Feldman 1991), the Tembladera
figurines were not broken deliberately and no frag-
ments have been found in public architecture or dom-
estic refuse. At present, it seems probable that most
Tembladera figurines were looted from graves,
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
Figure 18 Standing figurine (Group B).
although future investigations may alter this infer-
ence. The functions of the Group A and Group B fig-
urines are unknown. By contrast, it seems likely that
the Group C figurines, as musical instruments, were
used in rituals, as music played—and still plays—a
key part in ritual practices of the Andes (Baumann
1996; Herrera 2010). Some rituals may have been
public events and others may have occurred in dom-
estic or mortuary settings. The larger figurines also
may have featured in ritual contexts, but their func-
tion is harder to interpret. Their size and detailing
imply that they were meant to be seen up close.
Links to the Archaeological Record
The detail of dress and jewelry depicted on the
Tembladera figurines, particularly among Group A
and Group B figurines, is unique among artistic rep-
resentation of the Formative Period in northern Peru.
134
Volume 33, Number 2
Figure 19 Standing figurine (Group B).
It has been argued that Formative Period burials
indicate a particular interest in personal adornment
(Elera 1998). For example, abundant beads from
exotic stone (lapis and quartz) and shell, including
skirts made of thousands of beads, are known from
“Cupisnique” contexts in the lower Chicama Valley
(Elera 1998). Some individuals were buried wearing
numerous rings of carved bone, sometimes on all
five fingers of one hand (Elera 1998; Larco 1941).
Shell adornments on clothing and bone pendants
with turquoise or shell inlay also have been found.
Furthermore, roller and stamp seals used to paint
skin have been reported, and anthracite mirrors are
commonly found (Elera 1993: 237). In the high-
lands, personal adornments in burials also were
abundant: a shaft tomb at Cerro Blanco contained
lapis bead necklaces (Burger 1995: 113), Tomb 4
at Kuntur Wasi contained 2.5 kg of beads in
turquoise, lapis, greenstone, and Spondylus
 Burtenshaw-Zumstein: The “Tembladera” figurines
Figure 20 Standing figure with collar (Group B).
(Kato 1993: 222), and finds at Chongoyape yielded
several pairs of gold ear-spools and crowns (Lothrop
1941).
However, except for the Tembladera figurines, depic-
tions of dress or jewelry other than ear-spools are rare
among portrayals of humans during the Formative
Period in northern Peru, including among the figurines
found at Kuntur Wasi. Figurative vessels show modeled
animals, plants, fantastical creatures, and humans
engaged in a variety of activities but, with the exception
of just a handful of vessels, the represented persons
wear little more than a loincloth and occasionally
plain round ear-spools (see Alva 1986; Jones
2010; Lapiner 1976). In this sense, the detail of
dress and ornaments depicted on the Tembladera
figurines, while echoing the archaeological record of
the Formative Period north coast and highlands, set
it apart from other figurative representation of the
time.7
135
Figure 21 Standing figurine with garland necklace (Group B).
For some of the jewelry and adornments depicted
on Tembladera figurines (especially those described
in Groups A and B), exact material matches have
been found in the archaeological record. The
collars worn by the figurines are strikingly similar
to a multi-layer shell and turquoise necklace
housed in the Larco museum (see Burger 2008:
37). The feline and avian headdresses worn by the
male figures of Group A anticipate the headdresses
known from the much later Moche culture (A.D.
200–700). Depicted on numerous Moche vessels
and almost identical to the ones worn by the
Tembladera figurines, it seems that animal head-
dresses had a long history of use in northern Peru.
The construction of the Tembladera headdresses is
not known, however, discoveries at sites such as
Loma Negra and San José de Moro yield some
clues. Moche headdresses consisted of genuine
animal pelts stuffed with organic materials of fiber
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
Figure 22 Red polished female plain (Group X).
and cloth, with the real tail hanging down the back.
The head and paws of the fox or feline were ren-
dered in hammered and gilded copper (Carlos
Rengifo, personal communication 2009; Strong
and Evans 1952). A rare example from Virú shows
that Moche bird headdresses also were made of
actual bird skins (Strong and Evans 1952: 159).
Whether the Tembladera headdresses would have
featured metal heads and paws is unknown.
Sophisticated metalworking, especially of gold, had
developed by the Late Formative Period, and
finds from Chongoyape and Kuntur Wasi are testi-
mony to the high level of technological and artistic
skill exercised by these metalworkers in the late
first millennium B.C. (Lavalle 1998: 57; Lothrop
1941; Onuki and Inokuchi 2011). Conversely,
Tembladera headdresses could have been made
from only animal pelts, skulls, and mandibles,
padded or stuffed with organic materials,
136
Volume 33, Number 2
Figure 23 Red polished female covering both eyes (Group X).
perhaps precursors to the later metal-embellished
ones. Regardless, the artifacts depict how modes of
adornment had great continuity and temporal
depth.
Headdresses of this kind were clearly a key feature
of ritual and the costume of priests or shamans and
the narratives enacted by them in later times
(Donnan and McClelland 1999).8 How much the
practices and meanings associated with these head-
dresses endured or changed over time is uncertain.
Parallels are certainly conceivable for the
Tembladera figurines, which show individuals in
highly prescribed dress and poses, and engaged in a
very limited range of actions, essentially music-
making. This may indicate that the actors and
rituals were also formalized and defined. As such, I
suggest that the figurines are indicative of a formaliza-
tion and institutionalization of Formative Period
ritual practice that has previously been inferred only
 Burtenshaw-Zumstein: The “Tembladera” figurines
Figure 24 Solid figurine with garland necklace (Group X).
Figure 25 Mini figure with face on headdress (Group C).
137
from architectural comparisons to ethnographic
examples (Moore 2005).
Conclusions
A number of difficult issues and gaps in our knowl-
edge surround the Tembladera figurines. At the
time of this writing, no Formative Period figurine
has ever been recovered from a controlled archaeologi-
cal context on the north coast of Peru. The origin of
the figurines here discussed therefore cannot be stated
with certainty. Allegedly the figurines’ proveniences
are the middle to lower Jequetepeque Valley and, in
some cases, the adjacent Zaña and Chicama valleys.
Their possible northern coastal provenience is bol-
stered by the Tembladera figurines’ marked difference
from figurines recovered in north highland sites, such
as Kuntur Wasi, or preceramic figurines found on the
north-central coast. Thus, I have retained the label of
“Tembladera” for these types of figurines, although
their proveniences remain to be confirmed. Based
on current knowledge, however, it seems that this fig-
urine tradition was relatively narrowly restricted both
in space and time.
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology Volume 33, Number 2

Figure 26 Mini figure with cap (Group C).

Figure 27 Mini figure with no headdress (Group C).

The exact chronological placement and cultural
association of the Tembladera figurines is also a
matter of uncertainty. Although the Tembladera fig-
urines share some themes with highland Kuntur
Wasi and have been associated with coastal
“Cupisnique,” those commonalities are rather broad
and unspecific. The only direct iconographic com-
parison is the stylized face incised onto the back of
two figurines, associating them to late in the Chavín
de Huántar sequence (Figures 9b and 10b). The

138
 Burtenshaw-Zumstein: The “Tembladera” figurines

Figure 28 Mini figure with front-peak headdress (Group C).

Figure 29 Mini bird figures (Group C). Figure 30 Mini sitting flutist figure (Group C).

139
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology Volume 33, Number 2

Figure 31 Mini figure with drum (Group C).

close association between these and many of the other
figurines, as well as the TL dates obtained for the
REM pieces, suggest a tentative date of circa
1000–400 B.C.
Figure 32 Mini figure with red hands (Group C).
Despite such chronological and geographical
uncertainties, the analysis of the Tembladera figurines
presents insights into issues related to gender, music,
ritual, and political leadership. For example,
Tembladera figurines show both men and women
seemingly dressed in equally rich garments, wearing
some of the same jewelry (for example, the wide
collar). Men and women also seem to be represented
in approximately equal numbers, perhaps implying
that there was not a simple, gender-based hierarchy
of social statuses. On the other hand, male and
female roles were different. Only males are shown as
musicians (Figures 2–5, 7–10), while only women
are depicted in a seated position (Figure 12) and/or
with children (Figure 13; see also figurine in
Lapiner 1976: Figure 46).9 Burger states that
“Tembladera vessels” seem to place the same emphasis
on representing men and women (Burger 2008:
25).10 Nonetheless, although men and women were
equally represented and religious leadership was not
restricted to males, men and women evidently held
and performed different social identities and roles—-
males as musicians, females associated with child-
rearing and, perhaps, fertility—yet both males and
females are depicted as united and balanced. In this
sense, the paired figurines seem to materialize an
apparently ancient principle of complementary
masculinity and femininity, which—in its basic
features—resonates with more recent past and con-
temporary Andean world views.

140
 Burtenshaw-Zumstein: The “Tembladera” figurines
Figure 33 Mini paired birds (Group C).
The subject matter of Tembladera figurines was
not the human body per se, but the elaborately
adorned person, depicted in a very specific role.
This was not the domestic body, but the body as
a political instrument, part of a net of complex
Figure 34 Mini paired figure (Group C).
141
social relations in which status and gender were
symbolized in an increasingly formal way during
the Formative Period in northern Peru. The close
connection between specifically the male
Tembladera figurines and music, music and ritual,
and ritual and leadership in Andean cosmology
suggests an interpretation of the figurines as repre-
senting early elites or their idealized ancestors.
This makes Tembladera figurines highly relevant
for understanding the role of ritual as the basis of
authority in the Andes.
The figurines’ elaborate costuming and musical
roles suggest a connection to leadership. As Burger
notes: “The association of early leaders with
musical instruments is explained by the special
role played by music as a central element in reli-
gious ceremony as opposed to everyday, profane
life” (Burger 2008: 25 [my translation]). Writing
of a large, unique, ceramic figurine (now in the
Museo Nacional Chavín), Burger remarks that a
specific style of dress may have been associated
with religious elites, observing that “[the figurine]
is dressed in a tunic and loincloth and has a
collar. The dress of the religious elite of early
periods was becoming increasingly defined over
time” (Burger 2008: 36 [my translation]).
Although scholars have frequently applied the term
“shamanism” to characterize the basis of elite
ritual authority in the northern Andes (see Burger
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology Volume 33, Number 2

Table 1. Group A: details and permissions

Measurements
(cm)
Group A Title Collection/Museum Inv. No. Image copyright/Source
H W D
Figure 2 Flutist with feline Museum zu Allerheiligen, 20.9 9.5 8.8 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Museum zu
headdress 1 Eb15988 Allerheiligen, Schaffhausen
Figure 3 Flutist with feline Brooklyn Art Museum 20.4 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Brooklyn Art
headdress 2 NYC 68.97 Museum
Figure 4 Flutist with avian Dallas Museum of Art, 15.9 8.9 7.0 © Wikimedia Commons FA2010 (published in
headdress 1971.19 Dallas Museum 1983: 32, Figure 18; Morgan
2009: 421, Plate 2)
Figure 5 Simple flutist Reiss-Engelhorn Museen, 17.5 © Martina Irion
V Am 7352
Figure 6 Plain standing Museo de Arte Lima 19.5 10.5 8.0 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Museo de Arte Lima
male 2007.16.15
Figure 7 Conch shell Denver Art Museum, 20.4 © Burtenshaw, redrawn from: Morgan (2009:
trumpeter 1 189.1979 421, pl. 2); Lapiner (1976: Figure 60); Denver
Art Museum (1990: 28, Figure 8)
Figure 8 Conch shell Museo de Arte Lima © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Museo de Arte Lima
trumpeter 2 2007.16.16
Figure 9 Flutist with face American Museum of 14.2 6.3 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Division of
on the back Natural History 41.2/8561 Anthropology, American Museum of Natural
History
Figure 10 Red flutist with Museo de Arte Lima 18 8.0 7.7 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Museo de Arte Lima
face on the back 2007.16.17
Figure 11 Standing female Fowler Museum UCLA 18.7 9.4 © Fowler Museum at UCLA, photograph by
X90–493 Denis Nervig
Figure 12 Seated naked Museum zu Allerheiligen, 13.0 7.3 9.0 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Museum zu
female Schaffhausen EB15980 Allerheiligen
Figure 13 Seated female (private collection) © Burtenshaw, redrawn from: Jones (2010: 423,
with child Figure 5.73). Also Lavalle (1990: 64); Morgan
(2009: 421)
Figure 14 Embracing pair 1 Museum zu Allerheiligen, 16.6 9.5 5.6 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Museum zu
Schaffhausen EB15858 Allerheiligen
Figure 15 Embracing pair 2 St. Louis Art Museum, 18.5 9.0 5.0 © St. Louis Art Museum
Gift of Morton D. May,
186: 1979
Figure 16 Embracing pair 3 (private collection) 16.5 © Burtenshaw, redrawn from: Lapiner (1968: 9,
1976: 44, Figures 51–52); Alva (1986: 190,
Figure 463); Morgan (2009: 421)
(not illust.) Flutist with feline David Bernstein Collection, (Published in Quilter 2005: 42)
(?) headdress 3 NY
(not illust.) Flutist figurine (Published in El Comercio 2001: 31)

2008; Cordy-Collins 1977; Elera 1994; Sharon and formalized forms of ritual authority (Moore 2005;
Donnan 1974; Staller and Currie 2001), the Oyuela-Caycedo 2001). The Tembladera figurines
Tembladera figurines may depict other, more portray defined rituals and specific regalia images,

142
 Burtenshaw-Zumstein: The “Tembladera” figurines

Table 2. Group B: details and permissions

Measurements
(cm)
Group B Title Collection/Museum, Inv. No. Image Copyright/Source
H W D
Figure 17 Standing figurine Museum zu Allerheiligen, 14.5 6.5 4.6 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Museum zu
EB15096 Allerheiligen Schaffhausen
Figure 18 Standing figurine Museum of the American Indian, 13.4 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of National
NYC, 23/64/67 Museum of the American Indian,
Smithsonian Institution
Figure 19 Standing figurine Giorgio Battistini (private © Burtenshaw, redrawn from: Alva (1986:
collection) Figure 461); Burger (2008: 12); Morgan
(2009: 421, Plate 3)
Figure 20 Standing figure Promised bequest Gillett 12.1 5.2 3.6 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Princeton
with collar G. Griffin, Princeton University University Art Museum
Art Museum L1988.138
Figure 21 Standing figurine Giorgio Battistini (private © Burtenshaw, redrawn from: Alva (1986:
with garland collection) Figure 462); Burger (2008: 17, Figure 5);
necklace Morgan (2009: 421, Plate 3)
(not illust.) Sitting figurine (private collection) 14.0 (Published in Lapiner 1976: 46, Figur
holding child/ 56–57; Morgan 2009: 421, Plate 2)
phallus
(not illust.) Standing figurine Museo de la Nacion, Lima 12.2 5.5 (Published in Morgan 2009: 423, Plate 3)
MN-3571

Table 3. Group C: details and permissions

Measurements (cm)
Group C Title Collection/Museum Inv. No. Image Copyright/Source
H W D
Figure 25 Mini figure with American Museum of Natural 4.7 3.2 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Division of
face on headdress History 41.2/1816 P Anthropology, American Museum of
Natural History
Figure 26 Mini figure with American Museum of Natural 4.7 3.3 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Division of
cap History 41.2/1816 R Anthropology, American Museum of
Natural History
Figure 27 Mini figure with no American Museum of Natural 5.3 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Division of
headdress History 41.2/1816T Anthropology, American Museum of
Natural History
Figure 28 Mini figure with American Museum of Natural 4.5 3.0 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Division of
front-peak History 41.2/1816 E Anthropology, American Museum of
headdress Natural History
Figure 29 Mini bird figures American Museum of Natural 4.3 3.2 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Division of
(+ two not illust.) History 41.2/1816 O (7.0) (3.0) Anthropology, American Museum of
(41.2/1816 J) (5.4) Natural History
(41.2/1816 L)
Figure 30 Mini sitting flutist American Museum of Natural 7.5 5.6 5.0 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Division of
figure History 41.2/8559 Anthropology, American Museum of
Natural History
Figure 31 Mini figure with MzA Schaffhausen, 4.7 2.9 4.4 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Museum zu
drum Eb15783.01 Allerheiligen Schaffhausen
Continued

143
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology Volume 33, Number 2

Table 3. Group C: details and permissions (Continued)

Measurements (cm)
Group C Title Collection/Museum Inv. No. Image Copyright/Source
H W D
Figure 32 Mini figure with Reiss-Engelhorn Museen, V Am 6.5 © Burtenshaw, redrawn from:
red hands 7356 Hickmann (2008, Catalog 1.3–51)
Figure 33 Mini paired birds American Museum of Natural 4.0 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Division of
History 41.2/1816 Q Anthropology, American Museum of
Natural History
Figure 34 Mini paired figure The Metropolitan Museum of 4.5 © The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
Art, Gift of Conny and Fred http://www.metmuseum.org
Landmann, 1992.60.2
(not Mini figure with The Metropolitan Museum of 5.8 3.3 3.1 (Published in Alva 1986: Figure 468;
illust.) crest headdress Art, Gift of Conny and Fred Morgan 2009: 423, Plate 3; Museum of
Landmann, 1992.60.1 Primitive Art 1969: Figure 218)
(not Mini figure with Museo Enrico Poli Bianchi, 4.2 (Published in Morgan 2009: 423, Plate
illust.) necklace Lima, ACEPB 497 (private 3)
collection)
(not Mini figure holding The Metropolitan Museum of 5.7 3.3 3 (Published in Morgan 2009: 423, Plate
illust.) hand to mouth Art, Gift of Conny and Fred 3)
Landmann, 1992.60.3
(not Mini figure with Anonymous gift, Princeton 6.3 3.2 2.7
illust.) bent knees University Art Museum Y1993-
105
(not Mini figure with American Museum of Natural 5.0
illust.) broad horned History 41.2/1816 U
headdress
(not 4 mini figures with American Museum of Natural 5.5 3.1
illust.) hats History (41.2/1816K) 4.4 3.0
(41.2/1816 M) 4.2 2.9
(41.2/1816 N) 4.5 3.0
(41.2/1816 S)
(not Mini figure with The Metropolitan Museum of 6.0 (Published at http://www.metmuseum
illust.) head on head and Art, Gift of Conny and Fred .org)
hands to mouth Landmann, 1992.60.3

Table 4. Group X “atypical figurines”: details and permissions

Measurements
(cm)
Group X Title Collection/Museum Inv. No. Image Copyright/Source
H W D
Figure 22 Red polished female Museo Enrico Poli Bianchi, 19 7.2 © Alexandra Morgan
plain ACEPB 72 (private collection)
Figure 23 Red polished female Museo Enrico Poli Bianchi, 20.7 7.6 © Alexandra Morgan
covering both eyes ACEPB 71 (private collection)
Figure 24 Solid figurine with Museum zu Allerheiligen, 14.0 6.0 5.4 © Burtenshaw, courtesy of Museum zu
garland necklace Eb15944 Allerheiligen Schaffhausen
Continued

144
 Burtenshaw-Zumstein: The “Tembladera” figurines

Table 4. Group X “atypical figurines”: details and permissions (Continued)

Measurements
(cm)
Group X Title Collection/Museum Inv. No. Image Copyright/Source
H W D
(not illust.) Figure with jagged Reiss-Engelhorn Museen, V Am 5.5 (Published in Hickmann 2008: Catalog
deco holding head 7353 1.3–52)
(not illust.) Figure with crocodile Reiss-Engelhorn Museen, V Am 6.0 (Published in Hickmann 2008: Catalog
(?) mask/head 7354 1.3–53)
(not illust.) Standing female (private collection) 14 (Published in Lapiner 1976: Figure 61;
Morgan 2009: 423, Plate 3)
(not illust.) Solid figurine with Museo Enrico Poli Bianchi, 8.1 2.8 2.2 (Published in Alva 1986: Figure 469; Lavalle
“quiff”/ headdress ACEPB 498 (private collection) & Lang 1981: 120; Morgan 2009: 423,
Plate 3)

such as feline headdresses, facial decoration, and
double flutes, and the objects appear to be coeval
with the developments of elite wealth, funerary elab-
orations, and the creation of monumental public
centers during the middle Formative Period.
Indeed, several complex social processes characteriz-
ing the northern Andes during the final two millen-
nia B.C.—surrounding gender roles, religious
systems, and the associated hierarchical structure-
s—appear to be more or less directly reflected in
the Tembladera figurines.
Notes
1. For a fuller discussion see Burtenshaw-Zumstein
(2014). The most common cultural label for
Formative Period north-coastal Peru is
“Cupisnique” (see Burger 1995), with
“Tembladera” and “Chongoyape” generally con-
sidered to be sub-styles thereof (see Cordy-
Collins 1998; Elera 1998, 2009; Jones 2010;
Toshihara 2002). For varying definitions of
Cupisnique, see Donnan 1992; Elera 1998;
Jones 2010; Larco Hoyle 1941, 1948; Toshihara
2002, 2004.
2. All Formative Period figurines supposedly originat-
ing from the far north coast of Peru (lower-middle
Chicama, Jequetepeque, Lambayeque, and Zaña
valleys) have been included. With the exception of
Figures 6, 8, and 10 ( published as Cupisnique),
and Figures 5 and 32 ( published as Chavín), they
were labeled and/or published as “Tembladera.”
Closer examination indicates that they can all
be considered as part of the same corpus and there-
fore have here been labeled as “Tembladera
figurines.”
3. Morgan additionally published five “post- or sub-
classic” ones (Morgan 2009, following classifications
given by Lapiner 1976), which will not be con-
sidered for the present study.
4. It must be noted, however, that some Formative
Period north highland traditions (Huacaloma) also
feature post-fire painting in incised zones (e.g. Seki
1998: 152).
5. The thermoluminescence dating was commissioned by
the previous owner, Dieter Freudenberg, and carried
out prior to the acquisition of the figurines by the
Reiss-Engelhorn Museen (Michael Tellenbach,
personal communication 2013).
6. None of the personally examined figurines provided
any reason to question their authenticity, however,
this is still far from conclusive proof. The most
unusual thing about the figurines in general is the
lack of stylistic/iconographic parallels on ceramic
vessels from Formative Period north Peru
(Burtenshaw-Zumstein 2014).
7. As mentioned, the same is true for the way in which
human features (nose, eyes, limbs etc.) are rendered.
8. In Moche iconography the headdresses are associated
with some key characters engaged in highly pre-
scribed ceremonies, including sacrifices done by
“Wrinkle Face” and his helper “Iguana,” wearing
feline/canine and avian headdresses respectively
(Donnan and McClelland 1999). These headdresses
also are seen on warriors and ritual runners, but
occasionally they are associated directly with
musical instruments, as can be seen by two figures

145
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
wearing fox and bird headdresses playing a pair of
panpipes (see Kutscher 1983: Figures 153–155).
9. The same subject (a female figure, seated with legs
outstretched) is represented on two Formative
Period ceramic vessels. One is in the Museo
Brüning, the other in the Museo Larco. Both have
been labeled “Cupisnique.” Regardless of such ill-
defined cultural labels, the conceptual overlap with
the figurines may be significant in linking the
vessels and figurines to a joint stylistic and/or cultural
group, for better definition and chronological place-
ment in the future.
10. At present, it is unclear what Burger means to
include by the term “Tembladera vessels.” As a stylis-
tic term, like “Cupisnique,” it has never been prop-
erly defined. A full discussion of these terms and a
proposed stylistic typology will be outlined in a
forthcoming Ph.D. thesis (Burtenshaw-Zumstein
2014).
References Cited
Alva, Walter
1986 Ceramica temprana en el Valle de Jequetepeque,
norte del Peru/Frühe keramik aus dem
Jequetepeque-Tal, Nord-Peru. Materialien zur
Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie.
C. H. Beck, Munich.
Baumann, Max Peter
1996 Andean music, symbolic dualism and cosmology.
In Cosmologia y musica en los Andes, edited by
Max Peter Baumann, pp. 15–66. Vervuert/
Iberoamericana, Frankfurt am Main/Madrid.
Bruhns, Karen O., and Karen E. Stothert
1999 Women in ancient America. University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Burger, Richard L.
1995 Chavin and the origins of Andean civilisation.
Paperback ed. Thames and Hudson, London.
2007 The emergence of figuration in prehistoric Peru.
In Image and imagination, edited by Colin
Renfrew and Iain Morley, pp. 241–254.
McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research, Cambridge.
2008 Los señores de los templos. In Señores de los Reinos
de la Luna, edited by Krzysztof Makowski,
pp. 13–38. Banco de Credito, Lima.
Burtenshaw-Zumstein, Julia T.
2014 Cupisnique, Tembladera, Chongoyape, Chavin:
a typology of ceramic styles from Formative
Period north Peru, 1800–200 B.C.
146
Volume 33, Number 2
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Sainsbury Research
Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich.
Castillo, Luis Jaime, and Pardo Cecilia (editors)
2009 De Cupisnique a los Incas: el arte del Valle de
Jequetepeque. Museo de Arte de Lima, Lima.
Cordy-Collins, Alana
1977 Chavin art: its shamanic/hallucinogenic origins.
In Pre-Columbian art history: selected readings,
edited by Alana Cordy-Collins and Jean Stern,
pp. 353–362. Peek Publications, Palo Alto.
1998 The Jaguar of the Backward Glance. In Icons of
Power: Feline Symbolism in the Americas, edited
by Nicholas J. Saunders, pp. 155–170.
Routledge, London/New York.
Denver Art Museum
1990 Little people of the earth: ceramic figures from
ancient America. Denver Art Museum, Denver.
Donnan, Christopher B.
1992 Ceramics of Ancient Peru. UCLA Fowler Museum
of Cultural History, Los Angeles.
Donnan, Christopher B., and Donna McClelland
1999 Moche fineline painting: its evolution and its artists.
UCLA Fowler Museum of Cultural History, Los
Angeles.
Elera, Carlos
1993 El complejo cultural Cupisnique: antecedented y
desarollo de su ideologia religiosa. Senri
Ethnological Studies 37: 229–257.
1994 El shaman del Morro de Eten: antecedentes
arqueológicos del shamanismo en la costa y
sierra norte del Perú. In En nombre del Senor.
Shamanes, demonios y curanderos del Norte del
Perú., edited by Luis Millones and Moisés
Lemlij, pp. 22–51. Biblioteca Peruana de
Psicoanalisis, Lima.
1998 The Puémape site and the Cupisnique culture:
a case study on the origins and development
of complex society in the central Andes,
Perú. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of
Calgary.
2009 La Cultura Cupisnique a partir de los datos de
Puémape. In De Cupisnique A Los Incas: El Arte
del Valle de Jequetepeque, edited by Luis Jaime
Castillo and Cecilia Pardo, pp. 68–111. Museo
de Arte de Lima, Lima.
Feldman, Robert A.
1991 Preceramic unbaked clay figurines from Aspero,
Peru. In The New World figurine project, edited
by Terry Stocker, pp. 5–20. Research Press, Provo.
Fux, Peter
2012 Chavin: Perus geheimnisvoller Andentempel.
Scheidegger and Spiess, Zürich.
 Burtenshaw-Zumstein: The “Tembladera” figurines
Herrera Wassilowsky, Alexander
2010 Pututu and Waylla Kepa: new data on Andean
pottery shell horns. Proceedings of the Musical
Perceptions—Past and Present. On
Ethnographic Analogy in Music Archaeology.
Papers from the 6th Symposium of the
International Study Group on Music
Archaeology, Ethnological Museum, State
Museums Berlin, September 9–13, 2008.
Hickmann, Ellen
2008 Klänge Altamerikas: musikinstrumente in kunst
und kult. Primus Verlag/Publikationen des
Reiss-Museums Mannheim, Darmstadt.
Jones, Kimberly L.
2010 Cupisnique culture: the development of ideology
in the ancient Andes. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis,
University of Texas, Austin.
Kan, Michael
1972 The feline motif in northern Peru. In The cult of
the feline, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson,
pp. 69–90. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Kato, Yasukate
1993 Resultados de las excavaciones en Kuntur Wasi,
Cajamarca. In El Mundo ceremonial Andino,
edited by Luis Millones and Yoshio Onuki,
pp. 203–228. Senri Ethnological Studies.
National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka.
Kaulicke, Peter
2010 Las cronologías del Formativo. 50 años de investiga-
ciones japonesas en perspectiva. PUCP, Lima.
Keatinge, Richard, W.
1980 Archaeology and Development: The Tembladera
Site of the Peruvian North Coast. Journal of Field
Archaeology 7(4):467–477.
Kembel, Silvia Rodriguez
2001 Architectural sequence and chronology at Chavin
de Huantar, Peru. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis,
Anthropological Sciences, Stanford University,
Stanford.
Kutscher, Gerdt
1983 Nordperuanische Gefässmalereien des Moche-Stils.
Materialien zur Algemeinen und Vergleichenden
Archäologie 18. C. H. Beck, Munich.
Lapiner, Alan C.
1968 Art of ancient Peru. Arts of the Four Quarters Ltd,
New York.
1976 Precolumbian art of South America. Harry
N. Abrams, New York.
Larco Hoyle, Rafael
1941 Los Cupisniques. La Crónica y Variedades, Lima.
1948 Cronología arqueológica del norte del Perú.
Sociedad Geográfica Americana, Buenos Aires.
147
Lavalle, José Antonio (editor)
1990 Trujillo precolombino. Odebrecht, Trujillo.
1998 Cobre del Antiguo Peru / The Copper of Ancient
Peru. IntegraAFP Southern Peru, Lima.
Lavalle, José Antonio, and Werner Lang (editors)
1981 Culturas precolombinas: Chavin. Banco de
Credito, Lima.
Lesure, Richard
2011 Interpreting ancient figurines: context, comparison,
and prehistoric art. Cambridge University Press,
New York.
Lothrop, Samuel K.
1941 Gold ornaments of Chavin style from
Chongoyape, Peru. American Antiquity 6(3):
250–262.
Meggers, Betty J.
1966 Ecuador. Thames and Hudson, London.
Moore, Jerry D.
2005 Cultural landscapes in the ancient Andes.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Morgan, Alexandra
2009 The pottery figurines of pre-Columbian Peru.
Volume I: the figurines of the north coast. BAR
International Series. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Museum of Primitive Art
1969 Precolumbian art in New York: selections from private
collections. Museum of Primitive Art, New York.
Museum zu Allerheiligen
1992 Idole, masken, menschen: frühe kulturen, alte welt
und neue welt. Museum zu Allerheiligen,
Schaffhausen.
Onuki, Yoshio (editor)
1995 Kuntur Wasi y Cerro Blanco: dos sitios del
Formativo en el norte del Peru. Hokusen-Sha,
Tokyo.
Onuki, Yoshio, and Kinya Inokuchi
2011 Los emelos pristinos. Fondo Editorial del Congreso
del Peru, Lima.
Oyuela-Caycedo, Augusto
2001 The rise of religious routinization: the study of
changes from shaman to priestly elite. In
Mortuary practices and ritual associations: shamanic
elements in prehistoric funerary contexts in South
America, edited by John Edward Staller
and Elizabeth J. Currie, pp. 5–18. BAR 982.
Archaeopress, Oxford.
Parsons, Lee A.
1980 Pre-Columbian art: the Morton D. May and The
Saint Louis Art Museum collections. Harper and
Row, New York.
Quilter, Jeffrey
2005 Treasures of the Andes. Duncan Baird, London.
 Ñawpa Pacha: Journal of Andean Archaeology
Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo
1961 Anthropomorphic figurines from Colombia: their
magic and art. In Pre-Columbian art and archae-
ology, edited by S. K. Lothrop, pp. 229–241.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Seki, Yuji
1998 El Periodo Formativo en el valle de Cajamarca.
Boletín de Arqueología PUCP 2:147–160.
Shady Solis, Ruth
2005 Caral Supe, Perú: la civilización de Caral-Supe:
5000 años de identidad cultural en el Perú.
Instituto Nacional de Cultura, Proyecto Especial
Arqueológico Caral-Supe, Lima.
Sharon, Douglas, and Christopher B. Donnan
1974 Shamanism in Moche iconography. In
Ethnoarchaeology, edited by Christopher B.
Donnan and C. William Clewlow, pp. 51–80.
University of California, Los Angeles.
Stahl, Peter W.
1986 Hallucinatory imagery and the origin of early
South American figurine art. World Archaeology
18(1): 134–150.
148
Volume 33, Number 2
Staller, John Edward, and Elizabeth J. Currie (editors)
2001 Mortuary practices and ritual associations: shamanic
elements in prehistoric funerary contexts in South
America. BAR 982. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Strong, William D., and Clifford Evans, Jr.
1952 Cultural stratigraphy in the Virú Valley northern
Peru: the Formative and Florescent epochs.
Columbia University Press, New York.
Torres, Constantino Manuel
2008 Chavin’s psychoactive pharmacopoeia: the icono-
graphic evidence. In Chavin: art, architecture and
culture, edited by William J. Conklin and Jeffrey
Quilter, pp. 239–260. Cotsen Institute, UCLA,
Los Angeles.
Toshihara, Kayoko
2002 The Cupisnique culture in the Formative Period
world of the central Andes, Peru. Unpublished
Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign.
2004 Cupisnique Iconography: Ideology and its
Manifestations in an Ancient Andean Culture.
Journal of Latin American Lore 22(1):39–83.