Quilter Architecture and Chronology at El Paraiso

7/29/2019 Quilter Architecture and Chronology at El Paraiso

1/20

Board of Trustees, Boston University

Architecture and Chronology at El Paraso, PeruAuthor(s): Jeffrey QuilterReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Autumn, 1985), pp. 279-297Published by: Boston UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/529899 .

Accessed: 04/02/2012 06:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new form

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Boston University andBoard of Trustees, Boston University are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preser

and extend access toJournal of Field Archaeology.
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bostonhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/529899?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/529899?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=boston


2/20

ArchitecturendChronology tEl Paraiso,Peru

JeffreyQuilterRiponCollegeRipon,Wisconsin

El Paraiso, occupying 58 hectares in the Chill6n Valley, is one of the largestearly architectural complexes in Peru. The Proyecto Bajo Valle del Chill6nhas concentrated its recent efforts at this site, attemptingto elucidate itschronology, social role, and economic base. Thispaper presents the majorresults of studies of architecture and chronologyfrom ourfirst season ofexcavations at El Paralso. Our research has revealed a fairly short occupa-tion of the site at a relatively late time during the end of the PreceramicPeriod. Studies of architecture suggest that a range of activities was carriedout at El Paraiso. Some details of these activities as well as data concerningconstruction techniques at the site have been identified.Introduction

El Paraiso(PV 46-35) is a complexof large stonestructures overingover 58 ha in the Chill6nValleyofthe centralcoast of Peru(FIG.1). It is commonlycitedas one of thelargestand earliestexamplesof monumen-tal architecturen the New World.' The early age andmassive size of the site have led to discussionof its rolein the originsof complexsocietiesin Peru,particularlyin termsof its subsistence conomyand ts possibleroleas a center ortheorganizationnd controlof inter-andintraregionalolitiesandeconomics.2Despite frequentreferences o El Paraiso n the ar-chaeological iterature, elatively ittle has been knownaboutthe site until recently.The Proyecto Bajo Valledel Chill6n3 onducted ts firstfieldseason at El Paraiso

in 1983, in whatis hopedwill be a multi-year,nterdis-ciplinary tudy.Ourrecentresearchhasconcentratednestablishinga basic chronology, nvestigatingarchitec-ture,andexamininghesubsistence conomyof thesite.Althoughdetailedwork on the last of these researchgoals is still beingcarriedout, considerable ew infor-mationon the firsttwo is alreadyavailableandwill bepresentedhere.

BackgroundAlthoughStumer4 otedthe siteduringhis surveysoftheChill6nValleyin the 1950s,the firstpublishedden-tificationof El Paraisoas a preceramic ite was madeby Patterson ndLanning n 1964.5StumernamedthesiteChuquitanta,fter henearbyhacienda.WhenEngel61. EdwardP. Lanning,PeruBeforethe Incas(Prentice-Hall: ngle-wood Cliffs, New Jersey1967)70-71; GordonR. Willey,An Intro-duction to American Archaeology, VolumeTwo, South America (Pren-tice-Hall: EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey 1971) 98-99; Luis G.Lumbreras, The Peoples and Cultures of Ancient Peru (SmithsonianInstitution ress:Washington,D.C. 1974)44.2. ThomasC. Patterson,"TheEmergenceof Food ProductionnCentralPeru," n S. Struever, d., PrehistoricAgricultureNaturalHistoryPress:GardenCity, New York1971) 181-208;MichaelE.Moseley, The Maritime Foundations of Andean Civilization (Cum-mings Publishing:Menlo Park,California1975)95-102; DavidJ.Wilson,"OfMaize andMen:A Critique f theMaritimeHypothesisof StateOriginson the Coastof Peru,"AmAnth 3 (1981) 93-120;JeffreyQuilterand TerryStocker,"SubsistenceEconomiesandtheOriginsof AndeanComplexSocieties,"AmAnth 5 (1983)545-562.3. El Proyecto Bajo Valle del Chill6n (The Lower Chill6n ValleyProject) s a multi-year,nterdisciplinarytudyof culturalprocesseson the centralcoast of Peru. Workin 1982 was devotedto test

excavationsat MediaLuna;work n 1983 and the future s centeredat El Paraiso.Personnel n 1983 includedJeffreyQuilter,PrincipalInvestigator/Field irector;Lucy Salazarde Burger,AssistantFieldDirector;DeborahHouse, LaboratoryDirector;ElizabethWing andDanielSandweiss,FaunalAnalysts;and DeborahPearsallandBer-nadinoOjedaE., PlantAnalysts.Themapsweremadeby BernadinoOjedaE. Fieldworkwascarried utbyKathyAshton,MichaelEwens,Elba ManriqueP., Mariadel CarmenRodriguez,Hugo Soto, andQuintinGallazo,who also guardedhe site.4. LouisStumer,"TheChill6nValleyof Peru,Excavation ndRe-connaissance 1952-1953," Archaeology 7 (1954) 171-178, 220-228.5. ThomasC. Patterson ndEdwardP. Lanning,"Changing ettle-mentPractices n theCentralPeruvianCoast,"NPacha2 (1964)114-115.6. FredericA. Engel, "El ComplejoEl ParaisoEn El Valle DelChill6n,HabitadoHace 3,500 Afios;NuevosAspectosDe La Civi-lizaci6n De Los Agricultoresdel Pallar,"Anales Cientificosde laUniversidad Agraria 5 (1967) 241-280.


3/20

280 Architecture and Chronology, El Paraiso, Peru/Quilter

CHILLONChill6

R o a d

2

,,, ,,,,,,...... x,... .:.:................ . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r ? .? ' ? ' ? ? ? : ? : ? : ? : I : ? : ; . 2 ; ; ~~:~:ii::::::::.............::::

. . . . . . . . . . . . .. ? : : ? : : ? : :

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : :? ? : : . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :~ ? : : ? ? : : ? . : : i i : ' ; : : : : : : : : : ::...5:.1.PARAI?..........: ? : i ? ? : ? : : ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - r . -:::j:........................:;:;:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..:?:?::?:j:?

Figure1. Mapof El Paraiso.Hatchuresndicate rchitecturalnits,denotedwith Romannumerals;tippledenoteshills;black ines arewater ourses.1, brickyard;2, agriculturalields;3, platform;, mudandstonewall;5, stoneretainingwalls.conducted xcavations n 1965, however,he calledthesite El Paraiso, he namemostin use todayandusedbythe InstitutoNacional de Cultura.Engel's work con-sistedof mapping ndtestingsomeof themajorbuildingcomplexes, numberedas Units I-VII. Work was con-centratedn theinvestigation f UnitI, thesouthernmoststructuren the complex, which was laterrestoredbyEngelwith Sr. BernadinoOjedaE. as the FieldDirectorof the operations.Engel established he late PreceramicPeriod dateofthe site. Fourradiocarbonamplesproduced atesrang-ing from 3570 t 150 B.P.as the oldestand3065 + 61B.P.as the mostrecent TABLE ).7 Thetextilesand otherartifacts oundduringhis workandthe absenceof ce-ramics confirmedEngel's preceramicdesignation.Thelist of food residuesfoundduringEngel's excavationsinclude iquima(Pachyrizusuberosas),gourds Lagen-aria siceraria), achira (Canna sp.), and, possibly,squash Cucurbita p.). The remainsof fish, sea mam-mals, andshellfishwerealsorecovered.Thesematerials

suggest hat hepeopleof El Paraiso eliedupona mixedeconomyof cultivatedandgathered esources.

The Number, Size, and Complexityof ArchitecturalRemainsOne of our first concerns n 1983 was to determinethe numberof structures t the site (FIG. 1). Pattersonand Moseley8notedthe difficultyof this task, statingthat nine to 13 buildingscould be counted.Elsewhere,Patterson ndLanning9oncludedhatat leastninemajorstructures re at El Paraiso.

Engel'sUnitsI-VI referto large complexesof roomson the south side of the Chill6nRiver. Unit VII is abuildingon the northside of the river,almost0.5 kmNW of the northend of Unit II and about the samedistancenorthof UnitX. This structurewasnotincludedas partof the site by Patterson ndhis colleagues.In 1983, the investigation f the number f structureat the site was limited to surfaceinspection. Engel'sRoman numeralsystem was appliedto five additionastructures,regardlessof size, bringing he total num-beredbuildings o 11. Ourrecentworkmadeit cleartous that a finalassessmentof the number f structures tEl Paraisocanonly be achieved hroughdetailedwork,includingsubsurface esting. The size of the site andmoderndisturbance reate ambiguoussurfaceappearances. For thepresent, t seems certain hatUnitsI, IV,V, VI, VII, X, and XI are freestanding,ndependenstructures.The southern ndof UnitVI has been severedfrom the rest of thebuildingsincethe 1960s.10Uncertaintys greatestconcerning he interrelationships amongunitsin the westernpartof El Paraiso.Thetriangular atchof fallenrockthatcomprisesUnit VIIIis bounded n its easternandsouthern idesby a modernirrigation anal andon its west by the site accessroad,which follows the contourof a rockyhill. The easternedge of Unit II is also demarcated y the access roadand canal. It is possible that the two units may havebeenjoined in prehistory,but have been separatedbythe road andcanal.The areabetweenUnits III andIX apparentlyas beendisturbed y tractors r otherheavy machinery.Whileitseems certain hat the two unitsnow definedrepresen

7. Engel, op. cit. (in note6) 258, note 18.

8. ThomasC. Patterson ndMichaelE. Moseley,"LatePreceramiandEarlyCeramicCultures f theCentralCoastof Peru,"NPacha6(1968) 115-134.9. Patterson ndLanning,op. cit. (in note5) 114.10. Patterson tates (personalcommunication)hat Unit VI was acomplete tructure henhe visited hesite inthe 1960s.Thedivisionsunitedby dashed ines in Figure1 wereprobably ausedby tractorsince Patterson's isit.


4/20

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 12, 1985 281the minimum number of structures in this area of thesite, it is unclear whether they may have been linked bya wall or if the surface indicationsare due to disturbance.Similarly, the ruin defined as Unit III may actually con-sist of two structuresthat have become indistinguishablefrom the surface as a result of mixing of wall fall.Unit VII remains a mystery. It resembles the otherstructures at the site in its construction materials andfloor plan. Exposed midden areas yield refuse similar tothat found next to structureson the left bankof the river.Recent work at the site of Media Luna, less than 2 kmNW, however, cautions against any assumption that UnitVII is part of El Paraiso. This site, long thought to bepreceramic, was discovered to date to a much later pe-riod by the Proyecto Bajo Valle del Chill6n in 1982.

Only excavation at Unit VII will clarify whether or notit is partof El Paraiso.The two largest architecturalunits (II and VI) at ElParaiso are set parallelto each other, 180 m apart.Takinginto consideration the 400 m lengths of Units II and VI,the area between the structuressuggests a plaza or court-yard that would have covered an area of 7.2 ha or moreif the area in front of Unit I is included in calculations.A brick factory located in the Nw area of this openexpanse has mined the clay deposits of this central spaceto depths of over 2 m. The cuts of these excavationswere therefore examined in order to search for evidenceof floors or other features. In most areas natural claywas found, probably deposited by the eddies of theChill6n River as it filled the valley floor during the

Table 1. El Paraiso adiocarbon ates.Calibrated Age (B.C.)

Sample No. Age (B.P.) Range Provenience Comments1. 1-1676 3570 ? 150 2320-1660 UNITI Engel, op. cit. (in note6) 258.Cinders ound on stairs.2. P-1214 3444 ? 59 1955-1660 UNITI Engel, ibid.3. P-1210 3666 ? 59 2310-1885 UNITI Engel, ibid.4. P-1209 3065 ? 61 1540-1120 UNITI Engel, ibid.5. I1-13,276 3560 ? 100 2185-1685 UNITI, Pit2, Wood charcoal rom midden.LevelB (0-10 cm)6. I-13,275 3550 ? 100 2180-1680 UNITI, Pit2, Wood charcoal rom midden.

Level G (30-40 cm)7. Beta-8704 3020 ? 60 1420-1105 UNITI, Pit2, Wood charcoal rom midden.LevelG (30-40 cm)8. I-13,274 3790 ? 100 2540-1960 UNITIV, Pit 1, Wood charcoal rom midden.LevelC (20-30 cm)9. 1-13,278 3650 ? 100* 2325-1760 UNITIV, Pit 3 Reedfragmentrombagusedinfill. (CanastaNo. 11)10. Beta-8703 3170 ? 150* 1755-1110 UNITIV, Pit 3 Reedfragmentrombag used infill. (CanastaNo. 11)11. 1-13,277 3370 ? 100 1935-1440 UNIT II, Pit 4 Wood carbon from Feature No. 1;Level C a hearth.12. 1-13,503 3420 ? 90 1980-1555 UNITII, Pit 4 Wood charcoal rom midden.Level O13. 1-13,504 3470 ? 90 2115-1640 UNITII, Pit 6 WoodCharcoalromFeatureNo.Room 1 1;charcoalon Floor 1A.14. 1-13,505 3310 ? 90 1875-1400 UNITII, Pit 6 Woodcharcoal ound on Floor3.Room 115. 1-13,506 3520 ? 90 2160-1670 UNIT II, Room Wood charcoal from midden.2W, Level D16. 1-13,531 3520 ? 240 2390-1450 UNIT II, Room Wood charcoal from midden.2W, LevelF (Smallsample)NOTE:Samples5, 6, 8, 9 and 11-16 analyzedby Teledyne sotopes,samples7 and 10 analyzedby Beta Analytic.*Datesare C 3/C12adjusted.Thecalibrated ge range s at 95%confidence; alibrations basedon JeffreyKlein,J. C. Lerman,P. E. Damon,andE. K.Ralph,"Calibrationf Radiocarbon ates,"Radiocarbon 4 (1982) 103-141.


5/20

282 Architecture and Chronology, El Paraiso, Peru/QuilterPleistocene.In an area nearthe centerandimmediatelywest of UnitVI, however, ines of hill stoneswere foundin the profile suggestingthat small structures r exten-sions of Unit VI may have projectednto what is nowthebrickyard.A fragment f plaster,possiblyof a floor,wasfoundnearUnitI, but definitearchitectiral videncefor a plazawas notfound for anyareaof the site duringthe 1983 field season.A spurof the coastalrangeprojectsoutand abovethesouthendof Unit VI. Ontopof thisspura smallartificialplatform a. 5 m sq was locatedduringsurfacerecon-naissance.The heightof this platformwas difficulttodetermine,althought seemedto be at least20 cm high.Its constructionechniquewas the same as the rest ofthe architecturet the site andfragments f sun-bleachedshell were foundon its surface.LikeUnit VII, the ageof this structures uncertain.A jagged,almostverticalrockfaceextendsbackfromtheplatform.Atthepointwhere he terrains moreeasilytraversed, he spuris intersectedby a large stone andclay wall runningdownthe hill. It appears o haverunto the easternwall of Unit V. The wall is similartoothers oundthroughoutheChill6nValleyandvicinity,manyof whichmay date as late as the ColonialPeriod.No evidencewas found to datethe construction f thewall securely. Possible preceramicstone walls werefound at the base of the hills flankingUnitsV, IX, andX. These were made in a mannersimilarto the stoneconstructionsf thebuildingsandexposedsectionsstoodabouta meterhigh.El Paraisohasbeencited"as anexampleof the"U"-shapedarchitecturallanthatbecameverycommondur-ingtheInitialPeriod.Ourstudies,however,raisedoubtsas to whether he site was built with such a format nmind. Initial Periodsites, such as nearbyHuacoyandGaragay, reusuallyconstructedn anasymmetricalU"of interconnectedlatforms ndtempleswiththe centralbuildingat the bottomof the "U,"dominatinghe otherstructuresn height and size. At El Paraiso,buildingsareseparated ndUnitI is relatively mall ncomparisonto the otherstructures.t mayor maynot have servedamajorrole in the life of the community,dependingonthe functionsof the otherstructures t the site. The sitedoes, however, show a high degree of planningwithwalls oriented 24o-25o east of north in Units I, II, andIV, and the major structuresdo roughly fall into a "U"shape, though not in conformity with the style of latercomplexes.The location of the entire site may be importantfor

understandingts role and function n prehistory.Lan-ning, Patterson,and Moseley12have shown that incoastalPeruthe locationof a site in relation o zones ofmajorfood resources reflects the general subsistenceeconomy of its inhabitants.Many PreceramicPeriodsites such as Aspero,Rio Seco, and Salinasde Chaoarelocatedclose to thesea, indicating keyrole for seafoodin their subsistence economies.13The inland shift ofInitialPeriodcenterssuch as La Florida,MinaPerdidaandHuacoyreflects heimportancef agriculture.14Thelocationof El Paraisos apparentlynomalousn relationto this patterning. t is close both to sea and fields,althoughnot as close to the oceanas manypreceramicsites, nordoes it overlook he largestexpanseof nearbyagriculturalields.Althoughthe site is only about a 15- to 20-minutewalk away from the Pacific, the shorecannot be seenfromit, as an oceanview is obstructed y theOquendoHills. El Paraiso s locatedat thatpointwhere hedeeplycutChill6nwidensintoopen floodplain s one proceedsupstream.'5The site, however,affordsa relativelynar-row view of the largestagriculturalieldsextant oday,whichspread ut to thesouth,behind heOquendoHills.The modem fields areproductive nly throughheuseof irrigation echniques.Indeed,the areaoccupied bycontemporary ima andits suburbs ormeda hugecul-tivable area in ancienttimes by use of the channeledwatersof the Chill6nand RimacRivers.16The area hatcan be easily viewedfrom El Paraisowas conducive ofloodwaterarming.These observationsend to suggestthat ntensive rrigation griculturemaynothave existedat the time El Paraisowas occupied.Engel and EttoreNapoli Canalle,'7 he latterhaving

11. Lanning, op. cit. (in note 1) 71; Carlos Williams Le6n, "Com-plejos de pirimides con planta en U, patr6n arquitect6nico de la costacentral," Revista Del Museo Nacional 54 (1978-1980) 95-110.

12. Lanning, op. cit. (in note 1) 70; Patterson, op. cit. (in note 2)197; Patterson and Lanning, op. cit. (in note 5) 113-119; Moseley,op. cit. (in note 2) 47; idem, "Subsistence and Demography: anExample of Interaction from Prehistoric Peru," SWJA28 (1972) 25-49.13. On the Aspero subsistence economy see Robert A. Feldman,"Aspero Peru: Architecture, Subsistence Economy, and Other Arti-facts of a Preceramic Maritime Chiefdom," unpublished Ph.D. dis-sertation, HarvardUniversity (Cambridge 1980); idem, "FromMari-time Chiefdom to Agricultural State in Formative Coastal Peru," inR. M. Leventhal and A. L. Kolata, eds., Civilization in the AncientAmericas, Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey (University of NewMexico Press: Albuquerque 1983) 289-310.14. See Patterson, op. cit. (in note 2) 197-199.15. The hydrologic history of the Chill6n remains to be studied, butthis situation seems likely to have existed in preceramic times giventhe topography of the local ranges of coastal hills.16. Patterson, op. cit. (in note 2) 185; see Pedro E. Villar Cordova,Arqueologia del Departamento de Lima (Ediciones Atsuparia:Lima1982) 95-109.17. Engel, op. cit. (in note 6) 263; Ettore Napoli C., "Interpretaci6n


6/20

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 12, 1985 283written a thesis on the architectureof Unit I, have statedthat 150 ha could have been irrigatedby the constructionof a small ditch relatively close to the site. At the veryleast, the site location suggests that the relationshipsbetween the occupants of El Paraiso and the resourcesand inhabitantsof the greaterChill6n-Rimacregion weredifferent from those maintained by known earlier andlater centers in the region. The location of El Paraisosuggests that its relation to areas of terrestrialand mar-itime resource productionmay have been more balancedthan that of other sites. This relationship may have hadmore to do with the control or supervision of productionthan with consumption, because other sites could havereceived food resources from areasthat were not nearby.Patterson'8has convincingly arguedthat large permanentsettlements on the central coast during the late Prece-ramicPeriod were importantnodes in exchange networksbetween coastal and riverine populations. The locationof El Paraiso fits with this view, and the results of floraland faunal analyses will be of interest in refining oradjustingthis proposal.Unit I

The varying sizes of the architecturalunits-from thesmall Unit XI to the massive complexes of Units II andVI-suggest that a variety of activities were carriedoutat El Paraiso. Our investigations in 1983 were partlydesigned to explore this possibility as well as to establishthe sequence of construction and occupation of the site.Unit I had already been the subject of investigation, butwe reexamined it as our work began.Engel removed the overburden covering Unit I andrestored the central part of the structure(FIG. ). Wallswere made of tabularstone, roughly trimmedinto blocksof varying thicknesses, laid in two rows cemented withclay mortar, and covered with clay plaster. Traces ofyellow and red painted plaster were found on the wallswhen the site was first uncovered.19 Except for a fewsections of Unit I, most of the clay plaster has disinte-grated.Evidence of four to six building phases was found inUnit I.20Old rooms were filled with fiberbags containing

~~184

o 210

lic 11 1Unit I N

Figure 2. Map of Unit I, central section. Rooms and major stairwaysare numbered. A, low bench; B, location of cotton-wrappedstone insmall structure;C, location of Burials 2 and 3; D, location of possiblelong bench. Map is a composite of several different versions. (Seenote 24.)

unworked rocks of the same local stone used for wallconstruction. During the last construction phase, Unit Iappearedas a ziggurat-likestructureof four tieredlevels.Engel's restoration, however, was made conservatively,with uniform wall heights.The largest and possibly oldest room in Unit I is thesecond chamber (Room 2) reached by the entry stair-case.21The room is slightly trapezoidal in shape with abasal length of 9 m and walls up to 1 m thick. Whenfirst excavated, the original stairway rose directly fromthe ground and brought the visitor to a floor in which arectangular(4.5 m x 4.25 m) pit (FIG. ) is sunken. Ateach corner of this rectangle are circular pits 1 m indiameter.These pits containedcharcoalto a depthof 0.8m when excavated. The rectangularsunkenpit containeda finely made clay floor, the uppersurface of which wasburnt to a bright red and had an oval black stain in its

Arquitectonica Del Conjunto 'El Paraiso' En El Valle Del Chill6n,"Tesis Bachillerato, Fac. de Arquitectura, Universidad Nacional In-generia (1967) 53.18. Thomas C. Patterson, "Central Peru: Its Population and Econ-omy," Archaeology 24 (1971) 316-321.19. Napoli, op. cit. (in note 17) 58.20. Frederic A. Engel, "Le Complexe Preceramique d'El Paraiso(Perou)," JSocAmer 55 (1966) 50. Napoli discusses four phases, op.cit. (in note 17) 15.

21. Napoli, op. cit. (in note 17) 104-121 presents a general descrip-tion and measurements of architectural features for four buildingstages. The discussion of communications between rooms in the fol-lowing paragraphsis mine.


7/20

284 Architecture and Chronology, El Paraiso, Peru/Quiltercenter.Plaster oundat the time of discovery ndicatedthatthe room had beenpaintedred.Engel'sexcavationsuncovereda smallstonestructureroofed with willow boughsin a terraceon the westernside of Unit I, outsideof the NW ornerof theRoom ofthe SunkenPit. Inside the structurewas a large globularstonecovered with red pigmentandwrappedn cottoncloth.22Next to the wrapped tone were founda gourdbowl containingunidentified ood remainsand a minia-ture fiberbag. The bag was a small versionof thosefilledwithrocksandused for room ill. Instead f havingrock for fill, however, the miniaturecontainedsmallwhite cakes wrappedwith leaves.23The available de-scriptions f thisdiscoverysuggest hat t mayhavebeenadedicatory ffering hatwas sealed n the terrace uringa construction hase.A consideration f theorganizationf roomsandotherarchitecturaleatures n UnitI yields information boutthe possiblepatterning f activitieswithinthe building.This exercise is fraughtwith difficultiesbecausesomedetails of the plan of the structurevary in differentpublishedmaps.24In addition, many entrywayswerefilled whendiscovered,25uggesting hatthe relationsofrooms changed throughtime duringthe last buildingphaseandoccupationof Unit I.Napolihas suggested ourmajorconstruction hases.Stage One was the buildingof Stairway1 and Rooms1-3. The Second Stage saw the additionof Rooms 5and6, includingthe construction f a finely plastered,low engagedbenchin Room6. Napoliproposes n hisThirdStagethe additionof Stairway2 and Rooms 8-13with no intercommunication etween these and therooms of earlierstages. StageFouradded he rest of theroomsandstaircasesn the reconstructedrea.26Criticalevaluationof Napoli'sproposedsequence sdifficultbecause of the reconstructedonditionof UnitI. But Ojeda27tatesthatreconstruction as undertakenby removingrubble o depthswherestandingwall rem-nantscould be clearly identified. It thus seems likelythatthe general plan of the reconstructedUnit I accu-ratelyreflects roomorganizationn the last occupation

periodof thebuilding.Furthermore, number f irreg-ularities n the plan, some of which areclearlynot dueto reconstruction,ive additional videnceof the orga-nization of the structure.Such inconsistencies ncludethe imperfectalignment f thewestern erraces f Room17 with terraces o their north; he cornerentryfromArea4 into Room 3, whichvariesfromthe more com-mon centralplace of entriesin walls; and the use ofdouble thicknessesof walls, such as those separatinRooms 2 and3 fromRooms8 and9, the southernwallof Room 19, and the westernwallsof Rooms5 and 6.The evidence for construction tages also suggestschangingroomuse through ime. Most apparently,heseparatestairways mply a channelingof the flow ofpeoplein and outof differentpartsof UnitI. Inadditiononly the westernentryof Room 5 and the passagebe-tweenRoom3 andArea 4 need be closedin thepresenconfigurationo completelyseal off Rooms1, 2, 3, and5 from the rest of the complex. Indeed,the odd shapeof the Area 4 section, with its brokendouble walls,suggeststhat it may have been deliberately reated opermit rafficbetween two sections of Unit I that werepreviouslyclosed to eachother.If problemsconcerning he constructionequence orthe rooms in UnitI areignored or the present,andit isassumedthat in the last occupationall rooms were atleast availablefor use, four room complexescan bedefinedfor the centralsection of Unit I. They are: theNWComplex(Rooms1, 2, 3, 5, and6); a NEComplex(Rooms 8-13); a SEComplex Rooms 18-20); and a swComplex(Rooms 16-17). All fourcomplexesare inter-connectedby Areas4, 7, and 14.The NwComplex s identical o Napoli'soldest con-structionphase. Room 2 was, apparently,he site ofceremonialactivities. The finely plasteredbench inRoom 6 mayalso indicateceremonial ctivities.TheNE

-?:-:_:-:::::;:::-,: ii:_i~ilis~-l::i:--::::ii-i:i-ii--iiiiiii:,:::::::i~ai-i--::::"'-:-:-:ii'''iDdi?;ii:xi-icii:ii--ii'i-il.i-ri-i?i:-.-,;i-iiiii:`:i-iii -i'i:i-:::i:i::.:.:--ii-ii:i

:- :-----?-:-:-: ::::::::::: : ---:i:::::::::::::::::::::::i:::: : - : -::::'::::::: ::::-:- - :

:::r:_:;::-::::I:,:-: :

Figure3. The Roomof the SunkenPit n UnitI.

22. Engel,op.cit. (innote20)68;PlateV, fig.2.23. The cakes appear o be of compactedground tone, possiblyawhite rock that is found in sedimentarytrataat PuenteInga, 2 kmuptheChill6nRiver. n 1985 he eaveswere dentifiedspacae.24. Compare ngel,op.cit. (innote6) fig. 11;Moseley, p.cit.(innote2) fig. 6.5; Napoli, op. cit. (in note 17) figs. not numbered.25. Engel,op.cit. (innote20)49.26. Napoli, p.cit. (innote17)110,note1.27. Ojeda, ersonalommunication.


8/20

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 12, 1985 285Complex is made up of three rooms with more than oneentry (8, 9, and 10), suggesting high levels of intercom-munication between them. Rooms 11 and 13, however,are dead ends, deeply buried in the complex. Room 13is especially interesting because of its zigzag entry pas-sage (Area 12), suggesting limited or controlled access.Napoli28states that a low bench (0.2 m x 2 m x 5 m)was on the south side of this room.There are few distinctive characteristics for the roomsof the SE and sw Complexes except that they cannot beeasily reached from outside Unit I, unlike the northerncomplexes. The entrances to both Rooms 16 and 18 arein the nexus of the room system, reached from the centralareas of 7 and 14. This arrangementsuggests that whileactivities in the Northern Room Complexes were per-formed by persons immediately upon entering the build-ing, such as ceremonies in Room 2, activities in thesouthern rooms were carried out by "insiders," such asresidents, or people who had already been involved inevents in other rooms.Another distinct aspect of the organization of Unit Iis the two separate stairways on its northernside. Theseentrances indicate segregated activities in the two partsof the building and differential access to each section.Integrationof activities most likely would have resultedin the construction or use of a single entry stair no matterhow many times Unit I was enlarged. While the northernroom complexes differ from the southern ones in theirrelationships to external and internal traffic patterns,there are also differences between each of the northernsections. The Nw Complex is organized in a linear pat-tern with evidence for ceremonial activities carried outin at least one room. The NE Complex is arrangedtoallow high traffic flow from both inside and outside ofUnit I throughRooms 8-10, with increasinglyrestrictivemovement as one moves towards Rooms 11 and 13. Thistraffic pattern is reminiscent of administrative rooms oflater prehistory.29Analogous behavior may have beencarriedout in these roughly homologous settings.The artifacts recovered by Engel in Unit I do little toconfirmor deny the interpretationsbased on architecture.Ninety river cobbles with battered ends or smoothedsurfaces (FIG.4) were the most commonly recoveredartifacts. Some of these may have been used for wallconstruction, as suggested by Ojeda.30 Traces of red

I IIc

Figure 4. Grinding stones found in Unit I. Hatchure ndicates red pig-ment.pigment on the working surfaces of some smaller stoneswith others exhibiting red on nonwork surfaces suggestthat many of these tools were used for other purposes.Many of them resemble contemporarymanos used forgrinding herbs, while a carefully polished blackexample31appearsto have served as a palette ratherthanas a hand tool. The grinding of materials into powder,we may conclude, was at least one activity carried outin Unit I. Red pigment was an important aspect of An-dean artistic and ceremonial life.Other miscellaneous artifacts found in Unit I by Engelincluded a fan base, a small sling, a wooden bottle(gourd?) stopper, a figurine fragment, and a few tools(wooden sticks and stone bifaces). These articles couldhave been employed in a variety of activities rangingfrom sacred to mundane. When all of the evidence istaken together, however, it seems likely that while cer-emonies were carried out in Unit I other activities alsotook place in it, thereby suggesting that it was not solelyor simply a temple.Our excavations in Unit I (FIG. ) consisted of an 80cm x 80 cm pit (Pit 2) placed in a small room on theNEcorner of an unreconstructedsection of the building.The use of this and other rooms in the area is unknown,although it is interesting to note that, in general, thefloor plans in this section of the ruin are either long andnarrow or small and square. Four floors were found inPit 2, separatedby black midden deposits. Radiocarbondates (TABLE)suggest nearcontemporaneityof the mid-den deposits in Pit 2. The midden, though black, con-tained a few artifacts. Our test excavations added little

28. Napoli, op. cit. (in note 17) 114. Ojeda, however, says this benchdid not exist.29. Alexandra M. Ulana Klymyshyn, "Elite Compounds in ChanChan," in M. E. Moseley and K. C. Day, eds., Chan Chan: AndeanDesert City (University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque 1982)119-143.30. Ojeda, personal communication. 31. Engel, op. cit. (in note 20) Plate VII, fig. 8.


9/20


01

UII

Ux,0 0-- . 0Ot

/ / -

/I/ . . .

L 1i i \

i-Z7

i 0 10 4I

o 0 0\\0, 00

:" .:i \

c~''0

0 0

V V vv

s. c

/i /f

I',, ' ,: "\\ \

z / /'~~~ " \(ii:.-"' ..-" ii "- 0 4

\i -

, . ..? ? ',',

,,t

.: v' v U,A

. i,v v- v v v ,,v v v , .\\ \

, v v ,, v v v v .-v v v' ,,, d ti.. "v ,. v , , -., v . ,.,., , : , ,,. "" ---

Figure5. Mapshowingexcavation its n UnitsI andIV.

to the architectural interpretationof Unit I and weremainly designed to recover information on subsistenceeconomies.Unit IV

We first excavated near the southern end of Unit IV,because a looter's pit had exposed a thick (80 cm) de-posit of midden. Unit IV also offered the opportunitytoexamine a building in the vicinity of Unit I, but one

much smaller in size, making it possible to compare thefunctions of different structuresat the site.Pit 1 was placed between the looter's pit and an E-Wrunningwall of Unit IV. This excavation revealed blacklayers of midden identical to those exposed in the loot-er's pit. The significance of materials from this exca-vation must await detailed analysis, as mentionedabove.It is interesting to note, however, that the midden pri-marily held food remains, and few artifacts were found


10/20

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 12, 1985 287in the trashdump. Furthermore,he middenhad beenplacedin a deliberately xcavatedpit at the bottomofwhich was a prepared lay floor (FIG. ). This circum-stanceand the fact thatmanyof the remainswere car-bonizedsuggest that refuse was deliberatelydiscardedin subsurfacepits. If such trashpits arecommonelse-where at the site, they, andthe use of midden or floorfill, may explain why previousresearchers32ave notidentifiedmiddenat El Paraiso,exceptfor a thinsurfacedeposit such as that found in a series of old pits thatwere partof a now abandonedorchard n the areaofUnitsI-IV.Pit 3 was a 1.5 m x 2 m unitplacednorthof Pit 1,inside the Unit IV structure.The upper20 cm of Pit 3consisted of disintegratedmortarandloose rubble.Be-low this was a layerof powderydisintegratedlaster. twas weak red (Munsell2.5 YR 5/2) in colorwith tinyflecks of charcoaland white ash spots on its surface.This layer is probablythe remains of a disintegratedfloor.Below it, two levels of rock-filled iberbagswerefoundreachinga depthof 50 cm. Below the bags, aplaster loor with a light scatterof middenrefuse on itssurfacewas encountered.Becauseof limited time and money, Test Pit 3 wasthe only excavation carriedout in Unit IV. Althoughevidenceformanyphasesof constructionwas recoveredin Units I and II, only two floorswere foundin Pit 3,suggesting hat the occupationof UnitIV wasrelativelybriefandspanned ust one or two phases.The availableinformationndicates that Unit IV was a single-storiedbuilding.The large amountof midden at its southernend suggests that people associated with the structureconsumed ood in or near it. The almostcomplete ackof remainsotherthan food residue is intriguing. t im-plies thatthe occupantsof Unit IV consumedmuchbutproducedfew tangible items, remains of which weredeposited n the trashpit adjacento the unit.The spatialrelationships mongUnitsI, IV, andXI,and their separation rom the rest of the site, make itlikely that the functions of these threebuildingswereinterrelatedndperhapsdifferent rom the functionsofotherstructures t the site. Unit IV and the small UnitXI may have been ancillarybuildingsof Unit I andserved o supportactivities carriedout there.Unit IIPit 4

By about the middle of our field season, work in thearea of Units I and IV was complete. We chose a placeon the western lobe of Unit II (FIG.7) for our next

Figure6. Excavating it 1. The Looter'sPit can be seen in theback-ground.Note the line of vegetalremains emarcatingheedgeof thelower lay loor.investigation ecause his areaseemed o haveno visiblearchitecturalemainsand,therefore,mightcontainmid-dendeposits.Pit 4 was relativelysmall, 1.60 m x 2.20 m. In theupper evels of this pit, a large,black hearthwas foundon top of a clay floor.The refuseassociatedwiththeselayersincludedceramic sherdsof indeterminatetyles.Somewhatower,twoparallel inesof stoneswerefoundin thewesternsection of thepit, buttheirpurpose ouldnot be determined ecause of the small size of ourex-cavation.Theymaydelineate hewall orfoundationsfa temporary r poorlybuilt structure r define a spacesuch as a walkwayor otherarea. We were tempted oexpand hesize of ourpittoexplore he lines of bouldersWe did the opposite,however,reducing he excavationarea o theeastern ection of thepit(1.60 m x 0.80 m),because lower levels compriseda series of complexlyrelated loorsand hin ayersof preceramicmidden,oftenoverlapping ach other.These stratarequired low and2. Moseley, op. cit. (in note2) 97.


11/20

288 Architecture and Chronology, El Paraiso, Peru/QuilterV V V/v v

VV/

v /S20m V20

I C/V /v/

vI v v

/ v v

v vv

V,

v V,

v /

P .-

52.5

J v

J v,- .

J // /

/ .

v 7 iI " \ .\

4.79 '

1'i 9 ...L 'H- ,, .// + S, i - : " --?s ~ . \ \,' " -1--.

? l . i k: i v~ ~I 7,- .. " "" 52.9 , /'529t~~~~~~~~, 2si" .....' -

", ," c

?o .,/.

Ir r? v"

-i." ,, , / v / v / '

Figure 7. Excavations in Unit II.


12/20

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 12, 1985 289

,.09

///F-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --.- .

,/ Ct I-- ,.50-9

F xi F

F". rIF F F IROOM (ROOm I _ _

F ""a,.L... . .._ i'St i "

F/ -- *ma.na... hI/ /

C0

F F F i ROO~FF

FF F. . . 529. . . . . . . -- - -----0..

9- 51, 9

9, Sm

Figure 8. Rooms 1, 2E, 2C, 2W, andvicinity in Unit II.

painstaking excavation, and to maximize our resourcesand time we chose to remove less soil with greatercare.The nature of the preceramic floors and light middensuggest that the areamay have been used for intermittentactivities, including some food preparation and con-sumption, and perhaps served as a patio or plaza. Thepresence of sherds indicates an ephemeral and desultorypost-preceramicuse of the site, as noted by Engel else-where at El Parafso.33The pottery fragmentswere prob-ably in upperlevels as a result of disturbance. The sherdshave few diagnostic characteristics. They may date toeither the Initial Period or the Early IntermediatePeriod.Excavations in Unit HII

We excavated a room in Unit II in order to gain anappreciationof the activities carried out in the buildingsof El Parafso. The area selected for testing was the firstrecognizable room in the architecturalcomplex east ofPit 4. It was selected in the hope of linking the stratig-

raphyof Pit 4 with the function and constructionperiodsof Unit II.Room 1 (FIG. 8) was an almost perfect square, ca. 5m on every side. Entryways in the east and west wallshad been filled with rubble to close the room, probablylate in its occupation. The upper 50 cm of fill containedceramic sherds, cloth fragments, and other remains ofdomestic refuse. These remains were not numerous,however, suggesting a relatively light occupation. In thisfill, a large area of windblown soil had been compacted,presumably by use. In the center of this rough floor ascooped-out area had served for a small hearth. Humanskull fragments, dog craniumremains, as well as sherdswere found close to this hearth. Another area of rockconcentrations and ashes in the sw section of the com-pacted area indicated an even more temporary use ofRoom 1. As in the case of the sherds found in Pit 4, thefragments found in Room 1 cannot be securely dated,but may indicate a temporaryoccupation of El Paraisoafter the Preceramic Period. A meter below the upper-most wall fragment of Room 1 we encountered a finelymade plaster floor. This and the five floors found belowit all date to the Preceramic Period.3. Engel, personal communication.


13/20


Figure9. Theupper loorof Room2W.Engaged olumnsarevisibleinthe lower eft-hand ornerandupper enterof thephotograph.Sticksandothermaterials anbe seenonthe eft sideof thefloor,ad-jacent o the westwall.

Room 1 was constructedusing the same techniquesfoundat otherbuildingsat El Paraiso---doubleoursesof hill stones set in mudmortar ndcoveredwithplaster.The interior walls and the floor were coveredin fineplaster.The intersectionof floor and wall was slightlybeveledby additionalplaster.Theuppersectionof wallassociated with Floor 1 had at least three coatingsofplaster, he lower two of whichwerepink ncolor(Mun-sell 5 YR 6/4). The last layerof plaster,however,wasa light gray (Munsell10 YR 7/1). This color was alsofoundon Floors 2 and3 with thepinkof earlierplastersshowing hroughn Floor2. The floorswere nterspersedwith the same cane bag fill found in Units I and IV.Most floorswererelativelyclean anddevoidof artifacts,exceptfor Floor lA which had a largeamount f carbonon its surface. At a depthof 2.03 m, below Floor 1,sterile soil was encountered.

Threesmall chambersRooms2E, 2C, and2W)werefoundonthe north ide of Room1(FIG.).Theirmethodsof construction ndfill arequite nteresting.A plasteredstep50 cm highservesanentrywaynto Room2C. Thepassageand all threechambers,however,had beende-liberately illedwith rubble n prehistory.Whilea solidstone wall was foundas the westernwall of Room2W,the rest of the wallsappearo have beendugintorubbleThe "walls" f Room2E consistedof roughplaster,withthe finger marksof its makersstill distinct,roughlyplacedon rubble ill. The "wall"separatingRooms2Cand 2W was purerubblewithno finishon its surface. tthusappearshatRooms2W and 2C wereoriginally nelarge compartmenthatwas later filled. Room 2E wasdeliberatelyxcavatednto orformedduringheadditionof rubble ill. It as well as its neighborsmaythenhaveserved as storagebins.All roomscontained ticksandotherobjects.InRoom2C, a pole 1.30 m long was found in the fill at a depthof 53 cm. The south end was jammedbetweenrocksandmortarwhilethe northern artof thestick wasbadlydisintegrated.A large pole was also found n Room2E.Othersticks were found in Pits 2E and 2C as well assmall clumpsof unidentifiedbones, concentrationsfmussel shells, small rings of grasses, and a tubulashapedgourd fragment.Unfortunately,ecauseof lackof time, Rooms 2E and2C were not excavateddeeperthan1 m. Most of the sticks found n theseexcavationare probablymulti-purposeools used in constructioand other activities. The large pole was deliberatelplaced in Room 2C, whereas some of the othersmayhave beencasuallythrown ntothe fill materials.Thosepoles thatcompletelyspanned he lengthsof therooms,however,must have beendeliberatelyhaped o fittheirspacesand wereprobablyplacedfor a specificpurposeNo clearstructural urposecan be determinedor thesepoles at present.The finaldaysof our field seasonconcentrated n theexcavationof Room 2W, the largestof the side roomsand the one with the most complexfill, as judged byour initialwork n the roomsadjacento Room1. Room2W was a chamber2.50 m x 1.75 m in size. As workbegan,rubble,primarily onsistingof small(3-5 cm indiameter) hunksof mortarandfieldstones,was foundrestingon a plaster loor at a depthof 1.10 m.On the northernwall and in the sw cornerof Room2Wtwo engagedcolumnsmadeof rubbleplasteredwithmortarwere found(FIG. ). The locationsof thesecol-umns suggestthatthey did not serveas structuralup-ports, and the finish on theiruppersurfaces ndicatethatthey are intact and not the remnants f taller fea-tures. These columns are the only knownexamplesoftheir kind in the architecture f preceramic eru.


14/20

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 12, 1985 291Remainsfoundalong the westernwall of Room2W(FIG.9) included three sticks in the NWcorner of theroom,one of which hadbeensharpenedo pointsat bothends;musselshells;andreed andwood fragments cat-teredalongthe westernwall andaroundhe sticks.Pink,

green,yellow, andbluefeatherswere also found n thisarea.Towards he southern nd of this collectionof mate-rials, a large piece of mortarwith a righthandprintnits centerwas discovered.Below thisprint,nestled n ahollowin the rubbleandsurroundedy a thin, twistingpacae (Inga feuillei) branch, was the skeleton of animmature ird. A pacaetree limb was near hisskeletonandsmall fishvertebraeanchovy?)andcrabpartswerefound mmediately ext to the birdremains.Theskeletonhasbeententativelydentified34s thatof a local seabirdandnotof a bearerof colorfulplumage.A largeamountof birdguanowas foundthroughouthe floorarea, in-dicatingavianoccupationof the room.The flooron which these materialsay was removedto reveal a plaster-lined haft (1.16 m x 1.06 m) de-scendinginto the more solidly constructed rchitecturesurroundingt. The openingof this shaft underminedpartof the sw half-column, ndicating hat ts construc-tion was associated with the uppermost loor and lastbuildingphaseof Room 2W.Seventeen sticks, branches,and canes were foundmixedwithothermaterialsmmediately elowthefloor.The woodenitems includeda few implements,usuallypoles sharpenedat both ends, and a cane (Gyneriumsagittatum)tick withfine cotton hreadwrapped roundoneend. Most of theremains,however,wereunmodifiedpieces of trees. Willow (Salixsp.), manglillo(Rapaneasp.), lucuma (Lucumaobovata), andguava (Psidium sp.)were found in the collection of wood, with the lastpredominating6 examples).A large,flatstone slabwasalso in this pile of materials,as well as a section of awillow trunk,ca. 40 cm long, wrappedwithtotora Ty-phis sp.) and caiia brava (Gynerium sagittatum) leaves.This packetof remainsresemblessimilarones found asgravegoods at otherpreceramicites.35To the east of these materials,nearthe centerof thepit, a large ucumapole spanned helengthof the cham-ber with its ends in the north and south walls of theshaft. Below the pole and other wooden items, the pithad been filled with rock-filled fiber bags. After onlyone layer of bags, the fill changed to ovoid adobes, small

Figure10. Lowerwallin Room2W;trowelrestson lower loor.stones, andgrass,whichcontinuedo a depthof 2.11 mbelow datum,endingon a rough plasterfloor.Under-neaththis floor morefill of small mortar hunks,woodfragments,and light amountsof middenwere founduntil,ata depthof 2.30 m, a third loorwasencounteredThe third loorwas madeof roughmortar ndhadthesamegraycolor(Munsell10 YR 7/2) as thewalls of theshaft.Immediately elowthis floorwas a N-S tonewall43 cm thick, double coursed, and made in the samemanner as others in Units I, II, and IV (FIG.10). Thewall was situatedso thatonly a few centimeters epa-rated ts easternedge from he side of the shaft n whichit was located. A space with an averagewidthof lessthan50 cm separatedhe western ide of this stonewallwith the shaftwall, andthis areahad beendeliberatelfilledin with rubble.The rubble romthis narrow pacewas removed,exposingan unplasteredace of the lowwall, whichendedata newfloorat 3.09 m belowdatum.Dense middenwas discoveredbelow this floor. Exca-vationscontinuedn this midden or another 0 cm, butthe narrowwork area,dangerof collapsingwalls, andlack of time made us halt our work beforesterilesoilwas reached.Thegreatdepthsreachedn Rooms1 and2Wprohib-ited lateralexpansionof excavations n our shortfieldseason. The structural oundarieso the northandeastof the smallchamberslankingRoomI werenotsecurelydefined. It was also difficultto reachconclusionscon-cerningthe architecturalurposeof the manylayersoffill found n Room2W. A few statements, owever,canbe confidentlymade concerning he sequenceof con-structionn this areaof El Paraiso.The thickmasonrywall foundnearthe bottomof theRoom2W excavations s apparently artof a structurthathas a floor plan quite different romthose of the

34. ElizabethS. Wing, personal ommunication.35. Lucy Salazarde Burger, personalcommunication, eports hatsimilarpacketswere found as grave goods at the preceramicite ofBandurria.


15/20

292 Architectureand Chronology, El Paraiso, Peru/Quilterconstructions above it. It is also curious that no tracesof plaster were found on this wall even though plastersurfacing is ubiquitous at the site. The excavations inRooms 2W and 2C indicated that these chambers hadoriginally formed one room, which was only dividedrelatively late in the architectural sequence. Room 2Ewas probably made by maintaining a space or digginginto the rubble fill that covered the entire area of thesesmall rooms. These events occurred late in the architec-tural sequence, either in the last preceramic occupationof Room 1, or when the secondary, pottery-bearingoc-cupation occurred. The pottery occupation appears soephemeral that it seems more likely that the time andenergy needed to fill the chambers were given duringthe last preceramic use of the structures.From our observations, Unit II appears to have beenorganized in the form of two capital letter "L's," placedon their sides, with their bases parallel to each other:

The long base of this configuration faces eastward to-wards the brickyard. To the west, the area where Pit 4was excavated is bounded by agriculturalfields, on theother side of which are Units III, IX, and X. The north-ern end of Unit II is demarcatedby a dirt road, a smallvillage, and the Chill6n floodplain. The southern end ofUnit II runs to an extension of the Oquendo hills andthe site access road separatingUnit II from Unit VIII.Room I and its associated chambers are located at thesw end of the northern"L." The south side of Room 1drops rather steeply to a ravine-like path that cutsthroughUnit II in an E-wdirection; on the other side ofthis alley, the ruins rise again. There appears to be arough symmetry to the height, and possibly the organi-zation of rooms, on each side of the declivity.At least one other bounded architecturalspace is lo-cated west of Room 1, as indicated by the entryway inits west wall. Further west, a number of long parallelwalls appear to have formed a stepped, ziggurat-likewestern side to Unit II before reaching the level groundof the Pit 4 area.Less than 10 m north of the antechambers to Room1, a large wall runs for a least 35 m in an E-wdirectionbefore being lost in rubble. Since immediately to thenorth there is a large, natural rock outcrop, we mayconclude that the wall was the northernboundaryof UnitII in this area.

The east wall of Room 1 contained an entryway that,like the entry directly opposite it in the west wall, wasfilled before the final abandonment of the site. Thesearch for a stairway on the eastern, outer side of thewall proved futile because of the huge amount of rubblecovering the area and because of our limited time and

resources. Study of the area immediately east of Room1 suggested that this side may have faced a small patioshared with other rooms of varying sizes further east.Time did not permit a detailed mapping of the entireUnit II complex. It was quite clear, however, that thelargest rooms in Unit II were located to the east, whereone square room had walls roughly 20 m on a side.Given the information presented above, and assumingthat large rooms represent space either for more occu-pants, or occupants with control over greater amountsof space, we may tentatively interpret the excavatedareas as suggested below.While there is a wide range of uses to which Room 1may have been put, activities carried out there involvedfewer people or fewer items than the large rooms to itseast. It may have served some ancillary function toactivities carried out in the larger rooms or representeda space to which only some people using the largerrooms had access. Even if many people had access toRoom 1, it was still not a chamber that was simulta-neously occupied or used by large numbersof people.The paucity of remains found on the floors of Room1 provides little basis for inferences concerning the spe-cific activities carried out there. Even if the materialsfound in Room 2W fill are taken to be associated withthe general activities carried out in this sector of ElParaiso, the task is not made much easier. For the mo-ment, the remains found in Rooms 2E, 2C, and thepottery-associated fill of Room 1 will not be consideredbecause a clear understandingof their temporaland ar-chitectural contexts is so far lacking. Aside from theseremains, there were four concentrationsof materials re-covered in our excavations in the architectural area ofUnit II: the midden at the base of the deep wall in Room2W; the sticks and a few other materials below the upperplaster floor in Room 2W and on top of the fill belowit; the bird skeleton, bird feathers, and sticks on top ofthe same floor; and colored bird down on the firstplasterfloor in Room 1.The lowest deposit, next to the deep wall, containedfood refuse indicating food consumption. Pieces of un-processed cotton as well as possible wool twine indicatethat textile-making residues are also present. Fragmentsof reeds and other fibers were also retrieved from thesedeposits, but their purpose or use is unclear. The sticksand vegetal packet immediately below the upperfloor inRoom 2W appearto have been an offering of some sort,made after the space below had been filled with adobesand rock-filled fiber bags. These materials do not nec-essarily reflect a ceremonial act accompanied by greatpomp and circumstance. It is a common Andeanpracticeto mark the beginning or ending of an event with a smallsymbolic act.


16/20

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 12, 1985 293The materials on top of the uppermostfloor in Room2W are very difficult to interpret. Some items, such asthe three wooden sticks found in the NW corner of theroom and the bird skeleton, were deliberately put intoposition. This is clearly the case for the bird skeleton,as it was found below the plaster fragment markedby ahandprint. The sticks were neatly arrangedparallel toeach other. The other materials, however, appeared tobe debris, and not to have been carefully placed. Theirarrangementsuggested that they had been swept to thewestern side of the room. Whether they represent itemsdeliberately deposited in the floor before the room wasfilled or the remains of daily activities is difficult todetermine.Among the debris in Room 2W was a large amountof bird guano. The coiled shape of the feces and theirsizes suggest they are the excrement of one or moredoves or parrots. Thus there are three distinct sets of

avian remains in Room 2W: the bird guano, colorfulbird down and feathers, and the bird offering. A mini-mum of two species is represented. The guano could befrom either the bird under the plaster, possibly a doveor small seabird, or possibly from a parrotas representedby the colorful feathers, which might all be from onebirdspecies. Although the functionof Room 2W remainsunclear, the different kinds of bird remains make ittempting to speculate that the room was an aviary.Unfortunately, the only extensively documented pre-historic aviaries in the Americas are at Casas -Grandesin northernMexico.36 Large numbersof scarlet macawsand turkeys were raised at Casas Grandes, primarilyforuse as sacrifices. Great care was taken in maintainingthe birds. Carefully built nesting boxes as well as aspecial feed mixture, served in stone bowls, were iden-tified at the site. Room 2W at El Paraiso exhibits noneof the special features found at Casas Grandes, althoughit is possible that other avicultural practices were fol-lowed at El Paraiso because of differing circumstancesconcerning availability or use of birds.The presence of cotton, wool, and needles in theRoom 2W excavations do suggest textile activities, how-ever, and the use of colored bird feathers in textiles andother materials played an importantrole in the prestigeitems used in prehistoric, including preceramic, Peru, asindicated by featherwork found at Aspero and RioSeco.37 At the latter site, large numbers of small sticks

with white feathers attached to them were recoveredduring excavations. Another possibility is that one ortwo birds were kept in the room as pets,38making elab-orate cages and other maintenance equipment unneces-sary. At the very least, it can be argued that birds andtheir feathers played an importantrole at El Paraiso asevidenced by their presence in Room 2W andelsewhere;but definite evidence of aviculture does not exist.The other locale where bird feathers, i.e., coloreddown, were encounteredwas in our excavations in Room1. The down was primarily found on the uppermostplaster floor. Less than a small handfulwas found, sug-gesting that the down had either been deliberately scat-tered in a very light sprinkling or that it was the residuefrom some activity involving its use. Our excavationsbelow this floor were in a relatively small pit, thusdecreasing the chance to find feathers in lower levels.A similar scattering of bird down was found on thefloors of small chambers at the preceramic site of LaGalgada.39Grieder40has suggested that white down rep-resented semen and was scattered in ritualsemphasizingfertility in much the same manner as crushed Spondylusshell was sprinkled by the Chimti and Inca. If such apractice was also carried out at El Paraiso, it wouldsuggest that the room itself or the activities carried outin it were sanctified. This need not, of course, mean thatelaborate religious services occurred in Room 1, anymore than would the (unlikely) detection of residues ofHoly Water in a modern tract home that had received aHouse Blessing. The burial of a dog under house floorsis a common practice among modern Andean dwellers,yet holds no great ritual significance.41Other explanations for the down in Room 1 couldinclude activities in which bird down was used so thatresidues were produced that became embedded in thesurface of the plaster floor. The presentationor manu-facture of artifactsor clothing utilizing bird down is onesuch possibility, although the room seems rather smallfor a workshop despite our lack of knowledge of theorganization of labor for the manufacture(and presen-tation)of prestige goods in large preceramicarchitecturalcomplexes.Bird down and feathers attached with beeswax glueto bodies, hair, or masks is a common practice amongethnographically recorded peoples in tropical South

36. Charles C. DiPeso, Casas Grandes, A Fallen Trading Center ofthe Gran Chichimeca, Volume 2 (Amerind Foundation: Flagstaff,Arizona 1974) 598-603.37. Feldman, op. cit. (in note 13) 135-136; W. E. Wendt, "ElAsentamiento Preceramico En Rio Seco, Peru," Lecturas en Arqueo-logia 3 (Museo de Arqueologifa,Universidad Nacional Mayor de SanMarcos: 1976) 28, 42.

38. Patricia Lyon, personal communication.39. Terence Grieder and Alberto Bueno Mendoza, op. cit. (in note32) 46.40. Terence Grieder, Origins of Pre-Columbian Art (University ofTexas Press: Austin 1982) 47-48.41. R. Burger, personal communication.


17/20

294 Architecture and Chronology, El Paraiso, Peru/QuilterAmerica, such as the Siriono and Tapirape.42 t thepreceramic ite of Paloma(ca. 5000-3000 B.C.)a num-ber of human skeletonswas found with possible birddown on their skulls, althoughrelatively poor preser-vationmadeit difficult o determinef thefeatherswereon caps in some cases.43If bird down was used todecorate hebody, clothing,or artifacts f theoccupantsof El Paraiso,some featherscouldeasily have becomedetached o remain as residueon the floorsof rooms.Clearly, a range of mundaneor ceremonialactivitiesmightaccountfor the presenceof down on the floor ofRoom 1. Whatever he preciseuse of Room 1 and itsadjacent hambersmayhavebeen, the few remains ug-gest relatively specialized activities. Bird down andfeatherswere, apparently, ighlyvaluedgoodsand theirpresence n the rooms seems to indicate hatpeoplewithaccess to these materialsutilized these facilities.Dating of the SiteEngeldatedEl Paraisoas preceramic ecauseof theabsenceof ceramics,stylesof twined extiles,andradio-carbondates."44he factthatoneof the radiocarbonateswas derivedfrom cindersfoundon stairs n UnitI sug-geststhatthe datesof 3500 B.P.and latermayhavebeenobtained hroughanalysesof very late or post-occupa-tional refuse. Radiocarbondates made from materialscollected n 1983(TABLE), however,generally onformto the earliersequence.Given the available nformation,hemaximumengthof occupationat El Paraisosuggested by the dates is300-400 years,not an inconsiderable eriodof time. Amore conservativeestimate would be a 200-yearoccu-pation or the site. Comparedo the longevity45f someotherlarge earlyPeruvian ites, suchas Aspero,Huar-icoto, or Kotosh, however,El Paraisoappears o havebeen used for a relativelyshortperiod.Another interesting implicationof the radiocarbondates is the relative contemporaneityf the units forwhich dates arenow available UnitsI, II, andIV). Thedatesof these unitssuggestthat the entiresite was builtrelatively rapidlyor that additionsto early structureswere made uniformlyrather han piecemeal.Contem-

Figure11. Fiberbagsused for room ill. Rockshavebeenremovedforweightestimations nd o retrievebags ntact.

poraneity s furthersupported or Units I and II by apossible"fossil index."A carvedbone foundby Engelin UnitI and a shellpendant oundin UnitII both bearengravings illedwith an unidentified lue substance. tis not known, however,how long this decorative ech-niquewas in use, as these are the onlyknownexamplesfor preceramicPeru.MeasurementSystemsand ArchitecturalPlanningThereareindications hatEl Paraisowas constructeusing a set of standardized ngineeringprinciplesandmeasurements.While the analysisof theorganizationfUnit I, presentedabove, suggestsconsiderable emodelingof the structure,hesechangesappearo havebeenmade with specificobjectives n mind and a systemforachievingthose ends. The patterning etected n roomorganizationn Unit II andthe common orientation fbuildings throughout he site give additional videncethat the site was constructedollowinga common et ofrules.Walls were also consistently onstructedsingdoublecoursesof field stones.There s a relativelynarrow angeof wall thicknesses, ommonlybetween80 and100 cm.The dimensionsof rooms, suchas the almostsquare,5m sides of Room 1, combinedwiththeregularityf wallthicknesses, uggest hata standard nitof distancemea-surementwas employedat the site. This unit may ap-proximate ubdivisionsor multiplesof a meter.Inaddition o distancemeasurements,he shicra46FIG11),or bagged-fill echnique,appearso havebeen done

42. Allan R. Holmberg,Nomadsof theLongBow (NaturalHistoryPress:GardenCity,New York1969)40, 182;CharlesWagley,Wel-comeof Tears WavelandPress:ProspectHeights,Illinois1983)110.43. JeffreyQuilter,"Paloma:Mortuary racticesand SocialOrgani-zationof a PreceramicPeruvianVillage," unpublished h.D. disser-tation,Universityof CaliforniaSantaBarbara 981)259.44. Engel,op. cit. (in note20) 46.45. On Aspero, see Feldman,op. cit. (in note 13) 246-251; onKotosh,Seiichi IzumiandTochihikoSono, Andes2. Excavations tKotosh, Peru (KadokawaPublishing:Tokyo 1960);on Huaricoto,RichardL. BurgerandLucySalazarBurger,op. cit. (in note32).

46. CirilioHuapayaManco, "VegetalesComo ElementosAntisismico en EstructurasPrehispainicas,"rqueologia UC 19-20 (1977-1978)27-38; Feldman,op. cit. (in note 13) 300.


18/20

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 12, 1985 295Table 2. Weights of stone fill in bags found at El Paraiso in1983.

Bag No. Weight in KgUNIT V Pit 31 29.452 27.303 24.504 24.305 36.006 *7 22.808 *9 24.0010 17.80

UNIT II Room 2W1 17.802 17.60

UNITII Room 1, Pit 6: Fill between Floors JA and 21 30.602 30.00*Bagtoo fragmentaryor accurateweightassessment.

with a concept of standardized modules. Although thesizes of bags are difficult to judge, due to their flexibility,weights were taken for eight bags from Unit IV and twobags each from Room 1 and Room 2W in Unit II (TABLE2).A Student's t-test for an 80% confidence interval wasconducted for the eight bags from Unit IV, producing astandarddeviation of 5.34 kg with a mean of 25.77 kg,a standard error mean of 1.9 kg, and a range between23.1 kg and 28.4 kg. This suggests that standardizedweights were employed when bags were produced foruse in room fill at the site. As only two bag weights areavailable for each of the other rooms, it is uncertainwhether uniform weights were used for all construction

activities or if standardsvaried according to the size ofthe task at hand.Only one set of adobes was recovered in 1983 (TABL3), but these, found in Room 2W, also appearto havebeen standardized. A Student's t-test for an 80% confi-dence level of nine adobes produceda standarddeviationof 0.667 kg, a mean of 3.778 kg, a standarderrormeanof 0.22 kg, and a range between 3.47 kg and 4.09 kg.While weight may not have been the attributeused forstandardizingbags and adobes at El Paraiso, and possi-bly otherpreceramicand InitialPeriod sites, the analysesdo suggest that some standards were used.From the materials and techniques used to makeadobes and bags, we may infer the way in which laborwas organized for the construction of El Paraiso. Allmaterials--clay, fibers, and stone-are within a walk of5-10 minutes or less from the center of the site. Buildingstone, reeds, and bast are ubiquitous along the central

Peruvian coast, but the frequency of suitable clay de-posits is uncertain. It is therefore likely that buildingmaterials were extractedfrom their sources atclose prox-imity to construction sites. This probability contrastswith suggestions that adobes were made at dependentcommunities and transportedto the much later Mochepyramids on the north coast of Peru.47Furthermore,theconstruction techniques of fiber bags are such that theycannot be made and then later filled with rocks. Instead,a bag must be constructed around rock fill as it is piledonto the fiber cords,48thereby suggesting that the bagswere made and assembled near construction sites. It hasbeen noted, however, that different fibers occur both inthe same and separate bags in the layers of fill examined47. CharlesM. Hastings nd M. E. Moseley,"TheAdobesof Huacadel Sol andHuacade la Luna,"AmAnt 0 (1975) 196-203;MichaelE. Moseley, "PrehistoricPrinciplesof LaborOrganizationn theMocheValley,Peru,"AmAnt 0 (1975) 191-196.48. Ojeda,personal ommunication.

(In centimeters) WeightAdobe No. Length Width Thickness in Kg Comments1 19 19 12 3.92 33 15 14 4.43 16 14 13 2.9 Slightly conical4 20 16 13 4.05 18 15 14 4.16 24 18 12 4.2 Almostspherical7 22 16 14 4.08 20 18 16 4.19 18 14 13 2.4

Table3. Measurementsndweightsof adobes found in Room 2W fill.


19/20

296 Architecture and Chronology, El Paraiso, Peru/Quilterso far, and this circumstance may indicate that a numberof locales were exploited for fiber.Detailed studies concerning the kinds of fibers usedin bag constructionhave not been undertaken. It is likelythat the fibers came from marsh or floodplain habitats.Although those who utilized these fibers could haveconsidered them as part of a general category, furtherstudy may elucidate patterns of fiber exploitation thatmight indicate the impact of human exploitation on dif-ferent environmental zones in the greater El Paraisoregion.The 25.77-kg average for the bag weights is a ratherhefty load for one man to carry for a distance during aday's labor in which many bags were moved. The roughuniformity of bag weights, therefore, could be the resultof the average load that one or two workers were ableto carry rather than a standardof measurement. Further-more, the deposition ratherthan reuse of bags containingrock fill might merely be the product of a technologyand value system in which it was deemed more efficientto make new bags than to recycle old ones. The weightstandardizationand bag deposition, however, may havebeen deliberately employed to keep tally of the laborcontributedby individuals or groups in the constructionand rebuilding of El Paraiso.It is difficult to propose that there was a labor taxbased on standard bag weights at El Paraiso, for nocorroborating evidence currently exists. Labor tax isknown from documentary evidence to have existedamong the Inca.49A labor tax also has been well arguedfor the Moche because of differences in the clay colorand composition of adobes, the possible use of maker'smarks, and evidence for the construction of sections ofwalls with internally consistent characteristics that arenot shared with adjoining sections.50The existence of a labor tax has been suggested, how-ever, for at least one other preceramic site, Aspero.5' Ifthe fiber-bag-filltechnique was partof the labortax, thattax would have used a different system than that knownfor the Moche. As noted above, the bag techniquerequiredon-the-spot construction as opposed to the pro-duction of standardizedbricks made elsewhere andtrans-ported to the place of use. Thus, any distinctions oraccounting made on the basis of communities or othersocial units distant from El Paraiso were not distin-guished in terms of the media employed, such as differ-

ences in clay or color of adobes, their shape or size, ormaker's marks, but in some other manner. Numbers ofbags or laborers, or time devoted to work activities musthave served to account for the amount of tax providedby a group. Until a more detailed examination of thebag-fill technique is made at El Paraiso and other sites,its significance cannot be fully appreciated. Never-theless, the evidence found so far does suggest thatstandardizations or variations of this technique and itsabsence at contemporary or later sites may be an indi-cator of variations in labor organizationin ancient Peru.Measurement and weight standardizationat the site cer-tainly focuses attention on the question of the socialorganization that underlay the construction and use ofthe site.InterpretingEl Paraiso

Our 1983 field season, as well as the review of earlierwork, has helped clarify some basic information con-cerning El Paraiso. It has been established that the bulkof the architecture at the site does indeed date to thePreceramic Period. Excavations in Room 2W suggesttwo major building phases, while multi-building stagesfor Unit I have been confirmed.The midden uncovered near Units I, II, and IV, aswell as that encounterednext to the lower wall in Room2W suggest that domestic activities were carried on atthe site. But the nature and numbers of people whoproduced these remains are still uncertain. It does seemlikely, however, that a variety of activities was carriedon at the site, given the large number of buildings andtheir differing sizes and spatial arrangements,both in-ternally and with each other. The huge size of the site,its location, and the likely existence of measurementsystems, all indicate a large and well-coordinated labororganization and an importantsocial role for its inhab-itants. But the social organization that built and waspresent at El Paraiso remains elusive.One avenue of approachto social organizationis mor-tuary studies. Five burials were found by Engel.52 Bur-ials 1 and 4, an adult and a fetus or young infant, werefound in conditions that make them unusable for theinterpretationof social organizationat El Paraiso. Burial153 was found in fallen rubble in the western section ofUnit I. Burial 4 was found at the base of the south wallof the unreconstructed west wing of the structure. Awoven textile with the infant indicates that it is an intru-sive burial of the ceramic period. An adult in Burial 2and an infant in Burial 3 were found wrappedin prece-49. Bernabe Cobo,

Historia de Nuevo Mundo Vols. 91-92 (Bibliotecade Autores Espafioles: Madrid 1956 [1567]); John V. Murra, "TheEconomic Organization of the Inca State," unpublished Doctoral Dis-sertation, University of Chicago (Chicago 1956).50. Moseley, op. cit. (in note 48) 191-196.51. Feldman, op. cit. (in note 13) 212.

52. Engel, op. cit. (in note 20) 68-69.53. Details on burial locations and grave goods have been suppliedby Ojeda, personal communication.


20/20

Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 12, 1985 297ramic cotton textiles next to the south wall of Unit I.Theirgrave pits cut throughmidden suggesting relativelylate dates. Burial 5 was found north of Unit V near anarea possibly used as a rock quarry for constructionmaterials. In isolation, this adult offers little for inter-pretation.Although preceramic burials have been found next tothe outer walls or inside structures at other sites,54 theambiguous natureof the El Paraiso burials prevents thedevelopment of inferences from them. While some ofthese burials may be associated with the occupation ofthe site, they could as likely be interments made afterits abandonment.

Religion has also served as a vehicle for organizingand discussing preceramic Peru. It has recently beenproposedthat the Kotosh Religious Tradition55was prac-ticed throughouta large part of the central Andes. Thisreligious system was followed in the late PreceramicPeriod and early Initial Period at a number of sites.Although features may vary slightly, most sites exhibitnumerous small sunken floors with hearths at their cen-ters. These hearths were apparentlyused to burn offer-ings in rituals associated with concepts focusing onfertility and renewal. Hearths were apparentlyused fora short period of time after which they were sealed withnew pits and hearths constructed above them or nearby.The Room of the SunkenPit atEl Paraiso sharesmanysimilarities with the outline of the canons of the KotoshReligious Tradition, but it is also significantly different.The general format of the Room of the Sunken Pit andthe evidence for burnt materials in the circular cornerpits suggest that similar concepts were being expressedat El Parafso and the other sites. But the differences aregreater than the similarities. El Parafso has one largerectangle with circles at its corners while the other siteshave smaller ovoid or square pits. Although the sunkenpit at El Paraiso may have many floors, there was norecreation of the entire ritual area, given present evi-dence, nor is there evidence for a small central hearth.At best, it may be that the Room of the Sunken Pit wasa setting for activities derived from a common traditionancestral to it and the Kotosh Religious Tradition,or bea variationdirectly from the Kotosh Religious Tradition.There is too much uncertaintyon the temporalrelationsbetween the many sites of the late Preceramic Period todetermine if variations in architecture, and presumablyceremonial practices, are results of regional differences,

temporal differences, or other factors. It is likely, how-ever, that many differences in ceremonialism are indeedcontemporaneous.Distinctions in the ceremonial settingsat El Paraiso, Bandurria,Aspero, Kotosh, and other sitessuggest that there also were variations in social andpolitical systems in preceramic Peru. Thus, a medley ofcultural and social themes was being played during theTerminalPreceramicPeriod. The transition to the InitialPeriod was a process in which some themes were elab-orated and became dominant while others faded.Acknowledgments

Sincere gratitude is extended to all who helped in theresearch and writing associated with this paper and theentire United States-Peruvianteam of excavators and labtechnicians is especially thanked. Funding was providedby the National Science Foundation (Grant No. BNS-83-03680) and an excavation permit was granted by theInstituto Nacional de Cultura of Peru (Credencial No.038-83-DCIRBM). Additionalhelp in Peru was providedby F. Engel, C. Lopez, H. Ludefia,R. Matos, E. Mayer,R. Paredes, J. Silva, and H. Silverman. BernadinoOjedaE. is gratefully thanked for his detailed discussions andcommunications concerning specifics of the excavationof Unit I. He also drew the excellent maps for theproject. Shari Piehl, Ripon College, helped tailor theillustrations for this publication. SarahQuilter and LucySalazar de Burger offered comments on drafts of thispaper. Richard Burger and Thomas Patterson were es-pecially helpful in their detailed commentaries. Finally,sincere thanks to LaVerne A. Toussaint for her patiencein typing various drafts of this manuscript,and the edi-tors of the Journal of Field Archaeology for consultationon publication details.

Jeffrey Quilter received his Ph.D. degree from TheUniversity of California, Santa Barbara in 1981 and iscurrentlyAssistant Professor of Anthropologyat RiponCollege, Wisconsin. He plans to follow his researchinterests in the origins of Andean complex societiesthrough continued excavation at El Paraiso in the nearfuture. Mailing address: Department of Anthropology-Sociology, Ripon College, Box 248, Ripon, WI54971.

54. Feldman, op. cit. (in note 13) 114-122; Wendt, op. cit. (in note39) 28-31; Grieder and Bueno Mendoza, op. cit. (in note 40) 48-51;Frederic Engel, A Preceramic Settlement on the Coast of Peru: Asia,Unit 1, TAPhSoc 53 (American Philosophical Society: Philadelphia1963).55. Burger and Burger, op. cit. (in note 32) 26-33.

Documents

Quilter Architecture and Chronology at El Paraiso