74 



INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY— PUBLICATION NO. 



soon began to come in. By about 5 p. in. she had sold 

 three-fourths of the fruit for 5.30 soles— she says it 

 was not a very good day. She took a few items for 

 home use and made a deal with her final woman cus- 

 tomer to exchange the remainder of the fruit for 2 

 kilos of shelled beans, which she took to market with 

 her next day and sold for 70 centavos. Thus her total 

 visible "take" for the day was 9.16 soles— 3.56 for 

 milk, 4.10 for yuca, and a total profit of 1.50 on the 

 fruit deal. Expenses were 30 centavos for lunch and 

 chicJia at the market, leaving a gain of 8.86 soles in 

 cash. She was involved in a number of other barters 

 in the market of which I could get no clear picture in 

 terms of the profit and loss. It will be noticed that 

 the 3.56 soles for the milk represents no effort to speak 

 of on the part of my friend and represents value pro- 

 duced by her husband. The value of the yuca is 

 mainly produced by her husband, although she pro- 

 vides transportation to market, time, and salesman- 

 ship. The 1.50 soles gained on the fruit represents 

 true commercial profit on the transactions involved. 

 In this day's work my friend spent 12 hours and 

 traveled 16 km. by donkey. 



This case in terms of money values represents the 

 median of the few cases which I was able to follow 

 through, but my series is so small that I do not wish 

 to suggest that the money values involved are in 

 any way typical of the "average woman's" daily in- 

 come. In the absence of an adequate statistical 

 sample and check, I can say with practical certainty 

 that this represents "a very good day indeed." Cer- 

 tainly, the data on family incomes I was able to 

 secure do not indicate that 8.86 soles per day in cash 

 is a usual average. This case does illustrate, how- 

 ever, the Mocheras' way of doing business. The 

 woman is constantly on the lookout for propositions 

 which promise a small profit. Part of the transac- 

 tions are in cash, part by barter, and many of them 

 involve a whole series of trades sometimes running 

 over several days. No books are kept and practically 

 all deals are on a face-to-face basis with goods ex- 

 changed physically and immediately rather than 

 being taken out of stock. 



Each Moche married couple is a sort of business 

 partnership in which the man is responsible for the 

 production of the agricultural and dairy produce and 

 the woman handles its sale and handles all finances. 

 Those men who work outside the community bring 

 home their wages to their wives who act as guard- 

 ians. Even funds for production expenses .such as 

 the hire of a plow, the purchase of tools, etc., have 



to be obtained by the husband from the wife. She 

 also provides him with spending money upon his 

 request. Some husbands working for wages hold 

 out a certain sum per week for their personal ex- 

 penses, but in most cases, I believe, with the knowl- 

 edge of their wives. When asked why they do not 

 conceal some of their money from their wives, men 

 say that "You can't expect a woman to run a house- 

 hold if she doesn't have the money," or something 

 similar. My impression is that, far from feeling 

 henpecked under this arrangement, most men feel 

 well satisfied to leave financial matters to their wives. 

 Personalities differ, of course, but even when the 

 husband thoroughly dominates the wife as a person, 

 he seems to be content to allow the woman to handle 

 the money. To sum up, the arrangement as cul- 

 turally defined -does not seem to involve difference in 

 prestige or invidious comparisons between individ- 

 uals or between sexes. It is rather a form of division 

 of labor or function. Women are supposed to do 

 some things in this life and men other things, and 

 among the responsibilities of women is the handling 

 of money and finances. This is a cultural tradition 

 in Moche, and from the average man or woman's 

 point of view, that is all there is to it. 



It is obvious that this cultural definition of func- 

 tions may change, particularly if men's work for 

 cash wages becomes an increasingly important ele- 

 ment in family incomes. 



The partnership arrangement between husband 

 and wife does not necessarily interfere with their 

 individual ownership of property. Thus, if a wo- 

 man has inherited a plot of land, she has a perfect 

 right to allow her husband to work it or to rent it 

 to someone else, as she pleases. Both arrangements 

 occur. However, the income is used by the wife for 

 household expenses as a general rule. When cash 

 savings of a married couple are turned into tangible 

 assets, as in the purchase of a cow, I believe that 

 they are usually purchased in the husband's name, 

 i.e., regarded for formal purposes as his property. 

 Customarily the husband's property passes to the 

 wife and children after his death. 



Although the women, as I have indicated, are 

 commercially active in such fields as cliicha, vege- 

 tables, milk, etc., they do not enter shop keeping. 

 All of the shops (tiendas) are operated by forasferos. 



So far as I know, there is no borrowing of funds 

 from banks by Mocheros. Needed funds are ob- 

 tained from friends or relatives within the com- 

 munity. Also, there is comparatively little use of 



