Agosto 1

Nancy Agosto

November 2, 2021

Art History CUE

Dr. Fitzpatrick-Sifford

I pledge the AIC.

The Safeword is Moche: Understanding Gender and Sexuality in Moche Sex Pots

Moche ceramics were made by the Moche, a sophisticated people with complex systems

of power and structure. Moche sex pots are a specific genre of ceramics showing sexual scenes

on pots. Moche sex pots depict gender and sexual orientation fluidly; this can be shown through

a variety of textiles, headdresses, body type, facial features, and sexual organs which suggest that

these interactions were not always heterosexual. These features can be used to identify male,

female, and gender-ambiguous figures in the pots; which can help lend insight into how the

Moche people saw gender and sex. Moche sex-pots depict a mix of sexual relationships. This

includes fellatio, vaginal sex, but most frequently portrayed is anal sex between a dominant

partner, who is penetrating, and a passive partner, who is being penetrated. All of these factors

indicate the possible existence of queerness and gender fluidity being portrayed through the

mixing of gendered objects and details on certain ceramic figures. Trying to determine how these

sex pots can be represented, and by depicting gender fluidity, these pots cannot be rationalized

from the western perspective. Homophobic ideology and enforce western religious and social

beliefs onto a civilization that had their own system of society that is not congruent with their

views. This paper will mainly be focusing on pots depicting anal sex since these pots are most

prominent and are the group with the most gender ambiguous and queer representation.
 Agosto 2

Who are the Moche?

The Moche, also known as the Mochica, we’re a society that was located in regions in

Northern Peru between the first and eighth centuries. According to Hélène Bernier, a scholar at

the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Moche were artistically and politically innovative,

developing a labor tribute system, elite and specialized craft production, and elaborate religious

iconography.1 “They elaborated new technologies in metallurgy, pottery, and textile production,

and finally, they created an elaborate ideological system and a complex religious iconography.”2

A large variety of Moche ceramics were created with molds, with nine main standardized shapes:

Stirrup-spout vessels, flarings bowls, neck, and neckless jars, dippers, bowls, neck bowls, cups,

and crucibles.3 Moche sex pots are a specific type of stirrup-vessel genre. These sex pots portray

a variety of different sexual relationships between diverse figures; The relationships include men

and women, humans and animals, different species of animals mating together, and sometimes

divine figures with humans. The meaning behind these scenes, the possible religious or social

importance, and what the pots symbolized to the Moche are up for interpretation. Some

interpretations of these pots are that they represent types of sexual reproductions that would have

been used as a teaching tool or that sex pots speak to politics and power within Moche society.

The pots could also be scenes as a representation of religious rituals and stories that the Moche

participated in and recorded through the pots.

Mislabeling and Mismanagement

In museums that have collections of Moche Pots, they will often describe all scenes as

being between men and women, even if some depict homosexual relationships or gender-

1 (Bernier, 2009)
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
 Agosto 3

ambiguous figures. This can most likely be attributed to the assumption that specific sexual

positions are gendered, despite numerous pots that prove that general assumption is not always

the case. Most often, the male figure’s genitals can be seen penetrating the passive partner. The

main issue with gendering pot comes with the passive figure. Due to heteronormativity, it’s often

assumed that a passive figure with automatically be a woman. Even if there is iconography going

against it, the genitals of the passive figure cannot be seen, or the gender of the figure is

ambiguous, it’s often assumed to be female. Unless ceramics explicitly show a penis, the Moche

pots will be labeled as a relationship between men and women.

Paul Mathieu, the author of Sex Pots: Eroticism in Ceramics, speaks directly on the irony

of this situation within academic spaces. Mathieu makes it apparent that there have been

academic papers attempting to deny the existence of homosexual relationships within Moche

culture despite existing evidence.4 These specific art historians say that pots that do show these

types of relationships are irrelevant due to a lack of representation. Mathieu replies to these

actions by saying that attempts to discredit the significance of homosexual relationships within

these pots emerge from a Christian prejudice, which explains why the studies about them haven’t

been taken seriously until fairly recently. In addition to that, such a small number of these

homosexual pots exist because “many of them may have been destroyed when found earlier in

the 20th century, by landowners and looters...who regarded them as sacrilegious and obscene, or

simply worthless”.5

The first real instance of study regarding the Moche sex-pot happened in the 1960s by

Rafael Larco Hoyle, a holder of a large collection of Moche ceramics depicting sexual scenes,

and Paul Gebhard, the academic successor of Alfred Kinsey, a sexologist that had worked with

4 (Mathieu, 2003, pg. 35)

Larco in the past. Both Larco and Gebhard came to the conclusion that there hadn’t been any

explicit representation of same-sex relationships within the collection, but two pots caught the

attention of Gehard. One of the ceramics depicted a man laying on his side with his eyes closed

while he was being penetrated by a skeleton (Figure 3). Larco commented on this figure, stating

that the depiction could be considered a real homosexual depiction by the Moche since the

genitals of the figure weren’t visible. He also commented that the man who is getting penetrated

might be simply dreaming of anal sex since he is seen with his eyes closed.6 Larco has been cited

for avidly denying the existence of homosexual representation in Pre-Colombian art. Larco

Hoyle has satiated that “the analysis of the available material shows that “the ancient Peruvians

did not deviate towards homosexuality, either in marriage or outside it”7 despite having first-

hand experience studying and coming in contact with pottery that depicts these relationships.

Evidence of tampering and mislabeling has also been recorded. Janusz Z. Wołoszyn and

Katarzyna Piwowar, authors of Sodomites, Siamese Twins, and Scholars: Same-Sex

Relationships in Moche Art further elaborate on the people responsible for the destruction of

these pots. “There is also significant evidence indirectly suggesting that [destructive] acts took

place, for which both private collectors and Wołoszyn and museum workers are probably

shamefully responsible.”8 Wołoszyn and Piwowar dive also dive into just how few pots are left,

stating “the proportion of the pots cataloged as “sexual activity” (225 specimens) in Museo

Arqueologico Rafael Larco Herrera (hereafter, the Larco Museum)...is approximately 1.5

percent. The collection of the Ethnological Museum of Berlin...contains 40 erotic vessels

(approximately 2.3 percent), while the collection at the Museum of the Americas in Madrid of

almost 500 Moche vessels only has two, albeit not so explicit, sex pots (approximately 0.4

6 (Wołoszyn and Piwowar, 2015, 288-289)

percent).”9 A large portion of sex pots that did exist was sent back to Spain first by the Bishop of

Trujillo, Baltasar Jaime Martinez Compañon y Bujanda, and then Rafael Larco Herrera. These

pots were almost immediately destroyed.10 On the online public database for the Larco Museum,

I encountered a mislabeled pot that will be used within this research paper. The description for

Figure 2 was described as a man with a headdress and face paint having sex with a woman with a

headdress and face paint.11 The significance of the clothing will be discussed in greater detail

later on, however, headdresses and facepaint are exclusively male-gendered objects, so for the

Larco Museum, a museum with one of the largest collections of Moche Ceramics in the world12,

to misgender a figure in the pot is not a mistake.

The Larco Museum, in particular, is named after Rafael Larco Herrera, which was taken

over by his son, Rafael Larco Hoyle, who has already been discussed. Larco Hoyle’s key role as

the person in charge of this museum and collection would account for the continued mislabeling

of Moche Sex Pots and explain why there has been no reexamination of their meaning. Since

Larco was a major contributor to the categorizing of sex pots, in addition to the museum holding

the largest collection in the world and defining the field, it would be daunting to go against the

structural and administrative systems that would be necessary to even conduct a reexamining of

interpretation of the Moche pots. A reexamination of the meaning would discredit Larco’s work,

and by extension, the museum. It would require a complete overhaul in how these pots are

understood and interpreted by art historians. However, the mislabeling and misgendering of these

figures put art historians wanting to study these pots at a disadvantage.

9 Ibid.
10 (Wołoszyn and Piwowar, 2015, 288-289)
11 (“Catálogo On Line Museo Larco” n.d.)
12 (Wołoszyn and Piwowar, 2015, 288-289)
 Agosto 6

Gender isn’t all in the Genitals

While Moche pots do often portray a penis penetrating the anus, it often doesn’t show the

frontal genitals of the passive partner. This means that to determine the gender of the more

passive partner, other aspects have to be taken into consideration. There are different ways to

determine gender with Moche pots, as well as a mixing or lack of different gendered aspects that

can create a gender-ambiguous figure. First, we’ll cover the more extensive list of masculine

gendered identifiers and then move to the feminine identifiers.

Masculine figures are determined by headdresses, face and body paint, clothing (such as

loincloths of specific lengths), and jewelry (ear spools, bracelets, necklaces, etc.). Headdresses

were important in Moche culture, denoting kin, status, and employment. While the different

complexity of the headdresses can be used to express social standing, overly complex

headdresses aren’t often depicted in sexual scenes, This can be attributed to the privacy of the

scenes, where status might not play too much of a role.13 Headdresses also covered the hair of

male figures, instances of uncovered, cut, or unkempt hair usually meant that the figure

represented as a prisoner, a warrior defeated in battle, or someone who fell out of favor.14

Headdresses are heavily associated with only masculine figures, so it’s something that almost

automatically genders a figure on a pot. As for clothing, there are loincloths, tunics, and other

additional layers that can be portrayed. Belts are also sometimes around the waist, but they aren’t

exclusive to any gender. Bracelets, necklaces, earspools, nose piercings, and other forms of

jewelry served to denote social standing.

While there are multiple gender markers for men, the same cannot be said for women.

Most times, women seen in these sex scenes are completely nude, making it so no items of

13 (Scher, 2010, pg. 122 )

clothing can be attributed to their gender. The times that women are clothed or are wearing items

such and jewelry, it’s more a status symbol than a gendered one. Women might be seen wearing

long dresses or skirts, preventing the representation of loincloths. According to Scher, it’s

possible that women simply never wore loincloths or undergarments.15 The first identification of

something exclusive to women was done by, Anne Marie Hocquenghem, who was determined

that braided or roped hair was indicative of a female figure.16 Some women are also seen with

shorter, almost bob-length hair, similar to depictions of prisoners, sacrificial victims, or captured

warriors.17

Instances of gender ambiguity within pots are harder to chart since they haven’t been

studied as much, or pots that might present as gender ambiguous are currently labeled under an

inaccurate category. The mixing of clothing and iconography is one of the ways that this might

be depicted, and knowing what parts are masculine and feminine can help with the interpretation

of a figure that has both. Scher specifically calls on ritual and religious practices where a person

would don clothing that would blur the lines of gender, effectively letting that person embody the

opposite gender or create a new one entirely. “It is within ritual religious practice that

contemporary, Western-derived ideas about sex and gender are discarded in favor of older

notions about the nature of the world. This temporary state says less about the individual who

crosses or mixes genders ceremonially than it does about the place of ambiguous or blended

gender within the society’s worldview.”18 The Witite dancers from Caylloma, Perú are a specific

example brought up by Schere. These dancers are men that were costumes that contain aspects of

both men’s and women’s clothing, masks that hide the gender of the dances, and slingshots. The

15 Ibid, pg. 142.

Wititie was able to blur the lines of gender through intentional mixing of clothing and by hiding

the faces of the people that are dancing. “He inhabits a space in between the categories, one that

is potent (associated with sexual conquest of women and warfare), difficult (Witites are

considered tricksters), and kept within the confines of ritual activity.”19 Another example of ritual

gender-blurring is the mujonomiento ritual done by the Chinchero people in Perú. This ritual was

used to mark the boundaries of the Chincero’s and physically claim their land. “One of the

participants in the waylaka, a man who dresses in traditional women’s clothing. At the stones

which mark the boundaries, he dances and gives humorous accounts of the history of these

markers.”20 The waylaka once again blends the line between gender and sex by intentionally

mixing who wears what in order to embody something that is ambiguous.

Sex isn’t Universal

Ideas about sexual intercourse among indigenous populations were unique to their

culture, often holding religious and ritual significance. Mary Weisman reports on the

significance of Moche sex pots and compares their sexual intricacies in relation to the Sambia, a

hunter-gatherer indigenous tribe in New Guinea. The Sambia believe that for youth to grow up

and be able to have children of their own, they need to ingest and digest semen.21 Semen is an

important part of the initiation rituals used for young boys to transition into men. This isn’t out of

a desire for sexual pleasure, but because they believe that if this ritual wasn’t completed, then

future generations would cease to exist. “Older men passed this substance orally to younger men

through fellatio, and the young men, in turn, fed it to their wives through the same method; later,

19 Ibid, 123.
20 Ibid.
21 (Weisman, 2004)
 Agosto 9

vaginal sex, conception, and birth took place; and then women breast-fed their babies”.22 Using

the Sambia as an example, we can examine how attitudes and possible significance surrounding

sex cannot be assumed to be a universal experience. This same idea can then be applied and used

when examining Moche pots. If scholars assume that the Moche had a similar outlook about sex

as a western society, then they will be imposing a modern western perspective onto the remains,

stripping away any possibility for an alternate meaning.

Applied ideas of queerness are also a western way of approaching these pots. To the

Moche, sexual relationships regardless of gender might not have been seen as queer, but just a

normal part of life. The assumption of queerness implies that representations of two same-sex

figures having intercourse go against some type of typical relationship in this society, which is a

harmful assumption to make. This can further be extended to ideas surrounding gender, as well.

Historians don’t know what gendering system the Moche might have used, and it’s only possible

to make assumptions based on what knowledge is currently available and what the Moche can be

compared to. In this case, since the Moche pots do depict same-gendered partners having

intercourse, the only this that it can be compared to is western ideas of queerness, even if there is

another meaning that art historians and archeologists might not be seeing.

According to Heather Wiley, it is believed that depictions or representations of vaginal

sex were reserved by the Moche specifically for childbearing or fertility, while anal sex is used

for everything else with the living or dead.23 Representations of copulation with the dead and the

living are not uncommon with Moche Pots. For the Moche, they believed that “it was only after

death that an individual could achieve the zenith of political, social, and cultural prestige over

others, and influence over the gods for the good of their kin." In this way, the dead interacting

22 Ibid.
23 (Wiley, 2019, pg. 2)
 Agosto 10

with the living was them bringing this good wisdom and influence over them.24 The ebb and flow

of liquids were also of importance to the Moche, meaning that depictions of copulation had

emphasized liquids like semen or water. The sexual stirrup pots could also be used to store and

transport liquids.25 For certain more phallic pots, the appearance of ejaculation was intentional.

For more scenic pots, the representation of sex and pouring of liquid from the pot became one

and the same.26

Below is a series of five images that represent gender-ambiguous or same-sex figures in

the act of copulation, and the now added context can help us understand the possible meaning

behind the pots.

24 Ibid.
25 (“At the Museum: The Moche People and Culture Described”, 1998)
26 Ibid.
 Agosto 11

Figure 1. Image of male figures engaging in anal sex. published by F. Kauffmann Doig

(1978:55; redrawn by Janusz Z. Wołoszy).

The figures have two penises, thus explicitly making this a queer interaction. It appears the one

on the bottom is laying down on some form of bedding. The heads have been broken off, so

additional information on the possible statuses, headdresses, or additional gender markers of the

figures is unknown. Based on the hole on the back of the top figure, the pots can be inferred to be

a Stirrup Spout vessel.

Figure 2. Image of two men engaging in anal sex, Inv. No. ML004446; courtesy of Larco

Museum, Lima, Peru.

The genders of these figures can mainly be deduced through the headdress that they are wearing.

The male on top has a headdress with crosses painted on it, possibly indicating a higher status

compared to the male on the bottom, who has no additional marker on their headdress. Both of

the figures are laying atop one another on what appears to be a cot of sorts. Both figures also

have face paint around the eyes, possibly to denote a position of power or a type of job they do.

On the Larco Museum website, all Moche sex pots are described as interactions between male

and female figures, but this is not one of them.

Figure 3. Image of a male skeletal figure engaging in anal sex with a living male, Inv. No.

ML004329; courtesy of Larco Museum, Lima, Peru.

The genitals of both these figures aren’t seen. That being said, the gender of the passive partner

in this can be inferred by the headdress On the Larco Museum website, this Moche pot is
 Agosto 13

described as a woman and a skeleton having sex. However, if this were a female figure, the

headdress would instead be painted with a red slip to make it look like a shorter haircut.

Figure 4. Homosexual Anal Penetration, Moche (Peru), (Museo Enrico Poli, Lima, Peru)

This image depicts two men engaging in anal sex. The gender of both figures can be determined

based on the genitals of the figures within the photograph. However, even if those weren’t

portrayed, it could be determined by the headdresses and face paint on their bodies.
 Agosto 14

Figure 5. Homosexual Anal Penetration and Double Erect Penis Stirrup Vessel, Moche Culture,

Peru, (Museo Casinelli, Trujillo, Peru)

This image depicts two men engaging in anal sex, this can be seen by the headdresses that both

of the males have. According to the description of the image, it says that both of the penises are

portrayed, although, from the angle that it is currently seen in, it is not a visible section.

Figure 6. Moche pot depicting a same-sex sexual interaction, Inv. No. MLP-Ar-177 BMB (?);

author’s photographs, La Plata Museum, La Plata, Argentina.

Both headdresses can be seen, confirming their gender. Both partners’ genitals are seen. The

submissive partner’s scrotum has previously been confused for labia. The figures appear to be
 Agosto 15

having intercourse on a raised, bed-like platform. Found through the Sodomites, Siamese Twins,

and Scholars article.

Conclusion

The Moche had an advanced society with complex imagery and iconography whose

meaning is lost to time due to the lack of written documents or remain that document their

history. These pots are only a small sliver of what they left behind that we can attempt to glean

additional insight and information from. These pots have only been seriously studied since the

1960s, however due to societal values and religious affiliation, it led to the intentional

destruction and mislabeling of the pots. In an attempt to move forward, more recent art historians

have tried to examine the artwork from a more queer perspective to reexamine previous

interpretations of the pots. There has been a move towards a total rexamination of gender, sex,

meaning, and use of these pots by more recent arthistorians. That being said, despite the

reexamination there is still an imposition of western values because we lack the context of the

Moche society as a whole. Still, this has allowed for a more nuanced understanding of these pots.
 Agosto 16

Works Cited

Alice, Eli, Irene, and Jason. “Queer as Fact- Moche Sex Pots.” Queer as Fact: A Queer History

Podcast. Accessed October 12, 2021. https://queerasfact.podbean.com/e/moche-sex-pots/.

“At the Museum: The Moche People and Culture Described,” August 17, 1998.

https://www.penn.museum/sites/Moche/mocheculture.html.

Bernier, Authors: Hélène. “Moche Decorated Ceramics | Essay | The Metropolitan Museum of

Art | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History.” The Met’s Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History,

August 2009. https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/moch/hd_moch.htm.

Bosia, Michael J., Sandra M. McEvoy, and Momin Rahman, eds. The Oxford Handbook of

Global LGBT and Sexual Diversity Politics. 1st ed. Oxford University Press, 2020.

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190673741.001.0001.

“Catálogo On Line Museo Larco.” Accessed October 26, 2021.

https://www.museolarco.org/catalogo/ficha.php?id=4446.

“Catálogo On Line Museo Larco.” Accessed October 26, 2021.

https://www.museolarco.org/catalogo/ficha.php?id=4329.

Gero, Joan M. “Sex Pots of Ancient Peru: Post-Gender Reflections,” n.d., 22.

Iselin, Katherine A. P. “Transitional Bodies: Amputation and Disfiguration in Moche

Pottery,” n.d.

Loren, Diana DiPaolo. “Dressing the Part: Power, Dress, Gender, and Representation in the

Pre-Columbian Americas.” Ethnohistory 66, no. 1 (January 1, 2019): 211–12.

https://doi.org/10.1215/00141801-7217654.

Mathieu, Paul. Sex Pots: Eroticism in Ceramics. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press,

2003. http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy1311/2002036747-d.html.
 Agosto 17

Scher, Sarahh E.M. “Clothing Power Hierarchies of Gender Difference and Ambiguity in Moche

Ceramic.” Scribd, 2010.

https://www.scribd.com/document/170125859/Clothing-Power-Hierarchies-of-Gender-

Difference-and-Ambiguity-in-Moche-Ceramic-Scher-dissertation.

Sigal, Pete. “Latin America and the Challenge of Globalizing the History of Sexuality.” The

American Historical Review 114, no. 5 (December 2009): 1340–53.

https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr.114.5.1340.

“Third Gender | The International Encyclopedia of Human Sexuality - Credo Reference.”

Accessed October 28, 2021.

https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/wileyhs/third_gender/0.

Turner, Andrew. “Sex, Myth, and Metaphor in Moche Pottery.” UC Riverside, 2013.

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6pw774tr.

Weisman℡, Mary. “Moche Sex Pots: Reproduction and Temporality in Ancient South

America.” American Anthropologist 106, no. 3 (2004): 495–505.

https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2004.106.3.495.

Wiley, Heather. “Sex Pots: 50 Shades of Moche” 11, no. 1 (2019): 5.

Wołoszyn, Janusz Z., and Katarzyna Piwowar. “Sodomites, Siamese Twins, and Scholars:

Same-Sex Relationships in Moche Art.” American Anthropologist 117, no. 2 (2015):

285–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.12250.