El Paraíso (, "The Paradise") or Chuquitanta (Quechua chuqui lance or metal, tanta bread) are the moderns names of a Late Preceramic (3500–1800 BC) archaeological site located in the Chillón Valley on the central coast of Peru. The site is situated several kilometers north of Lima, the capital of Peru, in the San Martin de Porres District in the Province of Lima. El Paraíso is one of the largest settlements from this period, encompassing over 58 hectares of land.Moseley 1975; Pozorski and Pozorski 2008; Quilter 1991
Other major centers from this period include Aspero and Caral on the northern coast in the Supé Valley.Stanish 2001 Sizable centers can be found in different ecozones, from the coast to inland areas. Stanish concluded that this was a time when settlements were broadly distributed, located at various distances from the coast allowing access to a variety of marine and agricultural resources.
Historical occupation The occupation period for El Paraíso was relatively short, lasting approximately 300 to 400 years, from 3790 cal BP to 3,065 cal BP (calibrated radiocarbon years before present).Quilter 1985 While it is generally accepted as a Preceramic site by most archaeologists, the occupation appears to have continued into the early Initial Period.Stanish 2001; Quilter 1985; Quilter 1991
Also known as the Cotton Preceramic (a term coined by Fréderic Engel in 1957) site, the Preceramic designation is disputed by some researchers, especially Pozorski and Pozorski, who argue that it actually was occupied primarily in the early Initial Period, by which time many areas had ceramics. Since it is not associated with ceramics during its main occupation sequence, they consider El Paraíso to be an example of an "aceramic" site instead.Pozorski and Pozorski 2008
The purpose for the centre is unclear. The lack of substantial midden deposits in recognized dump areas, designated burial areas or cemeteries, and thick wall construction consisting of stone quarried in local hills, suggests that it was not a residential or domestic complex.Moseley 1975; Quilter 1991; Stanish 2001 Evidence instead promotes the contention that El Paraíso was either an economic or religious centre, and possibly both. As well, it may also have been a centralized hub for control and development of cotton rather than food production.Quilter 1985; Stanish 2008
Archaeological findings suggest a possible connection to the Kotosh Religious Tradition of the Central Highlands (:es:Cordillera Central (Perú)).Quilter 1991; Stanish 2001
The site is notable for having a U-shape creating a 7 ha plaza; this layout resembles many nearby sites located in the Chillón-Rimac-Lurin Valleys from the later Ceramic Period, and therefore El Paraíso maybe a possible precursor to later architectural developments.Moseley 1975; Pozorski and Pozorski 1990; Stanish 2001
Stanish suggests that the social organization required to build El Paraíso represents what is known as a chiefdom level society, with no central polity but a series of autonomous settlements and regions that allowed for the collaboration of regional groups.Moseley 1975; Haas 2006
Unlike Aspero and Caral, which were part of a developed socio-economic interaction region (known as Norte Chico civilization) during the Late Preceramic, El Paraiso was part of a group of regionally isolated centers that developed along various parts of the Peruvian coast.Haas 2006 Moseley considers it a major supporter of his Maritime Foundations Theory which argues that a heavy reliance on rich marine resources were instrumental in the early establishment of social complexity in the region.
As the name implies, the Preceramic period in the Andes is marked by the absence of ceramic material. This was a period of general growing social complexity along the Peruvian coast, which saw the introduction and increase in centers with monumental architecture, including indications for increasing trade and greater regional interactions, both up and down the coast, and between groups in low and high elevations. Population estimates range from between 1500 and 3000 people.
El Paraíso does not appear to have suffered any catastrophic final event, but shows evidence of gradual and relatively rapid abandonment in the early Initial Period; there is no indication for the cause for its decline and there is no evidence for a reoccupation phase.
Research history
1950s Louis Stumer completes survey work in the Chillón Valley; names the site Chuquitanta, after a nearby hacienda 1964 Thomas C. Patterson and Edward P. Lanning first publish on the site, noting it as PreceramicEdward P. Lanning (1963), AN EARLY CERAMIC STYLE FROM ANCON, CENTRAL COAST OF PERU (pdf) 1965 Fréderick Engel conducts test excavations on Units I- VII; maps the site; restores the most southerly building, Unit I which also is the primary focus of his excavation work Renames the site El Paraíso, which becomes the official name and is used by the Instituto Nacional de Cultura. Confirms the site as Preceramic, based on textile remnants and lack of ceramics 1968 Thomas C. Patterson and Michael E. Moseley identify the existence of between nine and thirteen buildings 1982 Jeffrey Quilter begins the first of several field-seasons of a multi-disciplinary study, El Proyecto Bajo Valle del Chillón 1983 Jeffrey Quilter concentrates the project efforts on El Paraíso for the purpose of establishing a chronology, and establishing a better understanding of the architecture and subsistence economy of the site
El Proyecto Bajo Valle del Chillón (The Lower Chillón Valley Project)
Jeffrey Quilter, principal investigator/field director Lucy Salazar de Burger, assistant field director Deborah House, laboratory director Elizabeth S. Wing and Daniel Sandweiss, faunal analysis Deborah Pearsall and Bernardino Ojeda, floral analysis Bernardino Ojeda, mapping
Site excavations The importance of El Paraíso as the "largest and earliest example of monumental architecture in the New World", has not resulted in a significant amount of archaeological investigation. The first mention of the site was in the 1950s when Louis Stumer surveyed the Chillón valley and includes it in his report. He initially named it Chuquitanta, after a local hacienda, however this name was later changed to El Paraíso by Fréderick Engel.
Early work suggested to excavators that the site was Preceramic, a fact that was later confirmed by radio carbon dating done by Jeffrey Quilter, who placed it in the latter part of the Preceramic.
There have been two independent excavation projects. The first excavations were done in the early and mid-1960s by Engel. This was followed up in the early to mid-1980s by Quilter, who headed a multi-year, multi-discipline orientated research project in the lower Chillon valley, El Proyecto Bajo Valle del Chillón. After a more regional focus in the first year, he concentrated subsequent efforts on El Paraíso itself.
There has been some uncertainty over the number of buildings on the site, primarily due to recent surface disturbance. For example, Unit VI appears to have been transected by a tractor since the 1960s when Patterson first reported it as a complete structure. In 1983, a surface survey determined that there were eleven buildings in total, seven of which were still free standing structures; though archaeologists are uncertain if more buildings once stood on the site.
Excavation work by Engel Excavation work begun by Engel was concentrated on Unit I who also eventually partially rebuilt some of the walls. This building was revisited by Quilter in 1984, who also conducted excavations in Units II and IV, as well as several locations outside structures.
A variety of artifactual material has been recovered from the various excavation work detailing a wide array of subsistence, social and ideological insight. There are five burials associated with the site, all found by Engel.Quilter 1985; 1991
An adult (burial 2) and the remains of an infant (burial 3) were found next to the south exterior wall of Unit I; the infant was wrapped in textiles dated to the Ceramic Period. Another adult (burial 1) was found on the west side of Unit I and a young infant (burial 4) was found at the base of the south wall of the west wing of Unit I. The final adult (burial 5) was found on the north side of Unit V.
The burials generally appear to intrude into occupation midden deposits, and researchers have determined it difficult to make particular inferences from them; only noting that in later Andean periods, child burials were often associated with fertility rituals.
Unit II produced a variety of remains, including cloth and textile fragments, and other domestic refuse. Unit IV produced almost exclusively food remains, and no other artifacts of consequence were found.
It appears that the inhabitants of El Paraíso buried most of their garbage in pits, either outside and often in association with structures, being either behind or beside buildings, or inside as room fill.Quilter 1991
Textiles Textile fragments consisted primarily of cotton yarns that were in natural shades, from white to dark brown, but others were colored in deep reds and two shades of blue. Other centers at this time revealed that dying cotton was not uncommon as yellow, red, bright emerald green and orange dyed textile remains have been found in such Preceramic sites as Huaca Prieta, Los Gavilanes, La Galgada and Asia (Peru).Quilter85
As well, two objects were found with an inlay of dark blue stone, resembling lapis lazuli. Other items recovered during excavation work include mats, looped bags, nets, wood and bone artifacts, grinding stones, stone beads, spindle whorls, crude bifaces, a polished stone mirror, and figurine fragments.
Avian remains Perhaps one of the more interesting discoveries were the avian remains found in Unit II. The skeletal remains of an immature sea bird was found, careful positioned with small fish and crab remains, in association with a right handprint pressed into a large piece of mortar. Another bird skeleton was found along with carefully arranged sticks parallel to one another. Two more sets of avian related materials were found: a large amount of bird guano and a scattering of bird down.
The bird guano was found in Room 2W in Unit II. In the same room there was also found colourful bird down and feathers, with a minimum of two species represented.
The remains of bird nesting boxes, special feed mix and stone bowls were found in the Preceramic site of Casa Grande, Peru; researchers suggest this was an aviary where birds were raised for use in sacrifices.
While it is impossible to say that birds were being raised at El Paraíso, it does indicate that they were being brought into the rooms, possibly for ceremonial purposes.
The room at El Paraíso also contained cotton and wood remains, including needles, suggesting that this may have been a place where feathers were incorporated into textile manufacture for ritual and prestige items.
Finally, Room 1, closely situated to Room 2W, had a scattering of colored down on the floor, similar to a scattering found at the Preceramic site of La Galgada.
Other evidence of ritual was found inside a wall in Unit I; a large stone offering resembling an Inka huacas (rock or other natural object believed to represent ancestral corporate groups). It was covered in red pigment, wrapped in cotton cloth and found in association with gourds containing food remains and a miniature schicra, a bag normally filled with stones but in this case filled with white ovoid lime cakes wrapped in leaves (possibly ). This suggests that leaf chewing with lime is an old tradition and reminiscent of the later adoption of coca use.
Ceramics