The construction sequence for any wall is straightforward. The foundation trench was dug and then the wall was built from bottom to top, allowing for canal openings, doorways, bonding stones for abutting walls, second story supports, second story doors and windows, and roofing features as necessary. The situation is more complex when even a single complete patio unit is considered. In such a case, one wall or building might be completely built, while other walls were only started, and some had not yet been started.
On the one hand, this situation reflects the existence of a plan. The fact that one building can be complete, except for finishing work, while another building in the same patio unit is barely started, requires a detailed understanding of how all the parts are going to fit together. Patio layout, the routing of canals, and the determination of doorsill heights, second story heights, and roof heights all had to be known in advance.
On the other hand, comparison of the different stages reached within parts of a patio unit or in sectors of the site shows that no rigid sequence of construction was followed. Schreiber (n.d.: 59-66) has outlined a four-stage sequence of construction:
1. pre-construction planning and layout
2. foundation work
3. wall construction, progressing from the outer boundary wall, to major
room block (enclosure) walls, to minor room block walls, to minor walls
4. finishing, including completing canals, laying floors, building benches,
and plastering.
This sequence applies very well to Viracochapampa, except that at least the second and third stages were going on simultaneously on different walls of the same building, and the various parts of the third stage were being performed on different parts of the site at the same time.
To refine the sequence, we would need much more excavation data and a better idea of what the final plan of the site was meant to be. Some observations on the sequence of wall construction in certain sectors of the site can be made, however.
Abutments at the south gate, for example, indicate that the boundary wall was started before the avenue walls. In fact, it appears that the boundary wall was begun at the south gate, constructed in a counterclockwise manner around the entire site, and that one complete turn of the boundary wall had been constructed before the avenue walls were started.
Similarly, it is likely that the walls of many niched halls were completed, except for finishing details, before nearby galleries were completed. This sequence is best documented in Unit A, where portions of the walls of niched halls stand 4 to 6 m above the door sills, but gallery walls were still clearly under construction. The map suggests that this sequence also applies to the central plaza area, the isolated western patio complexes, and parts of the large northeast architectural unit. It is not clear whether the niched halls in Unit B and in the extreme northeast were constructed faster than the associated galleries. In general, though, there seems to have been an emphasis on early completion of niched halls.
The relationship between niched halls, patio units, and enclosure walls is still less clear. It is possible that the niched halls were built first, then galleries were added to form patio units, and finally enclosure walls laid out. This scenario fits the area around Unit A, and possibly much of the northeast and central plaza architectural areas. In these areas the enclosure walls often fail to align exactly with patio walls, and therefore the layout of patios does not seem constrained by the existence of prior enclosures. The situation is reversed to some extent in Unit B, and especially in the isolated western patio units tha o seem to fit within preexisting enclosures. Enclosure walls throughout the site attain appreciable height only when they are also building walls.
In summary, the boundary wall was established early but not finished. It was started at the south gate and built in a counterclockwise spiral. The avenue walls were begun after the boundary walls but were also never completed. In some parts of the site, niched halls may have been built before other architectural elements, and in these same areas the laying- out of galleries and other buildings may predate the laying-out of enclosures. The construction of enclosure walls per se was not emphasized. Thus Viracochapampa does not conform to the general Huari construction sequence outlined by Schreiber.
Based on this summary and the earlier observation that there are recognizable east-west and north-south axes at the site, we can continue to speculate more generally about the sequence of construction throughout the site.
The east-west axis is the primary axis. It is defined by four points: the center of the site, the centers of the two portions of the site lying west and east of the avenue, and the center of the central plaza. Assuming that surveying was done by line of sight, the first three centers could be located only after the corners of the site and the locations of the north and south gates had been established, but before other buildings blocked the view across the site. It is likely then that the foundation of the boundary wall was laid first and that it was not intended to be a perfect square but rather to take advantage of the topography of the plain. Again, the location of the north and south gates was likely determined by the topography, and the foundations of the avenue walls may have been started early in the construction sequence.
Logically, the next step would be to determine the center of the plaza along the east-west axis before obscuring the line of sight with major buildings. The north-south axis could thus be laid out by building at least the foundations of the two large niched halls on the north and south sides of the plaza and the easternmost wall of Unit A. The next stage of construction was to further solidify these axes by completing the walls of the two niched halls flanking the plaza, building the long low mound along the east-west axis and perhaps the building on that mound, and constructing the conjoined rectangular and square niched halls east of the plaza and the small building in the eastern enclosure.
Although not all buildings on the central plaza were completed, the foci of construction then shifted to Unit A and at least the southern part of the northeast architectural unit; in both these areas, the primary focus was the construction of niched halls, followed by other architecture and then enclosure walls. Again, even though these areas were not entirely completed, construction was next begun in Unit B and in the isolated west patios. In these areas, the sequence of construction of enclosures, patios, and niched halls is different, almost the reverse of the other pattern, an intriguing fact. We actually have at Viracochapampa the physical evidence for the evolution of the rigid planning and construction sequence perceptively recognized by Schreiber (n.d.) and best exemplified at Pikillacta (McEwan).
It is unfortunate that the northwest corner of the site was never finished, since this would have made the evolutionary sequence much more obvious. Still, the concentration of stockpiled construction materials and the presence of workers' housing in this sector of the site at the time of abandonment demonstrate that construction was in progress. Exactly why the builders moved in this direction, from the center to the south and east, and then to the north and west, is a different question. It may simply be that after defining the axes, the builders chose to concentrate first on the areas closest to the sources of materials, stone from the south and water from the east. Such a strategy, while initially speeding up construction, would later result in buildings impeding access to materials. It seems, in fact, that the opposite strategy was used at Azangaro (Anders). Another much more speculative possibility is that there was some ritual significance to the sequence of construction that might also account for the counterclockwise spiral of the boundary wall.