1 Forthcoming in the Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History (G. E. Hutchinson, 1948). See the abstract by Professor Hutchinson of the relevant portions of this paper, proffered here as Appendix B.

2 The possibility has occurred to various writers, but it has never been developed because of the lack of a suitable biological history of the islands. Manuel Gonzalez de la Rosa took the trouble, between 1869 and 1872, to send a questionnaire on archaeology to the governors of the various islands. His paper (Gonzalez de la Rosa, 1908), however, expressed skepticism that valid findings on chronology could be derived from the guano islands. The paper by Luis Gamarra Dulanto (1942) is similarly inconclusive.

Biological writers, on the other hand, such as Murphy (1936, p. 292), have been deterred from drawing reasonable conclusions by their estimates of immense antiquity, irregular deposition, and mechanical compression of the lower layers of the guano caps. The views are discussed at length by G. E. Hutchinson in his forthcoming monograph.

3 Tschudi (1866-69, Vol. 5, pp. 374-5) remarks that in 1840, when he first visited the Chincha Islands, few ships were in evidence, and the birds were still to be numbered by the millions. In October, 1858, however, the ships and the workers were so numerous that no birds were to be seen. Only the great central stacks were left on the islands.

4 Murphy, 1936, Vol. 1, p. 289. Professor Hutchinson provides the following comment to this passage, “An even more impressive piece of evidence of a general horizonal stratification of great regularity is to be obtained from the photographs of the North Island deposit in 1853, published in the Boletin de la Compañia Administradora del Guano, Vol. 11, pp. 472 and 483,1926, illustrating reprints of papers of Raimondi. These will be republished as a composite in my monograph.” Other comments by Professor Hutchinson in the following pages will be followed by the initials G. E. H.

5 Albert Van de Put, Late Keeper of the Victoria and Albert Museum and authority on Spanish heraldry, has suggested (in litt., Feb. 18,1946) a date “about 1575-1600.” Inquiries addressed to Peru yielded a theory to the effect that the stone was perhaps a funeral monument left upon the islands by a Flemish pirate in the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century. (Communicated by Jorge Zevallos, Chief of the Section Historia at the Archivo Nacional in Lima, in lilt., Nov. 9, 1944). Of significance is only the independent agreement concordant with the writer's view, upon a possible late sixteenth-century dating.

6 Gothic letter was used in the inscriptions on the foundation stone of the Escorial in 1563. See the account by Fray Juan de San Ger6nimo, 1845, p. 23.

7 Individuals were not granted land by the Crown, but only the labor of Indians resident upon specified lands. See Zavala (1935) for a treatment of the entire question.

8 Cieza de León, 1864, p. 27. A Spanish town named Sangallan existed as early as 1535, 7 leagues up the river from the sea. Jiménez de la Espada, 1881, p. xvii; Calancha, 1638, p. 235.

9 Gobernantes del Perú, 1921-26, Vol. 4, p. 126; Vol. 5, p. 486; Vol. 10, pp. 335-7.

10 Paz Soldán, 1862-63, pp. 565ff.; Montesinos, 1906, Vol. 2, p. 258; Perez de Torres, 1749, p. 10; Anonymous, 1940-43.

11 Prolonged investigation and correspondence with Peruvian and Spanish authorities failed to yield any description of the municipal arms of Pisco. Surely such arms were granted, ca. 1572; renewed in 1640; and perhaps granted again in 1688.

12 Guaman Poma de Ayala, 1936, Fol. 356. Guaman's colonial officials all carry long, slender staffs, or thick, knobby clubs.

13 Such sodalite figurines, known from the central coast of Peru, are made of materia! quarried in Holiva. (See Ahlfield and Wagner, 1931, and Valcarcel, 1933, pp. 21-48.) Valcarcel (1933 pp. 28. 31 mentions sodalite figurines like those of Pikillajta from lea and Nazca valleys as well as from Paracas Peninsula.

14 See Anonymous, 1933, Pl. XVII, 499, and pp. 81-2.

15 Baessler, 1906, PL 20, Fig. 320; Hamy, 1897, Pl. I.IV, 154-7 (Ancón).

16 Mochica staffs are figured by Strong, 1947, pp. 466, 478, 481. Cf. also Squier, 1871-72, p. 54, Figs. 11-13.

17 Baessler, 1902-03, Vol. 1, Pl. 33. The staff, 161 cm. long, has a cross-legged figure 15 cm. high on the handle. Cf. also Schmidt, 1929, p. 413.

18 Baessler, 1906, Nos. 237, 298, 460, 461. Baessler's materials in general are of a style that may be identified as “Late,” in the sense that they are either Incaic or immediately pre-Incaic. The Squier fishes may also be compared to the Late Chimu, pressed blackware representations on pottery of the north coast, e.g., Baessler, 1902-03, Vol. 2, Pl. 72, Figs. 262-3.

19 Baessler, 1902-03, Vol. 4, Fig. 408 (featherwork); Bennett, 1946a, Pl. 43 (Coll. John Wise, hat in velvet technique).

20 Seler, 1893, Pl. 13, Fig. 5 (Macedo Coll.).

21 As in Schmidt (1929, p. 135), from Chimbote, or in the specimen in the Museum of the American Indian (5/ 1746), 0.243 m. high, from Chimbote. Cf. Tello, 1938, p. 16.

22 Tello, 1938, Fig. 2 and p. 65; Larco Hoyle, 1944, p. 12.

23 As on the blackware specimen from Lambayeque, figured by Bennett (1946a, Pl. 49, d), or in the pressed blackware specimen from Chiclayo figured by Schmidt, 1929, p. 212 (23 cm. high).

24 Cf. Tello, 1938, p. 171.

25 It is absent from the Cupisnique wares discovered and published by Larco Hoyle (1941). But the dog vessel may belong to a style that is still undiscovered on the mainland.

26 Baessler, 1902-03, Vol. 1, Pl. 33, Fig.-188. The figure is 8.5 cm. high, on a staff of 68 cm. over-all length.

27 Moehica artifacts from Anc6n are fairly numerous at the Museum of the American Indian: Nos. 5/1732, 8/4538, 14/4540, 14/4544, 14/7671, 15/1449; from near Lima, 7/2721, 7/2724, 7/2735, 7/2740; lea, 14/4570. Peabody Museum, Harvard, has a Moehica specimen from Pisco or lea (75572, Farrabee collection, 1909). For Canete Valley see T. J. Hutchinson, 1873, Vol. 1, pp. 138-9.

28 See Appendix A, items No. A 3.3 — 5.

29 T. J. Hutchinson, 1873, Vol. 1, p. 138, figure on p. 139 (our Fig. 43).

30 See Appendix A, items No. C 3.7 — 16.

31 Wiener (1880, p. 580) figures another set of wood and pottery specimens as coming from the Lobos Islands (Fig. 39). These correspond so exactly with the Hamburg and British Museum specimens that they might be taken for parts of the same find. Wiener's collections are housed at the Mus6e de l'Homme in Paris. The curators there were unable to identify Wiener's figures with specimens at present in Paris. On page 617, Wiener figures another Moehica prisoner vessel, as from the Lobos Islands (Fig. 39). On page 650, a wooden head, very much like that of Hamburg No. 2, is shown with the same provenance (Fig. 41). On page 687, wooden staffs (Fig. 42) appear from the Lobos Islands, closely similar to the Moehica staffs figured by Joyce (our Figs. 36-7) and T. J. Hutchinson (our Fig. 38). Also of the same style are the staff-heads brought to Bordeaux from Macabi (Fig. 34).

32 Cañas, 1854.

33 The photographs of 1853 and 1860 support such an assumption. See the treatment by G. E. Hutchinson (1948).

34 Stevenson (1825-29, Vol. 1, p. 357) observed only “several small vessels constantly employed” at the Chinchas in 1825. In 1840, Tschudi (1866-69, Vol. 5, pp. 374-5) saw ships arrive at the islands only rarely. But in October, 1858, a great flotilla was steadily engaged, and no birds were in evidence, although Tschudi had seen “millions” in 1840.

35 Contrast the views held by Murphy, 1936, Vol. 1, p. 292.

36 Among many unproved assumptions, this is the weakest. Cañas (1854, p. 25) gives areas and volumes of guano for each island. Area divided into volume yields a mean depth of 12.12 m. This suggests the lenticular form of the guano cap, thinning towards the periphery of the island. (See Murphy, 1936, Vol. 1, Pl. 16.) But the depth-recorded finds were made late in the removal of the cap, and therefore near the deep center, in stacks such as the one shown in Figure 15. The only exception is the Bollaert slab, found in 1847.

“If the Bollaert slab was under an atypically thin peripheral layer, all the postulated dates based on its use are too old. It would be as well to point out that this possibility, which is the greatest potential source of error, can only lead to a false expansion of the chronology.” (G. E. H.)

37 Cañas, 1854, pp. 20-3. This surveyor's depths are given in Peruvian varas (.8475 m.). His deepest soundings: North Chincha, 50 varas; Central Chincha 56 varas; South Chincha, 5. varas.

38 On the Inca conquest of the valleys of the south coast of Peru, under Topa Inca ca, 1470, see Rowe, 1946, p. 207.

39 Strong, 1947, pp. 459-64. (See also this volume p. 98).

40 Cieza de León, 1864, pp. 27, 265-6 (Markham translation). This work was first published in 1552. The writer has verified Markham's translation of “sand hills” in the Antwerp edition of 1553 (p. 14).

41 López de Velasco, 1894, p. 492; Lizárraga, 1946, p. 88. Herrera y Tordesillas (1601, p. 60) is another geographer who repeats Cieza without verification. It is likely that Garcilaso de la Vega, who left Peru in 1560, also knew no more than Cieza (1553, Fol. 102).

42 A punliamientos para el buen gobierno del Peru, MS. cited by Jiménez de la Espada, 1881, Appendix 2, p. exxxviii.

43 Acosta, 1940, pp. 328-9. A much later writer, in 1792, reports that Chincha Island guano was mainly used in Chancay Valley (Ureta, 1792, p. 220). Cf. Tschudi, 1847, pp. 239-42. Chancay Valley had consumed ca. 33000-36000 fanegas (cwts.) annually since 1790.

“Asia Island is perhaps an unlikely source; the island had little guano in the last century, as its form does not permit much accumulation. The Chincha Islands are far more likely, particularly since Ureta (1792) and Humboldt noted that boats regularly brought guano from the Chinchas to Chancay.” (G. E. H.)

44 Foundation of Pisco ca. 1572: Gobernantes del Peru, 1921-26, Vol. 4, p. 126 (hereafter GP). Pisco forbidden to ship mercury: GP, Vol. 5, p. 486. Pisco sacked by pirates and subordinated to lea: GP, Vol. 10, pp. 312, 335-7. All mercury shipped through Chincha Harbor, GP, Vol. 10, p. 271. Cf. Perez de Torres (1749, p. 10) on Chincha Harbor ca. 1588, when Pisco shipped only the wines of lea. On one mercury shipping route, see Whitaker, 1941, p. 14.

45 Montesinos, 1906, Vol. 2, p. 258. The name was changed to San Clemente de Mancera, and the town was given jurisdiction over the “pampa de Chincha.”

46 Clouds of guano dust: Cobo, 1890-93, Vol. 1, p. 180 (written 1652 but probably referring to events of the 1640's); Anonymous, 1940-43, Vol. 14, p. 30. This last source describes the quake and flood of 1687 (Vol. 13. p. 38). Cf. Paz Soldan, 1862-63, pp. 565ff.

47 Cieza de León, 1864, pp. 265-6; Garcilaso de la Vega, 1609, Fol. 102; Frézier, 1717, p. 235; cf. Baessler, 1902-03, Vol. 2, text, Pis. 72-3: “in the Peruvian myths seals played a part, because the inhabitants of the seabord [sic] believed that after death their souls were carried by them to the island of Guano.”

48 Photograph of the specimen in the Museum at Hacienda Chiclin kindly communicated by Rafael Larco Hoyle.

49 Bird, 1943.

50 G.E. Hutchinson, 1948.

51 It is far from unlikely that, once aware of the importance of guano archaeology, curators here and abroad will discover appreciable numbers of depth-recorded artifacts not known to the writer. Great Britain, however, has been thoroughly searched; the writer and Professor G.E. Hutchinson addressed some 300 letters during 1944 to museums in Great Britain. The answers, at that difficult time, were astonishing in their prompt and thorough attention to the problem. Only two collections yielded relevant material (items C 3.7-16, C 3.01).

52 G. E. Hutchinson, 1948.