JAMT (2013) Chavin Radiocarbon

J Archaeol Method Theory DOI 10.
1007/s10816-013-9180-9
Radiocarbon Dates from the Monumental Architecture at Chavn de Huntar, Per

Silvia Rodriguez Kembel & Herbert Haas
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract Chavn de Huntar's monumental architecture has long influenced archaeologists' ideas about Formative Andean sociopolitical development despite little direct knowledge of the buildings' chronology. Addressing this problem, we collected charcoal samples from architectural mortar at Chavn to directly date the site's construction sequence. Here we present 32 new accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) dates for Chavn's architectural growth. We also present an evaluation framework for analyzing whether dates from architectural mortar most likely represent built-in age, original construction, or renovation work. We apply this framework to link dates to specific building events within the sequence. Results demonstrate the power of directly dating architectural mortar and the necessity of both thoroughly understanding a site's relative architectural sequence and applying a rigorous evaluation framework when analyzing the resulting dates. Specifically, analysis indicates that architectural growth largely occurred during 400 years, approximately 1200 800 calibrated years BC (calBC), with massive, intensive construction approximately 1000800 calBC. Thirteen of Chavn's 15 known architectural phases were built during this 400-year period. The overwhelming majority of Chavn's characteristic elements developed as part of this growth, including the physical design of Chavn's ritual systems in its galleries and plazas, large-scale landscape modification and civil engineering works, Chavn art and symbolic systems, and the incorporation of Formative Andean architectural forms. Relative architectural stasis occurred approximately 800500 calBC, corresponding with developments in Chavn's material culture and followed by physical collapse. Architectural renovations occurred throughout the sequence. In sum, Chavn's architectural chronology spanned
S. R. Kembel (*) Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado at Boulder, Hale Science Building 350, 1350 Pleasant Street, 233 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-0233, USA e-mail: silvia@kembel.com H. Haas Retired Director of the Radiocarbon Laboratories at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, TX, USA and at the Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, NV, USA
Kembel and Haas
approximately 1200500 calBCnotably different than previously proposed ranges based on few datesproviding new architectural insights into Chavin's sociopolitical development. Keywords Radiocarbon dating . Chronology . Mortar . Monumental architecture . Andes . Chavn de Huntar The highland monumental center at Chavn de Huntar (Figs. 1 and 2) is one of the preeminent Formative sites in Andean prehistory, in terms of the complexity and uniqueness of its architecture and material culture as well as its prominence in the intellectual history of Andean archaeology (Burger 1981, 1988, 1992; Lanning 1967; Lumbreras 1971, 1989, 1993; Menzel et al. 1964; Moseley 1985, 1992; Rowe 1962, 1967; Tello 1943, 1960). Archaeologists' understanding of Chavn de Huntar has been problematic, however, in large part because its architectural sequence and chronology have not been well understood and yet have been foundational in studies
PER
Huarz
Lima
100 mi 200 km
Fig. 1 Map of Per showing the location of Chavn de Huntar
Radiocarbon Dates from the Monumental Architecture at Chavn de Huntar
Fig. 2 The monumental center at Chavn de Huntar. Photo by John Kembel
of Chavn de Huntar itself, its relationships with other Formative sites, and its role in definitions of early Andean chronological periods. Indeed, prior to the late 1990s, only one reliable radiocarbon date from clear monumental architectural contexts existed, with one other from immediately post-Chavn contexts (see Lumbreras 1977, 1993; Kembel 2001, 2008). Recent intensive study of Chavn de Huntar's architecture, however, has changed our understanding of the site's architectural chronology. Of particular relevance here, a revised relative architectural sequence (Kembel 2001, 2008) and new radiocarbon dates from excavations in Chavn-period contexts within the monumental center (Rick et al. 1998) began to establish a new chronology for the site's construction. As part of ongoing investigations at Chavn de Huntar, led by John Rick since 1995 through Stanford University with Peruvian and international collaboration, these studies anchored the end of the site's long, complex sequence in time at approximately 500 calibrated years BC (calBC). Rather than flourishing between 390 and 200 B.C. after the collapse of many other monumental centers in the region around 500 B.C. (see Burger 1981, 1984, 1988, 1992), Chavn de Huntar appears to have been largely contemporary with these sitesfunctioning, flourishing, and falling at approximately the same time, within a larger interaction sphere of competing and collaborating monumental centers (Kembel 2001, 2008; Kembel and Rick 2004; Rick 2008; Rick et al. 2010). While these new data anchored the end of Chavn de Huntar's relative architectural sequence in time, the remainder of the sequence remained undated. The Chavn Architectural Dating Project therefore began in 2004 to chronometrically date the site's full relative architectural sequence by directly dating the construction materials of the buildings themselves. Direct dating of architectural materials has been carried out in other parts of the world, usually in complement with written records (Al-
Kembel and Haas
Bashaireh and Hodgins 2010; Berger 1992; Bonani et al. 2001; Haas et al. 1987; Heinemeier et al. 2010; Lehner et al. 1999; Mathews 2001; Rech 2004; Rech et al. 2003; Wyrwa et al. 2009); in the Andes, however, it has been restricted to coastal sites where organic materials have clearly been incorporated into architecture. The Chavn Architectural Dating Project consisted of two simultaneous subprojects. One subproject was a pilot project to assess the feasibility of using optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) to date architectural materials, focusing on architectural mortar; it was the first application of OSL to monumental buildings in North or South America. Results of this project are published in Feathers et al. (2008). In sum, results were in the correct approximate time range and generally clustered around 1000 B.C.; this clustering was particularly notable given the unique challenges of applying OSL at Chavn de Huntar. While the resolution of the results was not sufficient to distinguish construction stages at the site, the high degree of statistical overlap in the ages suggested the site was built relatively rapidly. Most importantly, these efforts successfully helped develop OSL as a method for directly dating the inorganic portions of architectural mortar; OSL can therefore be applied to directly date architecture particularly in cases where site age is only generally known and in which organic materials such as charcoal are not present in the mortar (Feathers et al. 2008). The second subproject of the Chavn Architectural Dating Project is the topic of this paper. It aims to establish a chronometric timeline for the site's relative architectural sequence by radiocarbon dating organic materials from architectural mortar, assessing the feasibility of directly radiocarbon dating stone architecture at Chavn de Huntar in particular and at highland sites in the northcentral Andes in general. We begin by discussing issues and factors to consider broadly when radiocarbon dating architectural construction materials, incorporating relevant site-specific background on Chavn de Huntar's construction and relative architectural sequence. Next, we present an evaluation framework for determining whether a date from architectural mortar most likely represents built-in age, original construction, or renovation work; this framework emphasizes the importance of understanding a site's relative architectural sequence and each sample's provenience within that sequence when analyzing and interpreting radiocarbon dates from architectural mortar. After reviewing our field and sample processing methods, we then analyze 32 new Chavn-period dates from the site's architectural mortar, spanning the site's construction sequence. Results indicate Chavn de Huntar's known monumental buildings were constructed over approximately 700 years between 1200 and 500 calBC. The period between 1200 and 800 calBC was a period of architectural growth with rapid, massive construction occurring between 1000 and 800 calBC. A period of architectural stasis followed between 800 and 500 calBC, characterized by minimal monumental building and ongoing site maintenance. Discussion of these results' implications focuses on topics immediately relevant to the monumental architecture at Chavn de Huntar, clarifying the site's architectural growth, the articulation of that growth with other aspects of the site's archaeological record, as well as architectural insights into sociopolitical change at the site during the Andean Formative period. Consideration of related topics beyond this scopesuch as new data on Chavn ceramic chronology, details of Chavn de Huntar's comparative chronology and cultural relationships with other Formative centers, and Andean Formative chronology including the definition of the
Initial Period, the Early Horizon, and a Chavn horizonhas begun elsewhere (see Contreras 2007; Kembel 2008; Kembel and Rick 2004; Mesa 2007; Rick 2008; Rick et al. 2010) and will continue in future work.
Radiocarbon Dating of Architectural Construction Materials Fundamental to any chronometric analysis is the relationship between target eventsevents of interest to the archaeologist, such as artifact use, site construction, occupation, and abandonmentand dated eventsthe events that are actually dated (Nash 2009, p. 5; also see Dean 1978). In particular, Dated events and target events are not always coincident, and much of the difficulty inherent in chronometric analysis has to do with identifying and reconciling differences between the two (Dean 1978) (Nash 2009, p. 5). When directly dating architectural mortar, assessing the difference between target and dated events involves considering what are the charcoal origins and the age of the organic material upon burning, what is the association of the carbon to the building events, and whether the mortar pertains to original construction or to later architectural processes. Similarly, careful consideration must be given to the samples' contexts: Chronometric techniques do not provide dates, they provide data that must be interpreted with regard to the archaeological and behavioral contexts from which they were recovered (Braswell 1992; Schiffer 1986) (Nash 2009, p. 5). In architectural dating, dates must be considered in regard to the site's relative architectural sequence data. In doing so, both natural and cultural factors that could be affecting the charcoal samples should be considered. Natural factors can include issues such as built-in age or old wood, in which raw materials incorporated into the mortar contained organic content already old at the time of construction. Built-in age can also be the result of cultural factors such as the incorporation of wood that has already been used by people for many years. Other cultural factors can include renovations and the recycling of building materials. Of course both natural and cultural factors could be at play and all factors may not have held consistently across a given site and across the time span of its construction. Likewise, different samples from a given site could be affected by different factors; a uniform life history for all the charcoal in architectural mortar at the site is unlikely. While assessing all natural and cultural factors potentially affecting carbon samples in mortar may not be possible, due in large part to lack of knowledge of the life history of the charcoal prior to its incorporation into the mortar, we can work towards a rigorous framework for evaluating dates, focusing in on the connection between the measured age of the collected sample and the date of the event that deposited the sample at its architectural context. Contexts and Factors Impacting Architectural Radiocarbon Dates at Chavn de Huntar By assessing the contexts for architectural radiocarbon samples and the factors impacting their interpretation at Chavn de Huntar, we can create a set of analytic tools with which to examine the site's architectural dates as discussed below.
Kembel and Haas
Construction and Architectural Sequence at Chavn de Huntar Assessment of samples' contexts begins with understanding the construction of Chavn de Huntar's buildings as well as their relative architectural sequence. The site consists of multiple platform mounds or buildings, terraces, and sunken plazas (Fig. 3) all containing an internal network of stone-lined passageways, rooms, and staircases connected to each other and the exterior by a system of vents and drains (Fig. 4). This network is known collectively as the galleries and is unique within the Andes. The site's external walls and internal galleries are built of large stone blocks held in place by mortar and small chinking stones with a solid and stable core of orderly stone and mortar fill (Fig. 5). No wooden beams are incorporated into the structures. Stone blocks both externally and in galleries are largely quartzite and sandstone, sourced from slopes immediately surrounding the monumental center. Granite and limestone, sourced from 15 and 3 km away, respectively (Turner et al. 1999), are present to a more limited yet substantial extent. Mortar is comprised of a clay and mud matrix with pebble, fine angular gravel, and charcoal inclusions of varying size (Fig. 6; also see Vargas 2009). Its color varies and is frequently grey, brown, or red. It apparently was applied wet and then dried, without the extensive firing required to create limestone mortars. In some areas, a younger layer of mortar visibly overlays an older layer of a different color, as discussed below in more detail. Clay plaster of varying colors originally covered apparently almost all gallery walls and ceilings and was in some cases decorated with paint and stucco reliefs (Lumbreras and Amat 196566, pp. 149150, 167; Rowe 1967, p. 74; Tello 1960; see Kembel 2001, pp. 2829). In some preserved areas, it was up to 5 cm thick
Building B Building A
Circular Plaza Circular Plaza Terrace
Building C
Black & White Portal Plaza Menor Terrace Plaza Menor Building D
Circular Plaza Atrium
Black & White Staircase
Plaza Mayor Terrace
Middendorf Staircase
South Flanking Mound
Plaza Mayor
North Flanking Mound N a N a (N : Architectural North)
Building G
50m
Fig. 3 Plan of the monumental center at Chavn de Huntar. Redrawn from Rick et al. (1998: Fig. 5)
Fig. 4 Hallway in the Doble Mnsula Gallery; one of the internal galleries within the monumental buildings at Chavn de Huntar. Photo by John Kembel
(Lumbreras and Amat 196566, p. 167). Small examples of red, yellow, and white plaster remain in the galleries, on walls, and in construction seams (Fig. 7; Kembel 2001, 2008, Fig. 2.5). The buildings' exterior walls appear to have been plastered as well, as suggested by the presence of plaster fallen from the faces of the surrounding walls within the layer of postmonumental collapse immediately above the Circular Plaza floor (Lumbreras 1977, 1993). Similarly, in the Wacheqsa area just north of the monumental center, red and white plaster covered fragments of burnt clay that
Fig. 5 South face of Building A at Chavn de Huntar showing external stonework and exposed internal orderly fill. Photo by John Kembel
Kembel and Haas
A
Cha rcoa l Sa mpl e
Char
coal
Sam
ple
Charc
oal S
ample
Fig. 6 Examples of mortar from the galleries at Chavn de Huntar, showing variations in color, inclusion size, and charcoal size. a Brown mortar from the Upper Doble Mnsula Gallery, including charcoal sample AA62771 (DMU-A-S03) prior to extraction; b grey mortar from the Columnas-Vigas Gallery (North Columnas-Vigas episode), including charcoal sample AA62744 (COL-H-S01) prior to extraction; c red mortar from the Lanzn Gallery (Inner Lanzn Rectangle episode), including charcoal sample AA62752 (LAN-G-S04) prior to extraction. Photos by John Kembel
comprised portions of floors, walls, columns, and part of a molded frieze (Mesa 2007, p. 95; Figs. 78, 82, and 83). In contrast to stone-and-mortar structural surfaces, however, decorative stone elements such as the reliefs in the Circular Plaza and the
Underlaying Mortar
Plaster
Fig. 7 Example of yellow plaster over stonework and mortar in the Escalinata Gallery at Chavn de Huntar. Photo by John Kembel
Black and White Portal columns almost surely were not plastered; rather, they may have been painted, perhaps complemented by the plaster colors of the surrounding walls. Within the stones, mortar, and plaster of the temple buildings, numerous architectural details provide evidence regarding the sequence in which the buildings were constructed. Key among these details are the construction seams present in external facades as well as gallery walls; some of these seams extend fully through the temple, visible on opposite facades and in the galleries in-between. Since the earliest formal studies of Chavn de Huntar's construction, archaeologists have recognized these seams as chronological markers of the site's growth, specifically as junctions between discrete construction phases separated by significant lengths of time (Burger 1992, p. 130; Chvez Balln 1960, pp. 1719; Gonzles and Rick 19951998; Lumbreras 1974, p. 60; Rowe 1962, p. 9; Tello 1960, p. 121). Rowe (1962, 1967) proposed a three-phase relative construction sequence for Chavn de Huntar based on seams visible in external walls, beginning with a Ushaped Old Temple followed by a New Temple formed by two slab additions to the Old Temple as well as new structures to the east, together forming a larger Ushaped temple. Rowe's Old TempleNew Temple sequence was widely adopted in Andean archaeology, forming the foundation for influential future studies of Chavn art, ceramics, and chronology as well as the site's relationships with other Formative Andean monumental centers and its role in the Initial Period, Early Horizon, and a Chavn horizon within Andean prehistory (Bischof 1994; Burger 1981, 1984, pp. 229 246, 1992, pp. 131, 165; Isbell 1976, p. 289; Lumbreras 1971, p. 2, 1974, p. 60, 1977, 1989, 1993; Lumbreras and Amat 196566; Menzel et al. 1964; Moore 1996, pp. 51 52; Moseley 1992, p. 155; Renfrew and Bahn 1991, pp. 360361; Roe 1983, p. 3).
Kembel and Haas
Countering Rowe's Old TempleNew Temple relative sequence, other archaeologists have proposed that the site was planned and built in one phase, arguing that the seams evident on the temple facades are the result of various building techniques used simultaneously rather than markers of different construction phases (Kaufmann Doig and Gonzles 1993, pp. 3639) or not recognizing the seams at all (Pozorski and Pozorski 1987, pp. 3941). Construction details of the seams, however, clearly indicate that they are chronological markers delineating discrete building phases separated in time. These details include: (1) the presence within the seams of batterthe inward leaning of external walls that is characteristic of the temple buildings at Chavn de Huntarindicating an older external wall abutted by a newer one; (2) wall plaster visible within seams, likewise marking an older plastered wall abutted by a newer one; and (3) in walls comprising the two abutted sides of seams, the frequent difference in construction technique, materials, and alignment of courses; while this latter detail is not necessarily indicative of significant time separation on its own, it corroborates the previous two. Together, these details attest that the seams are chronological markers of distinct building phases and that the temple buildings were not constructed in a single phase. Rowe's Old TempleNew Temple sequence was an insightful characterization of the available construction data when published 50 years ago. New relative chronological evidence contained within the site's architecture, however, has been brought to light in subsequent decades. For example, the site caretaker, Marino Gonzles, led decades of efforts to clear sediments after a large aluvion, or landslide, buried most of the site in 1945, scouring the top surfaces of the temple and filling many galleries with mud and rubble (see Tello 1960; Gonzles and Rick 19951998; Rick and Rick 2003). His work revealed, among other data, gallery construction seams that were not visible during Rowe's visits to the site. Similarly, following Rowe's study, excavations within the monumental center discovered major architectural elements that provided more insight into the site's relative chronology. In particular, excavations that unearthed the Circular Plaza, its artwork, and its associated staircases and galleries including the Ofrendas Gallery (Lumbreras 1974, 1977, 1993; Lumbreras and Amat 196566) also revealed new relative chronological evidence in the form of abutments, spatial relationships, and construction strategies. Likewise, small excavations at strategic points along external temple walls revealed critical information about the site's construction, clarifying the construction of long-recognized seams at foundation levels, revealing new seam data, and demonstrating the absence of seams at specific places in the architecture (Rick 2008; Rick et al. 1998). Finally, three-dimensional mapping of the site's external architecture (Rick 2008; Rick et al. 1998) as well as internal architecture and additional relative chronological evidence (Kembel 2001, 2008) enabled systematic spatial analysis of the architecture in a three-dimensional CAD model. This additional relative chronological evidence included 35 internal construction seams, external and internal stonework characteristics such as coursing patterns and construction techniques, evidence of vertical as well as horizontal growth, evidence of modification, construction principals guiding the site's growth, and spatial relationships of the galleries with one another and with external architectural features such as construction seams (Kembel 2001, 2008).
This new documentation and analysis of the site's relative architectural chronological evidence enabled the creation of a new relative architectural sequence for the site. This sequence consists of at least 15 construction phases grouped into five stages, beginning with the Separate Mound Stage, followed by the Expansion Stage, the Consolidation Stage, the Black and White Stage (the final stage of monumental construction), and the Support Construction Stage (Figs. 8 and 9; see Kembel 2001, 2008 for detailed evidence, descriptions, and discussion of this sequence). This new sequence demonstrates that the site's relative architectural sequence was much different and more complex than Rowe's initial framework and confirms that the site was not built in a single phase as others (Kaufmann Doig and Gonzles 1993; Pozorski and Pozorski 1987) have proposed. The abundant new relative chronological data embodied in the site's architecture and represented in this new sequence form the foundation for analyzing radiocarbon dates from the site's architectural mortar. Just as careful stratigraphic control is essential for interpreting radiocarbon dates from excavations, so too understanding the relative architectural sequence of a site is a critical prerequisite for interpreting radiocarbon dates from architectural mortar. Factors in Interpreting Dates from Architectural Mortar at Chavn de Huntar A key question in the interpretation of radiocarbon dates from architectural mortar at Chavn de Huntar is when charcoal was introduced into the mortar, specifically whether it was naturally occurring in river deposits or other raw material sources used for the mortar, or whether it was actively incorporated into the mortar during
Building B Building A Building A Building B Building C
A
Building B Building A Building C Building D
B
Building B Building A Building C Building D
Circular Plaza East Area East Area
Plaza Mayor
Fig. 8 Architectural sequence for the monumental center at Chavn de Huntar, isometric views. a Stage 1, Separate Mound Stage; b Stage 2, Expansion Stage; c Stage 3, Consolidation Stage. The buildings in the East Area (foreground) likely span the first three construction stages and are shown here in the latest possible stage for their construction; d Stage 4: Black and White Stage. Adapted from Kembel (2001; Figs. 6.146.25) and Kembel (2008; Figs. 2.112.14)
Chavin Construction Phases Grouped by Area, with Galleries Building A Bldg B & Circular Plaza Atrium Building C East Area
Chavin Construction Stages
Support Construction Stage
Support construction
High SA Phase Galleries: Upper Doble Mnsula EB-High B-CPA Phase Galleries: Lower Laberintos, Laberintos Alcove, Lower Pasos Perdidos, Outer Lanzn, VIII, Circular Plaza Staircase, Ofrendas, Campamento, Caracolas Other Structures: Circular Plaza
North and South Rectangular Structures
Black & White Stage
East Area Black & White Axis Phase Galleries: Cortada, Bennett cells Other Structures: Plaza Mayor, Plaza Menor Black & White Staircase
Building A Black & White Axis Phase Galleries: North Columnas-Vigas Other Structures: Black & White Portal and Zcalo
High MA Phase Galleries: Cautivos, Upper Liticos, Upper Portada, South Columnas-Vigas, Columnas Patio High Building C Phase Galleries: South Loco, North Loco & Mirador, Loco Patio
Consolidation Stage
SA Phase Galleries: Lower Doble Mnsula, Canyo, East Face South Staircase, South Face Staircase
High NEA Phase Galleries: Alacenas East Entrace
East Area Pre-Black & White Axis Phase Galleries: Tello High, Tello Low, Rocas, Escondida WB-MB Phase Galleries: Inner Lanzn Chamber, Middle Lanzn, Lanzn Patio Low Building C Phase Galleries: Lower Loco, Rooms of Loco
Expansion Stage
NWA-High NWA-MA-SA Platform Phase Galleries: Upper Laberintos, Upper Pasos Perdidos, Marino Gonzales Staircase, Murcielagos, XIII, Lower Liticos, Lower Portada, East Face North Staircase
Kembel and Haas
Separate Mound Stage
NEA Phase Galleries: Escalinata, Alacenas, East Face, Zanja
B Platform-Inner Lanzn Rectangle Phase Galleries: Inner Lanzn Rectangle
Fig. 9 Architectural sequence for the monumental center at Chavn de Huntar, showing construction stages, construction phases grouped by area, and gallery construction episodes grouped by phase. Adapted from Kembel (2001; Tables 6.36.4) and Kembel (2008; Fig. 2.10)
production, or perhaps both. Current archaeological visibility into the factors affecting the preparation of the mortar prior to its incorporation into the building is low. This includes natural factors such as (1) the possible deposition within the site's dynamic geomorphologic environment of naturally occurring charcoal into river sediments accessible to builders as raw material for mortar,1 and (2) the maximum age of trees possibly contributing charcoal during monumental construction,2 as well as cultural factors such as (1) anthropogenic burning to clear and maintain pastoral and agricultural lands during the time of monumental construction introducing charcoal into the environment3, (2) fuel use domestically, in craft production, and ritually, and how such use may have impacted availability of charcoal for inclusion within mortar,4 and (3) the site-specific processes of mortar preparation. Once the mortar is incorporated into the buildings at Chavn de Huntar, however, cultural factors become more clear. A significant cultural factor clearly at play is architectural renovation. Due to the inherent nature of architecture as a human artifact that must be maintained over time, renovation can serve a structural need to continue a building's functionality, but can also play a cultural role as ritualized renewal (Buikstra et al. 1998; Coulmas 1994; Crown and Wills 2003; Furst 1992; Mock 1998). At Chavn de Huntar, renovation formed a major, integral part of the construction process, a recurring theme that dominates the site's entire relative construction sequence (Kembel 2001, 2008). Renovation included (1) small-scale local routine maintenance, (2) stabilizing areas in need of support, (3) remodeling areas to accommodate new additions, and (4) large-scale deconstruction followed by
The extraordinary geomorphologic dynamism of the landscape surrounding Chavn de Huntar has been demonstrated (Contreras 2007; Contreras and Keefer 2009, Turner et al. 1999), but how this dynamism might have affected deposition of natural charcoal into river sediments accessible to builders as raw material for mortar remains to be studied. 2 Paleoecological studies indicate that trees of the Polylepis genus were the predominant species natively growing in the greater Andean region (Byers 2000, Chepstow-Lusty, et al. 1997, Contreras 2007, p. 8185; Fjelds 2002, Gareca et al. 2010a, Kessler 2002). Polylepis spp. thus apparently were the primary tree species growing in the valley surrounding Chavn de Huntar at the time of monumental construction (Contreras 2007) and the likely source for maximum built-in age of charcoal wood samples incorporated into architectural mortar (when due to the age of the tree at death rather than any offset from that death to incorporation within the temple). Extrapolation from studies of Polylepis trees at similar latitude (Byers 2000) and elevation (Gareca et al. 2010b) suggests relatively young maximum and median ages for the original native Polylepis trees in the valley, but is not conclusive. 3 Prehistoric anthropogenic burning of native Polylepis spp. forests to clear and maintain pastoral and agricultural lands is a clear pattern across the Andes, and the probable primary cause of much of the deforestation of the region (Capriles and Flores 2002, Chepstow-Lusty et al. 1997; Fjeldsa 2002). How any such burning in the hillsides around Chavn de Huntar during the time of monumental construction may have produced or affected charcoal incorporated into architectural mortar remains to be studied. 4 Archaeological and colonial evidence indicates that prehistoric Andean populations actively managed their fuel resources (Capriles and Flores 2002; Chepstow-Lusty et al. 1997; Hastorf and Johannessen 1991; Johannessen and Hastorf 1990). Analysis of Chavn-period domestic life in the La Banda sector across the river from the monumental buildings at Chavn de Huntar corroborates this view locally, determining that wood was plentiful and well-managed (Sayre 2010, pp. 146, 174). In a 1985 study of modern fuel use in the Mantaro Valley, similar in elevation and landscape to that of Chavn de Huntar, people used firewood, dung, and straw for fuel; ashes from the hearth were saved and once a year were applied to fields as fertilizer (Johannessen and Hastorf 1990). If similar fuel use practices were applied at Chavn de Huntar during monumental building, they would have annually introduced charcoal into the landscape and potentially into river deposits used for architectural mortar; in as much as this charcoal was comprised of young plants, it would have provided a source of charcoal relatively contemporaneous with architectural construction.
1
Kembel and Haas
reconstruction of older structures to fit them into a new architectural designs. While renovation may have fulfilled ritual as well as structural roles, the forms and impact of that renovation must be considered when interpreting radiocarbon data from the site's mortar. Routine maintenance and stabilization likely were ongoing given the effects of humidity and gravity on both external and gallery plaster. A dramatic example of what could occur without long-term regular maintenance of plaster is evidenced in the Ofrendas Gallery, in which hundreds of artifacts deposited on the gallery floor were buried and preserved in place by the collapse of the clay plaster from the gallery's ceiling and walls; the clay layer formed by this collapse averaged 10 cm in thickness and ranged between 8 and 20 cm (Lumbreras 1993; Lumbreras and Amat 196566, p.167). Similar collapse of plaster appears to have occurred from external walls surrounding the Circular Plaza (Lumbreras 1977, 1993). Without regular maintenance, this plaster collapse likely would have occurred in all the galleries and externally as well, suggesting maintenance of the plaster and underlying mortar required substantive ongoing effort throughout the functional life of the temple. Presumably plaster surfaces were maintained enough, however, that the need to replace underlying mortar was relatively infrequent, occurring only when areas of plaster fell from walls or ceiling, taking underlying mortar with them. Simple replastering therefore likely has relatively little impact on dating mortar. To the extent that new mortar was added, however, local, small-scale maintenance events could have introduced chronological variability into a given architectural chronological unit. Dating multiple samples from a given location can help assess variability introduced by such small-scale repairs. Large-scale deconstruction and reconstruction of major areas certainly required new mortar and thus could impact architectural dating. Similarly, remodeling to accommodate additions within the galleries, a pattern that dominates the construction history of the galleries, must have required incorporation of additional mortar and therefore could also affect architectural dating. Both processes require careful examination during assessment of gallery sampling locations and analysis of dates. Another major aspect of the renovation process within the galleries at Chavn de Huntar was the practice of remortaring older areas to incorporate them as part of a new gallery unit, such that original mortar from older parts of a gallery was overlain with newer mortar, usually of a different color and composition, during a subsequent addition. For example, the north wall of the Columnas-Vigas Gallery was originally an external wall built with red mortar in the Consolidation Stage (Kembel 2001; see also Lumbreras and Amat 196566, pp. 148, 158); this older red mortar was overlain by younger grey mortar applied in renovations undertaken upon the addition of a later gallery episode during the Black and White Stage (Fig. 10). This practice has an important potential impact on sampling and radiocarbon dating the mortar: first, when sampling, the architectural history and context of the space must be known and evidence of layering of mortar should be examined; second, because any layering may not be visible if the outer layer of mortar is intact, the resulting radiocarbon dates from the outer surface of mortar should provide a terminus ante quem (a date before which or no-later-than date) for original construction; and third, if two (or more) layers of mortar are visible and contain radiocarbon samples, this layering could provide chronometric data for both early and
Underlaying Older Red Mortar
Overlaying Younger Grey Mortar
Fig. 10 Example of mortar layering in the galleries at Chavn de Huntar. Younger grey mortar (in bottom two thirds of photo) applied during the Black and White Stage overlays older red mortar (in top of photo) likely originally applied in the Consolidation Stage. From the north wall of the Columnas-Vigas Gallery. Photo by John Kembel
later mortar layers, helping to date both the early construction and the subsequent renovation or addition. Another element of the renovation process to consider is the potential movement of architectural materials from their original locations. This results in two primary factors to examine. First is the insertion of new architectural materials in place of the old ones; with renovation comes the need for new construction stones and mortar and thus the introduction of new building materials into an older context. Second is the opportunity to use the old architectural materials in new contexts; with renovation comes the ability to recycle some older materials rather than sourcing them new. Indeed, the movement of those older materials in some cases may have been the instigator for the renovation itself. For example, at Chavn de Huntar, Rowe noted that sculptures and decorated construction blocks were moved and reused, with older ones introduced into newly built areas and newer ones introduced into older areas:
Kembel and Haas
We cannot use the sequence of additions to the old south wing to establish the order in which the cornices and tenon heads of this part of the structure were carved, because there is evidence suggesting that older sculptures were reused when a new addition was built, and that damaged slabs in the older parts of the temple were replaced long after the original date of construction. The evidence is stylistic; some of the cornice blocks found by the walls of the second major addition are almost identical in style with the earliest ones from the old south wing, while the most advanced style cornice slab in the whole temple was found near a much earlier one at the foot of the wall of the old south wing. (Rowe 1962, p. 75) Similarly, tenon heads likely present on an old south face of Building A may have been moved to the new south face of the temple when it was built abutting that older face (Kembel 2001, 2008). Reuse of stonework originally from other contexts is clear as well, both in the galleries and in external walls (Kembel 2001, 2008). From these examples of reused sculpture and construction blocks arises the possibility that other materials, including the mortar that originally held those sculptures and construction blocks in place, may have been reused as well. Therefore, the insertion of new building material into older contexts and the introduction of older building materials into newer contexts are both factors that must be considered when examining radiocarbon dates from architectural mortar. These site-specific patterns highlight that dates must be interpreted in light of the cultural factors, the archaeological and behavioral contexts, that can affect them. At Chavn de Huntar, this requires detailed understanding of the site's relative architectural sequence, including knowledge of how each gallery was built, as sometimes a single gallery was built in multiple phases. Evaluation Framework for Assessing Coincidence of Dated and Target Events When Dating Architectural Mortar Clearly, the process of distinguishing between the target event and the dated event when attempting to date the construction of ancient buildings by radiocarbon dating organic materials incorporated in architectural mortar is a complex one. By modeling the relationship between target and dated events in relation to the site's relative architectural sequence, and by creating criteria designed to account for archaeologically unknown natural and cultural factors potentially affecting this relationship by considering the specifics of the archaeological and behavioral contexts of the site, we can interpret the chronometric data arising from samples taken from architectural mortar. Here, we propose a two-level evaluation framework for analyzing such data. First, examining the high-level patterning to be expected in different scenarios can be helpful, modeling what the expected relationship of the charcoal dates would be with respect to the temple's construction, i.e., contemporary with original construction, older than original construction, or younger than original construction. Herein lies a critical distinction: in all cases in which the charcoal is affected only by a natural factor, i.e., deposited in river sediments from upstream fires, sourced from very old trees, etc., the resulting dates of charcoal incorporated into architectural
mortar will always be contemporary with or older than original construction, never younger. In contrast, when charcoal is affected by cultural factors, it can be older than original construction (e.g., reuse of old wood, reuse of old mortar, etc.), contemporary with original construction (e.g., fires burning young wood at time of building), or younger than original construction (e.g., renovation of architecture using new mortar containing charcoal contemporary with the renovations). In other words, only cultural factors can cause radiocarbon samples to return dates younger than original construction, thus providing a terminus ante quem (a date before which) the original building event must have occurred. These high-level patterns can help guide interpretation of radiocarbon dates of samples from architectural mortar. Second, by considering groups of samples within their known relative chronological contexts and relationships, a set of criteria can be used to help bypass a range of potential factors at play and better triangulate in on target events. Specifically, when a group of samples meets these criteria, any agreement or convergence of dates from those samples is likely due to coincidence of the target event and dated event. These criteria include: 1. The contexts of a group of samples must clearly pertain to the same target event within the relative architectural sequence, i.e., the beginning of construction of a given architectural stage. Clear relative architectural sequence data must dictate the grouping of samples dating the same target event. 2. The group of dated samples should span a wide physical range of the site, i.e., the samples should come from locations in the site that are widely separated in space, to override any local anomalies of charcoal sourcing or sampling issues. Dating multiple samples from the same chronological provenance (i.e., architectural construction phase) is important because the results can reveal local variability and microfactors at play, such as localized spots of renovation or inclusion of old wood; however, samples from the same chronological provenance could, as a group, be skewed by one of those same factors due to the potential likelihood that the same batch of mortar was used, or could be drastically swayed by huge variation in one or more samples. In contrast, in locations across the site, different batches of mortar were likely used, and thus correspondence of groups of dates from different areas of the site known to be built as part of the same construction effort can be viewed with greater confidence as more accurately dating the target event of original construction of that effort. Because samples collected cross-site are more likely to be affected by more variables than samples within a given architectural unit, agreement of cross-site samples is less likely and therefore more powerful and conclusive when it occurs. In other words, a compilation of dates with known architectural relationships from samples collected across the site can override local variability of cultural and natural factors and indicate larger trends of building dates. 3. Ideally, samples would be collected from different architectural contexts via different collection methods, such as samples collected from architectural mortar as well as samples excavated from architectural contexts whose places within the relative architectural sequence are extremely clear. Agreement of samples whose structural contexts vary but whose relative architectural sequencing is clear eliminates another set of confounding variables.
Kembel and Haas
These criteria highlight a fundamental pattern: they underscore the need to rely on relative architectural sequence data to interpret the radiocarbon data. Given the many potential factors that can affect radiocarbon dates from architectural mortar, priority must be given to the architectural data indicating relative chronology within and between buildings and then that data must be used to provide a context for interpreting the dates from radiocarbon samples collected there.
Methods Prior to sample collection, preparation of a comprehensive sampling plan and careful consideration of sample contexts were vital to maximizing the successful outcome of this project. With the goal of dating Chavn de Huantar's full construction sequence, and guided by previous detailed documentation of the site's architecture and its relative construction sequence (Kembel 2001), the architectural history of the monument was carefully examined to create a plan for strategically sampling the entire sequence. This included assessing areas affected by renovations and modifications during Chavn times, later in prehistoric and historic times, and in restoration work over the last 50 years (Gonzales and Rick 19951998; Rick and Rick 2003), as well as areas still covered with aluvion. Chavn-period renovations in particular were well documented in earlier research (Kembel 2001) and formed part of the sequence we hoped to date. Work began with exploration for and identification of architectural materials appropriate for sampling, assessing both mortar and plaster, the primary candidates for containing organic dateable matter. We established that charcoal was indeed present in Chavn de Huntar's mortar, in varying frequency and size; in contrast, charcoal was uncommon in the little remaining plaster. Team members then systematically scouted for samples in the mortar of each of the site's documented 15 construction phases encompassed within its five higher-level stages, attempting to obtain samples from multiple locations within each sampled phase. Searches included each of the site's 39 known and accessible gallery construction episodes as well as external architectural walls. Because additions and remodeling within the galleries were so frequent, careful examination of sample contexts and evidence of mortar layering was required during sample assessment. We selected the most suitable samples in a given location and documented their provenance with laser distance measurements as well as photographs and detailed notes. We then extracted the samples using fine tools and stored them in glass and plastic vials (Figs. 11 and 12). Large samples or small fragile samples embedded in hard matrix were collected into aluminum foil that had been washed with detergent to remove the organic oils applied to one side that can contaminate samples if not removed. After collection, the samples were brought to Dr. Haas's field lab in the town of Chavn de Huntar for cleaning, weighing, and preliminary analysis. Sample quality, contexts, and numbers were assessed daily to adjust the sampling plan as needed to maximize collection of good quality samples spanning different areas within the sequence. For site conservation reasons and because Chavn de Huntar is a UNESCO World Heritage site, minimal impact of this work was essential. Sample collection therefore
Fig. 11 Extraction of charcoal sample from gallery mortar using fine tools at Chavn de Huntar. Photo by John Kembel
took a minimally destructive approach, collecting only charcoal samples visible on the surface of the mortar and extracting them using fine tools with minimal impact on the surrounding mortar. We did not extract portions of mortar for crushing and fine sieving to potentially retrieve any short-lived species embedded in the mortar (as in Al-Bashaireh and Hodgins 2010); in many cases, such removal would have damaged the structural matrix of the gallery walls. Sample Selection, Pretreatment, and Processing The collected samples spanned the site's full construction sequence. They were processed in order of priority, beginning with a selection of the best quality samples from each of the five higher-level stages, then dating more of the 15 phases within those stages as sample availability and budget allowed. When possible, three good quality samples from a single location were chosen to be dated to provide a sense of the variability present within a given provenance. All but one sample came from gallery contexts as these were noted to be less disturbed by natural and cultural postChavn contamination than external walls.
Fig. 12 Extracted charcoal sample from gallery mortar being stored in a glass vial at Chavn de Huntar. Photo by John Kembel
Kembel and Haas
Upon returning from the field, Dr. Haas completed sample pretreatment and determined a pretreatment reliability score for each dated sample based on observations during pretreatment. The score applies only to the sample condition, not to the reliability of the accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) measurements made later at the University of Arizona. These reliability scores may be used as additional data for assessing a date's fit within the architectural sequence or in relation to other dates from the same context. Scores were consulted only after assessment of the radiocarbon dates was completed. Four criteria were used by Dr. Haas to calculate the reliability scores. Each of the criteria was graded on a scale of 15, 5 being the most favorable score (except criterion 4, see below). The first criterion was the initial inspection of the sample: appearance under the microscope, soil and carbonate infiltration, robustness of charcoal, and root penetration. The second criterion indicated the level of success in removing contaminations, i.e., carbonates and humic and fulvic acids. In several samples, the base treatments (weak solutions of NaOH) had to be scaled back or interrupted because of a weak sample condition that presented a risk for excessive sample loss. This criterion is of considerable importance and was given twice the weight of other criteria. The third criterion was based on a final inspection under the microscope. Higher scores were given for robust fragments with little geometrical change from the initial shape and for absence of silt. Lower scores were given for samples which disintegrated into smaller fibers or required further root removal. The fourth criterion was based on the percentage of sample loss during wet treatment. A loss of up to 70 % is common and is not of much concern. Yields of less than 30 % indicate sample material that is less than fully charred wood or other dense plant tissue. Bacterial activity and other forms of decay may thus have contributed foreign carbon content. This criterion was applied as a deduction to the score when yields were low. Final combined and scaled scores could range from 0 to 100 with a score of 80 or more indicating excellent dating qualities for the given sample and a score of 25 or lower suggesting the sample might be problematic. These scores are referenced where relevant in the below analysis. All samples were dated at the NSF Arizona AMS Laboratory. The dating procedure includes the conversion of sample charcoal to graphite and carbon isotope measurements in the AMS. Some samples were measured twice due to a technical issue during the initial AMS run. The difference between the resulting age calculations was minimal and therefore the results from the two runs were combined as a weighted average. The weighted averages were calculated by Dr. Haas and Dr. Greg Hodgins of the NSF Arizona AMS Laboratory and are included as the representative dates here. Reporting of Dates In the tables and figures that follow, samples are listed by their lab number and a unique sample code, which identifies the samples' proveniences by gallery, segment, and sample number within that segment. For example, code OFR-B-S01 refers to Ofrendas Gallery, Segment B, Sample 1. Data reported include the sample's date in radiocarbon years (BP), its ranges of calibrated years (calBC), and accompanying probabilities; the ranges indicate the radiocarbon date's equivalent span on the calibration curve while the probabilities indicate the likelihood that a given range includes the calibrated age for the sample. Reporting these probabilities is important because calibration returns not a single date but rather ranges on the calibration curve
with associated probability. Both 1- and 2-sigma ranges are reported to help minimize the effect of large plateaus within the calibration curve (Fig. 13) and elucidate patterning within the data. Data were calibrated using the IntCal04 Northern Hemisphere calibration curve (Reimer et al. 2004); see Rick et al. (2010) for a discussion of the comparative benefits of using this curve rather than the SHCal04 Southern Hemisphere curve (McCormac et al. 2004) when calibrating dates from Chavn de Huntar.
Results and Analysis We dated 39 radiocarbon samples spanning the site's full known monumental construction sequence (Figs. 14 and 15; see Figs. 8 and 9); 11 samples from structures originally built in the Black and White Stage, the final monumental stage of construction; 4 from structures originally built in the Consolidation Stage; 10 from structures originally built in the Expansion Stage; 7 from structures originally built in the Separate Mound Stage, the earliest known stage of monumental construction; and 7 from structures in the East Area (the mounds east of Buildings A, B, and C) that were originally built before the Black and White Stage, which are grouped as the East Area Pre-Black and White Axis Phase and together span the Separate Mound Stage, the Expansion Stage, and the Consolidation Stage (see Kembel 2001). Seven of the samples produced outlying dates and were excluded from analysis. Of these seven, six returned historic period dates, while one dated significantly older than the study's other dates. Of the remaining 32 dates, 26 cluster between approximately 1200 and 800 calBC (all calibrated 2-sigma ranges; Table 1 and Fig. 16). On the post-800 calBC calibration curve plateau, three others span approximately 800 500 calBC, while two others span approximately 800400 calBC. A single date range spans 400200 calBC.
Atmospheric data from Reimer et al (2004); OxCal v3.10 Bronk Ramsey (2005); cub r5 sd:12 prob usp [chron]
3400 BP
3200 BP
3000 BP
2800 BP
Plateau
2600 BP
2400 BP
2200 BP 1200 Cal BC 1000 Cal BC 800 Cal BC 600 Cal BC 400 Cal BC 200 Cal BC
Calibrated Date
Fig. 13 Radiocarbon calibration curve from 1300 to 200 calBC. This portion of the curve spans the range of charcoal dates from Chavn de Huntar and includes a plateau from approximately 700 to 410 calBC. This plateau is bracketed by steep sections of the curve where very high precision calibrated dates are possible
Upper Doble Mnsula Gallery AA62770 (DMU-A-S02) AA62771 (DMU-A-S03) AA62772 (DMU-A-S04) Loco Gallery AA62767 (LOC-S-S05) AA62766 (LOC-S-S02) AA62765 (LOC-S-S01) AA62773 (LOC-A-S02)
Laberintos Gallery AA62761 (LAB-B-S01) AA62764 (LAB-N-S04) AA62763 (LAB-N-S01) AA62762 (LAB-L-S01)
Lanzn Gallery AA62755 (LAN-D-S02) AA62752 (LAN-G-S04) *AA62753 (LAN-H-S01) AA62754 (LAN-H-S02) *AA62759 (LAN-H-S10)
Columnas-Vigas Gallery *AA70290 (COL-M-S03) *AA70289 (COL-M-S02) AA62744 (COL-H-S01) AA62743 (COL-C-S04) *AA62742 (COL-C-S01) Building B Circular Plaza
South Platform AA70294 APLAT-S-S01
Building A
Building C
Cao Gallery AA70291 CAN-A-S02 Alacenas Gallery AA62748 (ALA-C-S04) AA62747 (ALA-C-S01)
Escalinata Gallery *AA62745 (ESC-A-S07) *AA62746 (ESC-A-S12)
East Face Gallery AA70293 (EFG-A-S02)
Ofrendas Gallery AA62749 (OFR-B-S01) AA62750 (OFR-B-S06) AA62751 (OFR-B-S10)
a 20m
Kembel and Haas
Fig. 14 Map of charcoal sample locations in Buildings A, B, and C at Chavn de Huntar, drawn from three-dimensional mapping data. Samples marked with an asterisk (*) indicate outlier dates. Adapted from Kembel (2001; Fig. 2.11)

Tello High Gallery AA62758 (TH-A-S05) AA62757 (TH-A-S04) AA62756 (TH-A-S01) Plaza Menor Tello Low Gallery AA62775 (TL-E-S04) AA62774 (TL-E-S03) AA62769 (TL-E-S02)
Building D Plaza Mayor Terrace Escondida Gallery AA62760 (ESCON-A-S01) South Flanking Mound Cortada Gallery AA70292 (COR-A-S07) Plaza Mayor North Flanking Mound
Na Building G 20m
Fig. 15 Map of charcoal sample locations in the East Area at Chavn de Huntar, drawn from threedimensional mapping data. Adapted from Kembel (2001; Fig. 2.12)
These data initially suggest that most of the site's construction occurred between 1200800 calBC, and that significant construction had stopped by 500 calBC. They look very different from what would be expected if the earliest structures were built around 900 B.C. and the peak of construction occurred between 390 and 200 B.C.as suggested by earlier studies (Burger 1981, 1984). The relationship between the dated event and the target event for each sample must be examined, however, and for that an investigation of the dates by architectural stage is instructive, below. Relating Chronometric Dates to the Relative Architectural Sequence at Chavn de Huntar Arranging the dates according to their places within the architectural sequence (Table 2 and Fig. 17) enables us to apply the above evaluation framework to consider the factors, both natural and cultural, impacting the relationship between the samples' target events and dated events. Dates are presented by the stage of their sample location's original construction. In the discussions that follow, anchor points are defined as samples that date original construction, meaning samples for which the dated event equals the target event of original construction. Discussion begins with the final monumental stage, addresses later constructions, and then works back through the earlier stages of the sequence. Black and White Core Dates The dates returned from the Black and White Stage include a subset of anchor points for the sequence, despite their collective wide 2-sigma range spanning approximately 1263201 calBC. Putting aside for now the young and old extremes and focusing instead on the dates in the middle of the range, we see three samples with similar dates,
Table 1 Radiocarbon dates from architectural mortar samples at Chavn de Huntar, listed in chronological order Material DC_13 value
14
Lab number Sample code
Location
C age BP Sigma calBC 1-sigma (68.2 %) calBC 2-sigma (95.4 %) ranges and probabilities ranges and probabilities from (prob) to from (prob) to 28 319 (27.5 %) 272 261 (32.9 %) 206 360 (7.8%) 346 376 (95.4 %) 201
AA62751
OFR-B-S10
Ofrendas Gallery, Segment B
Charcoal 23.17 2212
AA62750
OFR-B-S06
Charcoal 25.91 2446 28
733 (19.0 %) 690 661 (4.8 %) 649 545 (25.8 %) 483 465 (18.6 %) 415
751 (24.3 %) 685 667 (8.8 %) 636 622 (1.3 %) 612 595 (60.9 %) 408 768 (95.4 %) 412
AA70291 2489 28
CAN-A-S02
Canyo Gallery, Segment A
Charcoal 26.8 2474 55
758 (22.6 %) 682 670 (45.6 %) 515 758 (11.9 %) 731 691 (3.3 %) 683 669 (3.8 %) 660 651 (49.1 %) 544
AA62771
DMU-A-S03
Upper Doble Mnsula Gallery, Segment A Charcoal 21.80
774 (94.4 %) 509 436 ( 1.0 %) 422
AA62772
DMU-A-S04
2505
29
765 (10.4 %) 744 688 (10.3 %) 664 646 (47.6 %) 550 2532 27 788 (28.4 %) 749 686 (15.6 %) 666 639 (24.3 %) 592
785 (94.3 %) 536 531 (1.1 %) 521 795 (34.2 %) 732 690 (18.4 %) 660 650 (42.8 %) 544 2627 2642 28 27 815 (68.2 %) 791 821 (68.2 %) 796 832 (95.4 %) 776 888 ( 1.0 %) 880 841 (94.4 %) 786
AA62770
DMU-A-S02
AA62767
LOC-S-S05
Loco Gallery, Segment S
Charcoal 23.85 Charcoal 24.88
Kembel and Haas
AA62765
LOC-S-S01
Table 1 (continued) Material DC_13 value

14
Location
C age BP Sigma calBC 1-sigma (68.2 %) calBC 2-sigma (95.4 %) ranges and probabilities ranges and probabilities from (prob) to from (prob) to 29 39 844 (59.7 %) 798 29 44 43 30 28 30 33 35 887 (3.2 %) 883 842 (65.0 %) 802 895 (23.7 %) 867 857 (44.5 %) 810 895 (68.2 %) 815 895 (28.3 %) 867 857 (39.9 %) 820 895 (68.2 %) 832 896 (68.2 %) 834 901 (68.2 %) 835 905 (68.2 %) 835 890 (8.5 %) 879 838 (68.2 %) 800 895 (95.4 %) 796 901 (95.4 %) 793 895 (95.4 %) 799 927 (95.4 %) 796 929 (95.4 %) 798 910 (95.4 %) 807 916 (95.4 %) 811 920 (95.4 %) 810 969 (1.4 %) 961 931 (94.0 %) 809 972 ( 3.3 %) 958 937 (92.1 %) 810
AA62749 Charcoal 25.01 2670 2677 2698 2705 2708 2719 2722 2730 2735 2750 2755 2756 Charcoal 27.33 Charcoal 23.10 Charcoal 27.24 Charcoal 25.39 Charcoal 23.01 Charcoal 22.09 Charcoal 21.7 Charcoal 24.47 Charcoal 22.39 Charcoal 25.75 Charcoal 25.3
OFR-B-S01
Charcoal 23.83 2669
AA62744
COL-H-S01
Columnas-Vigas Gallery, Segment H
AA62773
LOC-A-S02
Loco Gallery, Segment A
AA62764
LAB-N-S04
Laberintos Gallery, Segment N
AA62748
ALA-C-S04
Alacenas Gallery, Segment C
AA62747
ALA-C-S01
AA62766
LOC-S-S02
AA62758
TH-A-S05
Tello High Gallery, Segment A
AA70292
COR-A-S07
Cortada Gallery, Segment A
AA62757
TH-A-S04
AA62762
LAB-L-S01
Laberintos Gallery, Segment L
38 28 33
923 (68.2 %) 836 922 (33.0 %) 888 882 (35.2 %) 843 926 (68.2 %) 841
996 (1.6 %) 986 979 (93.8 %) 816 975 (95.4 %) 827 996 (1.7 %) 986 980 (93.7 %) 826
AA62774
TL-E-S03
Tello Low Gallery, Segment E
AA70294
APLAT-S-S01
A-Platform, South Face
Table 1 (continued) Material DC_13 value

14
Location
C age BP Sigma calBC 1-sigma (68.2 %) calBC 2-sigma (95.4 %) ranges and probabilities ranges and probabilities from (prob) to from (prob) to 29 929 (36.9 %) 889 880 (28.7 %) 843 967 (2.6 %) 963 996 (1.5 %) 987 979 (93.9 %) 831 1,002 (95.4 %) 842 1,010 (95.4 %) 841 1,039 (95.4 %) 837 996 (68.2 %) 907 1,003 (68.2 %) 927 1,004 (68.2 %) 926 36 33 43 1,014 (68.2 %) 920 1,046 (52.1 %) 971 959 (16.1 %) 934 1,109 (1.3 %) 1,105 1,072 (1.8 %) 1,066 1,056 (65.0 %) 928 1,020 (95.4 %) 841 1,043 (95.4 %) 905 1,055 (95.4 %) 895 1,114 (95.4 %) 897 1,114 (95.4 %) 916 1,190 (0.8 %) 1,180 1,157 (0.9 %) 1,145 1,131 (93.7 %) 901
AA62775
TL-E-S04
Charcoal 24.07 2761
AA62760 Charcoal 26.64 2787 2792 2794 2817 2817 2823 2841 2847 30 27 33 38 32 Charcoal 22.99 Charcoal 25 Charcoal 23.71 Charcoal 23.82 Charcoal 22.80 Charcoal 23.27 Charcoal 22.40
ESCON-A-S01 Escondida Gallery, Segment A
Charcoal 23.11 2778 30
976 (66.7 %) 895 863 (1.5 %) 860 995 (5.2 %) 986 980 (63.0 %) 900 999 (68.2 %) 903
AA62754
LAN-H-S02
Lanzn Gallery, Segment H
AA62763
LAB-N-S01
AA70293
EFG-A-S01
East Face Gallery, Segment A
AA62769
TL-E-S02
AA62761
LAB-B-S01
Laberintos Gallery, Segment B
AA62743
COL-C-S04
Columnas-Vigas Gallery, Segment C
AA62756
TH-A-S01
AA62752
LAN-G-S04
Lanzn Gallery, Segment G
AA62755
LAN-D-S02
Lanzn Gallery, Segment D
Charcoal 23.72
2862
76
1,129 (68.2 %) 920
1,263 (95.4 %) 842
Kembel and Haas

OxCal v4.1.7 Bronk Ramsey (2010); r:5 IntCal04 atmospheric curve (Reimer et al 2004)
R_Date AA62751 OFR-B-S10 R_Date AA62750 OFR-B-S06 R_Date AA70291 CAN-A-S02 R_Date AA62771 DMU-A-S03 R_Date AA62772 DMU-A-S04 R_Date AA62770 DMU-A-S02 R_Date AA62767 LOC-S-S05 R_Date AA62765 LOC-S-S01 R_Date AA62749 OFR-B-S01 R_Date AA62744 COL-H-S01 R_Date AA62773 LOC-A-S02 R_Date AA62764 LAB-N-S04 R_Date AA62748 ALA-C-S04 R_Date AA62747 ALA-C-S01 R_Date AA62766 LOC-S-S02 R_Date AA62758 TH-A-S05 R_Date AA70292 COR-A-S07 R_Date AA62757 TH-A-S04 R_Date AA62762 LAB-L-S01 R_Date AA62774 TL-E-S03 R_Date AA70294 APLAT-S-S01 R_Date AA62775 TL-E-S04 R_Date AA62760 ESCON-A-S01 R_Date AA62754 LAN-H-S02 R_Date AA62763 LAB-N-S01 R_Date AA70293 EFG-A-S01 R_Date AA62769 TL-E-S02 R_Date AA62761 LAB-B-S01 R_Date AA62743 COL-C-S04 R_Date AA62756 TH-A-S01 R_Date AA62752 LAN-G-S04 R_Date AA62755 LAN-D-S02 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 500 Calibrated date (calBC) Previously Proposed Range for peak of monumental construction, 390 - 200 BC 400 200
Fig. 16 Radiocarbon dates from architectural mortar samples at Chavn de Huntar, plotted in chronological order. A previously proposed range of 390200 B.C. for the peak of monumental construction at Chavn de Huntar (Burger 1981, 1984) is shown in grey
from different areas built at the beginning of construction of the Black and White Stage: samples AA62749 (OFR-B-S01), AA62744 (COL-H-S01), and AA70292 (COR-AS07). Calibrated dates for AA62749 (OFR-B-S01) and AA62744 (COL-H-S01) overlap significantly, together spanning 890798 calBC at a 1-sigma range and 901793 calBC
Table 2 Radiocarbon dates from architectural mortar samples at Chavn de Huntar, listed by the architectural stage of their locations' original construction
14 C age Sigma calBC 1-sigma BP (68.2 %) ranges and probabilities from (prob) to
Location
calBC 2-sigma (95.4 %) ranges and probabilities from (prob) to 376 (95.4 %) 201 Black and White EB-High B-CPA
Architectural stage of original construction
Architectural phase of original construction
AA62751 319 (27.5 %) 272 261 (32.9 %) 206 2446 661 (4.8 %) 649 545 (25.8 %) 483 465 (18.6 %) 415 2489 691 (3.3 %) 683 669 (3.8 %) 660 651 (49.1 %) 544 2505 688 (10.3 %) 664 646 (47.6 %) 550 2532 27 788 (28.4 %) 749 686 (15.6 %) 666 639 (24.3 %) 592 2669 2670 39 29 838 (68.2 %) 800 890 (8.5 %) 879 844 (59.7 %) 798 795 (34.2 %) 732 690 (18.4 %) 660 650 (42.8 %) 544 895 (95.4 %) 796 901 (95.4 %) 793 Black and White Black and White Black and White 29 765 (10.4 %) 744 785 (94.3 %) 536 531 (1.1 %) 521 Black and White 436 (1.0 %) 422 28 758 (11.9 %) 731 774 (94.4 %) 509 595 (60.9 %) 408 Black and White 622 (1.3 %) 612 667 (8.8 %) 636 28 733 (19.0 %) 690 751 (24.3 %) 685 Black and White
OFR-B-S10
2212
28
360 (7.8 %) 346
AA62750
OFR-B-S06
EB-High B-CPA
AA62771
DMU-A-S03
Upper Doble Mnsula Gallery, Segment A
High SA
AA62772
DMU-A-S04
High SA
AA62770
DMU-A-S02
High SA
AA62749
OFR-B-S01
EB-High B-CPA Building A Black and White Axis
Kembel and Haas
AA62744
COL-H-S01
Columnas-Vigas Gallery, Segment H
Table 2 (continued)
Location
calBC 2-sigma (95.4 %) ranges and probabilities from (prob) to 969 (1.4 %) 961 931 (94.0 %) 809 1,055 (95.4 %) 895 1,114 (95.4 %) 897 1,263 (95.4 %) 842 768 (95.4 %) 412 832 (95.4 %) 776 888 (1.0 %) 880 841 (94.4 %) 786 895 (95.4 %) 799 927 (95.4 %) 796 916 (95.4 %) 811 996 (1.6 %) 986 979 (93.8 %) 816 996 (1.7 %) 986 980 (93.7 %) 826 Black and White Black and White Black and White Consolidation Expansion Expansion Expansion Expansion Expansion Expansion Expansion Black and White
AA70292 2817 2823 2862 2474 670 (45.6 %) 515 2627 2642 2677 842 (65.0 %) 802 2698 2719 2750 2756 33 38 28 44 895 (23.7 %) 867 857 (44.5 %) 810 895 (68.2 %) 832 923 (68.2 %) 836 926 (68.2 %) 841 29 887 (3.2 %) 883 27 821 (68.2 %) 796 28 815 (68.2 %) 791 55 758 (22.6 %) 682 76 1,129 (68.2 %) 920 36 1,014 (68.2 %) 920 30 1,004 (68.2 %) 926
COR-A-S07
Cortada Gallery, Segment A
2730
33
901 (68.2 %) 835
East Area Black and White Axis EB-High B-CPA Building A Black and White Axis EB-High B-CPA SA Low Building C Low Building C Low Building C NWA-High NWA-MASA Platform Low Building C NWA-High NWA-MASA Platform NWA-High NWA-MASA Platform
AA62761
LAB-B-S01
Laberintos Gallery, Segment B
AA62743
COL-C-S04
Columnas-Vigas Gallery, Segment C
AA62755
LAN-D-S02
AA70291
CAN-A-S02
AA62767
LOC-S-S05
AA62765
LOC-S-S01
AA62773
LOC-A-S02
Loco Gallery, Segment A
AA62764
LAB-N-S04
AA62766
LOC-S-S02
AA62762
LAB-L-S01
Laberintos Gallery, Segment L
AA70294
APLAT-S-S01
A-Platform, South Face
Table 2 (continued)
Location
calBC 2-sigma (95.4 %) ranges and probabilities from (prob) to 1,010 (95.4 %) 841 1,039 (95.4 %) 837 929 (95.4 %) 798 910 (95.4 %) 807 1,020 (95.4 %) 841 Expansion Separate Mound Separate Mound Separate Mound Expansion WB-MB
AA62754 980 (63.0 %) 900 2792 2705 2708 857 (39.9 %) 820 2794 2847 1,056 (65.0 %) 928 2722 2735 2755 2761 29 28 922 (33.0 %) 888 882 (35.2 %) 843 967 (2.6 %) 963 929 (36.9 %) 889 880 (28.7 %) 843 2778 30 976 (66.7 %) 895 863 (1.5 %) 860 1,002 (95.4 %) 842 996 (1.5 %) 987 979 (93.9 %) 831 35 905 (68.2 %) 835 30 896 (68.2 %) 834 43 33 996 (68.2 %) 907 30 895 (28.3 %) 867 43 895 (68.2 %) 815 38 999 (68.2 %) 903
LAN-H-S02
Lanzn Gallery, Segment H
2787
32
995 (5.2 %) 986
AA62763
LAB-N-S01
NWA-High NWA-MASA Platform NEA NEA NEA B Platform-ILR
AA62748
ALA-C-S04
AA62747
ALA-C-S01
AA70293
EFG-A-S01
East Face Gallery, Segment A
AA62752
LAN-G-S04
Lanzn Gallery, Segment G
1,109 (1.3 %) 1,105 1,190 (0.8 %) 1,180 Separate Mound 1,072 (1.8 %) 1,066 1,157 (0.9 %) 1,145 1,131 (93.7 %) 901 920 (95.4 %) 810 972 (3.3 %) 958 937 (92.1 %) 810 975 (95.4 %) 827
AA62758
TH-A-S05
East Area Pre-Black East Area Pre-Black and and White White Axis East Area Pre-Black East Area Pre-Black and and White White Axis East Area Pre-Black East Area Pre-Black and and White White Axis East Area Pre-Black East Area Pre-Black and and White White Axis
AA62757
TH-A-S04
AA62774
TL-E-S03
AA62775
TL-E-S04
Kembel and Haas
AA62760
East Area Pre-Black East Area Pre-Black and and White White Axis
Table 2 (continued)
Location
calBC 2-sigma (95.4 %) ranges and probabilities from (prob) to 1,043 (95.4 %) 905 1,114 (95.4 %) 916
AA62769 33 959 (16.1 %) 934 1,046 (52.1 %) 971
TL-E-S02
2817
27
1,003 (68.2 %) 927
East Area Pre-Black East Area Pre-Black and and White White Axis East Area Pre-Black East Area Pre-Black and and White White Axis
AA62756
TH-A-S01
Tello High Gallery, Segment A 2841
Kembel and Haas

Black & White Stage R_Date AA62751 OFR-B-S10 R_Date AA62750 OFR-B-S06 R_Date AA62771 DMU-A-S03 R_Date AA62772 DMU-A-S04 R_Date AA62770 DMU-A-S02 R_Date AA62749 OFR-B-S01 R_Date AA62744 COL-H-S01 R_Date AA70292 COR-A-S07 R_Date AA62761 LAB-B-S01 R_Date AA62743 COL-C-S04 R_Date AA62755 LAN-D-S02 Consolidation Stage R_Date AA70291 CAN-A-S02 Expansion Stage R_Date AA62767 LOC-S-S05 R_Date AA62765 LOC-S-S01 R_Date AA62773 LOC-A-S02 R_Date AA62764 LAB-N-S04 R_Date AA62766 LOC-S-S02 R_Date AA62762 LAB-L-S01 R_Date AA70294 APLAT-S-S01 R_Date AA62754 LAN-H-S02 R_Date AA62763 LAB-N-S01 Separate Mound Stage R_Date AA62748 ALA-C-S04 R_Date AA62747 ALA-C-S01 R_Date AA70293 EFG-A-S01 R_Date AA62752 LAN-G-S04 East Area Pre-Black & White Phase R_Date AA62758 TH-A-S05 R_Date AA62757 TH-A-S04 R_Date AA62774 TL-E-S03 R_Date AA62775 TL-E-S04 R_Date AA62760 ESCON-A-S01 R_Date AA62769 TL-E-S02 R_Date AA62756 TH-A-S01 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200
Calibrated date (calBC)
Fig. 17 Radiocarbon dates from architectural mortar samples at Chavn de Huntar, plotted by the architectural stage of their locations' original construction
at a 2-sigma range; note that their uncalibrated dates differ by only 1 year (2669 BP29 and 2670 BP39, respectively). AA70292 (COR-A-S07) returns similar calibrated ranges of 901835 calBC at a 1-sigma level and two ranges of 969961 calBC (1.4 % probability) and 931809 calBC (94.0 % probability) at the 2-sigma level.
The samples for these dates were located in structures spread across the site, each clearly built at the beginning of the Black and White Stage (see Fig. 9; see also Kembel 2001, 2008): the Ofrendas Gallery, built along with the Circular Plaza; the North Columnas-Vigas episode of the Columnas-Vigas Gallery in Building A; and the Cortada Gallery, built in the second known phase of the South Flanking Mound as part of constructions framing the Plaza Mayor, built at this time as well. The close correspondence of their dates and ranges, coupled with their widely separated locations across the site, each built at the beginning of the Black and White Stage, suggest that together these three dates begin to form a core set of anchor points that date the beginning of construction of the Black and White Stage; we'll call this core set the Black and White Core. When combined with dates from external excavations (i.e., outside the buildings rather than inside the galleries) of structures that relative architectural data indicate were built at the beginning of the Black and White Stage (Table 3 and Fig. 18), the clustering of a Black and White Core set of dates becomes even more clear. Two charcoal samples excavated by Rick (Rick et al. 1998) dating the construction of the Circular Plaza, ETH-26378 (RC-02-1) and ETH-26379 (RC-02-2), bracket the AA62749 (OFR-B-S01) and AA62744 (COL-H-S01) dates, with nearly identical 1sigma ranges spanning 896792 calBC and similar 2-sigma ranges of 922767 calBC for ETH-26378 (RC-02-1), and two ranges of 975956 calBC with 1.7 % probability and 942767 calBC with 93.7 % probability for ETH-26379 (RC-02-2). Two other charcoal samples excavated by Rick et al. (1998), ETH-20737 (CdHCS-11) and ETH-20738 (CdHCS-12), further bracket this group of dates; they date the construction of the Black and White Zcalo, which forms a small platform on both sides of the Black and White Portal on the east face of Building A and is a critical structure defining the beginning of construction of the Black and White Stage (Kembel 2001, 2008). Together, the 1-sigma ranges of the two samples span 896776 calBC. The 2-sigma range of ETH-20737 (CdHCS-11) is 926750 calBC at an 89.8 % probability, spanning up to 571 calBC in three small ranges with very low probabilities, while the 2-sigma range of ETH-20738 (CdHCS-12) is 976 789 calBC. Finally, sample GX-1128, excavated by Lumbreras from the Ofrendas Gallery floor deposit of hundreds of ceramic vessels and other artifacts buried in place beneath plaster fallen from the gallery's walls and ceiling (Lumbreras 1993, p. 418; date calibrated here), returns 1-sigma ranges of 971961 calBC with 2.9 % probability and 933796 calBC with 65.3 % probability; its 2-sigma ranges span comparatively more widely due to its large error, with ranges of 1118751 calBC with 93.1 % probability, and three very small ranges spanning up to 595 calBC. The third gallery mortar sample, AA70292 (COR-A-S07) from the Cortada Gallery, brackets this sample on the early range of the grouping of dates. Together, these three architectural mortar samples and five excavation samples meet the criteria outlined above in the evaluation framework for assessing whether target and dated events coincide: (1) relative architectural data indicate they were all constructed at the beginning of the same stage, the Black and White Stage; (2) their locations are widely separated within the site; and (3) they come from diverse contexts including mortar from gallery walls, excavations from external architectural structures, and gallery excavations, each with corresponding contrasting sample deposition histories. The independent convergence of these varying locations, contexts, deposition histories, and research processes suggests that these samples are
Kembel and Haas Table 3 Radiocarbon dates from architectural mortar and from excavations directly associated with monumental architecture at Chavn de Huntar, from architectural contexts originally built in the Black and White Stage, the Support Construction Stage, and the post-monumental period
Lab number Sample code Location
14 C age BP
Sigma
calBC 1-sigma (68.2 %) ranges and probabilities from (prob) to 360 (7.8 %) 346 319 (27.5 %) 272 261 (32.9 %) 206
calBC 2-sigma (95.4 %) ranges and probabilities from (prob) to 376 (95.4 %) 201
AA62751
OFR-B-S10
2212
28
ETH-20740
CdHCS-32
CPA-Level H
2260
55
394 (25.5 %) 352 296 (37.9 %) 228 221 (4.9 %) 211
405 (95.4 %) 193
HAR-1105
CPA-Level H
2380
70
732 (10.4 %) 691 661 (2.2 %) 651 544 (55.6 %) 389
766 (94.5 %) 359 275 (0.9 %) 260 753 (16.1 %) 685 668 (6.3 %) 631 626 (1.5 %) 611 597 (71.5 %) 389
ETH-20741
CdHCS-33
CPA-Level H
2395
55
721 (7.8 %) 695 540 (60.4 %) 398
AA62750
OFR-B-S06
2446
28
733 (19.0 %) 690 661 (4.8 %) 649 545 (25.8 %) 483 465 (18.6 %) 415
751 (24.3 %) 685 667 (8.8 %) 636 622 (1.3 %) 612 595 (60.9 %) 408 763 (23.6 %) 681 673 (71.8 %) 408
ETH-20739
CdHCS-29
Bldg A West Face support
2455
55
749 (18.9 %) 688 666 (7.2 %) 642 592 (4.0 %) 577 568 (24.4 %) 484 466 (13.7 %) 416
AA62771
DMU-A-S03
2489
28
758 (11.9 %) 731 691 (3.3 %) 683 669 (3.8 %) 660 651 (49.1 %) 544
774 (94.4 %) 509 436 (1.0 %) 422
AA62772
DMU-A-S04
Upper Doble Mnsula Gallery, Segment A Upper Doble Mnsula Gallery, Segment A B&W Zcalo
2505
29
765 (10.4 %) 744 688 (10.3 %) 664 646 (47.6 %) 550
785 (94.3 %) 536 531 (1.1 %) 521 795 (34.2 %) 732 690 (18.4 %) 660 650 (42.8 %) 544 926 (89.8 %) 750 688 (2.6 %) 666 641 (2.8 %) 592 576 (0.2 %) 571
AA62770
DMU-A-S02
2532
27
788 (28.4 %) 749 686 (15.6 %) 666 639 (24.3 %) 592
ETH-20737
CdHCS-11
2640
55
893 (7.3 %) 877 846 (60.9 %) 776
ETH-26378 AA62749
RC-02-1 OFR-B-S01
Circular Plaza Ofrendas Gallery, Segment B
2656 2669
51 29
894 (11.0 %) 875 847 (57.2 %) 792 838 (68.2 %) 800
922 (95.4 %) 767 895 (95.4 %) 796
Radiocarbon Dates from the Monumental Architecture at Chavn de Huntar Table 3 (continued)
14 C age BP
Sigma
calBC 1-sigma (68.2 %) ranges and probabilities from (prob) to 890 (8.5 %) 879 844 (59.7 %) 798
AA62744
COL-H-S01
Columnas-Vigas Gallery, Segment H Circular Plaza B&W Zcalo Ofrendas Gallery
2670
39
ETH-26379 ETH-20738 GX-1128
RC-02-2 CdHCS-12
2672 2695 2700
57 55 85
896 (18.2 %) 868 859 (50.0 %) 798 896 (68.2 %) 809 971 (2.9 %) 961 933 (65.3 %) 796
975 (1.7 %) 956 942 (93.7 %) 767 976 (95.4 %) 789 1,118 (93.1 %) 751 686 (1.1 %) 667 637 (0.5 %) 622 614 (0.7 %) 595
AA70292 AA62761 AA62743
COR-A-S07 LAB-B-S01 COL-C-S04
Cortada Gallery, Segment A Laberintos Gallery, Segment B Columnas-Vigas Gallery, Segment C Lanzn Gallery, Segment D
2730 2817 2823
33 30 36
901 (68.2 %) 835 1,004 (68.2 %) 926 1,014 (68.2 %) 920
969 (1.4 %) 961 931 (94.0 %) 809 1,055 (95.4 %) 895 1,114 (95.4 %) 897
AA62755
LAN-D-S02
2862
76
1,129 (68.2 %) 920
1,263 (95.4 %) 842
only minimally affected by natural or cultural factors and thus that the target events and dated events for the samples, individually and as group, coincide. Together, then, these eight samples form a Black and White Core of anchor points that date the beginning of construction of the Black and White Stage. Other Dates from Structures Originally Built in the Black and White Stage Building on this data, the next question to consider is why the dates returned from structures originally built in the Black and White Stage span this wide 2-sigma range of approximately 1263201 calBC. One consideration is the calibration curve. The Black and White Core dates lie very close to a steep portion of the calibration curve, creating relatively tight calibrations ranges both individually and when taken as a group. On the younger side of this steep portion of the curve, however, lies a broad plateau that produces calibrated dates with much larger ranges (see Fig. 13). In this area, a change of as little as 50 years in a radiocarbon date can push the calibrated date off the steep slope and onto a plateau spanning almost 300 years. Those 50 years could represent the short lifespan of a tree, meaning that a slight old wood issue could be contributing to this variability around the center. Furthermore, on the older side of the steep curve segment lays a relatively low inclined section that also causes extended error ranges. Beyond this clear issue, however, other factors are at play.
Kembel and Haas

R_Date AA62751 OFR-B-S10 R_Date ETH-20740 CdHCS-32 R_Date HAR-1105 R_Date ETH-20741 CdHCS-33 R_Date AA62750 OFR-B-S06 R_Date ETH-20739 CdHCS-29 R_Date AA62771 DMU-A-S03 R_Date AA62772 DMU-A-S04 R_Date AA62770 DMU-A-S02 R_Date ETH-20737 CdHCS-11 R_Date ETH-26378 RC-02-1 R_Date AA62749 OFR-B-S01 R_Date AA62744 COL-H-S01 R_Date ETH-26379 RC-02-2 R_Date ETH-20738 CdHCS-12 R_Date GX-1128 R_Date AA70292 COR-A-S07 R_Date AA62761 LAB-B-S01 R_Date AA62743 COL-C-S04 R_Date AA62755 LAN-D-S02 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 Black & White Core
Fig. 18 Radiocarbon dates from architectural mortar and from excavations directly associated with monumental architecture at Chavn de Huntar, from architectural contexts originally built in the Black and White Stage, the Support Construction Stage, and the postmonumental period. The Black and White Core dates are called out. The Black and White Core dates are a group of anchor points from gallery mortar, gallery excavations, and external excavations that date the beginning of construction of the Black and White Stage
Examining the late end of the Black and White Stage dates (see Tables 2 and 3, Figs. 17 and 18), two mortar dates come from the Ofrendas Gallery. When compared with the Ofrendas Gallery samples from the Black and White Core, these samples appear highly disparate, particularly in a framework assuming they should date original construction. Comparison of these dates is complicated by their wide calibration ranges caused by the flat calibration curve in this time period. Analysis in relation to samples from excavations in the gallery and nearby area, however, helps clarify the picture. Sample AA62749 (OFR-B-S01) forms part of the Black and White Core, along with another sample from the Ofrendas Gallery, GX-1128 (Lumbreras 1993, p. 418), as discussed above. Sample AA62750 (OFR-B-S06), in contrast, dates to the end of Chavn-period construction and is actually bracketed by samples ETH-20739 (CdHCS-29) (Rick et al. 1998) from the Support Construction Stage (located in support constructions on the west face of Building A immediately west from the Ofrendas Gallery) and ETH-20741 (CdHCS-33) (Rick et al. 1998) from Level H, a level of immediately postmonumental collapse just above the Circular Plaza floor, comprised of refuse and plaster fallen from surrounding structures, associated with a
wall supporting the temple faade, and sealed by temple collapse (Lumbreras 1977, 1993; Rick et al. 1998). Sample HAR-1105, excavated by Lumbreras (1977, p. 10, Figs. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14; 1993, pp. 417418; date calibrated here), also comes from Level H (see Kembel 2008, pp. 7071 for more discussion). Finally, sample AA62751 (OFR-B-S10) corresponds chronologically with another sample from Level H above the Circular Plaza, ETH-20740 (CdHCS-32) (Rick et al. 1998), associated with abandonment, physical collapse, the end of monumental function, and nonmonumental reoccupation (Rick et al. 1998; Kembel 2001, 2008). These chronological relationships of the Ofrendas Gallery samples with other samples from the immediately surrounding area suggest the following scenario. First, the gallery was built as part of the Black and White Core, with samples AA62749 (OFR-B-S01) and GX-1128 dating original construction. Sample AA62750 (OFR-B-S06) suggests that centuries later, during the Support Construction Stage when many areas of the site were being supported and walls shored up evidently following an earthquake, the Ofrendas Gallery also underwent renovation, introducing AA62750 (OFR-B-S06) into the gallery walls. The site then physically collapsed and monumental function ceased. The site was reoccupied in a postmonumental period, as indicated by the occupations of Level H and later construction above the Circular Plaza. Sample AA62751 (OFR-B-S10) suggests that access to the Ofrendas Gallery was discovered by people living on the ruins and that they attempted to remortar the gallery's walls. This scenario explains the range of dates from the Ofrendas Gallery, relating the gallery's construction and use with events external to it, specifically the initial construction of the Black and White Stage, later support construction events, and apparent abandonment followed by post-Chavn occupations. It is also consistent with the proposal of Lumbreras (1993) that we can formulate a hypothesis in the sense that at a given moment, before even the fall of the plaster stuccos, there were people walking, sitting, or lying in the various spaces over some time, which would permit explanation of the crushing of a high percentage of the vessels and the disorder in the dispersion of some vessel shards, especially those that were in the main hallway or near the entrances to the cells, such that their fragments could be found more than a meter away from their original location. One can assume that when the stuccos fell, this fall was progressive and obviously associated with the constant filtration of water from the surface, which would have been produced due to the deterioration of the terrace floor, which originally was polished and nearly impermeable. The abandonment of the plaza, which must have deposited Level H is a good moment to think of the deterioration of the finish of this sector, which must have intensified when the ceiling beams were broken, which, in turn, could have occurred simultaneously with the destruction of the temple before the start of the Huaraz occupation (Lumbreras 1993, p. 89 (translated here)). This consideration suggests that, despite the Ofrendas Gallery apparently being sealed upon deposition of the offering soon after construction (Lumbreras 1993), maintenance needs may have warranted regular access over time to prevent collapse of the plaster onto the deposit below; in the approximately 300400 years between the gallery's construction and the end of its monumental function, the people carrying out its maintenance may have been partly responsible for the disruption of its densely
Kembel and Haas
deposited offerings. Likewise, the offerings may have been dispersed further by probable more urgent maintenance efforts during the Support Construction Stage following the earthquake and by access by postmonumental inhabitants relatively soon after the site's physical collapse and prior to the fall of the gallery's plaster. Worth noting is that the Ofrendas Gallery was clearly not originally built at a late date such as AA62751 (OFR-B-S10), incorporating old wood in the form of samples AA62749 (OFR-B-S01) and AA62750 (OFR-B-S06). This alternate scenario simply is not compatible with the architectural history of the area or with the range of dates from the Black and White Core and later phases; rather, the data suggest that a significant old wood effect is not at play here because of the correspondence of the samples from different contexts (gallery mortar, external excavations, and gallery excavations) and because dates that are younger than expected can only be due to cultural factors such as renovation. In sum, the Ofrendas Gallery dates suggest that the gallery was renovated after its original construction, with samples AA62749 (OFR-B-S01) and GX-1128 dating original construction, and samples AA62750 (OFR-B-S06) and AA62751 (OFR-B-S10) apparently dating later renovations. When considered within the history of the Ofrendas Gallery and surrounding area, then, the Ofrendas dates may actually provide a case study of the processes of construction, renovation, collapse, and reoccupation at Chavn de Huntar. The remaining three late mortar dates from the Black and White Stage come from the Upper Doble Mnsula Gallery, a late addition to Building A: AA62770 (DMU-A-S02), AA62772 (DMU-A-S04), and AA62771 (DMU-A-S03). This gallery followed the initial construction efforts of the Black and White Stage as part of the last of the site's known monumental building phases (the High SA Phase5; see Fig. 9). Their dates overlap significantly at both 1- and 2-sigma levels, spanning approximately 788544 calBC at a 1-sigma level and 795509 calBC at a 2-sigma level, with a single remaining range of 436 422 calBC with 1.0 % probability for sample AA62771 (DMU-A-S03). These three dates have wide ranges due to their place on the plateau of the calibration curve for this time period. Also worth noting is that sample AA62771 (DMU-A-S03) received a pretreatment score of 25, meaning it was borderline problematic; this may account for its slightly younger date ranges than the other two samples. Despite the complications of the calibration curve and the pretreatment score, these three dates are remarkably consistent with each other. More importantly, their chronometric placement, bracketed between the dates for the Black and White Core and the Support Construction Stage, is consistent with their very late position in the relative architectural sequence, late in the Black and White Stage and prior to the Support Construction Stage. This suggests that these samples provide reliable dates, in which the dated event aligns with the target event of original construction, and therefore can be considered anchor points for the construction of this gallery and the High SA Phase. At the early end of the Black and White Stage dates, three samples predate the Black and White Core: AA62755 (LAN-D-S02), AA62761 (LAB-B-S01), and AA62743 (COL-C-S04). These samples come from portions of galleries originally built at the same time as key structures dated by the Black and White Core and, therefore, if they
5
The placement of the High SA Phase differs slightly here in Fig. 9 than in earlier publications (Kembel 2001, 2008: Fig. 2.10) based on relative architectural data indicating that the Building A Black and White Axis Phase and its conversion of the Columnas Patio to a gallery occurred as part of the shift in site axes to the Black and White Axis at the beginning of the Black and White Stage, as presented in those same publications (Kembel 2001, 2008, p. 60). The High SA Phase followed the Building A Black and White Axis Phase in the Black and White Stage.
pertain to original construction their dates should correspond with the Black and White Core dates; samples AA62761 (LAB-B-S01) and AA62755 (LAN-D-S02) come from late episodes of the Laberintos and Lanzn Galleries (the Lower Laberintos and Outer Lanzn episodes, respectively) built in the same phase as the Circular Plaza and the Ofrendas Gallery, while the Columnas sample comes from the late episode of the Columnas-Vigas Gallery (the North Columnas-Vigas episode), built in the same phase as the Black and White Portal and Zcalo (see Fig. 9; Kembel 2001, 2008). In contrast to their architectural positions within the site's relative construction sequence, however, they overlap with the Black and White Core dates at the 1-sigma level only with the early end of the GX-1128 date; at the 2-sigma level, they do overlap with all the Black and White Core dates but also extend back much earlier due to their wide ranges, attributed in part to a flattening of the calibration curve prior to approximately 975 calBC. Other factors, however, further explain the differences between these three samples' relative positions within the architectural sequence and their chronometric dates. Based on its sample's clear relative architectural position, the date returned from sample AA62755 (LAN-D-S02) appears to be too early; it is from the final monumental construction stage, yet has returned one of the oldest dates of the project. Architecturally speaking, it should be younger than other samples from episodes of the same gallery built earlier in the relative sequence, specifically AA62754 (LAN-HS02) and AA62752 (LAN-G-S04) from the Inner Lanzn Chamber and the Inner Lanzn Rectangle, respectively. While dating of additional samples from the Outer Lanzn episode would help clarify this situation, upon intensive searching, this was the only datable sample found there due to a scarcity of charcoal in the mortar. AA62755 (LAN-D-S02) should also be comparable to AA62761 (LAB-B-S01) because the Outer Lanzn episode was built with the Lower Laberintos episode as part of the same gallery complex during the Black and White Stage (Kembel 2001, 2008). AA62761 (LAB-B-S01), however, is anomalously early as well; it should date later than samples from the earlier episode of the same gallery (the Upper Laberintos episode), specifically AA62764 (LAB-N-S04), AA62762 (LAB-L-S01), and AA62763 (LAB-N-S01). The most straightforward factor that could account for the difference between these dates and their samples' architectural contexts is a simple old wood effect. Old wood could also explain the difference in dates between samples from the Columnas-Vigas Gallery, AA62744 (COL-H-S01), part of the Black and White Core, and AA62743 (COL-C-S04), dating earlier despite being collected from the same gallery episode. Another factor worth considering, however, is a possible reuse of older construction materials. This explanation is consistent with the unusual quality of the mortar in both Outer Lanzn and Lower Laberintos; the mortar is of a very fine consistency practically void of charcoal, whereas mortars in other galleries typically contain particles of varying size and many inclusions including charcoal. In the Outer Lanzn episode, only one sample was large enough to be dated, AA62755 (LAN-D-S02), and it weighed 0.04 mg (measured at the NSF Arizona AMS Laboratory), pushing the capabilities of AMS dating. Similarly, in the Lower Laberintos episode, we found only one dateable sample due to a lack of charcoal in the mortar. This unusual mortar quality would be consistent with a scenario in which mortar from earlier structures was reused: perhaps old mortar was rehydrated prior to reuse causing lighter particles like charcoal to rinse away and heavier particles to be cleaned out, or perhaps mortar reprocessing caused a mechanical crushing or disintegration of the original charcoal.
Kembel and Haas
Sculptures and building blocks were moved and reused by Chavn builders: perhaps mortar was too. Of relevance may be that these three samples all come from likely ritually important galleries (see Kembel 2008); perhaps mortar from earlier structures was reused to imbue these new spaces with characteristics inherently associated with ritually significant older structures. Like a simple old wood effect, cultural factors such as the reuse of materials could be causing these samples to date earlier than their architectural contexts and positions within the relative architectural sequence would anticipate. In sum, samples AA62755 (LAN-D-S02), AA62761 (LAB-B-S01), and AA62743 (COL-C-S04) cannot be viewed as anchor points but rather as examples of built-in age, from either old wood or cultural reuse of materials. Taken together, then, the samples from the Black and White Stage represent diverse types of architectural dates at Chavn de Huntar: a set of anchor points dating original initial construction of the Black and White Stage; a set of anchor points dating the original construction of a later phase within the Black and White Stage (the High SA Phase), the last known monumental construction phase; original construction and apparent renovation events in the Ofrendas Gallery; and built-in age occurring as old wood and/or reuse of mortar in the late episodes of the Columnas-Vigas, Lanzn, and Laberintos Galleries. This variety of architectural processes accounts for the wide range of dates returned for samples from the Black and White Stage. It also characterizes other stages at Chavn de Huntar, as further analysis suggests. Pre-Black and White Stages Twenty-eight samples were dated from the architectural stages prior to the Black and White Stage; 21 of these returned Chavn period dates (see Table 2 and Fig. 17). Examining the data by architectural stage identifies anchor points for construction of these stages and provides insight into their growth history. Consolidation Stage Three samples were dated from structures built during the Consolidation Stage, just prior to the Black and White Stage. Two samples were outliers and not considered in analysis; both were from the older episode of the Columnas-Vigas Gallery (South Columnas-Vigas; see Figs. 9 and 14). Sample AA70290 (COL-M-S03) was an extremely small charcoal fiber, with a correspondingly wide 2-sigma range of 26791606 calBC, outside the range broadly considered for monumental construction at Chavn de Huntar. Sample AA70289 (COL-M-S02) returned a historic period date, with a 2-sigma range of 14251618 cal AD. The final sample dated from the Consolidation Stage, AA70291 (CAN-A-S02), comes from the stepped ceiling of the Cao Gallery (Figs. 19 and 20; see Fig. 14), a major vertical drainage canal that collected water from the surface of Building A and channeled it down and out the building's south face (Kembel 2001, pp. 99, 1089). The sample was collected from a small area of grey mortar at the inside edge of a ceiling step; this small area of grey mortar, protected in the corner, overlay strikingly different red mortar connecting the surrounding stones (Fig. 21). Architectural data clearly indicate the Cao Gallery was built prior to the Black and White Stage and the Upper Doble Mnsula Gallery, in the Consolidation Stage (Kembel 2001, 2008). The returned date, however, clearly sits late in the Black and White Stage, even considering its wide calibrated range due to a relatively large error
AA70291 (CAN-A-S02)
Fig. 19 Profile view of the Cao Gallery drawn from three-dimensional mapping data, showing the location of sample AA70291 (CAN-A-S02) in the stepped ceiling of this vertical drainage canal
and its placement on the broad plateau of the calibration curve. It overlaps significantly (and somewhat postdates) the dates from the Upper Doble Mnsula Gallery. What could cause this discrepancy between the target and dated event? The sample earned a pretreatment score of 100 by Dr. Haas, indicating that sample contamination from water or other sources does not account for its anomalous date. The gallery's function, however, provides insight. The Cao Gallery is one of three major vertical drainage canals in Building A, suggesting that through the course of its functional lifespan, channeling significant amounts of water out of the temple during the rainy
Fig. 20 Entering the Cao Gallery via its small waterspout opening in order to document charcoal samples in its mortar. Photo by John Kembel
Kembel and Haas
Underlaying Older Red Mortar
Fig. 21 In the Cao Gallery, sample AA70291 (CAN-A-S02) in situ in younger grey mortar overlaying older red mortar. Photo by Silvia Rodriguez Kembel
season, it must have been maintained repeatedly, perhaps even yearly, in order to be kept structurally sound. The channeling of water year after year must have taken its toll on the mortar, with higher levels of humidity and splashing from the canal surface below causing the mortar to deteriorate much more rapidly than in other gallery contexts. Cleaning fallen mortar out of the canal and replacing it with fresh mortar, applied over the earlier mortar remaining between stones, would have been necessary to maintain the canal's function. Together, the provenance of this sample from the grey mortar overlaying red mortar and the function of the Cao Gallery argue that this sample does not date original construction but rather a Black and White Stage renovation event in which grey mortar was placed on top of an earlier red mortar within a structure originally built during the Consolidation Stage. This maintenance effort significantly postdated the canal's original construction and occurred toward the end of monumental construction and even the functioning of the temple, causing a younger-than-expected date. Significantly, this example parallels the evidence of renovation seen in the Columnas-Vigas Gallery, in which younger grey mortar from the Black and White Stage overlays older likely original red mortar from the Consolidation Stage (see Fig. 10); in both the Cao and Columnas-Vigas Galleries, however, unfortunately no charcoal samples were evident in the small areas of exposed underlaying red mortar, and we did not remove the overlaying grey mortar to find charcoal samples in the red mortar due to conservation priorities.
ha C oa rc l
Overlaying Younger Grey Mortar
In sum, the available evidence suggests that the sample from the Cao Gallery dates Black and White Stage renovations rather than original construction during the Consolidation Stage. Expansion Stage The 11 samples dated from structures originally built in the Expansion Stage came from Buildings A, B, and C, selected with a goal of enabling cross-site comparisons. Groups of samples from similar contexts were chosen to assess variability within each location. Four of these samples came from Building A, with three from the Upper Laberintos episode, the first construction episode of the Laberintos Gallery: AA62763 (LAB-N-S01), AA62762 (LAB-L-S01), and AA62764 (LAB-N-S04). Calibrated ranges for these three samples overlap substantially at the 2-sigma level, but only AA62763 (LAB-N-S01) and AA62762 (LAB-L-S01) overlap at the 1-sigma level. If the samples came from shortlived sources prepared at the time of construction, the dates would be tighter, suggesting other factors may be influencing them. Whether a slight old-wood effect is at play, or evidence of some renovation, is unclear when examining these dates in isolation; more clarity emerges below when they are examined in relation to samples from other areas of the site. The fourth dated sample from Building A, sample AA70294 (APLAT-S-S01) comes from the south side of the very low, large foundational platform that supports Building A and is currently only exposed on its south face. It is the only sample run from external contexts (i.e., outside of the building rather than from the galleries), due to its potential for dating the construction of the lowest exposed foundation of Building A. In Building B, two samples were dated from the support structures built in the Expansion Stage to enclose the Inner Lanzn Rectangle and transform it into a gallery; sample AA62753 (LAN-H-S01) returned a historic period date, while sample AA62754 (LAN-H-S02) returned a Chavn era date. The Inner Lanzn Rectangle was originally a free-standing open-air rectangular structure sitting atop a platform. Over subsequent building phases, it was covered and converted into the innermost portion of the gallery, housing the renowned 4.5-m high engraved granite Lanzn monolith and accessed through additions that continually expanded the gallery eastward while maintaining access to the ritually important Lanzn and one of the site's oldest spaces (Kembel 2001, 2008). Very little of this original rectangle is exposed; only the centers of each wall are visible because the corners were filled with support structures, built during the Expansion Stage and dated with sample AA62754 (LAN-H-S02), to hold up the roof when the space was covered and converted into a gallery. In Building C, four samples from the early known phases of the Loco Gallery were dated: AA62766 (LOC-S-S02), AA62773 (LOC-A-S02), AA62765 (LOC-S-S01), and AA62767 (LOC-S-S05). All 2-sigma ranges overlap, while only the 1-sigma ranges for the latest and earliest samples do not. Two of the dates, AA62766 (LOC-SS02) and AA62767 (LOC-S-S05), had very low pretreatment scores of 20 and 10, respectively, suggesting that the resulting dates may be problematic. Examination of the dates from Buildings A, B, and C together in light of the evaluation framework identifies two anchor points for the Expansion Stage: AA62763 (LAB-N-S01) and AA62754 (LAN-H-S02). These two samples come from Buildings A and B, respectively, and overlap almost entirely in both 1- and 2sigma ranges. Moreover, they were constructed as part of the same larger architectural unit spanning Buildings A and B, the goal of which was to transform the open Inner
Kembel and Haas
Lanzn Rectangle into a closed gallery and connect it with an open patio that likewise connected with the Upper Laberintos Gallery, also newly constructed in this stage as part of a probable U-shaped form connecting Buildings A, B, and C (see Kembel 2001). The chronological correspondence of these samples, their separation across two buildings, and their provenance within part of a large functional architectural unit suggest that they both date original construction and are anchor points for the construction of the Expansion Stage. The later date ranges of the other samples from the same phase of Building AAA62764 (LAB-N-S04), AA62762 (LAB-L-S01), and AA70294 (APLAT-S-S01)suggest they are renovations. A different scenario characterizes the samples from the Loco Gallery when they are analyzed using the evaluation framework and their context within the architectural sequence of Buildings A, B, and C. Little architectural data currently directly connects the Loco Gallery of Building C with galleries in Buildings A and B (Kembel 2001, pp. 6677, 160163, 201202); that said, two site-wide patterns do link them and provide context for interpreting the radiocarbon dates from the Loco Gallery. The first site-wide pattern that links the Loco Gallery to the rest of the architectural sequence is gallery standardization (Kembel 2001, pp. 205216, Fig. 10.12; Kembel 2008, pp. 4951, Fig. 2.21). Prior to the Black and White Stage, galleries were constructed in a wide variety of forms, with practically each one being unique. In new construction during the Black and White Stage, however, gallery forms were standardized to two variants: an E form (a long central hallway with smaller segments extending to the left as one entered the gallery), and an H form (a long central hallway with smaller segments extending to left and right). This pattern of gallery standardization forms one of the strongest chronological links between physically noncontiguous architecture at the site. Examining the Loco Gallery, none of its four construction episodes follows this pattern of gallery standardization: they are all therefore viewed as being constructed prior to the Black and White Stage, during the Consolidation and Expansion Stages (Kembel 2001, pp. 21115). The dates from the Loco Gallery overlap with the Black and White Core dates, however, and are inconsistent with this architectural evidence of gallery standardization; taken alone, the dates would suggest that the Loco Gallery is newer than the gallery standardization evidence would support and therefore require further examination of the dates' architectural context. The second site-wide architectural pattern involving the Loco Gallery's chronological placement is the construction of the U-shaped temple formed by Buildings A, B, and C; this U-shaped complex is one of the hallmark architectural forms at Chavn de Huntar and indeed within Formative Andean highland and coastal sites as a group (Moseley 1985; Williams 1980, 1985). At the beginning of the Expansion Stage, construction efforts joined earlier separate mounds of Buildings A and B into one contiguous form: an early form of Building C apparently was in place by this time to complete a U-shaped temple (Kembel 2001, 2008). All four of the Loco Gallery samples come from the earliest two construction episodes of the gallery: Lower Loco and Loco Rooms (see Fig. 9). Architectural evidence (Kembel 2001, pp. 6677, 160 163, 201202) suggests that the Lower Loco episode was part of this early Building C form and that the Loco Rooms sat atop the mound, constructed either contemporaneously or somewhat later. At a minimum then, the sample from Lower Loco (LOCA-S02), if dating original construction, should date to the Expansion Stage and correspond with the Expansion Stage anchor points from Buildings A and B
described above; the dates from the Loco Rooms (LOC-S-S01, LOC-S-S02, and LOC-S-S05) should be very similar as well, perhaps postdating the Lower Loco date. Instead, the samples from these very early architectural forms date to the much later Black and White Stage, overlapping with the Black and White Core dates and suggesting that their dated events do not equal their target events of original construction. If one argues that the Loco samples must date original construction, then one suggests either that (1) the northern arm (formed by Building C) of the U-shaped temple comprised of Buildings A, B, and C was not in place until the final monumental stage of the sequence and thus this U-shape was not in place by the Expansion Stage but rather was built in the Black and White Stage; instead, Buildings A and B would have stood open to the north for 300400 years: or (2) an early Building C was largely or completely demolished and then rebuilt including the Loco Gallery at the beginning of the Black and White Stage; in this case, all four Loco Gallery construction episodes would have been built simultaneously, negating both the substantial evidence that the gallery was built in four distinct episodes and the pervasive site-wide pattern of gallery standardization employed at this time: or (3) prior to the Black and White Stage a very small, Low Building C existed disjointed from the much larger, grander and unified Buildings A and B; this early Building C would have been expanded at the beginning of the Black and White Stage, subsuming the older Building C to be invisible today and including the construction again of all of the Loco Gallery simultaneously rather than in distinct episodes, and again not following gallery standardization. All three of these scenarios seem highly unlikely in light of current evidence, particularly given (1) the prevalence of the U-shaped temple form in the Formative Andes and the improbability that Chavn builders would have left the U-shaped form created by Buildings A, B, and C incomplete until the site's final monumental stage; (2) the ubiquity of gallery standardization during the Black and White Stage and the unlikelihood that the Loco Gallery would have been the single clear counterexample; (3) the abundant evidence that the Loco Gallery was built in four distinct episodes rather than just one, including clear construction seams between episodes as well as very different gallery forms, construction axes, stonework, mortar quality, and construction styles in each of the episodes (Kembel 2001); and (4) the presence of very old stonework on Building C's south face below the level of the Loco Gallery (Kembel 2001, pp. 161162), suggesting the building was not completely demolished at the beginning of the Black and White Stage. Given the current evidence, then, the dates from the Loco Gallery appear to reflect renovation work during the Black and White Stage rather than original construction. The tightly overlapping ranges of the four samples suggest that such work was not as-needed spot renovations but instead was a gallery-wide renovation that occurred at the beginning of the Black and White Stage. Clearly, these conclusions can be reevaluated if future data shed more light on the construction history of Building C and the Loco Gallery. Separate Mound Stage Seven samples were dated from the Separate Mound Stage (see Figs. 8a and 9). Five were from the earliest known phase of Building A, the NEA (Kembel 2001; Rick et al. 1998). Two of these samples, both from the Escalinata Gallery, returned historic period dates, AA62745 (ESC-A-S07) and AA62746 (ESCA-S12). From the Alacenas Gallery, two samples, AA62747 (ALA-C-S01) and AAA62748 (ALA-C-S04), returned dates later than expected, generally extending into the range of dates for the Black and White Core. Sample AA70293 (EFG-A-S01)
Kembel and Haas
from the East Face Gallery returned earlier date ranges. Its 1-sigma range of 996 907 calBC does not overlap with those from the Alacenas Gallery, while its 2-sigma range of 1020841 calBC does. Within the earliest known phase of Building B (see Kembel 2001, Figs. 4.86, 4.934.96; Kembel 2008, Figs. 2.162.19), two samples from the Inner Lanzn Rectangle were suitable for dating. Because so much of the original rectangle is abutted by Expansion Stage additions (dated with sample AA62754 (LAN-H-S02), discussed above), limited exposed surface area made samples difficult to locate. Sample AA62759 (LAN-H-S10) returned a historic period date, while AA62752 (LAN-G-S04) returned a Chavn period date. Due to the relatively close correspondence of their 1- and 2-sigma ranges, coupled with their locations spread across two buildings, samples AA62752 (LAN-G-S04) and AA70293 (EFG-A-S01) could both be seen as relatively reliable measures of original construction for their respective phases. Analysis of these samples within the relative architectural sequence and using the evaluation framework presented above, however, provides additional insight, particularly when compared with the anchor points of the Expansion Stage, samples AA62754 (LAN-H-S02) and AA62763 (LAB-N-S01). Specifically, in Building B, samples AA62752 (LAN-G-S04) and AA62754 (LAN-H-S02) correspond with their positions within the relative sequence (see Fig. 9), in that the Inner Lanzn Rectangle, dated by sample AA62752 (LAN-GS04), was built prior to the Expansion Stage support structures of the Inner Lanzn Chamber, dated by sample AA62754 (LAN-H-S02); their 2-sigma ranges correspond with this relative sequence, with a range of 1010841 calBC for AA62754 (LAN-HS02), and for AA62752 (LAN-G-S04), three ranges comprised of 1131901 calBC with a 93.7 % probability, 11571145 calBC with a 0.9 % probability, and 1190 1180 calBC with a 0.8 % probability. This evidence suggests that AA62752 (LAN-GS04) can be characterized as an anchor point for construction of the Inner Lanzn Rectangle in the Separate Mound Stage. In contrast, in Building A, if AA70293 (EFG-A-S01) dates original construction of the East Face Gallery and thus the first known phase (the NEA Phase) of Building A in the Separate Mound Stage, it should date substantially earlier than Expansion Stage anchor point AA62763 (LAB-N-S01), which dates the construction of the Upper Laberintos episode in the second known phase of Building A (see Fig. 9); clear architectural evidence indicates these galleries were built in separate phases, with the East Face Gallery preceding the Upper Laberintos episode (Kembel 2001). These two samples, however, return almost identical 1- and 2-sigma ranges, with uncalibrated ages only 2 years apart. Comparison with the relative architectural sequence of Building A, then, suggests that AA70293 (EFG-A-S01) is too young to date original construction of the East Face Gallery and the NEA and that therefore, rather than being an anchor point for the Separate Mound Stage, it instead dates a renovation event at the time of construction of the Upper Laberintos episode and the Expansion Stage. Comparison of these dates in the context of the combined relative architectural sequence of Buildings A and B corroborates this analysis. Relative architectural data suggest the NEA was constructed prior to the early Building B platform on which the Inner Lanzn Rectangle sits (see Fig. 9; Kembel 2001; Rick et al. 1998). As such,
original construction of the East Face Gallery would be expected to be older than that of the Inner Lanzn Rectangle. The date returned from the sample from the East Face Gallery, AA70293 (EFG-A-S01), however, is younger than the date from the sample from the Inner Lanzn Rectangle, AA62752 (LAN-G-S04). Therefore, because sample AA70293 (EFG-A-S01) returns a younger-than-expected date relative to both its architectural context within the construction sequence of Buildings A and B and the radiocarbon anchor points for construction of later phases within those buildings, it is viewed as dating a renovation event rather than original construction. The late calibrated ranges of the Alacenas samples, their almost identical uncalibrated dates, and their location within the same gallery suggest that they date localized renovations within this gallery during the Black and White Stage rather than original construction of the NEA. In sum, in light of the available evidence, AA62752 (LAN-G-S04) can be considered an anchor point for construction of the Inner Lanzn Rectangle. Because relative architectural data suggest that the NEA was constructed before the early Building B platform on which the Inner Lanzn Rectangle was built, AA62752 (LAN-G-S04) is viewed as a terminus ante quem for the beginning of construction of the Separate Mound Stage. This is consistent with factors suggesting probable further antiquity for the site, described below. Similarly, current evidence suggests that AA70293 (EFG-A-S01) dates a renovation event within the NEA at the time of initial construction of the Expansion Stage and that AA62747 (ALA-C-S01) and AA62748 (ALA-C-S04) date renovations during the Black and White Stage. East Area Pre-Black and White Axis Phase Eight samples were dated from the East Area structures originally built prior to the Black and White Stage (see Figs. 9 and 15). Because fewer architectural connections exist between this area of the site and Buildings A, B, and C, dates from this area are listed as a separate group (see Table 2, Fig. 17). Based on relative chronological architectural data, dates from original construction are expected to span the site's first three construction stages (Kembel 2001), however, and therefore, it is useful to try to chronologically link any anchor points here with anchor points from other stages. Two samples were dated from the South Flanking Mound (see Fig. 15). Sample AA6270 (ESCON-A-S01) from the Escondida Gallery returned 1- and 2-sigma ranges that correspond with the gallery's relative chronological position within the first of the mound's two known phases. The second sample was from the other gallery in the mound, the Cortada Gallery, which was constructed later than the Escondida Gallery, in the Black and White Stage; its sample, AA70292 (COR-A-S07), forms part of the Black and White Core (see Table 3 and Fig. 18) and is discussed above. It returned, correspondingly, later 1- and 2-sigma ranges than sample AA6270 (ESCON-A-S01). This internal correspondence within the mound and in relation to the Black and White Core dates suggests that the Escondida sample may reliably date original construction of this gallery and can be considered an anchor point. Relating sample AA6270 (ESCON-A-S01) to the site-wide sequence, it corresponds with the dates anchoring the Expansion Stage, dating slightly later. This suggests that the first phase of the South Flanking Mound in the East Area was built during the Expansion Stage, shortly after initial Expansion Stage construction in Buildings A and B.
Kembel and Haas
Six samples were dated from the two galleries in Building D, also known as the Tello Mound, the enigmatic and almost fully obscured mound directly northeast from Building Csamples AA62769 (TL-E-S02), AA62774 (TL-E-S03), and AA62775 (TL-E-S04) from the Tello Low Gallery and samples AA62756 (TH-A-S01), AA62757 (TH-A-S04), and AA62758 (TH-A-S05) from the Tello High Gallery. Each gallery contains one early date and two later dates, presenting a set of alternatives. If sample AA62756 (TH-A-S01) dates the target event of original construction of the Tello High Gallery, then samples AA62757 (TH-A-S04) and AA62758 (TH-AS05) may represent later renovations, even into the Black and White Stage. If, however, samples AA62757 (TH-A-S04) and AA62758 (TH-A-S05) date original construction, then the gallery may have been built in a Black and White Stage addition to the mound and AA62756 (TH-A-S01) may be an example of old wood. Likewise, if sample AA62769 (TL-E-S02) dates the target event of original construction of the Tello Low Gallery, then samples AA62775 (TL-E-S04) and AA62774 (TL-E-S03) may represent later renovations similar in timeframe to the anchor dates of the Expansion Stage. If, however, samples AA62775 (TL-E-S04) and AA62774 (TL-E-S03) date original construction, then AA62769 (TL-E-S02) may be an example of old wood. Together, the dates from Building D indicate two possible scenarios: (1) the Tello Low Gallery was built in the Expansion Stage and the Tello High Gallery was added in the Black and White Stage and each incorporated old wood into their original construction or (2) both galleries originally were built in the Separate Mound Stage and underwent renovations in the Expansion Stage and Black and White Stage. Both scenarios, however, suggest that Building D originally was not a late addition (cf. Rowe 1967; Fig. 2) and that it existed prior to the Black and White Stage as concluded based on site-wide relative architectural evidence in Kembel (2001). The scarcity of relative architectural chronological evidence within Building D makes interpretation of these chronometric dates difficult. Multiple factors prohibit selecting between the above scenarios, including limited construction sequence data within the mound, poor preservation of the little remaining external mound stonework, limited data on gallery standardization, and no physical connection of the mound with Buildings A, B, or C. Without additional relative chronological data to contextualize the dates from Building D, a more definitive conclusion is unclear. To sum, examination of the samples from the East Area suggests that sample AA6270 (ESCON-A-S01) is an anchor point for the Escondida Gallery and the first phase of the South Flanking Mound, built during the Expansion Stage. In contrast, the ambiguity of the dates from Building D underscores the importance of clear relative architectural data for interpreting chronometric dates.
Summary and Synthesis of Results and Analysis In sum, the above analysis of 32 new architectural mortar radiocarbon dates and 9 radiocarbon dates from prior excavations in external monumental architectural contexts helps assess whether these dates represent original construction, renovation work, or incorporation of built-in age or are unclearly associated. It identifies 19 anchor points dating original construction (10 from architectural mortar and 9 from excavations), 13 mortar samples dating
renovation events, 3 mortar samples dating effects of built-in age, and 6 mortar samples (all from Building D) with unclear relationships with the rest of the sequence. Significantly, it demonstrates that the chronometric dates for original construction at Chavn de Huntar correspond with the site's new relative architectural sequence (Fig. 22) and that renovation occurred during each monumental stage (Fig. 23). A chronological date-by-date synthesis is presented here as illustrated in Fig. 24 and Table 4. Beginning at the early end of the timeline, sample AA62752 (LAN-GS04) marks an anchor point for the construction of the Inner Lanzn Rectangle. Due to relative architectural data that suggest that the NEA was constructed before the early Building B platform on which the Inner Lanzn Rectangle was built (Kembel 2001; Rick et al. 1998) as well as factors outlined below suggesting likely further antiquity for Chavn de Huntar, this date is considered a terminus ante quem for the beginning of monumental construction at the site. Therefore, 1200 calBC is proposed as a reasonable estimate of the beginning of the Separate Mound Stage. Analysis suggests that other samples returning early dates appear to be affected by built-in age, either old wood or cultural reuse of mortar (AA62755 (LAN-D-S02),
Post-monumental Construction R_Date ETH-20740 CdHCS-32 R_Date HAR-1105 R_Date ETH-20741 CdHCS-33 Support Construction Stage R_Date ETH-20739 CdHCS-29 Black & White Stage R_Date AA62771 DMU-A-S03 R_Date AA62772 DMU-A-S04 R_Date AA62770 DMU-A-S02 R_Date ETH-20737 CdHCS-11 R_Date ETH-26378 RC-02-1 R_Date AA62749 OFR-B-S01 R_Date AA62744 COL-H-S01 R_Date ETH-26379 RC-02-2 R_Date ETH-20738 CdHCS-12 R_Date GX-1128 R_Date AA70292 COR-A-S07 Expansion Stage R_Date AA62760 ESCON-A-S01 R_Date AA62754 LAN-H-S02 R_Date AA62763 LAB-N-S01 Separate Mound Stage R_Date AA62752 LAN-G-S04 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 Key: 600 400 200
Black & White Core anchor points Other anchor points
Fig. 22 Anchor points listed by architectural stage; radiocarbon dates from architectural mortar and from excavations directly associated with monumental architecture at Chavn de Huntar
Kembel and Haas

Post-monumental Construction R_Date ETH-20740 CdHCS-32 R_Date HAR-1105 R_Date ETH-20741 CdHCS-33 Support Construction Stage R_Date ETH-20739 CdHCS-29 Black & White Stage R_Date AA62751 OFR-B-S10 R_Date AA62750 OFR-B-S06 R_Date AA62771 DMU-A-S03 R_Date AA62772 DMU-A-S04 R_Date AA62770 DMU-A-S02 R_Date ETH-20737 CdHCS-11 R_Date ETH-26378 RC-02-1 R_Date AA62749 OFR-B-S01 R_Date AA62744 COL-H-S01 R_Date ETH-26379 RC-02-2 R_Date ETH-20738 CdHCS-12 R_Date GX-1128 R_Date AA70292 COR-A-S07 R_Date AA62761 LAB-B-S01 R_Date AA62743 COL-C-S04 R_Date AA62755 LAN-D-S02 Consolidation Stage R_Date AA70291 CAN-A-S02 Expansion Stage R_Date AA62767 LOC-S-S05 R_Date AA62765 LOC-S-S01 R_Date AA62773 LOC-A-S02 R_Date AA62764 LAB-N-S04 R_Date AA62766 LOC-S-S02 R_Date AA62762 LAB-L-S01 R_Date AA70294 APLAT-S-S01 R_Date AA62760 ESCON-A-S01 R_Date AA62754 LAN-H-S02 R_Date AA62763 LAB-N-S01 Separate Mound Stage R_Date AA62748 ALA-C-S04 R_Date AA62747 ALA-C-S01 R_Date AA70293 EFG-A-S01 R_Date AA62752 LAN-G-S04 East Area Building D
R_Date AA62758 TH-A-S05 R_Date AA62757 TH-A-S04 R_Date AA62774 TL-E-S03 R_Date AA62775 TL-E-S04 R_Date AA62769 TL-E-S02 R_Date AA62756 TH-A-S01 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 Key: 600 400 Anchor Point Renovation 200 Built-in Age Unclear
Fig. 23 Radiocarbon dates from architectural mortar and excavations directly associated with monumental architecture at Chavn de Huntar, listed by the architectural stage of their locations' original construction and color coded by date type (anchor point, renovation, built-in age, or unclear)

R_Date AA62751 OFR-B-S10 R_Date ETH-20740 CdHCS-32 R_Date HAR-1105 R_Date ETH-20741 CdHCS-33 R_Date AA62750 OFR-B-S06 R_Date ETH-20739 CdHCS-29 R_Date AA70291 CAN-A-S02 R_Date AA62771 DMU-A-S03 R_Date AA62772 DMU-A-S04 R_Date AA62770 DMU-A-S02 R_Date AA62767 LOC-S-S05 R_Date ETH-20737 CdHCS-11 R_Date AA62765 LOC-S-S01 R_Date ETH-26378 RC-02-1 R_Date AA62749 OFR-B-S01 R_Date AA62744 COL-H-S01 R_Date ETH-26379 RC-02-2 R_Date AA62773 LOC-A-S02 R_Date ETH-20738 CdHCS-12 R_Date AA62764 LAB-N-S04 R_Date GX-1128 R_Date AA62748 ALA-C-S04 R_Date AA62747 ALA-C-S01 R_Date AA62766 LOC-S-S02 R_Date AA62758 TH-A-S05 R_Date AA70292 COR-A-S07 R_Date AA62757 TH-A-S04 R_Date AA62762 LAB-L-S01 R_Date AA62774 TL-E-S03 R_Date AA70294 APLAT-S-S01 R_Date AA62775 TL-E-S04 R_Date AA62760 ESCON-A-S01 R_Date AA62754 LAN-H-S02 R_Date AA62763 LAB-N-S01 R_Date AA70293 EFG-A-S01 R_Date AA62769 TL-E-S02 R_Date AA62761 LAB-B-S01 R_Date AA62743 COL-C-S04 R_Date AA62756 TH-A-S01 R_Date AA62752 LAN-G-S04 R_Date AA62755 LAN-D-S02 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 Key: 600 400 Anchor Point Renovation 200 Built-in Age Unclear A B C D E F G Earthquake ? I H J K
Fig. 24 Radiocarbon dates from architectural mortar and excavations directly associated with monumental architecture at Chavn de Huntar, listed in chronological order and color coded by date type (anchor point, renovation, built-in age, or unclear). Specific architectural events are called out on the right side of the figure. a Anchor point for Inner Lanzn Rectangle; terminus ante quem for beginning of Separate Mound Stage. b Renovation of Separate Mound structure at the beginning of Expansion Stage. c First anchor points for Expansion stage; terminus ante quem for construction of Separate Mound Stage. d Anchor point for later phase in Expansion Stage. e Renovations of Expansion Stage structures indicating possible boundary between Expansion and Consolidation Stages. f First anchor point for Black and White Stage; terminus ante quem for construction of Consolidation Stage. g Contemporaneous renovations and Black and White Core anchor points at the beginning of the Black and White Stage. h Anchor points for last monumental construction phase. i Monumental renovation of gallery. j Support Construction Stage. k Postmonumental period
Kembel and Haas Table 4 Radiocarbon dates from architectural mortar and excavations directly associated with monumental architecture at Chavn de Huntar, listed in chronological order
AA62751
OFR-B-S10
2212
28
360 (7.8 %) 346 319 (27.5 %) 272 261 (32.9 %) 206
ETH-20740 CdHCS-32
CPA-Level H
2260
55
394 (25.5 %) 352 296 (37.9 %) 228 221 (4.9 %) 211
405 (95.4 %) 193
HAR-1105
CPA-Level H
2380
70
732 (10.4 %) 691 661 (2.2 %) 651 544 (55.6 %) 389
766 (94.5 %) 359 275 (0.9 %) 260 753 (16.1 %) 685 668 (6.3 %) 631 626 (1.5 %) 611 597 (71.5 %) 389
ETH-20741 CdHCS-33
CPA-Level H
2395
55
721 (7.8 %) 695 540 (60.4 %) 398
AA62750
OFR-B-S06
2446
28
733 (19.0 %) 690 661 (4.8 %) 649 545 (25.8 %) 483 465 (18.6 %) 415
751 (24.3 %) 685 667 ( 8.8 %) 636 622 ( 1.3 %) 612 595 (60.9 %) 408 763 (23.6 %) 681 673 (71.8 %) 408
ETH-20739 CdHCS-29
Bldg A West Face support
2455
55
749 (18.9 %) 688 666 (7.2 %) 642 592 (4.0 %) 577 568 (24.4 %) 484 466 (13.7 %) 416
AA70291 AA62771
CAN-A-S02 DMU-A-S03
2474
55 28
758 (22.6 %) 682 670 (45.6 %) 515 758 (11.9 %) 731 691 ( 3.3 %) 683 669 ( 3.8 %) 660 651 (49.1 %) 544
768 (95.4 %) 412 774 (94.4 %) 509 436 (1.0 %) 422
Upper Doble Mnsula 2489 Gallery, Segment A
AA62772
DMU-A-S04
29
765 (10.4 %) 744 688 (10.3 %) 664 646 (47.6 %) 550
785 (94.3 %) 536 531 (1.1 %) 521 795 (34.2 %) 732 690 (18.4 %) 660 650 (42.8 %) 544 832 (95.4 %) 776 926 (89.8 %) 750 688 (2.6 %) 666 641 (2.8 %) 592 576 (0.2 %) 571
AA62770
DMU-A-S02
27
788 (28.4 %) 749 686 (15.6 %) 666 639 (24.3 %) 592
AA62767
LOC-S-S05
Loco Gallery, Segment S B&W Zcalo
2627 2640
28 55
815 (68.2 %) 791 893 (7.3 %) 877 846 (60.9 %) 776
ETH-20737 CdHCS-11
Radiocarbon Dates from the Monumental Architecture at Chavn de Huntar Table 4 (continued)
calBC 2-sigma (95.4 %) ranges and probabilities from (prob) to 888 (1.0 %) 880 841 (94.4 %) 786 922 (95.4 %) 767 895 (95.4 %) 796 901 (95.4 %) 793
AA62765
LOC-S-S01
Loco Gallery, Segment S Circular Plaza Ofrendas Gallery, Segment B Columnas-Vigas Gallery, Segment H Circular Plaza Loco Gallery, Segment A B&W Zcalo Laberintos Gallery, Segment N Ofrendas Gallery
2642 2656 2669 2670
27 51 29 39
821 (68.2 %) 796 894 (11.0 %) 875 847 (57.2 %) 792 838 (68.2 %) 800 890 (8.5 %) 879 844 (59.7 %) 798
ETH-26378 RC-02-1 AA62749 AA62744 OFR-B-S01 COL-H-S01
ETH-26379 RC-02-2 AA62773 LOC-A-S02
2672 2677 2695 2698 2700
57 29 55 44 85
896 (18.2 %) 868 859 (50.0 %) 798 887 (3.2 %) 883 842 (65.0 %) 802 896 (68.2 %) 809 895 (23.7 %) 867 857 (44.5 %) 810 971 (2.9 %) 961 933 (65.3 %) 796
975 (1.7 %) 956 942 (93.7 %) 767 895 (95.4 %) 799 976 (95.4 %) 789 927 (95.4 %) 796 1118 (93.1 %) 751 686 (1.1 %) 667 637 (0.5 %) 622 614 (0.7 %) 595
ETH-20738 CdHCS-12 AA62764 GX-1128 LAB-N-S04
AA62748 AA62747 AA62766 AA62758 AA70292 AA62757 AA62762 AA62774 AA70294 AA62775
ALA-C-S04 ALA-C-S01 LOC-S-S02 TH-A-S05 COR-A-S07 TH-A-S04 LAB-L-S01 TL-E-S03 APLAT-S-S01 TL-E-S04
Alacenas Gallery, Segment C Alacenas Gallery, Segment C Loco Gallery, Segment S Tello High Gallery, Segment A Cortada Gallery, Segment A Tello High Gallery, Segment A Laberintos Gallery, Segment L Tello Low Gallery, Segment E A-Platform, South Face Tello Low Gallery, Segment E
2705 2708 2719 2722 2730 2735 2750 2755 2756 2761
43 30 28 30 33 35 38 28 33 29
895 (68.2 %) 815 895 (28.3 %) 867 857 (39.9 %) 820 895 (68.2 %) 832 896 (68.2 %) 834 901 (68.2 %) 835 905 (68.2 %) 835 923 (68.2 %) 836 922 (33.0 %) 888 882 (35.2 %) 843 926 (68.2 %) 841 967 (2.6 %) 963 929 (36.9 %) 889 880 (28.7 %) 843
929 (95.4 %) 798 910 (95.4 %) 807 916 (95.4 %) 811 920 (95.4 %) 810 969 (1.4 %) 961 931 (94.0 %) 809 972 (3.3 %) 958 937 (92.1 %) 810 996 (1.6 %) 986 979 (93.8 %) 816 975 (95.4 %) 827 996 (1.7 %) 986 980 (93.7 %) 826 996 (1.5 %) 987 979 (93.9 %) 831 1002 (95.4 %) 842
AA62760
2778
30
976 (66.7 %) 895 863 (1.5 %) 860
Kembel and Haas Table 4 (continued)

calBC 2-sigma (95.4 %) ranges and probabilities from (prob) to 1010 (95.4 %) 841 1039 (95.4 %) 837 1020 (95.4 %) 841 1,043 (95.4 %) 905 1,055 (95.4 %) 895 1,114 (95.4 %) 897
AA62754 AA62763 AA70293 AA62769 AA62761 AA62743
LAN-H-S02 LAB-N-S01 EFG-A-S01 TL-E-S02 LAB-B-S01 COL-C-S04
Lanzn Gallery, Segment H Laberintos Gallery, Segment N East Face Gallery, Segment A Tello Low Gallery, Segment E Laberintos Gallery, Segment B Columnas-Vigas Gallery, Segment C Tello High Gallery, Segment A Lanzn Gallery, Segment G
2787 2792 2794 2817 2817 2823
32 38 33 27 30 36
995 (5.2 %) 986 980 (63.0 %) 900 999 (68.2 %) 903 996 (68.2 %) 907 1,003 (68.2 %) 927 1,004 (68.2 %) 926 1,014 (68.2 %) 920
AA62756 AA62752
TH-A-S01 LAN-G-S04
2841 2847
33 43
1,046 (52.1 %) 971 959 (16.1 %) 934
1,114 (95.4 %) 916
1,109 (1.3 %) 1,105 1,190 (0.8 %) 1,180 1,072 (1.8 %) 1,066 1,157 (0.9 %) 1,145 1,056 (65.0 %) 928 1,131 (93.7 %) 901 1,263 (95.4 %) 842
AA62755
LAN-D-S02
2862
76
1,129 (68.2 %) 920
AA62743 (COL-C-S04), and AA62761 (LAB-B-S01)), or are unclearly characterized as either built-in age or anchor points (AA62756 (TH-A-S01) and AA62769 (TL-E-S02)). AA62763 (LAB-N-S01) and AA62754 (LAN-H-S02) are the first anchor points for the Expansion Stage. The correspondence of AA70293 (EFG-A-S01) to these dates suggests renovation occurred in the earlier stage of Building A (the NEA) at this time. The close correspondence of anchor point AA62760 (ESCON-A-S01) suggests that Expansion Stage construction began in the South Flanking Mound slightly later. AA70294 (APLAT-S-S01) and AA62762 (LAB-L-S01) likely date renovations in Building A later during the Expansion Stage. An anchor point for original construction of the Consolidation Stage is not identified because the single Chavn period date from the Consolidation Stage (AA70291 (CANA-S02)) evidently marks renovation during the Black and White Stage rather than original construction. Other dates, however, provide a chronological outline for this stage. Specifically, AA70292 (COR-A-S07) provides a terminus ante quem for the Consolidation Stage as it marks the first anchor point for the beginning of construction of the Black and White Stage, characterized by the Black and White Core. Likewise, while the upper range of the Expansion Stage and the lower range of the Consolidation Stage are undefined by anchor points dating original construction, the renovations marked by samples AA70294 (APLAT-SS01) and AA62762 (LAB-L-S01) may indicate this boundary; these structures, originally built in the Expansion Stage, may have undergone renovations
marking the beginning of the newer Consolidation Stage. This is inferred from the close correspondence of samples AA70293 (EFG-A-S01) and AA62763 (LAB-N-S01) at the beginning of the Expansion Stage and by the correspondence of wide-ranging renovations with the Black and White Core, discussed below, suggesting renovations of earlier stages occurred upon construction of a new stage. Three samples from the Tello Mound span this range, either as anchor points or renovations of original Separate Mound construction. Three architectural mortar dates and five excavation dates combine to form the Black and White Core, beginning with AA70292 (COR-A-S07) and ending with sample ETH20737 (CdHCS-11). Significantly, seven other dates marking renovation of earlier structures span the same condensed range, beginning with AA62766 (LOC-S-S02) and ending with AA62767 (LOC-S-S05); AA62758 (TH-A-S05) marks either an anchor point or renovation effort. This tight overlapping of anchor and renovation dates suggests that these renovations were undertaken at the beginning of the Black and White Stage, perhaps as part of efforts to integrate the newly combined whole and/or as part of ritual renovations marking the beginning of a new construction effort. AA62770 (DMU-A-S02), AA62772 (DMU-A-S04), and AA62771 (DMU-AS03) are three anchor points from the Upper Doble Mnsula Gallery, the sole gallery built in the final monumental phase of the construction. Together, they date the final effort of new monumental construction at the site. AA70291 (CAN-A-S02) closely follows these three points, dating late Black and White Stage renovation of this canal originally built in the Consolidation Stage. This date indicates continued monumental functioning of the temple as a whole nearing the end of the Black and White Stage. This date is closely followed by anchor point ETH-20739 (CdHCS-29), dating constructions supporting destabilized walls following a probable earthquake. AA62750 (OFR-B-S06) likely dates renovation in the Ofrendas Gallery at this time, prior to the collapse of the plaster from its ceiling and walls that buried the deposit of offerings on its floor. Together, these two samples seem to date stabilization efforts during the Support Construction Stage. When grouped with the AA70291 (CAN-A-S02) date, which evidently dates regular renovation of the monumental functioning of a major canal, these dates chronologically bracket the earthquake that appears to have literally shaken the foundation of the site's monumental functioning. Finally, following these support efforts, a period of postmonumental physical collapse and reoccupation is dated by excavation anchor points immediately above the floor of the Circular Plaza: samples ETH-20741 (CdHCS-33) and HAR-1105. These are followed by further occupations dated by anchor point ETH-20740 (CdHCS-32) and an apparent post-Chavn renovation attempt within the adjacent Ofrendas Gallery, marked by AA62751 (OFR-B-S10). Statistical Analysis of Date Ranges for Architectural Stages We can use statistical methods to date key events in Chavn de Huntar's architectural sequence with increased precision. Statistical methods use the power of multiple samples together to create tighter date ranges than a single sample can provide. Not
Table 5 Sample groupings used in R_Combine combined radiocarbon calibrations for Chavn de Huntar's architectural sequence
Location Radiocarbon age BP Sigma calBC 1-sigma (68.2 %) ranges and probabilities from (prob) to 732 (10.4 %) 691 661 (2.2 %) 651 544 (55.6 %) 389 CPA-Level H 2395 55 721 (7.8 %) 695 540 (60.4 %) 398 753 (16.1 %) 685 668 (6.3 %) 631 626 (1.5 %) 611 597 (71.5 %) 389 Ofrendas Gallery, Segment B 2446 28 733 (19.0 %) 690 661 (4.8 %) 649 545 (25.8 %) 483 465 (18.6 %) 415 Bldg A West Face support 2455 55 749 (18.9 %) 688 666 (7.2 %) 642 592 (4.0 %) 577 568 (24.4 %) 484 466 (13.7 %) 416 Upper Doble Mnsula Gallery, Segment A 2489 28 758 (11.9 %) 731 691 (3.3 %) 683 669 (3.8 %) 660 651 (49.1 %) 544 Upper Doble Mnsula Gallery, Segment A 2505 29 765 (10.4 %) 744 688 (10.3 %) 664 646 (47.6 %) 550 785 (94.3 %) 536 531 (1.1 %) 521 774 (94.4 %) 509 436 (1.0 %) 422 751 (24.3 %) 685 667 (8.8 %) 636 622 (1.3 %) 612 595 (60.9 %) 408 763 (23.6 %) 681 673 (71.8 %) 408 calBC 2-sigma (95.4 %) ranges and probabilities from (prob) to 766 (94.5 %) 359 275 (0.9 %) 260
Architectural event
Lab number
Sample code
Beginning of architectural collapse
HAR-1105
CPA-Level H
2380
70
ETH-20741
CdHCS-33
Beginning of the Support Construction Stage
AA62750
OFR-B-S06
ETH-20739
CdHCS-29
Beginning of the final phase of the Black and White Stage (the High SA Phase)
AA62771
DMU-A-S03
Kembel and Haas
AA62772
DMU-A-S04
Table 5 (continued)
Location Radiocarbon age BP Sigma calBC 1-sigma (68.2 %) ranges and probabilities from (prob) to 788 (28.4 %) 749 686 (15.6 %) 666 639 (24.3 %) 592 Loco Gallery, Segment S Loco Gallery, Segment S Loco Gallery, Segment A Laberintos Gallery, Segment N Alacenas Gallery, Segment C Alacenas Gallery, Segment C Loco Gallery, Segment S B&W Zcalo 2719 2640 2708 2705 43 30 28 55 2698 44 2677 29 2642 27 2627 28 815 (68.2 %) 791 821 (68.2 %) 796 887 (3.2 %) 883 842 (65.0 %) 802 895 (23.7 %) 867 857 (44.5 %) 810 895 (68.2 %) 815 895 (28.3 %) 867 857 (39.9 %) 820 895 (68.2 %) 832 893 (7.3 %) 877 846 (60.9 %) 776 916 (95.4 %) 811 926 (89.8 %) 750 688 (2.6 %) 666 641 (2.8 %) 592 576 (0.2 %) 571 Circular Plaza Ofrendas Gallery, Segment B Columnas-Vigas Gallery, Segment H 2656 2669 2670 51 29 39 894 (11.0 %) 875 847 (57.2 %) 792 838 (68.2 %) 800 890 (8.5 %) 879 844 (59.7 %) 798 895 (95.4 %) 796 901 (95.4 %) 793 922 (95.4 %) 767 929 (95.4 %) 798 910 (95.4 %) 807 927 (95.4 %) 796 calBC 2-sigma (95.4 %) ranges and probabilities from (prob) to 795 (34.2 %) 732 690 (18.4 %) 660 650 (42.8 %) 544 832 (95.4 %) 776 888 (1.0 %) 880 841 (94.4 %) 786 895 (95.4 %) 799
Architectural event
Lab number
Sample code
AA62770
DMU-A-S02
2532
27
Renovations at the beginning of the Black and White Stage
AA62767
LOC-S-S05
AA62765
LOC-S-S01
AA62773
LOC-A-S02
AA62764
LAB-N-S04
AA62748
ALA-C-S04
AA62747
ALA-C-S01
AA62766
LOC-S-S02
Beginning of the Black and White Stage (Black and White Core dates)
ETH-20737
CdHCS-11
ETH-26378
RC-02-1
AA62749
OFR-B-S01
AA62744
COL-H-S01
Table 5 (continued)
Location Radiocarbon age BP Sigma calBC 1-sigma (68.2 %) ranges and probabilities from (prob) to 896 (18.2 %) 868 859 (50.0 %) 798 B&W Zcalo Ofrendas Gallery 2700 85 2695 55 896 (68.2 %) 809 971 (2.9 %) 961 933 (65.3 %) 796 calBC 2-sigma (95.4 %) ranges and probabilities from (prob) to 975 (1.7 %) 956 942 (93.7 %) 767 976 (95.4 %) 789 1,118 (93.1 %) 751 686 (1.1 %) 667 637 (0.5 %) 622 614 (0.7 %) 595 Cortada Gallery, Segment A Laberintos Gallery, Segment L A-Platform, South Face Lanzn Gallery, Segment H Laberintos Gallery, Segment N East Face Gallery, Segment A Lanzn Gallery, Segment G 2787 2792 2794 2847 2756 2750 38 33 32 38 33 43 2730 33 901 (68.2 %) 835 923 (68.2 %) 836 926 (68.2 %) 841 995 (5.2 %) 986 980 (63.0 %) 900 999 (68.2 %) 903 996 (68.2 %) 907 1,109 (1.3 %) 1,105 1,072 (1.8 %) 1,066 1,056 (65.0 %) 928 1,039 (95.4 %) 837 1,020 (95.4 %) 841 1190 (0.8 %) 1,180 1,157 (0.9 %) 1,145 1,131 (93.7 %) 901 969 (1.4 %) 961 931 (94.0 %) 809 996 (1.6 %) 986 979 (93.8 %) 816 996 (1.7 %) 986 980 (93.7 %) 826 1,010 (95.4 %) 841
Architectural event
Lab number
Sample code
ETH-26379
RC-02-2
Circular Plaza
2672
57
ETH-20738
CdHCS-12
GX-1128
AA70292
COR-A-S07
Beginning of the Consolidation Stage
AA62762
LAB-L-S01
AA70294
APLAT-S-S01
Beginning of the Expansion Stage
AA62754
LAN-H-S02
AA62763
LAB-N-S01
AA70293
EFG-A-S01
Later phase in the Separate Mound Stageconstruction of the Inner Lanzn Rectangle (terminus ante quem for the beginning of the Separate Mound Stage and the beginning of monumental construction)
AA62752
LAN-G-S04
Kembel and Haas
surprisingly, this requires identification of a specific statistical method that best fits the dataset. We apply here the 14C date combination (R_Combine) method in OxCal online version 4.1. This function uses the error-weighted mean to statistically combine samples dating the same event in order to create a more precise statistical date range for that event. Samples used here for R_Combine consist primarily of anchor points for the beginning of construction stages as well as some renovation events (Table 5). We argue that these data meet the criterion of dating the same event due to (1) the fundamental organizing principles of the construction sequence (in that the beginning of a new phase or stage is defined by the beginning of its construction); (2) careful strategies guiding both sampling on-site and selecting samples for dating, to target the same building events; and (3) the above analysis framework focused on determining anchor points dating the same events.6 Results of R_Combine (Table 6, Figs. 25 and 26) demonstrate ranges, with increased precision over the contributing individual dates, for the beginning of Chavn de Huntar's architectural stages and other architectural events such as the beginning of the final phase of the Black and White Stage as well as the beginning of architectural collapse. Because the stages are contiguous, the beginning of one stage also marks the end of the previous stage. The Separate Mound Stage is not part of the R_Combine analysis because only one sample clearly dated to this stage and thus could not be combined with other dates to increase precision. As such, because the single sample dates a later phase in the Separate Mound Stage (the construction of the Inner Lanzn Rectangle), it serves as a terminus ante quem for the beginning of the Separate Mound Stage and the beginning of monumental construction. The steeper slope of the calibration curve at the beginning of the Expansion, Consolidation, and Black and White Stages contributes to these stages' relatively tight ranges of R_Combine results. Following the beginning of construction of the Black and White Stage, the R_Combine ranges are wider than for the early stages of the sequence, due primarily to the plateau in the calibration curve at this later time and the resulting wide ranges for the samples entered into analysis.
An alternate method is a Bayesian analysis using the Phase and Boundary functions in OxCal online version 4.1. The strengths of this analysis are (1) it does not require that samples date the same event, only that they belong to a given phase or stage, and (2) it uses all the valid samples in a given phase or stage rather than just those dating a particular event and thus harnesses the statistical power of all the samples working together. The functions output Boundary ranges which are then viewed as the start/end limits or ranges between stages. The primary weakness of this method when applied to the Chavn de Huntar architectural radiocarbon dates, however, lies in the very definition of Boundaries as events that bracket the beginning and end of a phase but are not directly dated (Culleton et al. 2012, p. 1577): because we are directly dating the architecture, we are in the somewhat unusual position of dating actual construction events, rather than dating occupation events and trying to extrapolate construction events (Boundaries) between them (as in Culleton et al. 2012). The concept of Boundaries therefore does not apply well to this dataset, because the target events themselves are the beginning of construction of each stage. Instead of dating the beginning of construction of each stage, Boundary ranges for this dataset would be expected to reflect the time just prior to the beginning of construction of a given stage; as such, Boundary ranges would be expected to be slightly earlier than R_Combine ranges.
6
Kembel and Haas Table 6 Results of R_Combine combined radiocarbon calibrations for Chavn de Huntar's architectural sequence Architectural event
calBC 2-sigma (95.4 %) ranges and probabilities from (prob) to 749 (12.6 %) 687 666 (3.5 %) 642 592 (1.3 %) 577 570 (78.0 %) 388
Beginning of architectural collapse
2389
44
522 (68.2 %) 397
Beginning of the Support Construction Stage
2448
25
736 (21.4 %) 690 662 (5.6 %) 649 547 (26.1 %) 486 463 (5.2 %) 449 449 (9.9 %) 417
752 (25.7 %) 686 668 (9.0 %) 637 622 (1.0 %) 614 595 (59.6 %) 410 775 (19.4 %) 732 691 (16.4 %) 661 651 (59.6 %) 544 890 (2.7 %) 880 841 (92.7 %) 803 895 (10.4 %) 869 848 (85.0 %) 802 975 (5.6 %) 956 941 (89.8 %) 829 1,007 (95.4 %) 896
Beginning of the final phase of the Black and White Stage (the High SA Phase)
2509
17
766 (12.3 %) 749 688 (13.2 %) 666 643 (36.3 %) 591 578 (6.4 %) 566
Renovations at the beginning of the Black and White Stage Beginning of the Black and White Stage (Black and White Core dates) Beginning of the Consolidation Stage Beginning of the Expansion Stage
2678 2682 2753 2789
12 16 25 25 43
830 (68.2 %) 811 834 (68.2 %) 810 920 (31.8 %) 889 881 (36.4 %) 844 976 (68.2 %) 907
Later phase in the Separate Mound Stage - 2847 construction of the Inner Lanzn Rectangle (terminus ante quem for the beginning of the Separate Mound Stage and the beginning of monumental construction)
1,109 (1.3 %) 1,105 1,190 (0.8 %) 1,180 1,072 (1.8 %) 1,066 1,157 (0.9 %) 1,145 1,056 (65.0 %) 928 1,131 (93.7 %) 901
As noted in Fig. 24, samples dating the Black and White Core overlap with many samples dating architectural renovation; R_Combine helps characterize that overlap (Table 6 and Fig. 26), producing tightly coinciding R_Combine ranges for the Black and White Core anchor points and the renovations of older structures at the beginning of the Black and White Stage. The R_Combine results for the renovations range only slightly later than those for the Black and White Core dates. This supports the idea that new construction at the beginning of the Black and White Stage was accompanied by site-wide renovation of older structures. In sum, these R_Combine ranges anchor Chavn de Huantar's relative architectural sequence in time, demonstrating that the site's monumental buildings grew in distinct architectural stages between approximately 1200 and 500 calBC. They also help clarify and provide new perspectives on numerous aspects of architectural chronology at the site as discussed below.
One-Sigma (68.2%) Range, calBC Beginning of architectural collapse Beginning of the Support Construction Stage Beginning of the final phase of the Black and White Stage (the High SA Phase) Beginning of the Black and White Stage (Black and White Core dates) Beginning of the Consolidation Stage Beginning of the Expansion Stage Later phase in the Separate Mound Stage - construction of the Inner Lanzn Rectangle (terminus ante quem for the beginning of the Separate Mound Stage and the beginning of monumental construction) Calibrated date (calBC) 522 - 397
Two-Sigma (95.4%) Range, calBC 749 - 388
736 - 417
752 - 410
766 - 566
775 - 544
834 - 810
895 - 802
920 - 844
975 - 829
976 - 907
1007 - 896
1109 - 928
1190 - 901
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
Fig. 25 Plot of R_Combine combined radiocarbon calibrations for Chavn de Huntar's architectural sequence. Simple 1- and 2-sigma ranges for each architectural stage or event (from Table 6) are listed with their corresponding plots
Architectural Chronology at Chavn De Huntar The radiocarbon results presented here, dating Chavn de Huntar's architectural growth, represent a major shift from the chronological framework in place when the larger Stanford project began at the site in 1995. Moreover, these data support conclusions from the project's previous publications, contributing to an evolving but consistent new picture of the site's chronology and development (Contreras 2007, 2010; Kembel 2001, 2008; Kembel and Rick 2004; Mesa 2007; Rick 2005, 2006, 2008; Rick et al. 1998, 2010; Sayre 2010). Primary chronological points are summarized here, followed by a consideration of what the new dates suggest about Chavn de Huntar's architectural
One-Sigma (68.2%) Range, calBC Renovations at the beginning of the Black and White Stage Beginning of the Black and White Stage (Black and White Core dates) Calibrated date (calBC) 830 - 811 Two-Sigma (95.4%) Range, calBC 890 - 803
834 - 810
895 - 802
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
Fig. 26 Plot of R_Combine combined radiocarbon calibrations comparing the beginning of new constructions of the Black and White Stage (Black and White Core dates) and renovations of older structures during the Black and White Stage at Chavn de Huntar. Simple 1- and 2-sigma ranges for each architectural event (from Table 6) are listed with their corresponding plots
Kembel and Haas
growth, how that growth articulates with other aspects of the site's archaeological record, and how it informs our understanding of the site's sociopolitical development. First, these data attest that Chavn de Huntar's monumental buildings were constructed and functioned approximately 1200500 calBC. This range is significantly earlier than the range of 850200 B.C. proposed by Burger (1984, p. 277), and significantly shorter than the range of 1200200 B.C. proposed by Lumbreras (1989, p. 186). Both of these previously proposed chronologies were based on few dates, only two of which were reliably linked to the monumental architecture (samples GX-1128 and HAR-1105 excavated by Lumbreras (1993, pp. 417418; see Kembel 2001, 2008 for more discussion)). Both previously proposed ranges also were based on uncalibrated radiocarbon dates, raising the question of whether the differences between them and the range presented here are due to comparing uncalibrated and calibrated dates. While using calibrated dates is critical when examining radiocarbon data, as emphasized here and elaborated elsewhere (Kembel 2008; Rick et al. 2010), multiple lines of evidence indicate that comparison of calibrated vs. noncalibrated dates does not account for these differences (Rick et al. 2010); these include a rare calibration phenomenon that causes radiocarbon dates, calibrated and uncalibrated, to be equal within statistical error at 400 calBC or 2350 BP, as well as the steep calibration curve around 400 calBC which effectively creates a barrier past which calibration ranges for radiocarbon dates prior to 2350 BP do not extend. Specifically regarding the end of Chavn de Huntar's monumental function around 500 calBC, The reality is that Chavn did not subsist as a cultural entity after 400 B.C. in radiocarbon or calibrated years, and was replaced by Huaraz occupation and activity, evidently existing since 400 B.C., if not a century before (Rick et al. 2010, p. 123; translated here). Second, these data also chronometrically anchor in time the five distinct stages of Chavn de Huntar's revised relative architectural sequence, specifically four monumental stages followed by a stage of site-wide support construction efforts, as presented in Kembel (2001, 2008). This in turn validates that the site's previous Old TempleNew Temple construction sequence (Rowe 1962, 1967) no longer represents current understanding and that the site's architectural sequence was much different and more complex than Rowe's initial framework. Similarly, in addition to the abundance of relative architectural data evident at the site, these chronometric data verify that Chavn de Huntar was not built in a single phase, as proposed by others (Kaufmann Doig and Gonzles 1993; Pozorski and Pozorski 1987). Third, a period of architectural growth occurred in the 400 years between approximately 1200 and 800 calBC, with massive architectural construction efforts between approximately 1000 and 800 calBC, including construction of the site's approximate final monumental form, the Black and White Stage, beginning in the range of 900 800 calBC and more likely sometime between 850800 calBC (see Table 6 and Fig. 25). This construction prior to 800calBC was characterized by intensive building efforts of major additions and modifications as well as maintenance of earlier structures. A subsequent period of relative architectural stasis occurred between approximately 800 and 500 calBC. It was characterized by ongoing maintenance of those earlier efforts, with only minor additions and modifications, and, around 500 calBC, support constructions shoring up damage apparently caused by an earthquake. These radiocarbon data clearly indicate that a peak of construction at Chavn de Huntar did not occur between 390 and 200 B.C. as previously proposed (see Burger 1981).
Fourth, construction of the earliest known monumental buildings likely was underway by 1200 calBC; the anchor point for the Separate Mound Stage represents a terminus ante quem for early construction because it dates a later phase of construction within this stage. This terminus ante quem characterization is supported by additional factors that suggest further antiquity for early monumental construction at the site. These include the accretive nature of construction at the site that suggests early structures may have been made inaccessible by later additions (Kembel 2001, 2008); the presence in the Separate Mound Stage of galleries demonstrating sophisticated engineering accomplishments that unlikely represent initial attempts at gallery design and construction, suggesting that earlier examples may have been deconstructed, entombed, or remain to be discovered (Kembel 2001, 2008); and the dynamic geomorphologic history of the landscape surrounding the temple, meaning earlier monumental buildings may have been buried by landscape processes over the last 2.5 millennia7 (Contreras 2007; Contreras and Keefer 2009; Tello 1960; Turner et al. 1999). In other words, the ways in which Chavn builders situated, designed, constructed, and remodeled their buildings may have precluded archaeologists from yet accessing those earliest structures. Fifth, these data suggest that relatively rapid transitions occurred between the site's monumental functioning, support construction efforts following the earthquake, and the end of monumental functioning as marked by the site's physical collapse. While the clarity of these transitions is certainly blurred by the calibration curve plateau in this time range, their pace is suggested by the relatively tight clustering of dates between monumental functioning (last dated by AA70291 (CAN-A-S02)) and structural collapse following the end of monumental functioning (first dated by ETH-20741 (CdHCS-33)). Finally, analysis suggests that the dates are only minimally impacted by built-in age; rather, they more broadly reflect processes of architectural renovation inherent in expanding and maintaining monumental architecture over many centuries. Renovation and maintenance efforts occurred throughout the sequence. Widespread renovation efforts apparently coincided with the beginning of large construction stages as evidenced by overlapping anchor points and renovation dates at the beginning of the Black and White Stage and potentially at the beginning of the Expansion Stage as well. Architectural Growth at Chavn de Huntar The period of architectural growth between 1200 and 800 calBC clarifies our understanding of construction processes at the site and concurrent processes of sociopolitical development. Within these 400 years, four major monumental stages were constructed, consisting of 13 of the 15 known construction phases (all but the High SA Phase and the Support Construction Phasesee Fig. 9). Eleven of these 13 phases were built between approximately 1000 and 800 calBC, comprising all but the phases of the Separate Mound Stage. In other words, these data suggest that the massive constructions of the
Indeed, the massive platform walls and evident gallery entrances in the West Field, west of the currently revealed monumental center, suggest significant monumental structures are buried there; currently they are buried to a level higher than the top of the main temple buildings (Rick et al. 1998). A Mito-style temple recently discovered in excavations in the West Field (Contreras 2010) hints at the unrevealed extent of monumental building in this area.
Kembel and Haas
Expansion Stage, the Consolidation Stage, and the overwhelming majority of the Black and White Stage were built in approximately 200 years. While we are able to determine date ranges for the beginnings and ends of these stages (see Table 6 and Fig. 25), we are not able to distinguish discrete intervals for their 13 phases due to lack of resolution given the number of phases and the dates' overlapping calibration ranges. This lack of resolution in itself is meaningful, however, indicating a rapid pace of construction. Indeed, 13 phases within 400 years average approximately 30 years per phase, while 11 phases within 200 years average approximately 18 years per phase. The overlapping date ranges shown in Table 4, Fig. 24, Table 6, and Fig. 25 are consistent with such short intervals between construction efforts. Construction, then, appears to have been rapid and intensive, particularly between 1000 and 800 calBC when intervals of approximately 20 years may have separated the initiation of individual building phases. This construction, however, was not part of a single continuous building plan. Rather, architectural analysis demonstrates that phases were discrete design and construction efforts, frequently and purposefully involving physical deconstruction and remodeling of earlier structures to integrate them with the new combined whole (Kembel 2001, 2008). Similarly, widespread renovation of earlier structures appears to have occurred when new stages were begun, such as at the beginning of the Black and White Stage. Renovation likely tied together the combined whole, perhaps to achieve physical coherency or to fulfill a ritualized purpose. Together then, the rapid construction of many phases, each with distinct design goals, suggests that new construction phases may represent and mark socially driven events. Possibilities include a single labor contribution per generation, a single building phase per leader, labor contributions by population groups in different geographic areas, labor contributions by groups newly accepting of Chavn ideology, ritualized regular construction, construction marking the burial of leaders as at Kuntur Wasi (Kato 1994, p. 213; Onuki 2001, pp. 115116) and perhaps paralleled at Chavn de Huantar (Kembel 2008, p. 79), or some combination of these and other events. Whatever the specific instigating event for each phase, a high-level effect of these frequent yet distinct efforts would have been to keep construction efforts within the collective living memory of the populations contributing labor to or using the site, and to keep construction, or more specifically the activities, beliefs, or social relationships that construction represented and reinforced, in the forefront of social life. The substantial recurring input of labor this frequency represents indicates a rapid growth of the authority required to command and organize the construction efforts. Because new phases were not simple additions but rather redesigns that purposefully required partial destruction of what came before as well as the subsequent integration of old and new structures, they both physically and sociopolitically represent the growth of new authority upon older foundations. Worth noting is the apparent relatively long chronological offset between the construction of the open-air Inner Lanzn Rectangle, marked by the anchor point for the Separate Mound Stage (sample AA62752 (LAN-G-S04)), and the
conversion of that space into a gallery with the construction of the Inner Lanzn Chamber, dated by the anchor points for the Expansion Stage (AA62763 (LAB-N-S01) and AA62754 (LAN-H-S02)) (see Table 4, Fig. 24, Table 6, and Fig. 25). This suggests that the Inner Lanzn Rectangle remained as an open-air structure atop Building B for a significant period of time, rather than for a relatively brief interval like those that likely characterized many phases that followed. Indeed, its conversion to a gallery at the beginning of the Expansion Stage occurs at the beginning of the period of intensive growth between approximately 1000 and 800 calBC; in other words, this transformation of the Inner Lanzn Rectangle into part of the large, intricately interconnected constructions of the Expansion Stage coincides with the beginning of frequent phase constructions. As such, it may indicate the initiation of more proactive design decisions by site leaders to build their own authority, strategizing the intensive creation and use of galleries toward that purpose. In particular, the enclosing of the Lanzn monolith deep within a newly contiguous U-shaped temple formed by Buildings A, B, and C, sometime between approximately 1000 and 900 calBC (i.e., the beginning of the Expansion Stagesee Table 6 and Fig. 25), marks a critical inflection point in the builders' strategy: a highly intentional restriction of access to and visibility of one of the most important ritual spaces at the site. Architectural Growth and Stasis in Archaeological Contexts at Chavn de Huntar The transition between architectural growth and architectural stasis around 800 calBC is the defining chronological marker for the architectural sequence of Chavn de Huntar's monumental center.8 In higher-level chronological terms, we may call the period of architectural growth between 1200 and 800 calBC Early Chavn, corresponding with the Middle Formative period, and the subsequent period of architectural stasis between 800 and 500 calBC Late Chavn, corresponding with the Late Formative period (Fig. 27; see Mesa 2007; Rick et al. 2010; Fig. 25). These are followed by a post-Chavn period, corresponding with the Terminal Formative period and its eventual transition into the Huaras phase of occupation (Kane 2008; Lau 2004; Mesa 2007; Rick et al. 2010) and preceded by premonumental Chavn, the nature of which is the subject of continued investigations (Rick et al. 2010). Comparisons of this architectural transition with broader developments at the site, which themselves have recently been more accurately placed in time with radiocarbon dating (Contreras 2007, 2010; Mesa 2007; Rick et al. 2010; Sayre 2010), suggest that it corresponded with a fundamental shift that extended beyond architectural design to encompass a much broader realm of human efforts at the site.
8
Worth considering, however, is that monumental construction could have continued elsewhere at the site, most likely the West Field. Because the galleries and platforms in this area are currently deeply buried by massive accumulations of earth due to geomorphologic processes, however, clear assessment of this area, its chronology, and its role as part of or in relation to the main monumental center must await further study. The patterns discussed here thus apply to the monumental center as currently known.
Kembel and Haas

cal B.C. Formative Periods Chavn Periods Architectural Periods Architectural Stages Ceramics
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 Early Formative Pre-Monumental Chavn Middle Formative Early Chavn Architectural Growth
Terminal Formative
post-Chavn
post-monumental
post-monumental
Huaras
Support Construction Stage Late Formative Late Chavn Architectural Stasis Black & White Stage Janabarriu-style and others
(Initial Construction of Black & White Stage) Consolidation Stage Expansion Stage Separate Mound Stage
(Ofrendas deposit) pre-Janabarriu-style and others
Fig. 27 Current relationships of architectural growth and stasis at Chavn de Huntar with respect to architectural stages, ceramics, Chavn periods, and Formative chronology. Adapted from Rick et al. (2010; Fig. 25)
For example, during the site's intensive architectural design and growth between 1200 and 800 calBC, major efforts were put into the design and growth of other fundamental aspects of Chavn de Huntar, including the vast majority of the elements traditionally viewed as representative of Chavn de Huntar (Table 7); these include massive landscape modification, civil engineering works, Chavn art and symbolic systems, and the physical design and accompanying use of the site's ritual and convincing systems, both in the galleries and outside in its patios, plazas, staircases, processional pathways, and platforms. The overwhelming portions of these elements were developed prior to 800 calBC, either preceding or as part of the initial construction of the Black and White Stage. Thus, 800 calBC marks a transition from growth to stasis not just architecturally, but also in the physical manipulation of the surrounding landscape and the physical design of its art and ritually focused convincing systems. Likewise, in as much as the incorporation over time at Chavn de Huntar of antecedent Formative architectural forms indicates growing communication with other monumental centers, the period of architectural growth (1200800 calBC) coincided with that increasing contact as well. Archaeologists have long recognized at Chavn de Huntar coastal architectural forms, such as the U-shaped platform originating from the central coast and the circular plaza originating
Table 7 Architecturally associated characteristic elements of Chavn de Huntar in relation to periods of architectural growth and architectural stasis at the site
Architecture and associated elements that emerge between approximately Architecture and associated elements that emerge between 1200 and 800 calBC, the period of architectural growth approximately 800 and 500 calBC, the period of architectural stasis
Construction of 13 of 15 known architectural phases (Kembel 2001, 2008) Construction of one monumental architectural phase (Kembel 2001) Structural (architectural construction, civil engineering, Construction of 38 of 39 known gallery episodes (Kembel 2001, 2008) Construction of one known gallery episode (Kembel 2001) landscape modification) Construction of canal drainage system within buildings and below plazas Construction of support constructions (nonmonumental construction) and platforms (Kembel 2001; Lumbreras 1971; Rick 2008) following earthquake (Kembel 2001; Rick et al. 1998; Rick 2008) Ongoing maintenance of earlier structures Transport of building materials for above constructions
Ongoing maintenance of earlier structures
Shaping of landscape to accommodate construction (Contreras 2007, 2009; Kembel 2001; Rick 2008; Turner et al. 1999)
Diversion of Mosna River (Contreras 2007; Rick 2008; Turner et al. 1999)
Creation of orderly fill beneath plazas (Rick 2005, 2008)
Total movement of approximately 59,000 m3 to create architecture and built landscape of monument, 25,000 m3 of which were for architecture and 34,000 m3 of which were for landscape (Contreras 2009); almost all of this was done during the period of architectural growth
Transport of massive amounts of building materials for above constructions and landscape modifications, including granite and limestone from 15 and 3 km, respectively (Turner et al. 1999)
Shift of site axes (Kembel 2001, 2008; Rick et al. 1998; Rick 2008)
Development of construction patterns: axis symmetry and assymmetry, gallery construction patterns, gallery standardization, integration of internal and external architecture, maintenance of access to older structures through additions, etc. (Kembel 2001)
Incorporation of both highland and coastal architectural forms including U-shaped temple and circular plaza (Kembel 2001, 2008; Moseley 1985; Williams 1980, 1985)
Table 7 (continued)
Physical design (development of Design and use of galleries (Kembel 2001, 2008; Lumbreras 1971; Tello 1960) Use, storage, and deposit of heirlom Strombus shell trumpets in ritual and convincing systems) Caracolas Gallery, although they may have earlier origins (Rick 2008; Van Valkenburgh 2003)
Design and use of known plazas (Circular Plaza, Plaza Mayor, Plaza Menor); (Kembel 2001, 2008; Lumbreras 1971, 1993; Rick 2008; Rick et al. 1998; Tello 1960)
Design and use of gallery patios; conversion of patios to galleries, with more exclusive use of galleries and more inclusive use of plazas (Kembel 2001, 2008)
Design and use of processional pathways through plazas, staircases, patios, into galleries, transitioning between levels (Kembel 2001, 2008; Moore 1996; Rick 2008; Rick et al. 1998)
Conversion of open Inner Lanzn Rectangle to Lanzn Gallery contaning Lanzn monolith (Kembel 2001, 2008)
Design and use of hanging staircases within buildings (Burger 1992; Kembel 2001, 2008; Tello 1960)
Design of galleries for the ritual use of sound and water (Contreras and Keefer 2009; Kolar et al. 2012; Lumbreras et al. 1976)
Use of psychoactive plants as depicted in art created during this time (tenon heads and Circular Plaza art); (Burger 1992; Cordy-Collins 1977; Rick 2008; Saffer 1998)
Use of shells and processions as depicted in cornice and Circular Plaza art created during this time (Rick 2008)
Kembel and Haas
Use of mirrors to reflect light down vents in galleries (Kembel and Rick 2004; Rick 2008)
Table 7 (continued)
Art
Lanzn monolithanchor point for Rowe Phase AB (Rowe 1962, 1967)
Tenon Heads (Burger 1992; Saffer 1998; Tello 1960)
Cornices (Rick 2008; Rowe 1962, 1967)
Black and White Portalanchor point for Rowe Phase D (Rowe 1962, 1967)
Circular Plaza artwork (Lumbreras 1971; Rick 2008)
Ceramics
Deposit of Ofrendas ceramics in the Ofrendas Gallery, if deposited to Janabarriu-style ceramics associated with monumental center initiate use of Circular Plaza after its construction (Lumbreras 1993) at structures such as Caracolas Gallery and Circular Plaza (Rick beginning of Black and White Stage (Kembel 2001) 2008; Rick et al. 2010)
Kembel and Haas
from the northern coast (Burger 1984; Moseley 1985; Williams 1980, 1985), but without a clear view of the timing of these introductions: Whether both the circular pit and the U-shaped pyramid arrived together at Chavn or were successive importations remains an unsolved problem. A better analysis of the architectural structure of the temple and absolute dating of its different stages of construction would help to solve this problem. (Williams 1985, p. 238) Anchoring the revised architectural sequence with the radiocarbon dates presented here creates a chronometric timeline for the incorporation of these and other antecedent forms at Chavn de Huntar (see Figs. 8, 9, and 25; Table 6; see also Kembel 2001, 2008, pp. 5456). Specifically, a U-shaped temple, with its additional coastal features of stepped platforms and an eastward orientation, was built at Chavn de Huntar no later than the Expansion Stage, construction of which began 976907 calBC at a 1-sigma range and 1007 896 calBC at a 2-sigma range. The successive construction of the larger, more formal U-shaped temple of the Black and White Stage, with its square Plaza Mayor and Plaza Menor, dates to the beginning of the Black and White Stage, 834810 calBC at a 1-sigma range and 895802 calBC at a 2-sigma range. Similarly, the circular pit was introduced no later than the beginning of the Black and White Stage with the construction of the Circular Plaza; whether earlier versions of a circular plaza existed is unclear. Looking earlier into the sequence, the freestanding rectangular forms that were built throughout the sequence and may reflect highland antecedents (Kembel 2001, 2008; see also Contreras 2010) are first seen in the Inner Lanzn Rectangle, and thus appeared no later than 1109928 calBC at a 1-sigma range and 1190901 calBC at a 2sigma range. Other highland antecedent features such as separate mound forms and highland stonework characterize the NEA, the early form of Building A that preceded the Inner Lanzn Rectangle in the Separate Mound Stage, and thus were incorporated before 1109928 calBC at a 1-sigma range and 1190 901 calBC at a 2-sigma range. Significantly, all of these antecedent architectural forms from both the coast and the highlands, as well as Chavn de Huntar innovations such as the gallery system itself, were introduced in the period of architectural growth prior to 800 calBC. Also worth mentioning are some specifics of the architectural chronology as it relates to Chavn de Huntar's well-known art sequence first proposed by Rowe (1962, 1967) and the subject of continued study (Bischof 1994, 2008). Rowe anchored his art sequence in two places within the site's architecture, identifying the Black and White Portal as the anchor point for Phase D and the Lanzn monolith as an anchor point for Phase AB; more recently, Bischof has divided Phase AB into two components, with the Lanzn monolith representing Phase B and other examples of stone art at Chavn de Huntar and other sites representing Phase A (Bischof 1994, 2008). Because dates from the Black and White Zcalo (part of the Black and White Portal) (ETH-20737 (CdHCS-11)
and ETH-20738 (CdHCS-12) (Rick et al. 1998)) form part of the site's Black and White Core of radiocarbon dates dating the beginning of construction of the Black and White Stage, Phase D is dated to 834810 calBC at a 1-sigma level and 895802 calBC at a 2-sigma level (see Fig. 25 and Table 6).9 Similarly, the Lanzn monolith was in place no later than the conversion of the Inner Lanzn Rectangle to a gallery at the beginning of the Expansion Stage, with ranges of 976 907 calBC at a 1-sigma level and 1007896 calBC at a 2-sigma level (see Fig. 25 and Table 6). If the Lanzn monolith was put in place when the Inner Lanzn Rectangle was built, however, it would date to a range of 1109928 calBC at a 1-sigma level and 1190 901 calBC at a 2-sigma level (see Fig. 25 and Table 6). The overall correspondence of Chavn de Huntar's architectural chronology with its art sequence indicates that Chavn art phases up through and including at least Phase D were created no later than 800 calBC. While the subsequent period of architectural stasis saw little new monumental construction, significant efforts and changes did occur. Most relevant architecturally, during this period, the site was structurally renovated and maintained, likely through significant effort, as a setting for the activities carried out within it. The maintenance of plaster alone, both internally in the galleries as well as externally, would have required substantial and continual efforts to battle gravity and humidity. Other changes occurred as well, particularly in the material culture evident in the site's archaeological record. Particularly worth noting is the articulation of the architectural shift with the site's ceramics. If, as Lumbreras (1993) proposes, the Ofrendas ceramics were deposited upon completion of the Ofrendas Gallery to initiate use of the Circular Plaza, then the Ofrendas ceramics were deposited at the beginning of the Black and White Stage (1-sigma range 834810 calBC, 2-sigma range 895802 calBC (see Table 6 and Fig. 25)). Current evidence (Mesa 2007; Rick et al. 2010) indicates that janabarroide or Janabarriu-style ceramics (ceramics with characteristics similar to Burger's formal categorization of Janabarriu ceramics (Burger 1981, 1998), but with a range of variations still under study from recent and ongoing excavations at the site (see Rick et al. 2010)) dominate the site's ceramic record approximately 800500 cal B.C,
If the columns and lintel of the Black and White Portal were moved from an earlier original location in the Columnas Patio, however, as speculated elsewhere (Kembel 2008), Phase D would likely date to the late Consolidation Stage (the High MA Phasesee Fig. 9), slightly before the Black and White Core range. Phase D also would possibly be bounded on the early end by samples AA70294 (APLAT-S-S01) and AA62762 (LAB-L-S01) (combined 1-sigma range of 920844 calBC and combined 2-sigma range of 975 829 calBC), whose dates represent the beginning of construction of the Consolidation Stage (see Tables 5 and 6 and Fig. 25). Significantly, sample AA62744 (COL-H-S01) (see Fig. 6b), which also forms part of the Black and White Core and whose date is bracketed between samples ETH-20737 (CdHCS-11) and ETH-20738 (CdHCS-12), which mark construction of the Black and White Zcalo within the Black and White Portal (see Table 3 and Fig. 18), came from the stonework between two of the stone-and-mortar columns in the Columnas-Vigas Gallery that may have replaced the carved stone columns upon their transfer to the east face of Building A (see Kembel 2008, pp. 6064, Figs. 2.15, 2.232.25). This close correspondence of dates not only suggests that the surmised movement of the columns of the Black and White Portal from an original position in the Columnas Patio is plausible, but also validates that the conversion of the Columnas Patio to a gallery occurred at the same time and as part of the same effort as the construction of the Black and White Portal and the shift of the sites earlier axis to the Black and White axis (see Fig. 9; see Kembel 2001, 2008).
9
Kembel and Haas
during the time of architectural stasis, and that they possibly begin appearing in the century prior, between 900 and 800 calBC, potentially overlapping the initial construction of the Black and White Stage. A precise chronology interweaving the earliest emergence of Janabarriu-style ceramics with the construction of the Black and White Stage and the deposit of the ceramics in the Ofrendas Gallery awaits more study. It is evident, however, that Janabarriu-style ceramics largely coincide chronologically with the period of architectural stasis, and that the previous characterization of Janabarriu ceramics as chronologically representative of the peak of construction at Chavn de Huntar (Burger 1981, 1988, 1992) no longer holds. The period of architectural stasis also corresponds with developments in areas adjacent to and nearby the site. For example at this time in the La Banda area to the east across the Mosna River, intensive domestic areas show evidence of wellmanaged local pastoral and agricultural activities, along with craft production of ritual items from exotic goods and raw materials brought to the site through exchange networks with the north and southwest coasts and elsewhere (Sayre 2010; Rosenfeld 2010). In the West Field, excavation of a small Mito-style temple dating to this time period suggests ritual activities were not restricted to the monumental center as delimited today (Contreras 2010), and supports the idea that the massive platforms and gallery entrances buried in this area may indicate that the monumental center itself extended more broadly to the west. Finally, in the Wacheqsa area immediately north of and adjacent to the monumental center, a more diachronic view is available. Early platforms and domestic settlements of craftspeople with access to exotic resources are evident during 1200 to 800 calBC, followed by evidence of the addition of more diverse craft raw materials as well as of feasting activities during the later portion of the Black and White Stage, 800 to 500 calBC (Mesa 2007). Perhaps most significantly for the chronological discussion here, radiocarbon dates indicate use of the Wacheqsa area spanned 1200 to 500 calBC, with a reconfiguration of occupation occurring around 800 calBC (Mesa 2007, p. 160); this chronological pattern corresponds not only with the dates for construction and use of the monumental center (1200 to 500 calBC) but also with the shift from architectural growth to stasis around 800 calBC. This suggests that the shift to architectural stasis in the monumental center and the reconfiguration of occupation in the Wacheqsa area may have been intimately related. The new research in areas surrounding the monumental center, briefly outlined above and synthesized by Rick et al. (2010), reveals an abundant material record between 800 and 500 calBC and relatively minor material evidence between 1200 and 800 calBC (Rick et al. 2010). The massive investments of labor and sociopolitical organization efforts represented by the period of architectural growth between 1200 and 800 calBC, however, suggest that the lower incidence of material culture dating between 1200 and 800 calBC in areas surrounding the monumental center is likely due to currently low archaeological visibility into the material record of this time period rather than a minimal level of concurrent occupations and activities. Construction of the monument between 1200 and 800 calBC, along with associated landscape modifications and civil engineering works as well as the development of elaborate art and ritual practices (see Table 7), must have been accompanied
by substantial investments to support the people involved, suggesting that dramatic evidence of feeding, feasting, living, and working associated with this period of architectural growth likely remains to be found. Architectural Growth and Sociopolitical Change at Chavn de Huntar Because the Black and White Stage was the final monumental stage constructed at Chavn de Huntar and is therefore the most archaeologically visible, it is tempting to view this stage as the ultimate goal of the site's builders over time. Worth reiterating, however, is that each building stage and phase in the site's complex sequence had its own design purpose, shaping a certain type of site use by the people who lived, worked, and visited there (Kembel 2001, 2008). The preceding stages and phases therefore were not intermediary steps towards an ultimate goal of the Black and White Stage. Rather, the Black and White Stage was the last in a series of purposeful designs that, to the builders, were each endpoints in themselves whose construction showcased the engineering and labor required to create them. Similarly, it is tempting to view the grandeur and scope of the Black and White Stage as the site's peak of power, analogous to the characterization of the construction of the New Temple between 390 and 200 B.C. as the peak of power in the site's previous chronological model (Burger 1981). Such a view, however, downplays the distinction between the intensive growth period between 1000 and 800 calBC, of which the vast majority of construction of the Black and White Stage was a part, and the subsequent period of stasis, e.g., approximately 300 years of the Black and White Stage between 800 and 500 calBC. Similarly this view simultaneously overlooks both the scope of the architectural achievements by the designers and builders of Chavn de Huntar's first three stages as well as the significant sociopolitical developments and growth of authority represented by those achievements. Indeed, if one were to look only at architectural patterning, one might conclude that the peak of power was directly associated with construction particularly between 1000 and 800 calBC while the transition to architectural stasis represented a maintenance or even decline of power, preserving the old rather than building new. Rather than discuss which period in the architectural sequence represents a peak of power for the site's builders, however, it is more productive to focus instead on the changing quality, architectural expression, and sociopolitical manifestations of that power or authority over time. Examining the site's broader archaeological contexts for that transition from architectural growth to architectural stasis in the monumental center (Table 8) suggests a fundamental change occurred in the nature of the authority of the site's leaders. We can consider two primary modes of sociopolitical development and expressions of authority, with fundamental differences in strategies. First, between 1200 and 800 calBC, we see a mode of authority focused on designing and developing a convincing authority system through architectural growth, civil engineering works, and landscape modification (Kembel and Rick 2004; Rick 2005, 2008). The purposes of these construction efforts are twofold; to use the building process itself to harness the energies of the populations contributing labor and convince them and others of the authority of the site's designers and leaders; and to design the architecture and physical setting of the site to serve as a setting for activitiesdiverse gallery uses, rituals, offerings, processions, training of initiates,
Table 8 Summary chart of architectural chronology and archaeological contexts at Chavn de Huntar
Late Chavn 800 to 500 calBC Late Formative Architectural stasis Minimal new monumental construction, consisting of minor additions during latter part of Black and White Stage Maintenance and renovation of earlier constructions Support constructions at end of timeline, likely to bolster damaged areas after earthquake Minimal landscape modification and civil engineering works Maintenance of earlier efforts Dominance of Janabarriu-style ceramics Other ceramics still being studied
Early Chavn
Proposed timeline
1200 to 800 calBC
Formative period association
Middle Formative
Construction of monumental center
Architectural growth
Construction of almost all known monumental architecture, including Separate Mound Stage, Expansion Stage, Consolidation Stage, and initial construction of the Black and White Stage
Maintenance and renovation of earlier constructions
Landscape
Significant landscape modification and civil engineering works
Maintenance of earlier efforts
Ceramics
Ceramics in Ofrendas Gallery deposit, if deposited at beginning of Black and White Stage
Other ceramics still being studied
Rowe art sequence anchor points
Lanzn monolith, anchor point for Rowe Phase AB, in place no later than beginning of Expansion Stage
Black and White Portal, anchor point for Rowe Phase D, in place by beginning of Black and White Stage; columns and lintel may have been carved earlier Wacheqsafeasting activities; diverse craft production La Bandaintensive domestic area; well-managed pastoral and agricultural activities; craft production; import of exotic goods and raw materials West FieldMito-style temple Elaborating and Spreading Authority Elaboration of convincing authority system with cultural systems (rituals and associated behaviors and material items) Structural maintenance of site
Areas surrounding monumental center
Wacheqsadomestic settlement and craft production; early platforms
La Bandaunder study
West Fieldremains to be studied, including buried platforms and galleries
Sociopolitical development
Building Authority
Kembel and Haas
Ongoing iterated design and development of convincing authority system, both structurally (architecture, landscape, civil engineering) and with cultural systems (rituals and associated behaviors and material items)
use of ritually focused ceramics, etc.that would convince those participating in or watching these activities of the authority of those leading the activities. Frequent short cycles of massive building, comprised of phases with different design goals and likely fueled through an ongoing demand of labor, would continually reinforce the leaders' growing authority. In essence, we see a structural design and development of the convincing system that is literally building authority (Kembel and Rick 2004). With the transition to architectural stasis, two alternate scenarios for the subsequent mode of sociopolitical development are worth considering. In the first scenario, the structural design and development of the convincing authority system effectively ceases and is replaced by structural maintenance because the intensity of monumental building cannot be sustained, possibly due to an inability of the convincing system to continue to demand labor. If the convincing system had been stretched to its limits without a fundamental shift in strategy by the site's leaders, they probably could not have sustained the potentially overwhelming demand of labor that characterized the 200 years between 1000 and 800 calBC. In this scenario, sociopolitical development between 800 and 500 calBC shifts from building authority to maintaining authority. Perhaps the growth of authority was tested and checked until reaching an equilibrium point in which building was replaced with less physically labor-intensive efforts that were easier to organize and command. While this first scenario is plausible, the nature and scale of efforts as represented by evidence from areas surrounding the monumental area, as well as the ongoing maintenance and active functioning of the monument for approximately 300 years, seem at odds with it. In particular, the dominance of Janabarriu-style ceramics, the intensive domestic areas with evidence of stable agricultural and pastoral practices in La Banda, the presence of feasting middens in Wacheqsa, and, in both La Banda and Wacheqsa, the production of ritual goods using an increasingly wide variety of raw materials imported from other regions (Contreras 2007; Mesa 2007; Rick et al. 2010; Sayre 2010), suggest a different, less architecture centric and more broadly integrated scenario may more accurately characterize this period. In the second scenario, the design and development of the convincing authority system, both structurally and culturally, transition to the structural maintenance of the site and the cultural elaboration of the more ephemeral and mobile aspects of the convincing authority system. In other words, efforts focused on building authority shift around 800 calBC to efforts focused on elaborating and spreading authority rather than simply maintaining authority. Leaders would have already established their authority at the site, no longer needing to prove and advertise it through building. Instead, their efforts would have shifted toward elaborating and intensifying local cultural practices, as represented by the Janabarriu-style ceramics and developments in the La Banda, West Field, and Wacheqsa areas, as well as creating likely increasingly complex rituals at the monumental center such as the use of heirloom Strombus trumpets (Kolar et al. 2012; Rick 2008; Van Valkenburgh 2003) during the Black and White Stage, building upon likely already elaborate ritual practices developed during the period of architectural growth (see Table 7; Kembel and Rick 2004; Kembel 2008; Kolar et al. 2012; Rick 2008). Looking more broadly geographically, these efforts would have focused on spreading authority to encompass a broader audience of people from other sites at competing, communicating, and cooperating peer-polities (Kembel and Rick 2004). This would have been accomplished by using cultural systems in the form of ceramics, other material goods, and
Kembel and Haas
rituals, that both scaled well towards larger audiences and could be spread broadly, easily replicated, or transported to other sites. With authority established, this broad range of efforts would have suited leaders' evolving purposes better than continued local architectural growth. Casting these scenarios in a different light, it helps to realize that at the time the earthquake or other cataclysmic event hit Chavn de Huntar around 500 calBC, the overwhelming majority of the site was already old. The most prominent outdoor ceremonial spacessuch as the Circular Plaza, the Black and White Portal, the Plaza Mayor and Plaza Menorwere already at least 300 years old. The Inner Lanzn Chamber and the Lanzn monolith were at least 400 years old and probably older, while other constructions such as the original Inner Lanzn Rectangle surrounding the Lanzn were 400700 years old. This perspective highlights that while architectural change and new construction may have been viewed as sources of power and authority during the period of architectural growth, in contrast, architectural continuity, use of the old, and maintaining the architecture may have been emphasized as sources of power and authority during the period of architectural stasis. Worth noting, however, is that throughout the sequence access was maintained to important internal spaces such as the Inner Lanzn Chamber by continual expansion of galleries through new additions, suggesting a selective reverence and maintenance of older structures existed even during the period of architectural growth (Kembel 2001, 2008). Further, architectural stasis did not necessarily equal ceremonial stasis; leaders evidently drew purposefully upon the backdrop and stability of the centuries-old architecture and the elements that it representedancient traditions and ceremonies that connected the present with the accumulated authority of those who had come beforeas a source of power, evolving their rituals to fit their changing, likely growing, authority. The transition from architectural growth to architectural stasis around 800 calBC marks a critical inflection point in Chavn de Huntar's architectural sequence as well as in the growth and nature of the authority of the site's leaders. As a final perspective, perhaps the most pivotal point within the sequence is the decision, made by leaders following the initial construction of the Black and White Stage, to effectively stop monumental construction at the site's center and shift instead into a mode of structural maintenance. This decision must have been a remarkable change, one that must have spoken loudly to people both living near and visiting the site. What were the driving forces that shaped this choice to override 400 or more years of building tradition? Most likely the site's leaders recognized that growing their authority by linking it directly to architectural construction had reached the end of its purpose and effectiveness. Yet in shifting away from building they did not sacrifice the architectural basis of their established authority. Rather, they carefully maintained it for approximately 300 years, letting it shape the day-to-day dramas played out on-site, as a stable backdrop to the surely creative new cultural designs and decisions regarding their built authority. While these and other potential scenarios remain to be explored and clarified by continued investigations, it is evident that fundamental sociopolitical change occurred with intensive architectural growth between 1200 and 800 calBC at Chavn de Huntar, and transitioned to a different sociopolitical mode with architectural stasis between 800 and 500 calBC. That the end of monumental Chavn appears to have occurred relatively quickly following the mid-
millennium earthquake suggests that the resulting sociopolitical structure at Chavn de Huntar, and perhaps the larger network of which it was a part, was a somewhat tenuous one that could not be restored despite attempts to rebuild its architectural foundations.
Conclusions In this project, we systematically collected charcoal samples from mortar within the monumental buildings at Chavn de Huntar, at locations spanning the site's newly revised architectural sequence. Most of the resulting radiocarbon dates could be reliably linked to building events due to five factors: (1) detailed understanding of the site's relative construction sequence and corresponding building patterns; (2) careful assessment of the samples' architectural contexts (both physical provenience and within the site's relative architectural sequence); (3) careful collection, pretreatment, and processing of samples; (4) consideration of both natural and cultural factors that might affect the relationship between charcoal samples and building events; and (5) analysis of the resulting dates using an evaluation framework and set of criteria to assess the coincidence of target and dated events and to analyze whether a date from architectural mortar most likely represents built-in age, original construction, or renovation work. As such, this approach holds much potential for application at other prehistoric sites to help elucidate the chronology of their architectural growth. Significantly, radiocarbon samples from excavations directly associated with Chavn de Huntar s monumental architecture have thus far returned dates only from the sites final monumental stage and its subsequent support, collapse, and reoccupation events; in essence, samples from excavations have dated the sites latest manifestations. In contrast, radiocarbon samples from the sites architectural mortar have returned dates from its earlier stages as well, highlighting the value of directly dating monumental architecture for understanding the sites absolute chronology. The resulting 32 new radiocarbon dates from architectural mortar and the analysis presented here help fundamentally reframe our understanding of Chavn de Huntar's architectural chronology and sociopolitical development in numerous ways. In particular: 1. They suggest that Chavn de Huntar's monumental buildings were constructed and functioned approximately 1200500 calBC. This range is significantly earlier than the previously proposed range of 850200 B.C. (Burger 1984, p. 277), and significantly shorter than the previously proposed range of 1200 200 B.C. (Lumbreras 1989, p. 186). Both of these proposed chronologies were based on few dates, only two of which were reliably linked to the monumental architecture (see Lumbreras 1977, 1993; Kembel 2001, 2008). This time range of 1200-500 calBC for Chavn de Huntar's architectural sequence validates current understanding that Chavn de Huntar was contemporary with many other regional Formative monumental centers, together interacting as peer polities within a sphere of influence prior to collapsing around 500calB.C. (Kembel 2001, 2008; Kembel and Rick 2004; Rick 2008; Rick et al. 2010), rather than a site that flourished after 500 calBC as a consequence of the collapse of those other centers, as proposed previously (see Burger 1981, 1984, 1988, 1992).
Kembel and Haas
2. They chronometrically anchor in time the five stages of the site's newly revised relative architectural sequence (Kembel 2001, 2008), confirming that the site's construction was much different and more complex than the previous Old TempleNew Temple relative architectural sequence proposed by Rowe (1962, 1967), and that the site was not built in a solitary phase as postulated alternatively (Kaufmann Doig and Gonzles 1993; Pozorski and Pozorski 1987). 3. They indicate that a period of intensive architectural growth at Chavn de Huntar occurred between 1200 and 800 calBC, with particularly massive efforts between 1000 and 800 calBC. A period of relative architectural stasis followed, between 800 and 500 calBC, during which little new construction was undertaken but much effort apparently was expended on maintaining the site. Around 500 calBC monumental functioning ceased, likely due to an earthquake that caused the site's physical collapse. These patterns clearly demonstrate that a peak of construction did not occur between approximately 390 and 200 B.C., as has been proposed previously (Burger 1981). 4. The earliest dates from the project represent a terminus ante quem or date before which early construction must have started, suggesting that monumental construction likely was underway by 1200 calBC. The ways in which Chavn builders situated, designed, constructed, and renovated their buildings may have thus far precluded access to the site's earliest architectural mortar. 5. Analysis suggests that the dates from Chavn de Huntar's architectural mortar are only minimally impacted by built-in age; rather, they more broadly reflect processes of architectural renovation inherent in expanding and maintaining monumental architecture over many centuries, with renovation and maintenance occurring throughout the sequence. 6. The vast majority of the site was constructed during the period of architectural growth between 1200 and 800 calBC. During this 400-year period, the site's four monumental stages were constructed, consisting of 13 of the 15 known construction phases, each with differing design objectives. Eleven of those 13 phases were built between 1000 and 800 calBC; construction efforts during this time appear to have been massive, intensive, and rapid, with intervals averaging approximately 20 years apparently separating the initiation of individual building phases. The rapid construction of many phases, each with distinct design goals, suggests that construction phases may represent socially driven events, such as ruling intervals of successive leaders or labor contributions by different groups. The almost continuous input of labor this frequency represents may reflect a rapid growth of the authority required to command and organize the construction efforts. 7. The overwhelming majority of elements characteristic of Chavn de Huntar were developed during this period of architectural growth between 1200 and 800 calBC. This includes the physical design of the site's ritual systems in its internal galleries and its outside plazas and associated processional pathways; massive landscape modification and civil engineering works; Chavn art and symbolic systems physically associated with the site's architecture, including the Lanzn monolith, tenon heads, cornice stones, Black and White Portal, and Circular Plaza art; and incorporation of antecedent Formative architectural forms
including the U-shaped temple, circular and square plazas, and freestanding rectangular forms. 8. During the period of architectural stasis between 800 and 500 calBC, little new construction occurred but major efforts evidently were invested in the maintenance of the site. Active developments in realms beyond architecture and in areas outside the monumental center occurred as well, such as the dominance of Janabarriu-style ceramics, increased craft production of ritual items from exotic raw materials, wellmanaged pastoral and agricultural activities, ritual activities outside the monumental center, and feasting. Future investigations promise to provide a more diachronic view for areas outside the monumental center; the massive investments in monumental construction between 1200 and 800 calBC suggest that the relatively low incidence of material culture dating to this period outside the monumental center is likely due to currently low archaeological visibility rather than a minimal level of concurrent related occupation and activity. 9. The transition from architectural growth to architectural stasis around 800 calBC suggests a corresponding shift in the nature of the authority of the site's leaders. During the period of architectural growth, leaders evidently focused on the structural and cultural design and development of a convincing system to literally build their authority. In contrast, during the period of architectural stasis, leaders appear to have focused their efforts on the structural maintenance of the site and the cultural elaboration of broader, more ephemeral and mobile aspects of a convincing authority system. In other words, with the transition from architectural growth to stasis, the site's monumental buildings seem to shift from being primarily a continually expanding focal point of authority to being an ancient, venerated backdrop and showcase for developments in other realms of cultural activity. This shift actually highlights a pattern present from the beginning of the sequence: preserving and revering powerful architectural spaces, such as the Inner Lanzn Chamber, across time. In the period of architectural stasis, this pattern seems to be taken to an extreme of preserving and revering almost the entire monumental center as an ancient source of authority for continuing ritual and sociopolitical development. In sum, through direct dating of architectural mortar at Chavn de Huntar, this research significantly informs our understanding of the site's architectural chronology and sociopolitical development, while providing a methodology and evaluation framework with which to chronometrically date other sites in the Formative Andes and elsewhere.
Acknowledgments We gratefully acknowledge the Peruvian Instituto Nacional de Cultura for permitting us to work at such an important site as Chavn de Huntar and the people of the modern village of Chavn de Huntar for welcoming us during our fieldwork. For their assistance and support, we thank John Rick, Christian Mesa, and Rosa Mendoza Rick, the Co-Directors of the larger Stanford University-based 2004 field season. We also extend our thanks to our field research team, John Kembel, Geoff Kembel, and Jack Johnson. Special thanks to John Kembel for his work helping to create the figures presented here. We appreciate the helpful suggestions provided by three anonymous reviewers. We additionally thank Greg Hodgins, Juan V. Rodriguez, Daniel Contreras, Luis Lumbreras, Liliane Haas, Alicia Rodriguez, Juan A. Rodriguez, Maria Mendoza, Matt Sayre, John Wolf, Robert Drennan, James B. Richardson III, John Frechione, and Donna Yurko. This research was supported by National Science Foundation High-Risk
Kembel and Haas Research in Anthropology Award #BCS-0433483, National Geographic Committee for Research and Exploration Grant #7689-04, and the Howard Heinz Foundation.
References
Al-Bashaireh, K., & Hodgins, G. W. L. (2010). AMS 14C dating of organic inclusions of plaster and mortar from different structures at Petra-Jordan. Journal of Archaeological Science, 30, 17. Berger, R. (1992). 14Carbon dating mortar in Ireland. Radiocarbon, 34, 880889. Bischof, H. (1994). Toward the definition of pre- and early Chavn art styles in Peru. Andean Past, 4, 169228. Bischof, H. (2008). Context and contents of Early Chavn art. In W. J. Conklin & J. Quilter (Eds.), Chavn: art, architecture, and culture (pp. 107141). Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California. Bonani, G., Haas, H., Hawass, Z., Lehner, M., Nakhla, S., Nolan, J., Wenke, R. and Wlfli, W. (2001). Radiocarbon dates of Old and Middle Kingdom Monuments in Egypt. In: H. J. Bruins, I. Carmi, and E. Boaretto (eds). Near east chronology: archaeology and environment. Radiocarbon 43(3): 12971320. Proceedings of the 17th International Radiocarbon Conference Braswell, G. E. (1992). Obsidian-hydration dating, the Coner phase, and revisionist chronology at Copan, Honduras. Latin American Antiquity, 3(2), 130147. Buikstra, J., Charles, D., & Rakita, G. (1998). Staging ritual: Hopewell Ceremonialism at the Mound House Site, Greene County, Illinois. Kampsville, IL: Center for American Archaeology, Kampsville Studies in Archaeology and History No. 1. Burger, R. L. (1981). The radiocarbon evidence for the temporal priority of Chavn de Huntar. American Antiquity, 46, 592602. Burger, R. L. (1984). The prehistoric occupation of Chavn de Huntar, Peru (University of California Publications in Anthropology 14). Berkeley: University of California Press. Burger, R. L. (1988). Unity and heterogeneity within the Chavn horizon. In R. Keatinge (Ed.), Peruvian prehistory (pp. 99144). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burger, R. L. (1992). Chavn and the origins of Andean civilization. London: Thames and Hudson. Burger, R. L. (1998). Excavaciones en Chavn de Huntar. Lima: Fondo Editorial, Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru. Byers, A. C. (2000). Contemporary landscape change in the Huascarn National Park and Buffer Zone, Cordillera Blanca, Peru. Mountain Research and Development, 20(1), 5263. Capriles, J. M., & Flores Bedregal, E. (2002). The economic, symbolic, and social importance of thekeua (Polylepis spp.) during prehispanic times in the Andean highlands of Bolivia. Ecotropica, 8(2), 225231. Chvez Balln, M. (1960). Informe Sobre Los Restos Arqueologicos Y Los Trabajos Que Se Realizan de Las Ruinas de Chavn, Provincia de Huari. Cuzco: Departamento de Ancash. Chepstow-Lusty, A. J., Bennett, K. D., Fjeldsa, J., Kendall, A., Galiano, W., & Tupayachi Herrera, A. (1997). When two worlds collide: comparing human impact on fragile ecosytems before and after the Inca. Tawantinsuyu, 3, 127134. Contreras, D. A. (2007). Sociopolitical and geomorphologic dynamics at Chavn de Huntar, Peru. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropological Sciences, Stanford University Contreras, D. A. (2009). Reconstructing landscape at Chavin de Huantar, Peru: a GIS-based approach. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36, 10061017. Contreras, D. A. (2010). A Mito-style structure at Chavn de Huntar: dating and implications. Latin American Antiquity, 21(1), 119. Contreras, D. A., & Keefer, D. K. (2009). Implications of the fluvial history of the Wacheqsa River for hydrologic engineering and water use at Chavn de Huntar, Peru. Geoarchaeology, 24(5), 589618. Cordy-Collins, A. (1977). Chavn art: its shamanic/hallucinogenic origins. In A. Cordy-Collins & J. Stern (Eds.), Pre-Columbian art history: selected readings (pp. 353362). Palo Alto: Peek. Coulmas, F. (1994). Eternal change at the Grand Shrine of Ise. Japan Quarterly, pp. 3643. Crown, P. L., & Wills, W. H. (2003). Modifying pottery and kivas at Chaco: pentimento, restoration, or renewal? American Antiquity, 68(3), 511532. Culleton, B. J., Prufer, K. M., & Kennett, D. J. (2012). A Bayesian AMS 14C chronology of the Classic Maya Center of Uxbenk, Belize. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39(5), 15721586.
Radiocarbon Dates from the Monumental Architecture at Chavn de Huntar Dean, J. S. (1978). Independent dating in archaeological analysis. In M. B. Schiffer (Ed.), Advances in archaeological method and theory 1 (pp. 223255). New York: Academic. Feathers, J. K., Johnson, J., & Kembel, S. R. (2008). Luminescence dating of monumental architecture at Chavn de Huantr, Per. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 15, 266296. Fjelds, J. (2002). Polylepis forestsvestiges of a vanishing ecosystem in the Andes. Ecotropica, 8, 111123. Furst, J. L. M. (1992). The Aztec New Fire ritual: a world renewal rite. Journal of Latin American Lore, 18, 2936. Gareca, E. E., Fernandez, M., & Stanton, S. (2010a). Dendrochronological investigation of the high Andean tree species Polylepis besseri and implications for management and conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19, 18391851. Gareca, E. E., Hermy, M., Fjeldsa, J., & Honnay, O. (2010b). Polylepis woodland remnants as biodiversity islands in the Bolivian high Andes. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19, 33273346. Gonzles, M. and Rick, R.M. (19951998). Videotape interviews of Marino Gonzles regarding his work at Chavn de Huntar. Haas, H., Devine, J.M., Wenke, R., Lehner, M., Wlfli, W., and Bonani, G. (1987). Radiocarbon chronology and the historical calendar in Egypt. In: O. Aurenche, J. Evin, and F. Hours (eds). Chronologies in the Ancient Near East: relative chronologies and absolute chronology, 16,000 4,000 BP. BAR International Series 379. BAR: Oxford. p. 585606 Hastorf, C. A. and Johanssen, S. (1991). Understanding changing people/plant relationships in the prehispanic Andes. In. R. Preucel (ed). Processual and postprocessual archaeologies: multiple ways of knowing the past. Center for Archaelogical Investigations, Southern Illinois University Press: Carbondale. pp 6178. Heinemeier, J., Ringbom, ., Lindroos, A., & Sveinbjrnsdttir, A. E. (2010). Successful AMS 14C dating of non-hydraulic lime mortars from the medieval churches of the land Islands. Radiocarbon, 52(1), 171204. Isbell, W. H. (1976). Cosmological order expressed in prehistoric ceremonial centers. Actes du XLII Congres International des Americanistes IV:269299. Johannessen, S., & Hastorf, C. A. (1990). A history of fuel management (A.D. 500 to the present) in the Mantaro Valley, Peru. J Ethnobioogy, 10, 6190. Kane, M.S. (2008). A post-Chavn period settlement in the Circular Plaza at Chavn de Huntar, Peru. Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropological Sciences, Stanford University. Kato, Y. (1994). Resultados de las excavaciones en Kuntur Wasi, Cajamarca. In L. Millones & Y. Onuki (Eds.), El Mundo Ceremonial Andino (pp. 199224). Lima: Editorial Horizonte. Kaufmann Doig, F., & Gonzles Moreno, M. (1993). 24 Planos Arquitectnicos de Chavn de Huntar (Arqueolgicas 22). Lima: Instituto de Investigaciones Antropolgicas. Kembel, S. R. (2001). Architectural sequence and chronology at Chavn de Huntar, Per. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Anthropological Sciences, Stanford University, http://kembel.com/silvia/ chavin/. Kembel, S. R. (2008). The architecture at the monumental center of Chavn de Huntar: sequence, transformations, and chronology. In W. J. Conklin & J. Quilter (Eds.), Chavn: Art, Architecture, and Culture (pp. 3584). Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. University of California. Kembel, S. R., & Rick, J. W. (2004). Building Authority at Chavn de Huntar: models of social organization and development in the initial period and early horizon. In H. Silverman (Ed.), Andean archaeology. New York: Blackwell. Kessler, M. (2002). The polylepis problem: where do we stand? Ecotropica, 8, 97110. Kolar, M. A., Rick, J. W., Cook, P. R., & Abel, J. S. (2012). Ancient Pututus contextualized: integrative archaeoacoustics at Chavn de Huntar, Per. In M. Stckli & A. Adje Both (Eds.), Flower worldmusic archaeology of the Americas, Vol (1st ed., pp. 2354). Berlin: Ekho. Lanning, E. P. (1967). Peru before the Incas. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lau, G. F. (2004). The Recuay culture of Peru's north-central highlands: a reappraisal of chronology and its implications. Journal of Field Archaeology, 29(1/2), 177202. Lehner, M., Bonani, G., Haas, H., Hawass, Z., Nakhla, S., Nolan, J., Wenke, R., Wetterstrom, W., & Wlfli, W. (1999). Dating the pyramids. Archaeology, 52(5), 2633. Lumbreras, L. G. (1971). Towards a re-evaluation of Chavn. In E. P. Benson (Ed.), Dumbarton Oaks Conference on Chavin (1968) (pp. 128). Washington D.C: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library. Lumbreras, L. G. (1974). The peoples and cultures of ancient Peru. Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution. Lumbreras, L. G. (1977). Excavaciones en el Templo Antiguo de Chavn (sector R) (Informe de la sexta campaa. awpa Pacha 15:138). Berkeley: Institute of Andean Studies.
Kembel and Haas Lumbreras, L. G. (1989). Chavn de Huntar en el Nacimiento de la Civilizacin Andina. Lima Peru: Instituto Andino de Estudios Arqueolgicos. Lumbreras, L. G. (1993). Chavn de Huntar: Excavaciones en la Galeria de las Ofrendas (Materialien zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archaologie bd. 51). Mainz Am Rhein: P. von Zabern. Lumbreras, L. G. and Amat Olazabal, H. (196566). Informe preliminar sobre las galerias interiores de Chavn (Primera temporada de trabajos). Revista del Museo Nacional 34:143197. Lumbreras, L. G., Gonzlez, C., & Lietaer, B. (1976). Acerca de la funcin del sistema hidrulico de Chavn. Investigaciones de Campo no. 2. Lima: Museo Nacional de Antropologa y Arqueologa. Mathews, J. P. (2001). Radiocarbon dating of mortar and charcoal inclusions in architectural mortar: a case study in the Maya Region, Quintana Roo, Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology, 28(3 and 4), 395400. McCormac, F. G., Hogg, A. G., Blackwell, P. G., Buck, C. E., Higham, T. F. G., & Reimer, P. J. (2004). SHCal04 southern hemisphere calibration, 011.0 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon, 46(3), 10871092. Menzel, D., Rowe, J. H., & Dawson, L. E. (1964). The Paracas pottery of Ica. A Study in Style and Time (University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 50). Berkeley: University of California Press. Mesa M., C. J. (2007). Intrasite spatial organization at Chavn de Huntar during the Andean Formative: three dimensional modeling, stratigraphy and ceramics. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropological Sciences. Stanford University. Mock, S. B. (Ed.). (1998). The sowing and the dawning: termination, dedication, and transformation in the archaeological and ethnographic record of Mesoamerica. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Moore, J. (1996). Architecture and power in the Prehispanic Andes: the archaeology of public buildings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moseley, M. E. (1985). The exploration and explanation of early monumental architecture in the Andes. In C. Donnan (Ed.), Early ceremonial architecture in the Andes (pp. 2958). Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Moseley, M. E. (1992). Incas and their ancestors: the archaeology of Peru. London: Thames and Hudson. Nash, S. E. (2009). Readings in chronometric analysis: selections from American antiquity and Latin American antiquity, 19352006. New York: Society for American Archaeology Press. Onuki, Y. (2001). Una perspectiva del perodo formativo de la sierra norte del Per. In: Historia de la Cultura Peruana I, pp. 103126. Fondo Editorial del Congreso del Per. Pozorski, T., & Pozorski, S. (1987). Chavn, the early horizon and the initial period. In J. Haas, S. Pozorski, & T. Pozorski (Eds.), The origins and development of the Andean State (pp. 3646). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rech, J. A. (2004). New uses of old radiocarbon techniques: how radiocarbon dating of mortar and plaster could change the chronology of the ancient Near East. Near Eastern Archaeology, 67(4), 212219. Rech, J. A., Fischer, A. A., Edwards, D. R., & Jull, A. J. T. (2003). Direct dating of plasters and mortars using AMS radiocarbon: a pilot project from Khirbat Qana, Israel. Antiquity, 77, 155174. Reimer, P. J., Baillie, M. G. L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. W., Bertrand, C. J. H., Blackwell, P. G., Buck, C. E., Burr, G. S., Cutler, K. B., Damon, P. E., Edwards, R. L., Fairbanks, R. G., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T. P., Hogg, A. G., Hughen, K. A., Kromer, B., McCormac, G., Manning, S., Bronk Ramsey, C., Reimer, R. W., Remmele, S., Southon, J. R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S., Taylor, F. W., van der Plicht, J., & Weyhenmeyer, C. E. (2004). IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 026 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon, 46(3), 10291058. Renfrew, C., & Bahn, P. (1991). Archaeology: theories, methods, and practice. London: Thames and Hudson. Roe, P. (1983). Recent discoveries in Chavn art: some speculations on methodology and significance in the analysis of a figural Style (In: Chavn Art. Museum of Anthropology miscellaneous series. vol. 48). Greeley, CO: University of Northern Colorado. Rick, J. W. (2005). The evolution of authority and power at Chavn de Huntar, Peru. In: K. J. Vaughn, D. Ogburn and C. A. Conlee (eds). Foundations of power in the Prehispanic Andes. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 14: Arlington, VA. pp. 7189 Rick, J. W. (2006). Chavn de Huntar. Evidence for an evolved shamanism. In S. Douglas (Ed.), Mesas and cosmologies in the Central Andes (pp. 101112). San Diego: San Diego Museum Papers 44. Rick, J. W. (2008). Context, construction, and ritual in the development of authority at Chavn de Huntar. In W. Conklin & J. Quilter (Eds.), Chavin: art, architecture and culture (pp. 334). Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. University of California. Rick, J. W., Kembel, S. R., Rick, R.M., and Kembel, J.A. (1998). La Arquitectura del Complejo Ceremonial de Chavn de Huntar: Documentacin Tridimensional y Sus Implicancias. In: P. Kaulicke
Radiocarbon Dates from the Monumental Architecture at Chavn de Huntar (ed). Perspectivas Regionales del Perodo Formatvo en el Per. Boletin de Arqueologa PUCP (2). Pontificia Universidad Catlica del Per, Lima. pp. 181214 Rick, J. W., Mesia, C., Contreras, D., Kembel, S. R., Rick, R. M., Sayre, M., & Wolf, J. (2010). La cronologa de Chavn de Huntar y sus implicancias para el Periodo Formativo. Boletin de Arqueologa PUCP (12). Lima, Peru: Fondo Editorial Pontifica Universidad Catolica Peruana. Rick, J. W., & Rick, R. M. (2003). Marino Gonzles: 19162001: El hombre de Chavn y su mundo. Arqueologicas, 26, 1726. Rosenfeld, S. (2010). Faunal analysis (Appendix N). In: Sayre, Matthew Paul (ed). Life across the river: agricultural, ritual, and production practices at Chavn de Huntar, Per. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Anthropology. University of California, Berkeley, p 285291. Rowe, J. H. (1962). Chavn Art, an inquiry into its form and meaning. New York: University Publishers. Rowe, J. H. (1967). Form and meaning in Chavn art. In J. H. Rowe & D. Menzel (Eds.), Peruvian archaeology: selected readings (pp. 72103). Palo Alto: Peek Publications. Saffer, S. (1998). The tenon heads of Chavn de Huntar: evidence for drug use at a pre-historic temple site. Undergraduate Honors Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Stanford University Sayre, M. P. (2010). Life across the river: agricultural, ritual, and production practices at Chavn de Huntar, Per. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Anthropology. University of California, Berkeley Schiffer, M. B. (1986). Radiocarbon dating and the Old Wood problem: the case of the Hohokam chronology. Journal of Archaeological Science, 13, 1330. Tello, J. C. (1943). Discovery of the Chavn Culture in Peru. American Antiquity, 1, 135160. Tello, J. C. (1960). Chavn: Cultura Matriz de la Civilizacin Andina (Publicacin Antropolgica del Archivo "Julio C. Tello" de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos II). Lima, Peru: Imprenta de la Universidad de San Marcos. Turner, R.J.W., Knight, R.J., and Rick, J. (1999). The geological landscape of the pre-Inca archaeological site at Chavn de Huntar, Per. In: Current Research 1999-D; Geological Survey of Canada, p. 4756. Van Valkenburgh, N. P. (2003). Style and interregionalism in the early horizon: twenty Strombus galeatus trumpets from Chavn de Huntar. Peru: Undergraduate Honors Thesis, Department of Anthropological Sciences, Stanford University. Vargas, J. (2009). Informe de Ensayo: Pruebas de campo (bolita y emparedado), contendio de humedad, anlisis granulometrico por sedimentacin, lmite liquido, lmite plstico, y lmite de contraccin en muestras de suelo procedentes de Chavn. Convenio de Cooperacin INC-PUCP; Conservacin del Patrimonio Arqueolgico y el Fomento de la Investigacin Cientifica. Laboratorio de Estructuras Antissmicas. Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Peru. Williams, C. (1980). Complejos de pirmides con planta en u: patrn arquitectnico de la costa central. Revista del Museo Nacional, 44, 95110. Williams, C. (1985). A scheme for the early monumental architecture of the Central Coast of Peru. In C. Donnan (Ed.), Early ceremonial architecture in the Andes (pp. 227240). Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Wyrwa, A. M., Goslar, T., & Czernik, J. (2009). AMS 14C dating of romanesque rotunda and stone buildings of a medieval monastery in Lekno, Poland. Radiocarbon, 51(2), 471480.

JAMT (2013) Chavin Radiocarbon

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

JAMT (2013) Chavin Radiocarbon

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

J Archaeol Method Theory DOI 10.

Radiocarbon Dates from the Monumental Architecture at Chavn de Huntar, Per

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Kembel and Haas

Fig. 1 Map of Per showing the location of Chavn de Huntar

Radiocarbon Dates from the Monumental Architecture at Chavn de Huntar

Fig. 2 The monumental center at Chavn de Huntar. Photo by John Kembel

Kembel and Haas

Radiocarbon Dates from the Monumental Architecture at Chavn de Huntar

Kembel and Haas

Circular Plaza Circular Plaza Terrace

Circular Plaza Atrium

Black & White Staircase

Plaza Mayor Terrace

South Flanking Mound

North Flanking Mound N a N a (N : Architectural North)

Radiocarbon Dates from the Monumental Architecture at Chavn de Huntar

Kembel and Haas

Radiocarbon Dates from the Monumental Architecture at Chavn de Huntar

Kembel and Haas

Radiocarbon Dates from the Monumental Architecture at Chavn de Huntar

Circular Plaza East Area East Area

Chavin Construction Stages

Support Construction Stage

North and South Rectangular Structures

Black & White Stage

High NEA Phase Galleries: Alacenas East Entrace

Kembel and Haas

Separate Mound Stage

NEA Phase Galleries: Escalinata, Alacenas, East Face, Zanja

B Platform-Inner Lanzn Rectangle Phase Galleries: Inner Lanzn Rectangle

Radiocarbon Dates from the Monumental Architecture at Chavn de Huntar

Kembel and Haas

Radiocarbon Dates from the Monumental Architecture at Chavn de Huntar

Underlaying Older Red Mortar

Overlaying Younger Grey Mortar

Kembel and Haas

Radiocarbon Dates from the Monumental Architecture at Chavn de Huntar

Kembel and Haas

Radiocarbon Dates from the Monumental Architecture at Chavn de Huntar

Kembel and Haas

Radiocarbon Dates from the Monumental Architecture at Chavn de Huntar

South Platform AA70294 APLAT-S-S01

East Face Gallery AA70293 (EFG-A-S02)

Ofrendas Gallery AA62749 (OFR-B-S01) AA62750 (OFR-B-S06) AA62751 (OFR-B-S10)

Kembel and Haas

Radiocarbon Dates from the Monumental Architecture at Chavn de Huntar

Lab number Sample code

Ofrendas Gallery, Segment B

Charcoal 23.17 2212

Ofrendas Gallery, Segment B

Charcoal 25.91 2446 28

Canyo Gallery, Segment A

Charcoal 26.8 2474 55

Upper Doble Mnsula Gallery, Segment A Charcoal 21.80

774 (94.4 %) 509 436 ( 1.0 %) 422

Upper Doble Mnsula Gallery, Segment A Charcoal 23.61

Upper Doble Mnsula Gallery, Segment A Charcoal 24.10

Loco Gallery, Segment S

Charcoal 23.85 Charcoal 24.88

Kembel and Haas

Loco Gallery, Segment S

Table 1 (continued) Material DC_13 value