the architecture at the monumental center of chavín de huántar: sequence, transformations, and...

8/10/2019 The architecture at the Monumental Center of Chavn de Huntar: Sequence, Transformations, and Chronology- S

1/47

While the monumental center at Chavn deHuntar has been central to archaeolo-gists study of early complex societies in theAndes, understanding of its place and role inAndean prehistory has changed substantiallyover the years and continues to do so. Originallyexpounded as the Mother Culture of Andeancivilization by Tello (1943, 1960), Chavn deHuntar was viewed as the origin from whichwidespread similarities in art, ceramics, and ar-chitecture had spread in a Chavn horizon.Subsequent work, however, demonstrated thatChavn de Huntar was preceded by a long se-quence of Preceramic and Initial Period coastaland highland monumental centers, many ofwhich incorporated the art and architectural fea-tures that Tello proposed to have originated atChavn de Huntar (see Moseley 1985).

Following research that provided substantial in-sight into the sites ceremonial nature (Lum-breras and Amat 19651966; Lumbreras 1977),Chavn de Huntar was then postulated not onlyto have appeared late in this sequence of centers,with construction beginning around 800 B.C.,but to have reached its peak in regional influenceonly after coastal centers containing art and ar-chitectural forms similar to those at Chavn de

Huntar had declined by the fifth or fourth cen-turies B.C. (Burger 1981). The broadly usedterm Chavn horizon was delimited to describethe period in which an integrated exchange sys-tem, Janabarriu-related ceramic traits, and tech-nological innovations in metallurgy and textilesbecame widespread across the Andes, between490 and 200 B.C. The Chavn horizon was pro-posed to have corresponded with the peak ofmonumental construction at Chavn de Huntaras well as the peak in influence of a Chavn cultbased at the site (Burger 1988, 1992a, 1993a).This cumulative framework formed the initialbackground in the mid-1990s for the beginningof a multiyear, ongoing collaborative researcheffort at Chavn de Huntar, some results ofwhich are presented here and in Rick, this vol-ume, chapter 1.

At the core of this long series of investiga-tions is the architecture of Chavn de Huntaritself, because interpretations of the sites mate-rial culture sequences and chronology have beenfundamentally based on the relationships ofthese sequences to the sites architecture, in par-ticular the three-phase construction sequenceproposed by Rowe (1967a:Fig. 2). Citing con-struction seams evident in external walls at the

35

2 .

THEARCHITECTURE AT THEMONUMENTAL

CENTER OFCHAVN DE HUNTAR:SEQUENCE, TRANSFORMATIONS,AND

CHRONOLOGY

SILVIA RODRIGUEZ KEMBEL


2/47

site, Rowe proposed an original U-shaped OldTemple, followed by construction of two addi-tions to form a second, larger U-shaped NewTemple to the south and east. In addition tobeing widely adopted as the standard model pre-

sented in works on Andean prehistory(Lumbreras 1974: 60; Moseley 1992:155; Moore1996:5152; Isbell 1976: 289), general archaeol-ogy (Renfrew and Bahn 1991:360361), and arthistory (Kubler 1975a: 254; Stone-Miller1995:39), Rowes sequence created a foundationupon which were built links between Chavn deHuntars architecture and its art sequence(Rowe 1962, 1967a), ceramic sequences (Burger1981, 1984; Lumbreras 1977, 1989), occupationpatterns (Burger 1984), and radiocarbon dates

(Burger 1981, 1984, 1992a; Lumbreras 1989,1993). The resulting studies have shaped the re-cent understanding of Chavn de Huntar, its de-velopment, and its relationships with other sites.

The architecture at Chavn de Huntar (fig-ures 2.1 and 2.2), however, contains more

chronological evidence than is incorporated intoRowes sequence.For example, new external con-struction seam data frame a different picture ofthe sites growth (Rick et al. 1998). Additionally,at least 35 internal seams mark construction

episodes within the sites internal galleries andstructures (Kembel 2001); this complex networkof passageways, rooms, staircases, ventilationshafts, and drainage canals permeates the sitesplatform mounds, terraces, and sunken plazasand is here referred to as internal architecture(figures 2.32.7). Only one of these internalseams is evident externally as well, because thecorresponding exterior stonework, in which orig-inally some of the internal seams likely visiblycontinued, is missing, buried by fill, reconstruct-

ed in modern times, or covered by later Chavnor post-Chavn constructions. In addition toseams, the architecture at Chavn de Huntarcontains other chronological clues and featuresthat provide insight into the sites architecturalhistory. These include the galleries spatial loca-

CHAVN: ART, ARCHITECTURE , AND CULTURE36

Figure 2.1.The monumental center at Chavn de Huntar.


3/47

tions and spatial relationships with one another;stonework characteristics, coursing patterns, andconstruction patterns both externally and inter-nally; evidence of modification; evidence of bothvertical and horizontal growth; and organiza-tional construction principles that incorporatethe site as a whole. This wealth of chronologicaldata embedded within both the internal and ex-

ternal architecture at Chavn de Huntar was notintegrated into Rowes architectural sequence orscholars subsequent research that built upon it,and thus clearly warranted a new analysis ofChavn de Huntars architectural sequence andits relationships with the sites art, ceramic, radio-carbon, and occupation sequences.

A new analysis of Chavn de Huntars archi-tectural chronology evidence is summarized hereand presented fully in Kembel 2001. The discus-

sion below reviews the resulting new architectur-al sequence as well as architectural principles andconstruction patterns that guided the sitesgrowth. It then addresses some of the transforma-tions within this sequence, including the incorpo-ration of antecedent architectural forms, changesin site use, and the sequences implications for un-derstanding the design of architectural meaning

by the sites builders. Finally, it examines the re-lationships between the new architectural se-quence and Chavn de Huntars radiocarbon,art,ceramic, and occupation sequences. The resultsdepart considerably from earlier perspectives onhow and when the monumental center at Chavnde Huntar was constructed, and hold significantimplications for understanding Chavn deHuntars place and role in formative Andean so-cial development.

CHAPTER 2: SEQUENCE, TRANSFORMATIONS, AND CHRONOLOGY 37

Building B

Building C

Building D

Building A

Middendorf

Staircase

Plaza

Menor

Plaza

Mayor

Building

E

Building G

Building

F

Seam: A-W-1

Black & White Portal

Circular Plaza

Circular Plaza

Terrace

Circular Plaza

Atrium

Plaza Mayor

Terrace

Black & White Staircase

Seam: A-E-2

Seam: A-E-1

50m

N

Na

(Na : Architectural North)

Seam: A-N-1

Plaza Menor Terrace Black & White Zcalo

Figure 2.2.Map of external architecture at the monumental center of Chavn de Huntar.Redrawn from Ricket al. 1998: Figure 5.


4/47


Figure 2.3. Chavn de Huntar's internal architecture: The hallway in the Doble Mnsula Gallery.


5/47


Figure 2.4. Chavn de Huntars internal architecture: In the Lanzn Gallery, the hallway withconstruction seams. Seam Lan-E-3 is visible in the foreground; Seam Lan-E-2 is visible in themidground; seam Lan-E-1 is at the gate.The Lanzn monolith is behind the gate.


6/47


Figure2.5.ChavndeHu

ntarsinternalarchitecture:Staircase

with-

intheDobleMnsulaGallery,w

ithtwoventilationsshafts.Aconstruc-

tionseamispresentbetweenthestaircaseandtheendofthehallway.

Figure

2.6.IntheLanznGallery,detailofSeamLan-E-3,

showingwhiteplasterthatmarkstheformerlyexterior

wallsur-

faceoftheLanzn

Patio.


7/47


Figure

2.7.ChavndeH

untar'sinternalarchitecture:Room

intheLaberintosGallery.Notepe

gsintegratedwithinthemnsulaco

urse.T

he

tenonheadsweretempora

rilyplacedinthisroomforstorage.


8/47

MAPPING AND ANALYZINGCHAVNAR CH I TE CT UR E I N

THREE-DIMENSIONS

The abundance of chronological evidence in

Chavn de Huntars architecture and the spatialcomplexity of its construction,internally as well asexternally, required new methods of architecturaldocumentation and analysis.To address this need,my research team and I developed a new laser-based methodology for collecting three-dimen-sional data in internal spaces, in collaboration withJohn Rick as part of Stanford Universitybaseddigital mapping and excavation work (see Rick,this volume, chapter 1) at the site. In 1996 and1998 we gathered approximately 20,000 three-di-

mensional points and 3000 databased photo-

graphs documenting the 26 then-accessible gal-leries at Chavn de Huntar, related vents anddrains, internal and external seams, and other im-portant external architectural features (seeKembel 2001). The result is a highly precise data

set that establishes the form and absolute spatialposition of each gallery and important chronolog-ical features within the site (figures 2.8 and 2.9).

To determine Chavn de Huntars construc-tion sequence, these points, as well as additionalexternal points collected by Rick (see Rick et al.1998),were systematically analyzed within a CAD(computer-aided design) model of the sites inter-nal and external architecture. In order to identi-fy and sequence individual construction phases,analysis involved four major steps: determining

the number and sequence of construction


Area(s) : Buildings A, B, C, and CPA

View

aN

20m

Cautivos (Cau)

Gallery XIII (XIII)

Murcilagos (Mur)

Laberintos (Lab)

Marino Gonzles Staircase (MGS) Lanzn (Lan)

Gallery VIII (VIII)

Loco (Loc)Pasos Perdidos (Pas)

Mirador (Mir)

Portada (Por)

Doble Mnsula (DM)

Escalinata Staircase (Esc)

Alacenas (Ala)

East Face Gallery (EFG)Ofrendas (Ofr)

Campamento (Cam)

Caracolas (Car)

Lticos (Lit)

Columnas-Vigas (Col)

Zanja (Zan)

Cao (Can)

Figure 2.8.Map of gallery locations in Buildings A, B, C, and the Circular Plaza Atrium. Galleries drawn di-rectly from three-dimensional data. Gallery VIII redrawn from Tello (1960). External architecture based on three-dimen-

sional data, including data collected by Rick. Abbreviations following gallery names are used in figures that follow.


9/47


A

View

B

Na

Area(s):BuildingsA,

B,

C,

andCPA

A

B

20m

Figure

2.9.MapofgallerylocationsinBuildingsA,B,C,andtheCircularPlazaAtrium,inplanandarchitecturalnorth(A)andwest(B)

profileviews.Alldo

cumentedgalleriesarevisible.Galler

iesaredrawndirectlyfromt

hree-dimensionaldata.Externalarchitectureisbasedonthree-

dimensionaldata,inc

ludingdatacollectedbyRick.


10/47

episodes within each gallery; analyzing how thegalleries and their construction episodes spatial-ly relate to each other; examining how the gal-leries spatially relate to external seams and otherchronological features; and analyzing these rela-

tionships at a site-wide level. Most of these analy-ses are possible exclusively via the computermodel. This methodology enabled a systematicand precise analysis of this large, complex data seton the sites architecture (see Kembel 2001 formore details).

These methods for gathering and analyzingspatial data contribute significantly to the studyof complex prehistoric architecture. Arch-aeologists can explore sites on the computer toaddress questions that previously could not be

answered and to pose new questions that previ-ously could not be conceived. Researchers cantake conceptual and visual points of view that areimpossible in the field, because the model givesarchaeologists X-ray vision to see throughwalls into the interior of structures, to examinea site from any angle, and to compare measure-ments between any points or features. Togetherwith additional CAD models of the external ar-

chitecture and surrounding area created by Rick,also based directly on detailed digital mappingdata, these methods and models enabled us todocument, visualize, and analyze the site in newways. We were also able to apply these models

toward other efforts at the site, such as determin-ing the placement of strategic excavations, andusing digital documentation of the site to facili-tate on-site conservation work. Significant in-sights result from these methods, as discussedbelow.

ARCHITECTURAL SEQUENCE,PRINCIPLES , AND

CONSTRUCTION PATTERNS

The monumental center at Chavn de Huntarwas built in a complex sequence of at least 15known phases, which incorporate 39 knownepisodes of gallery construction.These individualphases can be grouped as five higher-level stagesaccording to site-wide patterns (figure 2.10; plate2.1).The earliest stage, the Separate Mound Stage(figure 2.11), consists of separate buildings con-


CHAVIN DE HUANTAR CONSTRUCTION PHASES GROUPED BY AREA, WITH GALLERIES

Galleries: Tello High,

Tello Low, Rocas, Escondida

Galleries: Cortada,

Bennett cells

EAST AREA

Galleries: Inner Lanzn RectangleGalleries: Escalinata, Alacenas, East Face,

Zanja

SEPARATE MOUND

STAGE

Galleries: InnerLanzon

Middle Lanzon, Patio

Galleries: Upper Laberintos, Upper Pasos

Perdidos, Marino Gonzles Staircase,

Murcilagos, XIII, Lower Lticos, Lower Portada,

East Face North Staircase

EXPANSION

STAGE

Galleries: Alacenas East Entrance

Galleries: Lower Doble Mnsula, Cao, East

Face South Staircase, South Face Staircase

Galleries: South Loco,

North Loco and Mirador,

Loco Patio

Galleries: Cautivos, Upper Lticos, Upper

Portada, South Columnas-Vigas,

Columnas Patio

CONSOLIDATIONSTAGE

Galleries: Upper Doble Mnsula

Galleries: North Columnas-Vigas,

North and South Rectangular Structures

,

BLACK & WHITE

STAGE

East AreaPre-Black & White Axis

Phase

East AreaBlack & White Axis

Phase

Support construction

B Platform-Inner Lanzn Rectangle

PhaseNEA Phase

Low Building C PhaseWB-MB Phase

NWA-High NWA-MA-SA Platform

Phase

High NEA Phase

SA Phase

High Building C Phase

High MA Phase

High SA Phase

EB-High B-CPA PhaseBlack & White Axis Phase

Building A

Support constructionSupport constructionSupport constructionSUPPORT

CONSTRUCTION

STAGE

BUILDING CBUILDING B AND

CIRCULAR PLAZA ATRIUM

BUILDING A

CHAVIN DE HUANTAR

CONSTRUCTION

STAGES

Galleries: Lower Laberintos,

Laberintos Alcove,

Lower Pasos Perdidos,

Outer Lanzn,VIII,

Circular Plaza Staircase,

Ofrendas, Campamento,

Caracolas

Galleries: Lower Loco,

Rooms of Loco

Galleries: Inner Lanzn Chamber,

Middle Lanzn, Lanzn Patio

Figure 2.10.Architectural sequence for the monumental center at Chavn de Huntar, show-ing construction phases grouped by area, and gallery construction episodes grouped by phase.


11/47

taining galleries and at least one freestanding rec-tangular structure. The Expansion Stage follows(figure 2.12), consisting of integrated steppedplatforms that cover much volume and area, con-tain galleries that are elaborate in form and fea-

tures, extend Building A to its full southward ex-tent, and connect the earlier phases of BuildingsA, B, and possibly C, creating a contiguous U-form. The following phases, grouped as theConsolidation Stage (figure 2.13), include blockadditions that fill in the stepped platform ofBuilding A to become a large rectangular plat-form, and contain galleries whose forms and fea-tures are elaborate but becoming more standard-ized. In the final monumental stage, the Black andWhite Stage (figure 2.14), site-wide additions, in-

cluding plazas, terraces, and open staircases, arebuilt with high levels of symmetry, decorated finestonework, and standardized galleries. At thesame time, gallery patiosuncovered spaces atoptemple platforms, with walls on three sides intowhich one or more galleries openfrom earlierstages are enclosed and replaced with new gallerysegments. A set of support constructions followsthe Black and White Stage in different areasacross the site; this stage, called the Support Con-struction Stage, contains no additional monu-mental structures. Within this sequence, individ-ual construction phases are named by area ratherthan chronology. The specific forms and compo-nents of these phases, as well as the relationshipsbetween them, are described in detail in Kembel2001.

Within this sequence, each major building isconstructed in multiple construction phases. Forexample, Building A contains seven highly inte-grated monumental construction phases (see fig-ure 2.15 for an example of spatial relationshipswithin Building A). It begins as a separate mound,

the NEA (the northeast corner of Building A; seeRick et al. 1998), transitioning in its second phaseto a large set of stepped platforms descending tothe south, east, and north into Building B. Theplatforms are gradually filled in by a set of blockadditions that includes the Columnas Patio, agallery patio centered northsouth in Building Athat in the Black and White Stage is itself en-closed and converted into a gallery.


Figure 2.11. Chavn de Huntar construction se-quence, Stage 1: Separate Mound Stage.

Figure 2.12. Chavn de Huntar construction se-

quence, Stage 2: Expansion Stage.

Figure 2.13. Chavn de Huntar construction se-quence, Stage 3: Consolidation Stage. The buildingsin the East Area (in the foreground in front ofBuildings A, B, and C) likely span the first three con-struction stages (see Figure 2.10); they are displayedhere, in the latest possible stage for their construction.


12/47

In contrast, Building B (figure 2.16) containsthree monumental phases, beginning as a lowplatform topped by a freestanding rectangularstructure, the Inner Lanzn Rectangle (figure2.17). During the buildings second phase it is

converted into a stepped platform (figure 2.18).At this time the Inner Lanzn Rectangle is en-closed and transformed into a gallery, becomingthe internal cruciform Inner Lanzn Chamber.This chamber is reached via a gallery patio, theLanzn Patio, sitting to the east, which also con-nects with the entrance to another gallery to thesouth, the Upper Laberintos Gallery. In BuildingBs third and final monumental phase (figure2.19), its gallery patio and stepped platform areenclosed with the construction of new gallery


Figure 2.14. Chavn de Huntar construction se-quence, Stage 4: Black and White Stage.

A

B

Na

Area(s): MA, High MA, N Col

View

A

B3

B2

20m

B1

B3

B2

Cau

Lit

Por

Cau

Low LitLow Por

S Col

Up/Low Lit

Seam:Lit-K-1

Ext.Seam:A-E-2

Cau Pegs (above)

Seam: Cau-A-1-Hz (below)

High MA

MA

Ext.Seam:

A-E-1

Ext.Seam:A-W-1

Seam:

Cau-A-1

(and other

northwall

seams)

(No seam on

W Face)

B4

B4

Seam:DM-A-1

Seam:Por-A-1-Hz

Tenon headcourse onwest face

High Lit High Por

N Col

S Col

Seam:

Col-E-2

Set of ColN wall

seams

Seam:

Cau-A-1

North Col

B1

Up/Low Por

Former Columnas Patio Wall

Figure 2.15. Examples of spatial relationships of internal and external architecture within Building A; planand architectural north (A) and segmented west (B) profile views. This portion of Building A was built in threedifferent construction stages.The lowest portion, the MA, was built during the Expansion Stage. The larger ofthe two upper portions, the High MA, was built during the Consolidation Stage and included the ColumnasPatio. The North-Columnas-Vigas Gallery episode was built during the Black and White Stage, filling in theColumnas Patio. Note how access to earlier galleries was maintained during the addition of later phases by theconstruction of new gallery episodes.


13/47

A

B

Na

Area(s): B Platform, WB, MB, EB, High B

View

A B

20m

Seam: Lab-O-1

Seam: Lab-E-2

Out Lan

Circ Plaza

Staircase

Inner

Lanzn

Rectangle

VIII

M Lan

Low Lab

CP Staircase

High B

WB

MB

B Platform

EB

In Lan Ch

LabAlcove

Support

Blocks

Seam: Lan-G-1

Seam: Lan-F-1

Seam: Lan-E-1

Seam: Lan-E-3

Seam: Lan-E-2

Seam: Lab-E-1

Level of pegs

in Up Lab

Level of coarse-to finetransition (CFT) on Building A

Inner Lanzn Chamber

(In Lan Ch) Pegs

Lanzn Belt

In Lan Ch Pegs

Lanzn Patio

Surface

Floor level of Mid Lan, Out Lan,

Low Lab, and Up Lab entrance

Seam:

Lan-H-1

Inner Lanzn Chamber

Lab Alcove Low Lab

Figure 2.16. Building B: Spatial relationships of internal and external architecture; plan and architectural north(A) and west (B) profile views. Circular Plaza Staircase is not shown in view (B). Gallery VIII is not shown inplan view.

A

B

Na

Area(s): B Platform,Inner Lanzn Rectangle (ILR)

View

A B

20m

Inner Lanzn Rectangle (ILR)

B Platform

Figure 2.17. Building B Construction Phase 1: B Platform-ILR Phase; plan and architectural north (A) andwest (B) profile views.


14/47

segments, the height of the building increases,and a centered staircase, the Circular Plaza Stair-case, is built, ascending into the east face of thebuilding from the west end of the Circular Plaza.Along with the Circular Plaza Staircase, theCircular Plaza, the surrounding Circular PlazaTerrace, and the galleries within this terrace aregrouped as the Circular Plaza Atrium phase andare built at the same time as the third phase of

Building B. The Circular Plaza Atrium and thethird phase of Building B are thus built and inte-grated together as one larger construction phase.

To the north of Building B, Building C is con-structed in at least two major phases, followed bysupport constructions; further exploration of thelargely buried exterior of this mound may revealevidence of more construction phases. The EastAreathe area to the east of Buildings A, B, C,and the Circular Plaza Atriumis built in at least

two monumental phases, followed by supportconstructions. Within the East Area, a set of earlystructures exists as separate mounds, likely span-ning the first three stages (see figure 2.10). Thesestructures are included here in the model of theConsolidation Stage (see figure 2.13), as it is thelatest possible stage for their construction. Someevidence suggests their construction may havebeen as early as the Separate Mound Stage, how-

ever, and ongoing research promises to providegreater resolution regarding their specific place-ment within the sites first three stages. Major ad-ditions align these buildings with a new axis in thesecond known phase of the East Area, as part ofthe Black and White Stage.

A number of primary chronological linksexist between contiguous areas and buildings ofChavn de Huntars monumental center. For ex-ample, the second phases of Building A and


A

N

Area(s): MB, WB, Lanzn Patio

View

A B20m

Location of

Up Lab entrance

WB

MB

Location of

Up Lab entrance

Lanzn

Patio

Entrance to Middle Lanzn

and Inner Lanzn Chamber

Lanzn

Patio

B

Support Blocks of Inner

Lanzn Chamber

(In Lan Ch.)

Middle Lanzn

Lanzn Monolith

Inner Lanzn Chamber

Middle Lanzn

Inner Lanzn Chamber

a

Up Lab

Up Lab

Figure 2.18. Building B Construction Phase 2: WBMB Phase; plan and architectural north (A) and west (B)profile views.


15/47


Building B are part of one larger phase that spansand connects the two buildings within the Ex-pansion Stage. Additionally, the Circular PlazaTerrace blocks the early monumental north-fac-ing entrance to the double staircase of theEscalinata Gallery in the NEA, with the base ofthe terrace at the level of the NEAs foundation(figure 2.20). Because the Circular Plaza Terraceand the other structures forming the Circular

Plaza Atrium were built with the third phase ofBuilding B, these relationships clearly indicatethe Circular Plaza Atrium was built well after notonly the NEA but also the structures of theExpansion Stage (which include the second phaseof Building B), not along with them as part of theOld Temple.

Another chronological link emerges whenchanges in the galleries forms, features (such asniches, vents, and pegs), and construction tech-

niques are considered over time. In the early con-struction phases the galleries forms, features, fea-ture placement, and construction techniques arehighly variable and frequently elaborate, particu-larly prior to and during the Expansion Stage.After the Expansion Stage this variability and elab-orateness begin to diminish. In the Black andWhite Stage these characteristics are refined to asimple, standardized set of forms and features con-

structed in a similar manner. This pattern is herereferred to as gallery standardization (figure 2.21).Standardized galleries take two primary

forms, consisting of a single hall with short seg-ments on one or both sides: a hallway with shortsegments branching off one side, like an E orcomb form, or a hallway with short segmentsbranching off both sides, like an Hform.In bothforms the feature set is limited almost exclusivelyto simple, single vents that directly connect to the

A

B

Na

Area(s): EB, High B, CPA

View

A B

20m

CP Staircase

EB, High B

CP Terrace

Low Lab

Alcove

VIII

Out Lan

CP Staircase

Ofr

Cam

Car

CP Terrace

Circular Plaza (CP)

Figure 2.19. Building B Construction Phase 3, with Circular Plaza Atrium: EB-High BCPA Phase; plan andarchitectural north (A) and west (B) profile views.


16/47

exterior. The E-form galleries are oriented suchthat upon entering the gallery, the segments extendto the left. The H-form galleries appear to be en-tered from one end, rather than from the middleof the gallery.

The standardized galleries of the Black andWhite Stage are linked by similar architecturalchronology, not necessarily by similar function.For example, the Ofrendas Gallery was filled

with offerings in an area of the temple that like-ly would have seen few visitorsand the form ofits entrance suggests it was designed to be sealed(Lumbreras 1993). In contrast, Outer Lanznand Lower Laberintos served as entrance pas-sageways to two primary galleries and likely werefrequently visited, not closed or limited to accesslike Ofrendas. This suggests that the similar,standardized E-forms of these galleries are not aresult of similar functions.

Gallery standardization forms one of the keychronological links between non-contiguous phas-es. In particular, gallery standardization establishesa chronological link between the galleries of thefinal monumental phases of Building A and thosein the Circular Plaza Atrium and the third phase ofBuilding B, phases that are physically separatedfrom each other by earlier phases of Building A.Gallery standardization therefore helps to narrow

the chronological resolution of the Circular PlazaAtrium and the third phase of Building B in rela-tion to Building A, placing them not simply afterthe Expansion Stage, but in the Black and WhiteStage.These and other chronological links form anarchitectural sequence that accounts for and inte-grates the changes and growth that occurred acrossthe sites multiple buildings and areas.

Along with standardized galleries, all of thesites known plazas are built in the Black and


Esc

A

B

Na

Area(s): NEA, High NEA, CPA

View

20m

BA

C

C

Esc entranceblocked by CP Terrace

CP Terrace

CarOfr

Car

Cam

CP

Cam

Ofr

CP

Ofr

CarCam

Esc

Ala

EFG

Zan

CircularPlaza (CP)

CP Terrace

CP

Staircase

Figure 2.20.The Circular Plaza Terrace and the structures of the Circular Plaza Atrium block the entranceto Escalinata (Esc); plan and architectural north (A) and west (B) profile views. Alacenas Gallery and Zanja

Gallery are not shown in view (A).


17/47

White Stage: the Plaza Mayor, the Plaza Menor,and the Circular Plaza. Additionally, during theconstruction of the Black and White Stage, thegallery patios such as the Lanzn Patio and theColumnas Patio are enclosed and convertedinto standardized galleries. These patterns indi-cate that the transition from elaborate galleriesearly in the sequence to standardized gallerieslate in the sequence corresponds with a switchfrom the construction of large buildings with

relatively small gallery patios to the construc-tion of open areas with surficial structures suchas sunken plazas and open staircases. Galleriesin the Black and White Stage are reduced tosimple forms with minimal features, while thenew plazas and other surficial structures, such asthe Black and White Portal and the Black andWhite Staircase, are constructed of fine, large-ly granite, highly worked and sometimes deco-rated stonework.

In sum, the early phases of the sequence arecharacterized by high-volume, high-area con-structions that contain galleries elaborate informs and features, as well as gallery patios. TheExpansion Stage epitomizes this mode of con-struction. In the Black and White Stage, the finalmonumental stage, emphasis switches to low-volume, high-area, primarily surficial structureswith decorated, precisely executed, highly sym-metrical external spaces and simple, standardized

galleries.The gallery patios are covered and con-verted into galleries in this stage. While visualemphasis is on the highly decorated exteriorspaces, the use of the galleries continues, as indi-cated by the construction of new yet standard-ized galleries in the Black and White Stage.

In describing this construction sequence, itbecomes clear that the three-phase sequence andterms Old Temple and New Temple pro-posed by Rowe (1962, 1967a) are insufficient to


Black & White Stage

Consolidation Stage

Expansion Stage

Separate Mound Stage

Alcove

Cortada

Inner Lanzn ChamberMiddle Lanzn

10m

Ofrendas Lower Laberintos Upper Doble Mnsula Outer Lanzn VIII North Columnas-Vigas

Campamento

Caracolas

Cautivos Lower Doble Mnsula South Loco Upper Lticos North Loco, Mirador

South Columnas-Vigas

Cao

Escalinata Inner Lanzn Rectangle Alacenas Zanja East Face

Murcilagos Loco Rooms Lower Lticos Marino Lower Loco XIII Lower Port

Upper Port

Upper Pasos PerdidosUpper Laberintos

Figure 2.21. Standardization of gallery episode forms, by construction stage. Galleries are viewed in plan anddrawn to scale directly from three-dimensional data.


18/47

describe the richness of the construction histo-ry of Chavn de Huntar.The sequence present-ed here represents a substantially different andmore complex pattern of construction. Areaspreviously thought to be Old Temple, such as

the Circular Plaza Atrium and the third phase ofBuilding B, are now shown to be part of the finalmonumental construction stage, the Black andWhite Stage.Areas previously thought to be partof the New Temple, such as the southern por-tion of Building A, consist of multiple phases andcontain more time depth than previously noted,extending back well into the Expansion Stage.This architectural sequence stands alone, inde-pendent of other sequences or sources ofchronological data, and provides a new founda-

tion for understanding Chavn de Huntarsgrowth and development.

Architectural Principles andConstruction PatternsNumerous architectural principles and construc-tion patterns that guided Chavn de Huntarsgrowth emerge in the study of the sites architec-tural sequence. The following discussion high-lights four of the more significant principles,along with gallery construction patterns, that areevident at the site.

Integration of Internal and External ArchitectureAt Chavn de Huntar internal and external ar-chitecture were constructed as part of a single de-sign, with the network of galleries, gallery patios,vents, and drainage canals forming integral com-ponents of the sites buildings, terraces, andplazas. For example, galleries were built through-out each stage of the sequence, and gallery door-ways were centered within exterior faces orgallery patios, suggesting that galleries were key

elements of construction. Similarly, gallery pa-tios, which likely served as transition spaces be-tween internal and fully external spaces, werecentered atop individual buildings, indicatingthat these patios were well integrated within thelarger constructions. Vents were intricately in-corporated into the architecture as well, particu-larly within Building A, in which all phases con-taining galleries were connected to each other byvents, except the first phase of Building A, the

NEA. In fact, the very placement and forms ofsome galleries appear to have been partly deter-mined by both a need to continue vents fromolder structures through new ones to the exteri-or and a design for vents to exit at visually signif-

icant exterior places. Also integrated withinBuilding A was a sophisticated vertical drainagesystem that channeled heavy rainy-season runofffrom the platform surfaces into a system of asmall canals,down stone-lined vertical shafts,andthrough the temple via carefully constructed,sloped and stepped stone-lined internal canals.Construction of this drainage system consistent-ly followed these fundamental forms across phas-es. In sum, internal architecture was carefullyplanned along with the external architecture and

was constructed as an integral part of the full con-struction sequence.

Modification and Adaptationof Existing ArchitectureModification of existing architecture was a keyelement of the construction process at Chavn deHuntar. Modification to earlier phases occurredthroughout the sequence, and most modifica-tions served to adapt existing architecture to newadditions. Internally, modifications were carriedout primarily to maintain access to galleries thatwould have been blocked or buried by additions.Externally, modifications primarily served toadapt older constructions to the addition of newphases, so that the combined form of old and newphases adhered to architectural principles andconstruction patterns, such as symmetry, dis-cussed below. Deconstruction was a significantcomponent of the modification process; majorportions of architecture were deconstructed andthen reconstructed to adapt to the addition of anew phase. Some of these modifications were of

local importance, while many had site-wide sig-nificance.

Horizontal and Vertical AdditionsWhile Rowes original sequence suggested thatthe monumental architecture at Chavn deHuntar grew through a set of horizontal addi-tions, the new architectural sequence presentedhere demonstrates that the sites architecturegrew vertically as well as horizontally.Vertical ad-



19/47

ditions formed a significant portion of the se-quence: nine out of fifteen phases built directlyon top of an earlier phase. For example, the fullhorizontal southward extent of Building A was es-tablished by the buildings second phase; the five

subsequent monumental additions were built ver-tically on top of this form, and many early gal-leries and internal staircases were extended high-er through these vertical additions to maintainaccess with the exterior (for example, see Figure2.15).

Centeredness, Symmetry, and AsymmetryThe architecture at Chavn de Huntar displaysa combination of both planned symmetry andasymmetry; principles of centeredness and sym-

metry guided the architectural design and growthwithin the sites buildings, while the constructionof buildings in relation to each other followed apattern of asymmetry. For example, the centeredplacement of staircases, gallery entrances, andgallery patios is a consistently prominent archi-tectural principle throughout the sequence.To il-lustrate, in early phases, staircases and entrancesin the external faces of Building A were centeredwithin those faces. As later additions were built,new centered staircases replaced those blocked byadditions, and existing architecture was decon-structed and adapted to maintain staircase cen-teredness within the new exterior faces resultingfrom combined phases (see Figure 2.23 and dis-cussion below). Additionally, gallery patios werecentered at the top of the buildings in which theystood. In the last half of the sequence, however,centeredness no longer was possible in somecases, due to constraints imposed by earlier phas-es, so the pattern shifted to include pairs of stair-cases bilaterally symmetrical around a centralpoint.Exceptions to this pattern were constrained

by factors specific to their local constructionareas. In contrast, the very buildings containingthose centered and bilaterally symmetrical stair-cases, entrances, and patios were asymmetricallyconstructed in relation to one another, until someof the highly formal constructions of the Blackand White Stage. Even then, however, the build-ings of the site as a whole continued to be asym-metrically arranged. This asymmetric arrange-ment of buildings likely relates to geologic

constraints imposed by the sites location (Turneret al. 1999; see Rick, this volume, chapter 1).

Gallery Construction Principles and PatternsRather than being built in single, static construc-

tion events, many galleries were built in multipleconstruction episodes and were adapted overtime. New gallery segments were frequentlyadded to an existing gallery to extend it throughnewly constructed phases, maintaining access tothat earlier space.Significant modifications to ex-isting galleries were common as well. They oc-curred largely to accommodate the addition ofconstruction phases and frequently resulted ingalleries that span multiple levels.

Gallery architecture followed a detailed set of

specific construction patterns (see Kembel 2001for more details). Analysis of these constructionpatterns can be used to help decipher how the gal-leries and their larger construction phases werebuilt, modified, and expanded over time, forminga key tool for determining the site-wide construc-tion sequence.

Analysis of these patterns also indicates thatadditions and modifications to the gallery systemsometimes required massive efforts in design,planning,partial deconstruction of existing archi-tecture, and building of the new structures. Themagnitude of these efforts suggests that main-taining access to the galleries over time was ex-tremely important to Chavn de Huntars archi-tectural designers and builders, perhaps in partbecause maintaining access to those galleries alsomeant maintaining access to spaces that in at leastsome cases were highly sacred, and to the activi-ties or rituals or sacredness traditionally associat-ed with them.

In sum, Chavn de Huntars architecturedemonstrates that designers and builders at the

site integrated internal and external architectureas part of the same design; modified and adapt-ed existing architecture as they designed andconstructed new phases; expanded the site notjust horizontally but vertically as well; shaped itwith principles of centeredness and symmetry instaircases, patios, and entrances along withasymmetry among buildings; and built galleriesin multiple episodes following specific construc-tion patterns, maintaining access through new



20/47

phases to long-used spaces and their associatedactivities. Together, these principles and patternssuggest that each construction phase was a care-fully planned undertaking, deliberately shapedby the sites planners and builders. They de-

signed the architectural features of the newphases to articulate with older phases and selec-tively adapted older phases, sometimes throughgreat effort, to accommodate and conform to thenew architectural contexts and the wider princi-ples imposed with the new phases. These pat-terns and principles provide guidelines for un-derstanding architectural change across Chavnde Huntars long and complex architectural se-quence, as illustrated below.

TR ANSFORMAT IONS INCHAVNARCHITECTURE

Along with many specific architectural changesat Chavn de Huntar that resulted from addi-tions and modifications throughout its construc-tion, broad transformations can also be observedwithin the sites architectural sequence. The fol-lowing discussions highlight some of thesetransformations, examining shifts in antecedentarchitectural forms, site use, and ways in whichbuilders at Chavn de Huntar appear to havedesigned the architecture to convey symbolicmeaning.

Antecedent Architectural FormsAs earlier studies have noted, Chavn deHuntars architecture combines antecedent ar-chitectural forms to create a new manifestationof monumental architecture: the Old and NewTemples of Chavn bring together and integratearchitectural forms that can be traced back intime to expressions in Preceramic monumental

construction on the Pacific watershed (Moseley1985:48). In particular, Chavn de Huntar hasbeen viewed by scholars as a combination of theU-shaped platform,which originated in the cen-tral coast, and the circular plaza, which originat-ed on the north coast (Williams 1980, 1985;Moseley 1985; Burger 1985, 1992a). Williams(1985:238) states, Whether both the circular pitand the U-shaped pyramid arrived together at

Chavn or were successive importations remainsan unsolved problem. A better analysis of the ar-chitectural structure of the temple and absolutedating of its different stages of constructionwould help to solve this problem.The construc-

tion sequence presented here clarifies the orderin which these antecedent forms were incorpo-rated at Chavn de Huntar and also revealsother antecedent forms within the sequence aswell as aspects of the architecture that are uniqueto the site.

As described earlier in this paper, two knownU-forms were built at Chavn de Huntar. Thefirst, the contiguous U-form created by BuildingsA, B, and C, likely was in place by the end of theExpansion Stage (see figure 2.12). This U-form,

however, was highly asymmetrical, with BuildingA expanded to its full southward extent and thesouth wall of Building C not parallel to othereastwest walls. It is possible that the NEA, BPlatform, and an early phase of Building C wereconfigured in a U-form of non-contiguous plat-forms prior to this, during the Separate MoundStage, but evidence of such an early phase ofBuilding C has yet to be revealed,given the build-ings poorly conserved upper area and buriedlower portions. The sites second, larger, moreformal and symmetrical U-form was constructedin the sites final monumental stage, the Black andWhite Stage (see figure 2.14). This U-form con-sisted of additions to the prominent central build-ing (Building A) and long, low mounds to the east.It accompanied construction of the sites threeknown plazasthe Circular Plaza, the PlazaMenor, and the Plaza Mayoras well as majorconstructions in Building B. While this Black andWhite Stage contains the first evidence we see forplaza building at Chavn de Huntar, it is possiblethat earlier plazas existed prior to its construction.

Other coastal architectural forms and acoastal orientation became prominent at Chavnde Huntar during its second monumental stage,the Expansion Stage. For example, rectangularstepped platforms similar to those on the coast inthe third millennium B.C. (Moseley 1985:44)were incorporated into Buildings A and B duringthis stage. Additionally during the ExpansionStage, the orientation of the monumental center



21/47

formally shifted from north to east. The templeat Chavn de Huntar apparently was not origi-nally oriented approximately east, as it was in itsfinal stages and as Initial Period and Early Hor-izon U-shaped temples on the coast were

(Conklin 1985:144; Williams 1980).The NEA ofthe Separate Mound Stage was originally orient-ed to architectural north, with the monumentaldoorway and relieving window of its grandEscalinata Gallery opening to the north. Thisshift in orientation to the east during theExpansion Stage required significant deconstruc-tion and rebuilding of the east face of the NEAin order to integrate it with new portions ofBuilding A as well as with Buildings B and C,forming an eastward-oriented, contiguous U-

shaped complex.The incorporation of the early U-form,stepped platforms, and an east orientation by theExpansion Stage suggests that coastal influencesappeared by this stage, relatively early in Chavnde Huntars sequence. While the stepped plat-forms of this stage were filled in over time, theeast orientation and the U-form continued intothe Black and White Stage, when they were re-created in the East Area at their most formal,along with the construction of the Circular Plazain the Circular Plaza Atrium. Additionally, in theBlack and White Stage a new set of stepped lev-els was formally constructed, with the graduateddescent from Building A east to the two sunkenrectangular plazas and their terraces.

While past studies have viewed Chavn ar-chitecture as a combination of coastal forms, thenew architectural sequence presented heredemonstrates that antecedent forms at Chavnde Huntar also stemmed from the local high-land Kotosh-Mito culture. Of note, freestandingrectangular structures seen at Chavn de Hun-

tar resemble the rectangular stone chambers thathave been identified as a key element of theKotosh Religious Tradition by Burger andSalazar-Burger (1985). In particular, the InnerLanzn Rectangle (see figures 2.11 and 2.17)strikingly resembles the many rectangular cham-bers at Kotosh, such as the Templo de las ManosCruzadas (Izumi and Terada 1972:Fig. 89, ColorPlate 1), as well as the rectangular chamber in

the south mound at La Galgada (Grieder et al.1988:Fig. 51). Floor vents are distinctive ele-ments of the chambers in this tradition, andvents are present in the Inner Lanzn Rectangleand the Inner Lanzn Chamber, albeit in the

lower portions of walls; the possibility that ventsmay also exist within the apparently in-filledfloor, however, cannot be ruled out. The centralfire is also an important component of the cham-bers of the Kotosh Religious Tradition; asGrieder and Bueno Mendoza (1985:106) state,within each chamber the position of authority,the focal point, was occupied by the fire andcould not be claimed by any person. In theInner Lanzn Chamber the central position isoccupied by the Lanzn itself. One may specu-

late that in this case, with the transformation ofthe open Inner Lanzn Rectangle to the en-closed Inner Lanzn Chamber during theExpansion Stage, a central fire may have been re-placed or claimed by the Lanzn.

Beginning with the construction of the InnerLanzn Rectangle in the Separate Mound Stage,freestanding rectangular structures were builtthroughout Chavn de Huntars sequence. A setof five of these structures, the Loco Rooms, wasbuilt atop Building C likely prior to the end ofthe Expansion Stage. Like the Inner LanznRectangle, these rooms were later enclosed andconverted into part of a gallery, in this case withthe construction of the rest of the Loco Gallerymaintaining access to them through a later addi-tion. In Building B, Gallery VIII (Tello 1960:Fig.17), built above the Inner Lanzn Chamber andwiped out by the alluvion of 1945, may also orig-inally have been a rectangular structure, centeredatop the mound perhaps to replace the enclosedInner Lanzn Rectangle below, and incorporat-ed as a gallery during the Black and White Stage

(see Figure 2.16).Freestanding rectangular struc-tures also appeared in the Black and White Stageas the north and south rectangular structuresatop Building A. The interiors of these rectangu-lar structures were built in standardized H-forms(see Tello 1960), following the same pattern asgalleries at this time. One can speculate that ifmonumental construction had continued afterthe Black and White Stage, the freestanding



22/47

structures atop Building A may have been sub-sumed into the complex as galleries, with the ad-dition of phases containing new gallery segmentsto maintain access to them, in a manner similarto the Inner Lanzn Rectangle, the Loco Rooms,

and possibly Gallery VIII before them.Other patterns also indicate highland an-tecedents for Chavn de Huntars architecture.For example, additional similarities exist be-tween the galleries at Chavn de Huntar and therectangular chambers at La Galgada and Kotosh,including plastered and painted internal walls,and multiple niches such as those in the AlacenasGallery in the NEA. Likewise, similarities existin both the separate mound-form and the roughstonework at La Galgada and the early buildings

at Chavn de Huntar (specifically, those in theSeparate Mound Stage and the East Area Pre-Black and White phase). Finally, the northwardorientation of the NEA during the SeparateMound phase suggests beginnings little influ-enced by the eastward orientation predominanton the coast, but rather determined by local fac-tors. Together with the freestanding rectangularstructures following the Kotosh-Mito tradition,these patterns suggest that the antecedents of theearliest known monumental buildings at Chavnde Huntar lie in local highland forms.

Innovations unique to Chavn de Huntar arealso present at the site. In particular, the sites in-ternal architectureits gallery, ventilation, anddrainage systemsforms one of the most charac-teristic and unique aspects of Chavn architecture.Galleries are present from the beginning of theknown architectural sequence in forms and withfeatures more complex than at other sites contain-ing gallery-like forms, such as La Galgada(Grieder et al. 1998) and Cerro Sechn (Sam-aniego et al. 1985; Maldonado 1992). The highly

developed gallery construction methods used inearly buildings at Chavn de Huntar suggest thatsome of this development may have been rootedin possible preceding phases, in galleries withinbuildings or areas not revealed today, implyingfurther time depth for the sites architectural se-quence. For example, the Escalinata Gallery, partof the NEA, was built with some of the most elab-orate and sophisticated construction techniques,as well as sheer monumentality, contained within

the sites galleries. On a related note, the NEAlikely was built prior to or simultaneously with theInner Lanzn Rectangle, and galleries and rectan-gular structures were built simultaneously in laterphases, suggesting that while the rectangular

structures of the Kotosh-Mito tradition were con-verted to galleries in vertical additions, within theknown architectural sequence they may not havebeen pure antecedent forms to the galleries.

The construction sequence at Chavn deHuntar is thus one of innovation and transforma-tion as well as synthesis. It began with local high-land stonework, separate mound forms, and free-standing rectangular structures, based in thehighland Kotosh Religious Tradition. These wereintegrated from the beginning with the sites in-

ternal architecture,particularly the gallery system,which is unique to Chavn de Huntar and contin-ued to develop and expand across the sequence.The highland freestanding rectangular structureswere built across the sequence and typically weretransformed into galleries with the construction ofvertical additions in later phases. The separatemound forms transitioned by the Expansion Stageto incorporate coastal orientation and forms, suchas stepped platforms and the U-shaped templeconfiguration. These coastal forms then reachedtheir most formal in the Black and White Stage,along with the construction of the Circular Plaza,Plaza Menor, and Plaza Mayor. In sum,Chavn deHuntars architectural sequence demonstrateshow the sites builders integrated local highlandtraditions with site-specific innovations and incor-porated select coastal forms to create a unique,complex ceremonial center.

Site UseBy understanding how the architecture at Chavnde Huntar grew over time and the relative con-

struction order of antecedent architectural forms,we can gain insight into how the sites designersand builders designed the site to be used and intohow that site use may have changed over time.

Internal and External SpacesResearchers have contrasted the design of Chavnde Huntars galleries limited access by individu-als or small groups, with the design of its plazasand open spaces, for easier access by larger



23/47

groups, in terms of the transition from the OldTemple, with its small circular plaza, to the NewTemple with its large square plaza (Moore 1996;Burger 1992a). The architectural sequence pre-sented here, however, demonstrates that this shift

toward large external spaces was more drasticthan previously believed, in that all the knownplazasthe Plaza Mayor, the Plaza Menor, and theCircular Plazawere built in the Black and WhiteStage, the final monumental stage, although it ispossible that earlier plazas may have existed at thesite.Additionally, in this same stage the gallery pa-tios were eliminated and converted from openspaces to enclosed galleries, and new galleries be-came standardized. What do these patterns tell usabout concurrent changes in site use?

Prior to the Black and White Stage, the focuson elaborate galleries and small gallery patios sug-gests that site use did indeed emphasize individu-als or small groups using the confined spaces ofthe galleries and their patios. Additionally, theBlack and White Stage, with its elaborate exter-nal component of open spacessuch as highlyformal and precisely constructed plazas, terraces,flanking mounds, and external staircasesdoessuggest the addition of activities that could haveaccommodated more people. This addition of alarge external component also corresponds withthe incorporation of the coastal components ofthe large, formal U-shape and the Circular Plaza.This addition, however, does not forsake internalactivity in favor of external rites. Rather, thesechanges,along with the continued construction ofgalleries during the Black and White Stage, sug-gest that Chavns designers actively broadenedthe sites range of appeal to visitors.The architec-ture became simultaneously more inclusive, withthe construction of large plazas and formal openspaces between the buildings, and more exclusive,

with the elimination of the gallery patios as wellas any visibility of their semi-open activities frombelow upon their conversion to galleries.

The enclosure of the gallery patios is a key el-ement in this shift. Gallery patios were semi-inter-nal, semi-external spaces, accessible only by thoseallowed in the temple buildings, yet visible at leastin part to those below. With the enclosure of thegallery patios, the distinction between internal andexternal, and the activities carried out there, be-

came clearly defined.Activities that once took placein the gallery patios, if moved into the galleries,could only be witnessed by those directly involved.Alternatively, if moved to the plazas, those same ac-tivities could incorporate many more people.

Along with the construction of the threeknown plazas and the enclosing of the gallery pa-tios, however, galleries continued to be built andto play an integral role in the functioning of thesite. In particular, in place of the Lanzn Patio,the construction of a set of galleries and the in-ternal Circular Plaza Staircase created a large, in-terconnected gallery complex that effectivelylinked the Circular Plaza with the Lanzn mono-lith. At the same time, in Building A, theColumnas Patio was enclosed by construction of

the north part of the Columnas-Vigas Gallery (seefigure 2.15). Similarities in construction, form,timing of changes, centralized location withinbuildings, and relationships to nearby galleriesexist between the Lanzn Gallery in Building Band the Columnas-Vigas Gallery in Building A;these similarities suggest that the Columnas Patioand the Columnas-Vigas Gallery formed theBuilding A counterpart of the Lanzn Patio andLanzn Gallery and were central to site use.Together these patterns support the idea that thearchitecture at Chavn de Huntar was designedto appeal to a wider range of audience, becomingmore inclusive through the creation of the knownplazas, while at the same time becoming more ex-clusive through the enclosure of prominent, cen-tral gallery patios and the construction of newgallery segments in their place.Similarly, the con-struction of the Circular Plaza directly east of theformer Lanzn Patio, and the construction of thePlaza Menor and the Plaza Mayor directly east ofthe former Columnas Patio, may represent a par-tial translation of the open patio space to a more

widely accessible level.While individual experiences in the galleries

still formed a significant component of the sitesfunction, the enclosing of the gallery patios andthe construction of large areas containing newplazas and other surficial features apparently rep-resented a shift in visual emphasis toward an out-ward-focused component of site use. Early on, thevisual emphasis was on buildings with massive vol-ume filled with elaborate internal spaces and small



24/47

gallery patios for limited numbers of people.Later, the visual emphasis shifted toward surficialexternal architectureplazas, terraces, and lowmounds connected by staircasesthat containedstandardized galleries, tied areas together stylisti-

cally, and could accommodate many people.These additions of a large external visual com-ponent likely transformed the nature of most visi-tors experiences, the roles of the site leaders andvisitors, the nature of messages communicated be-tween them,and the nature of the rituals performedin different areas at the site. Emphasis lay on a dif-ferent component of the architecture, differenttypes of activities, and a different type of audience.In addition to small-group interactions and person-al participation in rituals in the small spaces of the

galleries, the large open spaces of the Black andWhite Stage suggest a larger component of moreimpersonal interactions between a small group ofleaders and a potentially large number of visitors,with new rituals able to accommodate many morepeople. However, the more inclusive nature of theplazas and open spaces may not necessarily meanthat increased numbers of people directly partici-pated in activities there; it is possible that the in-creased visibility was a means used to enhance dis-tinctions between participants and observers, andthus greater inclusivity may have consisted of ob-serving and witnessing rather than participating, ina role more as spectators or passive observers ratherthan active participants. Similarly, the sheer size ofthe plazas could have been purposefully used tooverwhelm small groups participating in or wit-nessing activities there. By actively designingchanges that made the architecture simultaneouslymore inclusive in some respects and more exclusivein others, the builders at Chavn de Huntar wereable to facilitate, accommodate, and appeal to thelikely growing numbers of visitors and initiates at

the site, as well as to encourage the likely wideningdifferential access to the activities that took placethere (Kembel and Rick 2004).

Hanging StaircasesAnother prominent component of site use atChavn de Huntar is a set of hanging staircases,staircases that descend internally through thebuildings and open to exterior faces well aboveground level (figure 2.22). Six hanging staircases

are evident at Chavn de Huntar, built in its firstthree architectural stages. Some archaeologistspropose that two hanging staircases on the eastface of Building A connected with the ground viaexternal staircases or ramps, as part of the Black

and White Portal constructed in the sites finalmonumental stage (Rowe 1962:Fig. 15; Kauff-mann Doig and Gonzles 1993:Figs.11, 13; Lum-breras 1993:61). No evidence exists for these twoexternal staircases, however, as has been notedelsewhere (Burger 1992a:177), nor for staircasesthat would have connected the other four hangingstaircases to the ground. This, along with a num-ber of other factorssuch as the staircaseschronology of construction, their placement rela-tive to other staircases, and the placement of their

openings up to 10 m above ground levelsuggeststhat that these hanging staircases were enteredfrom above rather than from additional externalstaircases below (Kembel 2001).

The form of these staircases may provide someinsight into their use. All but one of the hangingstaircases are bent, meaning they descend inter-nally parallel to the facade, turn at a landing, andthen descend perpendicularly to open at the facade.This bent form suggests that a person could de-scend the staircase unseen and then turn andemerge to people watching below, perhaps in a rit-ual display, as suggested by Burger (1992a:177).Alternatively, or perhaps additionally, in the earli-est-built hanging staircase (the East Face Galleryin the NEA), both the short height of its facadeopening (1.3 m high) and a ledge (0.63 m deep) atthis opening (which is centered in the east face ofthe NEA) suggest that it originally could have beenused to display objects,such as sculptures, ritual ob-jects,or even ancestral mummy bundles.Of course,different hanging staircases may have had differentuses, perhaps based on location and height above

the ground, and the use of the staircases may havechanged over time as well.

Many factors suggest that these hanging stair-cases were central to the design and use of the site,including the alignment of site axes as well as themajor efforts to adapt older constructions to ac-commodate new staircases (Kembel 2001).For ex-ample, in the Consolidation Stage, the axis ofBuilding A was centered northsouth within thebuilding, at the center point between two hanging



25/47


Figure

2.2

2.Examplesof

hangingstaircases.(

Left):TheEastFaceSouthStaircase.Thisstaircase,

likeotherknownhangingstaircases,wasoriginal-

lyinternal.(

Right):InternalviewoftheMarinoGonzlesStairc

ase,ahangingstaircaseopeningtothewestfaceofBuildingA.


26/47

staircases, the East Face Gallery and the East FaceSouth Staircase (figure 2.23).The Columnas Patiowas aligned to this axis, centered atop the east faceof Building A. An important transformation thenoccurred in the Black and White Stage: the axis of

Building A shifted to the south (Rick et al. 1998),to the center point between a different pair ofhanging staircases, the East Face North Staircaseand the East Face South Staircase of Building A,forming the Black and White Axis. At the sametime, the Columnas Patio was enclosed with theconstruction of the North Columnas-Vigas galleryepisode, obscuring the patios centeredness.Meanwhile,new structures of the Black and WhiteStage were constructed symmetrically about theBlack and White Axis, including the two freestand-

ing rectangular structures atop Building A, theBlack and White Portal, the Black and White Z-calo, the Plaza Menor, the Black and White Stair-case, the Plaza Mayor, and other new structures in

the East Area. The dominant role of these hang-ing staircases in the design of the temple and in theplacement of its architectural axes suggests thattheir use was of utmost importance.These patternsalso underscore the prominent design role played

by later staircases in the Plaza Mayor and sur-rounding area (Rick et al. 1998), built in the Blackand White Stage. The analysis (below) of theplacement of some of these hanging staircaseswithin one particular stage provides further insightinto their possible use, roles, and symbolic mean-ing within the architecture.

Symbolic Meaning withinChavn de Huntars ArchitectureJust as Chavn de Huntars architectural growth

can provide insight into ways in which the site wasdesigned to be used, so too can patterns in thisgrowth, the resulting changes in forms, and thesubsequent changes in possible use over time il-


B

N

a

Area(s): Building A

View

Columnas Patio

centered in Building A

East Face Gallery and

East Face South

Staircase symmetric

about center-line of

Building A

East Face South and North Staircases symmetric

about B&W Axis;

B&W Zcalo and B&W Columns centered about

B&W Axis

North and South Rectangular Structures

symmetric about B&W Axis

East Face Gallery

centered in NEA

East Face South

Staircase

centered in

NEA-MA

B&W Axis

Center-line of

Building A

20m

B

Figure 2.23. Centeredness and symmetry of staircases and architectural features within the east face ofBuilding A.


27/47

luminate ways in which the sites builders mayhave incorporated symbolic meaning into the ar-chitecture. Recognizing patterns in architectureand determining meaning from architecture arevery different matters: In the absence of inform-

ants, cultural meanings usually slip through an ar-chaeologists grasp, but it is possible to examinehow monuments mean even if we do not knowwhatthey mean (Moore 1996:221; emphasis inoriginal). A brief analysis of three examples illus-trates this point and provides insight into howbuilders may have incorporated architecturalmeaning into the buildings at Chavn de Huntar.

Role of the Lanzn MonolithArchaeologists have postulated that the Lanzn

monolith declined in importance over the site se-quence, citing the supposed abandonment of theOld Temple and transition to the New Temple asan indication of the diminished importance of theLanzn monolith (Rowe 1962, 1967a; Lumbreras1977). The construction of the Circular PlazaAtrium and the third phase of Building B duringthe Black and White Stage,however, suggests thatthe Lanzn monolith did not decline in use andimportance over the temples existence, but ratherremained in use throughout the sequence.Indeed, the Lanzn appears to have gained im-portance during the Black and White Stage,as theconstructions of the Circular Plaza Atrium andthe third phase of Building B focused attentionon the gallery within. For example, the CircularPlaza, with its elaborate procession of figures to-ward the Lanzn, and the Circular PlazaStaircase, which climbed up through the east faceof Building B, channeled people towards theLanzn Gallery. Likewise, an addition to theLanzn Gallery (the Outer Lanzn episode)maintained access to the Lanzn monolith in this

new phase and connected with a concurrent ad-dition to the Laberintos Gallery (the Lower Lab-erintos episode), transforming the two galleriesinto one large gallery complex.Additional gallerysegments were added at this time in the upperlayer of the building, involving a partial decon-struction of external walls and creating an evenmore integrated gallery complex throughoutBuilding B. In sum, the highly planned, carefullyexecuted, and integrated constructions in

Building B and the Circular Plaza Atrium late inthe sequence,and the significant amounts of laborthat their construction represents, indicate thatthe Lanzn monolith and the surrounding struc-tures were important, active symbolic compo-

nents of the temples final monumental stage.They also illustrate efforts to maintain access toearlier internal spaces, in this case a space that wassacred and ritually important and that extendedback in time to the earliest known constructionsat the site.

Relationships between Internal andExternal FeaturesA set of relationships between internal and ex-ternal features helps illuminate the design of ar-

chitectural meaning at Chavn de Huntar. Thefirst relationship illustrates patterning betweenstructures chronologically linked by the transi-tion to the Black and White Stage. This relation-ship lies between the columns in the Columnas-Vigas Gallery (figure 2.24), high within BuildingA, and the columns of the Black and WhitePortal at the base of the east face of Building A(figure 2.25). The two columns of the Black andWhite Portal are centered on the Black andWhite Axis (see figure 2.23), support a decorat-ed lintel, and originally may have been accompa-nied by a pair of columns farther to the east, frag-ments of which were found near the Black andWhite Staircase (Chvez Balln 1960:30; Burger1992a:173). It appears, then, that four columnsmay have stood in or near the Black and WhitePortal, and that at least the west pair supporteda decorated lintel. In comparison, in theColumnas-Vigas Gallery, which sits west of theBlack and White Portal in the upper portion ofBuilding A, stand four structural columns, thewest pair of which supports a large lintel. These

columns stand in the portion of the gallery thatoriginally was an open patio, the ColumnasPatio, which was centered northsouth atopBuilding A (see figures 2.15 and 2.23). It seemsunlikely that these relatively crude, structuralcolumns stood in the open patio.Rather, they ap-pear to have been built to support roof beamswhen the Columnas Patio was enclosed with theconstruction of the North Columnas-VigasGallery episode in the Black and White Stage.



28/47


Figure 2.24. The west pair of stone-and-mortar structural columns in the Columnas-Vigas Gallery. (Above):A large lintel spans thecolumn in the foreground and the column inthe background. Additional stonework be-tween the two columns supports the lintel,which supports ceiling structures. (Right):

The opposite side of the same two columnsand lintel.


29/47


Figure

2.2

5.ThecolumnsoftheBlackandWhitePortalontheea

stfaceofBuildingA.Anopeningto

theColumnas-VigasGallerycanbe

seenaboveand

behindtheportal.


30/47

Highly unusual, these structural columns in theColumnas-Vigas Gallery are the only knowncurvilinear, non-rectilinear example of structuralChavn architecture; together with the columnsof the Black and White Portal, they comprise the

primary known examples of columnar, curvilin-ear architectural forms at the site.The construction of each set of columns ap-

pears to be related to the other. Not only was theColumnas Patio enclosed at the same time theBlack and White Portal was constructed, but theColumnas Patio was enclosed likely due in partto the very fact that it was centered in BuildingA; its enclosure visually erased the patios cen-teredness so that the new Black and White Axiscould be established off-center, with the con-

struction of the Black and White Portal (see fig-ure 2.23 and discussion above). Consequently,one may speculate that the Columnas Patio orig-inally may have contained four freestandingcolumns, the west pair perhaps spanned by a lin-tel, as part of a highly sacred area within the openpatio, centered at the summit of Building A.When the patio was enclosed to become a gallery,structural columns were built, perhaps in place ofthe freestanding columns, to symbolically repre-sent them and their unique form while providingsupport to the new ceiling. At the same time,columns and a lintel were placed in front of theeast face of Building A, perhaps as an attempt totransfer some of the meaning of those originalcolumns from the Columnas Patio atop BuildingA to a lower, more visible focal point, now alignedto the Black and White Axis. A further specula-tion is that the original columns and lintel fromthe Columnas Patio could be the feline-aviancolumns and lintel that stand today in the Blackand White Portal on the east face, along withtheir broken counterparts. These columns and

lintel, which are featured in such a prominentplace on the east face, could have been original-ly intended for a more intimate setting, that of asmall gallery patio high on the temple summit.In sum, the relationships between these two setsof columns appear to link two architecturalstages, illustrating possible ways in whichbuilders at Chavn de Huntar may have adapt-ed and continued architectural meaning acrossmajor architectural changes.

The symbolic importance of the ColumnasPatio and the Columnas-Vigas Gallery is furtherhighlighted by their parallels with the LanznPatio and the Lanzn Gallery. Not only are theystructurally the Building A counterparts to the

Lanzn Patio and Lanzn Gallery of Building B,but they also potentially may have housed an inter-nal version of the Staff God, the likely Building Acounterpart to the Lanzn. To illustrate, the Lan-zn or Great Image represents the Smiling God,which is also depicted in a relief slab from the sitesexterior (Rowe 1967a:84, Fig. 21). Chavns otherprimary deity, the Staff God, is represented in anelaborate granite relief slab, the Raimondi Stone(Rowe 1967a:85, Fig. 10). As Rowe (1967a: 85)states, the Smiling God slab serves the purpose of

providing a representation of the Smiling God outin the open on a wall of the temple where worship-pers who would not be admitted to the inner sanc-tum where the original image was could see it. . . .[T]he Raimondi Stone is an analogue of the slabrepresenting the Smiling God and thus a represen-tation of another image worshipped in the interi-or of the temple. Based on the structural patterns,relative construction sequences, and central loca-tions within their buildings that are shared by theColumnas-Vigas Gallery and the Lanzn Gallery,the Columnas-Vigas Gallery appears to be theprime candidate for an internal location for theStaff God at Chavn de Huntar. Consequently, atransfer of the columns from the top of Building Ato the front of Building A, whether physically orjust symbolically, could have corresponded withthe placement of the Raimondi Stone as an exter-nal representation of the Staff God. Here it wouldhave been available for more visitors to see as thebuilders expanded the site to appeal to a broaderrange of people, while making the former patioareas more exclusive.

A second internal-external relationship,datingto the Expansion Stage, reveals patterning effec-tively fossilized within one stage, suggesting waysin which the builders constructed the architectureto be used and to convey symbolic meaning. Thisrelationship consists of unusual horizontal align-ments between external decorative features androws of stone pegs embedded in the walls of threegalleries (figures 2.26 and 2.27). First, pegs in theInner Lanzn Chamber (see Rick,Figure 1.11, this



31/47

volume) align with the level of the coarse-to-finetransition, the prominent shift between courses ofrough stonework and courses of fine stoneworkvisible on the east,south,and west faces of BuildingA. They also align with the surface of the LanznPatio and the waist and feline-head belt of theLanzn monolith itself. Second, above this level,pegs in the Upper Laberintos Gallery (see Figure2.7) align with the tenon-head course of human-

feline heads, stone sculptures that were embeddedin external walls of Building A along a single courseof stonework. Third, higher still sit pegs currentlyin the Cautivos Gallery,on the former external wallof the Murcilagos Gallery. External walls nolonger exist at the height of the Cautivos pegs,pre-cluding examination of specific alignments with ex-ternal features. However, these pegs, likely placedduring the Consolidation Stage during modifica-tion of the former exterior wall containing the en-

trance to the Murcilagos Gallery into part of theCautivos Gallery, probably mark the location of anexterior decorative feature that existed above theentrance to the Murcilagos Gallery and elsewhereat this level during the Expansion Stage.

Each of these three alignments sits directlyabove an external opening to a gallery or hangingstaircase present in the Expansion Stage. Fromtop to bottom, Alignment 1, consisting of the

Cautivos pegs, sits one course directly above theentrance to the Murcilagos Gallery. Alignment2, the tenon-head course and the Upper Laber-intos pegs, sits above the opening of the LowerPortada Gallery on Building As formerly exteri-or south face, still visible internally at the locationof the later abutment of the Lower DobleMnsula Gallery. Alignment 3, consisting of thecoarse-to-fine transition, the floor surface of theLanzn Patio and the entrance into the Lanzn


A

B

Na

Area(s): NEA, NWA, High NWA, MA,

SA Platform, B Platform, WB, MB

View

20m

A B

Alignment 1

Alignment 2

Alignment 3

THC

Pegs

CFT

Pegs

Pegs

Pegs

Low Por

Low Lit

XIII

Mur

Up Pas

Up Lab

MGS

Ala

EscZan

EFG

In Lan Ch

Mid Lan

Entrance to Up Lab

Lanzn Patio

Entrance to

Mid Lan

Coarse-to-Fine Transition (CFT)

Pegs

Tenon-Head Course (THC)

Pegs

Lanzn Patio

Figure 2.26. Buildings A and B during the Expansion Stage, with galleries and alignments of specific architec-tural features; plan and architectural north (A) and west (B) profile views. See Figure 2.27 for details of view (B).


32/47

Gallery, and the pegs in the Inner LanznChamber, sits one course above the entrance tothe East Face Gallery in Building A.

These alignments suggest that the architec-ture at Chavn de Huntar was divided at threelevels, and that these three divisions existed bothexternally and internally. Internally they weremarked by pegs, while externally they weremarked by stonework features placed above door-ways.The external placement of the alignments in

relation to doorways at different levels suggeststhat the alignments may have been symbolicallyrelated to a system of transit and perhaps ritualmediation between the different levels and sym-bolic relationships associated with them. For ex-ample, from the doorway of Murcilagos at thehighest level, a person could emerge from thelevel marked by Alignment 1, walk along the plat-form surface, and descend to any of the levelsbelow.Through the Lower Portada hanging stair-

case, the person could descend to the level belowAlignment 2 and emerge at the centered openingof this hanging staircase on the south face, 10 mabove the people below. Through the East FaceGallery, also a hanging staircase, the person coulddescend to the level below Alignment 3 on the eastface; the person could also descend to this level viathe Marino Gonzles Staircase on the west face ofBuilding A.Through the Escalinata Staircase, theperson could descend to ground level on the north

face. Alternatively, when standing in the LanznPatio, the person would be at the boundary be-tween levels, perhaps preparing to visit theLanzn monolith, which spans Alignment 3.

The remains of colored plaster in seams mark-ing the former gallery patio walls (with white plas-ter found in the Lanzn Gallerys Lan-E-3 seam(see figures 2.4,2.6, and 2.16) and red plaster foundin the Columnas-Vigas Gallerys Col-E-2 seam(see figure 2.15), as well as the fallen plaster in the


B

Na

Area(s): NEA, NWA, High NWA, MA,

SA Platform, B Platform, WB, MB

20m

View

B

Alignment 1:

Cau Pegs,

Directly above entrance to Mur

Alignment 2:

Up Lab Pegs,

Tenon Head Course (THC),Directly above opening to Low Por

Alignment 3:

In Lan Ch Pegs and Lanzn Belt,

Coarse-to-Fine Transition (CFT),

Lanzn Patio Surface,

Directly above opening to East Face Gallery

1

2

3

Low Por

Tenon-Head Course

(West Face)

Entrance to Mur

Cau Pegs

Entrance to

East Face Gallery

Up Lab Pegs

Entrance to Up Lab

Lanzn Patio Surface

In Lan Ch Pegs

and Lanzn Belt

Coarse-to-Fine

Transition (East Face)

Figure 2.27. Buildings A and B during the Expansion Stage, with galleries and alignments of specific archi-tectural features. Closeup of Figure 2.26 west (B) profile view.


33/47

refuse found immediately above the Circular Plaza(Lumbreras 1977), suggest that some of the exter-nal surfaces of the temple were plastered in vary-ing colors, possibly creating even more visual dis-tinctions between levels. Stonework alternates

between the three levels as well, particularly inBuilding A, with rough stonework at the level ofthe Murcilagos entrance between Alignments 1and 2 and below the coarse-to-fine transitionbelow Alignment 3, and fine stonework in the mid-dle level between Alignments 2 and 3. The divisionof the architecture of the Expansion Stage suggest-ed by these alignments and visual distinctions mayhave corresponded with the stepped platforms ofBuilding A during this stage as well as with iconog-raphy of the sculptures associated with the differ-

ent platforms and alignments.These alignments suggest that some of thesignificant modifications to earlier phases wereundertaken in order to communicate meaningthrough architecture. For example, in the Expan-sion Stage, part of the original rough stoneworkof the east face of the NEA was replaced with finestonework to create the coarse-to-fine transition,which was then incorporated into subsequent con-structions in Building A.Also during this stage, theopen Inner Lanzn Rectangle was converted intothe enclosed Inner Lanzn Chamber, causing thisimportant space and the Lanzns location to behidden from the outside observer. The construc-tion of the coarse-to-fine transition at the level ofthe Lanzn Patio floor and entrance to theLanzn Gallery, with its distinction between fineand rough stonework, possibly of different colors,would have effectively broadcast across the tem-ple the level and perhaps power of the now inter-nal and hidden Inner Lanzn Rectangle, Lanznmonolith, and their associations. In effect, thesemarkers and alignments may have communicated

to outside observers the power and location of in-ternal symbols and activities.

These vertical alignments and distinctionswere continued across subsequent additions toBuilding A. Interestingly, however, when thebuilders at Chavn de Huntar completed thegradual fill-in of the stepped platforms ofBuilding A by the Black and White Stage, theycreated and formalized a different set of steppedgradations at a grander scale: the temple build-

ings at the highest levels, stepping down to ter-races, and then do

the architecture at the monumental center of chavín de huántar: sequence, transformations, and...

Documents