The Architecture of Kuelap

Robert Bradley

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

Requirements for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

2005
 2005

Robert Charles Bradley

All Rights Reserved

ABSTRACT
 The Architecture of Kuelap

Robert Bradley

This dissertation is a detailed study of the enormous pre-Columbian ruin Kuelap

in the Department of Amazonas, Peru. The text provides a description of this area of

northeastern Peru and a narrative historiography of the ruin. The geographical

diversity of the pre-Columbian Chachapoya realm is imagined in the text and

compared to the Inca record.

From the time of Kuelaps introduction to the modern world in 1843, the Kuelap

has always been considered a fortress. This dissertation is a reconsideration of this

militaristic framing. The following chapters also critique the belligerent stereotype

assigned to the northern Andean highlands for the Late Intermediate Period (1,000 to

1,400 AD). The text also explores the historical digression, concerning Chachapoya

studies, caused by this mindset.

Theories are then presented which will offer a plausible scenario for the

construction and occupation of Kuelap. Were the enormous walls erected to imitate

the ubiquitous form in the region, the cliff face? A new iconography for the

Chachapoya architectural frieze work is also considered. This system positions these

geometric friezes as aspects of the human head: eyes, ears and nose. Closing remarks

provide suggestions for continued investigations regarding the ruin.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract

Table of Contents

Maps & Illustrations

Acknowledgement

A Note on Spelling

1. Introduction

1. Chachapoya Studies

2. Previous Research

3. My Previous Research

4. Archaeological Methodology

5. Art History and Ethnohistory

6. Why Kuelap?

2. Observations and Method

7. Observations

8. My Method

3. The Setting

9. The Distinctive Andean Environment

10. Puna and Pramo Andes

11. Andean Prehistory

 12. Who Were the Chachapoya?

13. The Present Day Geographical Manifestation of Chachapoyas

4. The Record

14. Relevant Chronicles

15. The Problem of Guaman Poma and Blas Valera

16. Early Contact with the Spanish

17. An Oblique Court Reference

5. The Visitors

18. A Time Capsule

19. The Judges Biblical Vision

20. A Scientific Perspective

21. The Unbiased Soldier

22. A Ceramic Sequence: Kuelap, Chipurik and Revash

23. Recent Peruvian Archaeology

6. The Physical Description of Kuelap

24. Kuelap and the Immediate Environment

25. Barriers and Passageways

26. The Lower Level

27. The Upper Level

28. The Dead

29. Architectural Friezes

30. Low Relief Sculpture

31. High and Dry

 7. Theories

32. Mistaken Identity: A People and Their Time

33. Walls as Defense?

34. Walls as Mimetic Representations of Cliffs

35. The Enemy within the Gates?

36. An Exclusive Place to Live

37. Five Hundred Years of Prejudice

38. Antisuyu or Chinchasuyu?

39. The Trophy Head

8. Closing Remarks

40. A Journeymans Approach

41. Future Studies

42. The Lead Inspector Redux

Maps and Illustrations

Appendices

Bibliography
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like first of all like to thank the Columbia Universitys Art History and

Archaeology Department for providing me with a dissertation fellowship, which

made a year of fieldwork in Peru a possibility. I also want to thank the Anthropology

Department and Nan Rothschild for the Robert Stigler Fund. This fund enabled me to

visit two locations vital for my thesis. Also I want to thank Joanna Smith for

providing excellent guidance for this work. Even though the pre-Columbian field is

outside of her area of interest her knowledge of the subject at hand was remarkable. I

must, of course thank Dr. Esther Pasztory for constantly introducing me to impossible

hurtles which, in my naivet, I always was confident I could surmount. I wearily

thank her for her direction and for equipping me with her tough-minded critical

thinking style which has enabled me to enter the field like Huitzilopochtil: armed and

ready for conflict.

I would like to thank Dr. Peter Lerche and the Camayoc Institute for the use of

the facilities and library at Chillo abajo. Peter and Elizabeth provided a home and a

training camp for this visitors excursions to the area east of the Maraon. I could not

have completed this dissertation without completing my difficult apprenticeship at

Casa Chillo made bearable by Elizabeths untiring work in the kitchen. I also wish to

be the first, but definitely not the last, to include Thomas Blas Arce Lerches name in

a study of Chachapoyas.
 I want to thank Dr. Terence DAltroy for providing me with a brilliant foundation

on the Inca Empire, which helped immensely in my study of the Chachapoya. Also

even though this dissertation presents a theoretical standpoint sometimes at odds with

a scientific archaeological perspective Dr. DAltroy, an archaeologist, was vital in

critically examining and reinforcing many of the arguments in this text. I have to

thank Lynn Meskell and Keith Moxey for developing my theoretical edge. Also my

thanks go out to Gary Urton for enabling me focus my ideas. I also want to thank

Keith Muscutt for being a tremendous source of information. I need to mention

Adriana Von Hagen and her initial warning that Chachapoyas was an area where

grown men have broken down and cried on the trails I havent cried, yet.

I would particularly like to thank my mother Theresa. Even though she was not

particularly interested in my itinerary or arguments, I would have been lost without

her support. I would also like to thank my sister Anne and brother-in-law Steve for

donating a printer and for much needed computer advice. And thanks to Tom Dillione

and his family for helping me during my transition from productive member of

society to graduate student.

Finally, I would like to thank Osita, Ernesto and Joaquin Briones, Walter, Elvira,

el Chino, Cal, Andres, Kiki and Seor Juan Carlos in Huanchaco. I also wish to

thank the Huaraz crew of Jim Sykes, Nursuam, the Norris family and all the other

individuals who made my five years in Peru a walking dream. Finally I want to thank

my wife Serenella, my daughter Gabriella and my wifes family Walter Senior, Sonia,

and Walter Junior for finally giving this wanderer a home. .

 A NOTE ON SPELLING

The Inca language Quechua and the scant remnants of the Chachapoya tongue

were not written in any, as yet, understood form. Therefore the words are literally

vocal signs vibrating in the wind. Our written form is an alien convention. However,

for the past four hundred or so years, written records have been compiled with pre-

Columbian content. These texts mostly have no standardized spelling. So, for

example, the Chachapoya place name Levanto will also appear as Rabanto and

Llauantu. The name for the Inca ruler Huayna Capac can be spelled Guainacabac but

also in the different phonetic form Wayna Qhapaq. These different representations of

the sounds of Andean languages are not as difficult to reconcile as, for example, the

Chinese Mandarin systems pinyin and Wade-Giles. But for the sake of simplicity, and

the effectiveness of my computers spell-check, I have standardized the pre-

Columbian terms in this dissertation. I have done this for everything except

bibliographical references because an exact spelling is necessary for a computer

search in library records.

 1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1. Chachapoyas Studies

This dissertation is a reevaluation of the enormous hilltop ruin called Kuelap.

Kuelap is located in the northeastern Peruvian department of Amazonas (Fig. 2).

Kuelap has been known to the West since 1843. Former Peruvian president Alberto

Fujimori once included Kuelap among the countrys three great sites (Machu Picchu,

Chavin de Huantar and Kuelap). Kuelap is by far the most neglected of the three

despite being known to the western world for more than a century and a half. Kuelap

is situated in a remote part of the Andes, but recently the outside world has made its

influence felt even in the most remote locales on the far side of the great Maraon

River. Therefore, the fact that Kuelap has not yet fascinated the Western imagination

is puzzling, because Kuelaps sixty foot walls and distinctive entrances make it a

stunningly visual site (Fig. 4b.). Additionally a trip to Kuelap provides the visitor

with an unspoiled journey. The visitor can climb a pre-Columbian trail to Kuelap sans

guide and without annoyance (in contrast to Cuzco). A trek up to Kuelap is a very

special personal experience in this time of channeled tourism. Yet the ruin sees fewer

than one foreign visitor a day. This number pales in comparison to the other more

celebrated pre-Columbian sites.

 2

Kuelap has been assigned to the Chachapoya culture by Andeanists. The name

Chachapoya comes down to us from Inca records and it refers to a pre-Columbian

people who lived in the northeastern Andeas from about 1000 AD to 1450.

Chachapoyas is also the name for a modern town in the region. As of yet, no

systematic study has ever been published concerning the entire Chachapoyas region.

Indeed the geographical limits for the pre-Columbian people we call the Chachapoya

has never been delineated. (I will discuss this topic at length later in this dissertation.)

The lack of a complete picture concerning pre-Columbian Chachapoyas can partially

be explained because it was, for most of the twentieth century, an extremely difficult

area to explore. Even as late as 1966 the adventurer Gene Savoy turned his expedition

to Kuelap into a front page story by emphasizing the difficulties of his trip! Kuelap

had been discovered one hundred and twenty years earlier and yet a journey to the

site in 1966 was still considered a difficult passage! In the ninety years that have

passed since the discovery of Machu Picchu, that site has been commercialized to the

point of having direct train transportation and a gourmet restaurant.

I am not saying that Kuelap wants or needs the kind of love-it-to-death attention

that Machu Picchu receives on a daily basis. I personally would not want this to

happen. But even after working six years in the area of the pre-Columbian

Chachapoyas I am still enthralled every time I climb up to Kuelap. Maybe this is

because the ascent is always difficult and challenging, often coming during my first

few pre-acclimatized days of summer fieldwork. I think that most of the scholars,

aficionados, and adventurers who claim expertise in things Chachapoya share this

feeling of exclusivity and also covet the region. I know I have enjoyed my six years
 3

of traveling to intact funeral houses, pristine cloud forests and forgotten ruins.

Chachapoya professionals all talk about somehow bringing the right sort of celebrity

to the region, but I think we all would only grudgingly share this area. However as I

mentioned, the modern world is encroaching upon even the most distant parts of the

north east Andes and it is possible for this inevitable change to affect the lives of the

visitors and the inhabitants in a positive manner!

What Chachapoyas really needs is large project focusing on the archaeology and

biodiversity abundant in the region. (This is especially important because mining and

lumber interests are now poised to siphon off many of the natural resources in this

part of Peru.)1 The barrier, which is the Maraon River, has had a lot to do with

insulation Chachapoyas has received from the outside world but it has also been

responsible for the overall neglect of Chachapoyas studies. It was only after World

War Two that bridges made travel to this part of Peru easy from the coast. Indeed the

eastern slopes of the Andes in this northern section of Peru are protected by the

Maraon River Gorge on one side (west) and miles of waterways and rainforest on

the other (east). The whole pre-Columbian area of Chachapoyas can be broken up

into four areas of interest (Fig. 2. and Fig. 3.). The Utcubamba area contains Kuelap,

Leymebamba, the modern city of Chachapoyas and many well visited archaeological

sites. The highland areas consist of Chuquibamba, Atuen, Uchumarca, Bolivar and

many unique archaeological treasures (Pirca Pirca (Fig. 5a), Vira Vira, and Pakariska

(Fig. 5b.) etc.). The eastern forest sites contain the archeologically rich village of

Chilchos and the Huaybayacu River area. Finally the Abiseo national park, far to the

1
See Church, Warren and Ricardo Morales Gamarra. Tomb Raiders of El Dorado: Conservation
Dilemmas on a New Archaeological Frontier in Peru in Society for American Archaeology. Volume
4, #1, January, 2004, for a discussion of other pending threats.
 4

south of the previously mentioned highland locales, has the forest sites of Gran

Pajaten and Los Pinchudos. Because of the lack of paved roads and the difficulty of

travel Chachapoya enthusiasts tend to stay in their particular area of interest.

Anthropologist Peter Lerche and the scholars Jose Ruz Barcillos and Ken Nystrom

all spend most of their time in the Utcubamba area and the adjacent Vilaya valley.

Keith Muscutt and Inge Schjellerup have worked out from the highland town of

Chuquibamba for many years, however, both Muscutt and Schjellerup have now

concentrated their efforts in the area of the Huabayacu and Chilchos (Fig. 16a) (The

Peruvian scholar Federico Kauffmann Doig is also very interested in this area).

Archaeologist Warren Church works well to the south of Chuquibamba in the Abiseo

park. Luis Valle, Arabel Fernandez and Florencia Bracamonte work at the site of Los

Pinchudos also near the southern limits of pre-Columbian culture.

In the late nineties the area south of Leymebamba received much attention from

the outside world when pre-Columbian funeral houses, located near a pristine

mountain lake, were saved from being systematically looted.2 This Laguna de los

Cndores site was to become a treasure trove for archaeological studies and the

impetus for a new regional museum in Leymebamba. Since then bioarchaeologist

Sonia Guilln and author Adriana von Hagen have been the driving force behind the

development of this museum and the conservation of this lower Utcubamba territory.

In the late nineties many Chachapoya scholars also worked together on projects

stemming from the Laguna de los Cndores find, but recently their efforts have

become, once again, individualized. This lack of collaboration between Chachapoya

scholars was surmounted in 2003 when Gary Urton and Harvard University
2
Von Hagen, Adriana & Sonia Guillen, Tombs with a View, Archaeology 51, #2, April, 1998
 5

sponsored the Primera Conferencia Internacional sobre el Arte, la Arqueologa y la

Etnohistoria de los Chachapoya in Leymebamba. The conference provided a much

needed forum for the presentation of new material concerning the pre-Columbian

Chachapoya.

Presently there are very few radiocarbon dates from the pre-Columbian

Chachapoya. The remoteness of the region is partially to blame for this shortage, but

the time period of pre-Columbian history in which the Chachapoya culture falls is,

generally speaking, a neglected area of study. (This era in the Andean chronology is

called the Late Intermediate Period (Appendix B). Later in this dissertation I will

discuss this chronology and the placement of the Chachapoya culture in it at length.)

Remember Kuelap was discovered relatively early by the modern world (1843) yet

since that time there have been fewer than twenty archaeology oriented excursions to

the site. (Appendix A)

2. Previous Research

Most of the past attention Chachapoyas has received has been from enlightened

travelers and adventurers. But several of these attempts have produced excellent

results. The Cliffside tomb sites which line the canyons of the region sometimes held

the interest of people who journeyed to the region but Kuelap has always been the

center of their attention. Appendix A lists the notable travelers to Kuelap and the date

in which they visited but below I will provide some brief commentary for these

journeys.
 6

Juan Crisstomo Nieto discovered Kuelap for the modern world in 1843 when

he announced that he had found the biblical tower of Babel. According to the

Chachapoya specialist Arturo Ruz Estrada the next notable visitor to Kuelap was the

German traveler Ernst Middendorf.3 Ruz places Middendorf at Kuelap in 1866 but

Schjellerup says he did not get to Chachapoyas until the end of his twenty five year

stay in Peru.4 That would instead put Middendorf at Kuelap in 1887.

Arthur Werthemann spent time in the Chachapoyas region and his explorations at

Kuelap could have been the first serious attempt at documenting the site.

Unfortunately many of Werthemanns records were lost in the shipwreck of the

Valdivia5 so the first real report of Kuelap with exact drawings and measurements

came from Adolph Bandelier. I will discuss Bandeliers work at Kuelap extensively in

chapter five, but the beautiful representations from his record will be referenced

throughout this work. (Figs. 1b., 4a., 9a., 10b., 11b., 18b., 19b. and 20b.)

Following Bandeliers journey, Kuelap was visited by Philippe Kieffer in 1910

but, according to Ruz, Kieffer spent a minimal amount of time at the ruin.6 In a

similar vein Ronald Olsen traveled to Kuelap in nineteen thirty as part of the Myron

Granger Expedition from the American Museum of Natural History. But malaria and

the difficulties of travel took a toll on Olsen and therefore his notes and observations

fell far short of Bandeliers earlier endeavor.7

3
Ruiz Estrada, Arturo, La alfarera de Cuelap: tradicin y cambio, Tesis de Bachiller, Universidad
Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, 1972, page 10
4
Schjellerup, Inge, Incas and Spaniards in the Conquest of the Chachapoyas, Ph.D. dissertation,
Goteborg University, Sweden, 1997, 104
5
Schjellerup (1997) page 104
6
Ruiz Estrada, Arturo (1972) page 12
7
See Daggett, Richard, The Myron I. Granger Archaeological Expedition from the 18th Annual
Northeast Conference on Andean Archaeology and Ethnohistory, University of Massachusetts, October
23-24, 1999
 7

French general Louis Langlois wrote a book about the Utcubamba in 1933. This

publication discussed Kuelap at length and I will recall the generals work later in this

dissertation. In the nineteen thirties Napolen Gil also worked in Chachapoyas and he

made some now dated observations about the architecture of the region.8

Henry and Paule Reichlen ventured out from Cajamarca, their main area of

interest, and journeyed to Chachapoyas in the 1940s. These Swiss archaeologists were

responsible for the first Chachapoya ceramic sequence. After the Reichlens, the

German archaeologist Hans Horkheimer traveled to Chachapoyas. In his publication

Algunas Consideraciones Acerca de la Arqueologa en el Valle del Utcubamba

Horkheimer presented pre-Columbian Chachapoyas as insular region resistant to

outside influences.9 Horkheimers viewpoint will be indirectly referenced in this

dissertation when I present a discussion of the architectural frieze work of the

Chachapoya.

The sixties were very auspicious days for the study of Chachapoyas. Gene Savoy

worked during this time, and his adventures in the northeastern Andes, whether

lauded or despised, will always be remembered. Savoy published The Antisuyu in

1970. In his book he presented his travels as a series of adventurous expeditions into

impossible terrain. The Peruvian archaeologist Duccio Bonavia worked in the

Chachapoya region during the same time as Savoy. However Bonavias timeless

archaeological survey of the Abiseo site called Gran Pajaten was in direct contrast to

Savoys sensationalism. Towards the end of the sixties Arturo Ruz Estrada completed

8
Gil, Napolen, Dos pueblos prehistricos Kuelapenses: Kacta y Chipuric. Boletn de la Sociedad
Geogrfica. Tomo LV, 2-3, 132-139, 1938
9
Horkheimer, Hans. Algunas Consideraciones Acerca de la Arqueologa en el Valle del Utcubamba.
Actas y Trabajos del II Congreso Nacional de Historia del Per, Tomo I, 71-101, Lima, 1958
 8

an archaeological overview at Kuelap which expanded on the ceramic sequence of the

Reichlens. I will discuss Ruzs thesis at length in a later chapter.

Kuelap finally benefited from a scientific archaeological survey in 1987 when

Luis Alfredo Narvaez Vargas completed his excavation of the ruin. Following this

effort the team of McGraw, Oncina, Sharon and Torres Ms published an excellent

study of Kuelap in 1996. In Kuelap a Solar Observatory the team presented the

astronomical significance of architecture at the site. Recently (summer 2004),

Narvaez returned to Kuelap in order to undertake another restoration/excavation. His

results are pending.

Peter Lerche has worked in the Utcubamba region near Kuelap for more than

twenty years. Lerche is an anthropologist by trade and an expert on the pre-

Columbian Chachapoya. Lerche became famous in the mid nineties when he initiated

the salvage operation of the looted Laguna de los Condores funeral site. He was also

responsible for the discovery and rescue of a carved wooden lintel from Chilchos

region of Chachapoyas. This carving has been considered an important artifact and is

now lodged in the Leymebamba museum.

Inge Schjellerup began her interest in Chachapoyas as part of Donald

Thompsons archaeological team operating near Uchumarca in the 1970s. Schjellerup

has published extensively on the region. Her interests were initially centered in

anthropology but gradually moved toward archaeology until she published Incas and

Spaniards in the Conquest of the Chachapoyas in 1997. Since publishing that work

she has returned to her primary love anthropology and Schjellerup has focused her

attention on the eastern montaa.

 9

Warren Church began working in Chachapoyas in the eighties as a member of the

University of Colorado Boulder field project at Abiseo. Church published his PhD

dissertation in 1996. The focus of Churchs dissertation was a cave site above the

Abiseo River. In this impossible environment he examined traces and artifacts from

the early pre-Columbian hunter gatherer occupants. Since then Church has been

active in conservation efforts concerning the Chachapoyas.

Keith Muscutt first became interested in the Chachapoyas area when he traveled

to Mendoza in the early eighties. Since then he has centered himself in the highland

town of Chuquibamba. From this location Muscutt has ventured down into the eastern

montaa where he has photographed and documented many Chachapoya chullpas

(funeral houses). His Warriors of the Clouds book is required reading for anyone

considering a first visit to the region.

Adriana Von Hagen & Sonia Guilln were part of the Laguna de los Condores

rescue project in the late 1990s. Since that time they have both been instrumental in

the founding of the Leymebamba Museum. This regional museum is the greatest

force for conservation of pre-Columbian culture in the Chachapoya region. The

museum also highlights the magnificent biological diversity of this area to the

northeast of the Maraon River. Von Hagen inherited her love of the pre-Columbian

world from her father Victor Von Hagen. She has written a book on the Chachapoya

and co-authored another book, with the archaeologist Craig Morris, on the Inca

Empire. Sonia Guilln brought her expertise from studying the oldest mummies in the

Americas, the Chinchorro fisher folk of coastal Chile, to her research of the

Chachapoya.
 10

Since 1980 Federico Kauffmann Doig has published numerous articles on the

Chachapoya. His work has often highlighted the funeral sites which line the canyons

of the eastern montaa. But the recent investigations of Jose Ruz Barcillos and Ken

Nystrom have not concerned the chullpas of the eastern slopes. Ruz Barcillos

performed excavations at a settlement named Purum Llacta. This site is located

directly east of the modern town of Chachapoyas. Ken Nystrom examined skeletal

remains from Kuelap. Both of these scholars efforts are currently in the preliminary

phases but their future work is generating great interest.

3. My Previous Research

I have been working in area of the pre-Columbian Chachapoyas for six years. I

first traveled to Peru in December 1998. Bus service from Lima to Chachapoyas was

more difficult at this time so I first approached the Chachapoya territory through the

Maraon River canyon. This entrance to the area of Leymebamba and beyond is

beyond description because of its natural beauty but I will attempt to offer one later in

chapter three. In my first six weeks in the region I ventured out to the Chachapoya

ruins of Teya, Macro and Kuelap from the house of Dr. Peter Lerche. Peter and his

wife Elizabeth provided a comfortable home for me at Chillo, literally in the shadow

of Kuelap. The pre-Columbian trail in this region runs right past their house so I

always traveled by foot to these three sites. Since this was the first time I had been to

the Chachapoyas region, I was immediately taken back by the neglect of the pre-

Columbian ruins. For example, the day before I arrived at Teya (Fig. 17a.) a local

farmer had slashed and burned the site to plant corn. As I walked through the Teya I

immediately noticed that a charred wooden doorway lintel had somehow survived the
 11

fire. The ruin of Macro (Fig. 8a.) seemed more secure only because the land where

the site is located is too steep for farming. Macro has perhaps the easiest access of all

pre-Columbian Chachapoya constructions. Yet even though tour buses pass the ruin

on a weekly basis, Marco is virtually ignored. I accompanied Dr. Peter Lerche on my

first trip to Kuelap. We stayed a few days at the Instituto Nacional de Cultura (known

as the INC this is the Peruvian governmental organization responsible for

archaeological sites) facilities near the ruin. This was the time of the winter solstice

called capac raymi by the Inca.10 This beginning of the year date was important to

pre-Columbian people so we spent the mornings observing the suns position in

reference to Kuelaps main entrance. However the results were inconclusive. I also

learned from the INC custodian (Don Gabriel) how difficult it was to maintain Kuelap

from destruction by the elements and vandalism.

My second trip to Chachapoya began in the June of 1999. At this time there was

air service from Lima to Chachapoyas (now defunct). After arriving in the city of

Chachapoyas I traveled with Dr. Peter Lerche and several INC representatives to the

Huabayacu river area. This trip took four days by foot and we were slowed down by

incessant rain for the first two days. Along the way to the Huabayacu we visited the

site of Chiquillo and measured an extremely large Chachapoya circular structure (15

meters). At Pase Breve we descended into the eastern slope cloud forest. Even though

I was exhausted at this point in the trip I will never forget my first vision of this dense

high mountain forest. Along the trail near the river we photographed Chachapoya

funeral sites. After spending about a week in this area we climbed back up the

10
Bauer, B. S. & David S. P. Dearborn. Astronomy and Empire in the Ancient Andes. University of
Texas Press, Austin, 1995, pages 10 & 26
 12

cordillera and journeyed to the town of Atuen. (Fig. 8b.) We photographed and

surveyed the Inca baths in this village. (Inge Schjellerup has extensively documented

this pre-Columbian construction.11) After Atuen we visited the Chachapoya ruin of La

Joya and concluded the trip by photographing the Cliffside ruins of La Petaca. I spent

the last month of my summer season in the area of Chillo. At this time I worked in the

Camayoc Institute Library (operated by Peter Lerche) and again journeyed by foot to

Kuelap.

Summer of 2000 was my disastrous third season in Chachapoyas. At this time I

traveled with Dr. Lerche to the Valley of Vilaya. This valley is accessed by the high

and windy Yumal Pass. Vilaya is an archaeologically rich valley adjacent to the

Utcubamba. I was very excited to see this area but unfortunately on the first day

descending from Yumal Pass I tore my anterior cruciate ligament on a steep muddy

slope. I was forced to return to Chachapoyas and spend a week in bed until I could

walk. At this time I knew I would not be able to hike the trails in Chachapoyas so I

took a bus to Cajamarca. At Cajamarca I took a combis (generic minivan transport) to

Kuntur Wasi. At Kuntur Wasi Dr. Yoshio Onuki welcomed me to his archaeological

project and provided me with a complimentary copy of the regional museums

catalog. From Kuntur Wasi I went down to the coast of Peru and visited Chan Chan

and the Moche site of Huaca del Sol. Finally, with Kuntur Wasi fresh in my head, I

traveled to the contemporaneous site of Chavin de Huantar. In many ways this was

one of my most successful seasons, and in the fall I presented my first paper at The

Annual Northeast Conference on Andean Archaeology and Ethnohistory (Puca

Huaca in Light of Recent Scholarship).

11
See Schjellerup (1997)
 13

My fourth season in Chachapoyas was accomplished thanks to the Columbia

University Department of Art History and Archaeology Summer Travel Fund. This

season lasted from early June 2002 and until late August.12 I spent the early summer

in the area of the Utcubamba and again journeyed to Yumal Pass. From Yumal Pass I

traveled with Dr. Peter Lerche to the highest point in Amazonas: Mt. Shubet. Lerche

has written that Shubet could have had some kind of symbolic importance to the

Chachapoya. From Shubet we hiked down the cordillera until we reached the town of

Longita. From Longita we then went on to Kuelap. From Yumal Pass one can look

out and see the mountains that lead down to the Maraon River Gorge. During this

time I became very interested in the immediate western side of this barrier. After

reading extensively on the subject I decided to go to the town of Huamachuco. (Fig.

6b.) Information about this neglected site was published in 1945 by Theodore

McCown, and since then the Canadian archaeological team of John and Teresa Topic

have done extensive work in the area. But Huamachuco, located on a hill just above

this town, is still a relatively remote pre-Columbian ruin. I wanted to go to this site so

I could study the ruin and compare it to Kuelap, so I traveled from Cajamarca to

Huamachuco. In the following days I surveyed the ruin of Marco Huamachuco. Later

I visited the Huari site of Viracochapampa also in the vicinity of Huamachuco. (Fig.

6a) Viracochapampa was the farthest northern outpost of the expansionistic southern

Andean people we call the Huari. I finished this season like the 2000 season with a

trip to the coast visiting the Moche site of Huaca El Brujo and then an excursion to

Chavin de Huantar. At Chavin I talked to a few student archaeologists working with a

12
I need to remark that during this time almost every Peruvian I met extended their deepest
condolences for the September 11 World Trade Center attack. This is all the more notable because Peru
has, over the years, not been the focus of a positive US foreign policy. However the negative politics
have not affected Peruvians and their sense of compassion.
 14

Stanford University team headed by Dr. John Rick. Before departing Peru I spent

some time visiting the site of Pachacamac near Lima.

Two thousand three was a watershed year for my pre-Columbian studies. In the

spring of 2003 I received a dissertation fellowship from Columbia Universitys Art

History and Archaeology Department. At this time I also benefited from the

Anthropology Departments Robert Stigler Fund. I spent the summer of 2003 in

Chachapoyas at the site of Kuelap and working on this dissertation at the Camayoc

Institute library. During July I traveled with Seor Joaquin Briones to the Uchumarca

area. In Uchumarca we documented one of Chachapoyas architectural anomalies:

Pirca Pirca. (Fig. 5a.) Pirca Pirca has stonework unlike any other construction in the

pre-Columbian Chachapoya region, but Pirca Pirca has been thoroughly looted so no

function or date has ever been associated with the site. We ended our trip to

Uchumarca by making a record of the Chachapoya artifacts in the mayors office.

Unfortunately there are substantial material goods and mummies at great risk of

decay in this rudimentary municipal building. From Uchumarca we traveled south to

the town of Bolivar which was called Cajamarquilla in the early colonial chronicles.

This town is in close proximity to an enigmatic site called Pakariska. (Fig. 5b.) I

wanted to survey and photograph this ruin for comparison to Kuelap. In august I

attended the Primera Conferencia Internacional sobre el Arte, la Arqueologa y la

Etnohistoria de los Chachapoya which was held in Leymebamba. Because of visa

restrictions it was necessary for me to leave Peru in September. I took this

opportunity to travel to the Bolivian Altiplano site of Tiwanaku. Two years earlier I

had written a series of papers about the Tiwanakus Gateway of the Sun monument
 15

but this was the first time I was able to visit this ruin. I returned to Chachapoyas in

late September and immediately embarked on another trip with Seor Joaquin

Briones. This time we headed directly east to the cloud forest. From the small

scattered village of Chilchos we trekked four days through the cloud forest until we

reached the village of Canaan located on a tableland called la meseta. This is the

location for the almost impossible to reach Inca structure called Puca Huaca.

(Remember I had giver a paper about this site in 2000 at the Northeast Conference on

Andean Archaeology and Ethnohistory at Dartmouth University.) On the way back to

Chilchos I was informed (by the brother of Seor Joaquin Briones) about an unlooted

funeral site above the Rio Blanco. (Fig. 16a.) Because of the pending danger of

looting to the site we made an excursion to the view and record the ruin. (The site was

called El Dorado but has been renamed Yaku Wasi) We took photographs and upon

returning to Leymebamba informed the authorities about the condition of these

funeral houses. I completed my nine months in Peru working on this dissertation at

the Camayoc institute library. Our winter months coincide with the wet season in

Chachapoyas and during this time travel into the mountains and cloud forest becomes

problematic.

Last summer I returned to the Chachapoyas area in June thanks to another

summer travel grant from the Art History and Archaeology Department of Columbia

University. I again spent considerable time in the Utcubamba area and I journeyed to

Kuelap to finalize some points for my thesis. I was very fortunate because Alfredo

Lus Narvez Vargas, the Chachapoya scholar who completed the first scientific
 16

excavation of Kuelap in 1987, was again working at the Kuelap. I spent some time

discussing my dissertation topic with him.

4. Archaeological Methodology

Almost all pre-Columbian studies contain information derived from three

disciplines: archaeology, art history and ethnohistory. In the following sections I will

give my views about the development and the state of each field.

Modern archaeology began with Heinrich Schliemanns famous 19th century

discoveries at Hissarlik.13 The idea of a stalwart adventurer searching for (and

finding) Helen of Troys lost treasure surpassed the plot for even the most imaginative

movie script. This audacious beginning soon settled down to become what we refer to

today as old archaeology. By old archaeology I mean an archaeology which attempts

an understanding of the past by examining the great monuments and relics of that

past. This was the age of the great digs for the Pharaohs of Egypt. It was a time when

the artifacts of archaeology would not only provide some answers to how and why of

lost cultures, the work would also guild the halls of museums. The architectural

concern of this archaeology was the great temples and tombs. These monuments were

studied in a vacuum without reference to the surrounding environment that would

have played a vital role in the development and maintenance of these sites. Old

archaeology was Western centric. This archeology only had a peripheral interest in

the New World. V. Gordon Childe epitomized this old archaeology and it has been

said his scholarly interests were rooted in an attempt to understand Old World

13
Etienne, Roland & Franoise. The Search for Ancient Greece. Discoveries. Harry N. Abrams
Publishers, 1992, pages 110-112
 17

prehistory; as a result he had little sustained interest in American archaeology.14

When archaeologists did glance at the New World the result was diffusionist. By

diffusionist I mean that the New World cultures were viewed as deriving from Old

World cultures. The flow of culture from West to non-West was in keeping with the

Western European centric view of the development of civilization. A notable

exception to this flow of culture was the work of Authur Posnansky. Posnansky

positioned the Tiwanaku culture of the Altiplano (modern day Bolivia) as the cradle

of existence for all of mankind.15 Of course his premise is hopelessly flawed. But, to

his credit, Posnanskys theories, which bordered on the insane, were in response to

old archaeologys chauvinistic theoretical perspective. I imagine that Posnansky must

have reached a point when he became weary of diffusionist rhetoric. Diffusionism

would always position his area of interest as secondary. He therefore turned the

argument upside down and made Western archaeology auxiliary to his specialization.

Posnanskys digressive obsession highlights the importance of the early 19th

century American traveler John Lloyd Stephens and his contribution to archaeology

in the New World. Almost a century before Posnansky, Stephens noticed that the

people of the small villages and towns near the decaying ruins of Central America

were the offspring of the builders of these great monuments.16 Stephenss

observations inspired archaeology in the Americas which eventually led to the

following observation by Gordon Willey.

14
Patterson, Thomas C. and Charles E. Orser Jr., Foundations of Social Archaeology: Selected
Writings of V. Gordon Childe. Alta Mira Press, California, 2004, page 4
15
Posnansky, Authur, Tihuanacu: the Cradle of American Man. J.J. Augustine, New York, 1945
16
See Von Hagen, Victor. Maya Explorer; John Lloyd Stevens and the Lost Cities of Central America
and Yucatn. Chronicle Books, San Francisco, 1947
 18

The how and why of these ancient American civilizations -separated by oceanic
expanses of thousands of miles from the Old World- are questions which still puzzle
the archaeologist, anthropologist, and the philosopher of human history. In what
manner did civilization in many ways so similar to the Old World- come to the
New? Many pre-historians (I would estimate a majority) hold that the rise of
agricultural civilizations in the Americas was an independent growth with no
significant direct Old World ties and that the presence of such similar phenomena is a
demonstration of mans basic unity.17

Willey and other archaeologists of his time were different from the old

archaeologists. The new archaeologists were not solely concerned with temples,

tombs and treasures. The focus for these archaeologists was surveying the major sites

in conjunction with the surrounding environment in which the major monument was

located. These archaeologists were just as enamored with potsherds as they were with

elite artifacts of precious materials. What they were looking for was to assemble the

big picture from tiny fragments like a jigsaw puzzle. The heyday for this new

archaeology in the Americas came with the Vir Valley Project conducted in Peru in

the mid 20th century. Vir Valley was an archaeological project conducted along the

North Coast of Peru just South of Trujillo. The Vir Valley Project was a massive

coordinated effort by a whos who of that eras archaeology (Wendell Bennett, Junius

Bird, Gordon Willey etc.). The study was planned in order to integrate several

phases of anthropological research in the study of a long continuum of cultural

growth within a small natural area.18 The techniques from the Vir Valley Project

defined precision archaeology. Foremost this archaeology was scientific and

concerned with unbiased data. The results from this Project were enduring. In many

ways the Vir Valley Project set the standard for pre-Columbian archaeology in South

17
Kosok, Paul. Life, Land and Water in Ancient Peru. Long Island University Press, New York, 1965,
forward by Gordon R. Willey
18
Ford (1949) page 18
 19

America. Since this time other excellent examples of this scientific archeological

prowess have been completed much to the benefit of Andean studies (Morris &

Thompsons work at Hunuco Pampa in the central highlands of Peru and Dillehays

efforts at Monte Verde are two efforts worthy of particular mention).19

The problem with new archaeology was never technique, but instead the problem

was philosophical. The new archaeologists were first and foremost scientists. The aim

of this scientific investigation was revealing the historical development of the

investigated culture by compiling a mountain of information: charts, graphs, surveys

etc. New archaeology is also called processual archaeology because through the

accumulation of this data it seeks to reveal the process of history. The critique of this

archaeology was grounded in the dependence on a scientific model for processual

investigation. In other words can you really study such a complicated and messy think

like culture the way you would study science? Ian Hodder, a leading post-processual

archaeologist, summed up this criticism as follows.

The New Archaeology is found to be functionalist and a critique of functionalist

is put forward, centering on the dichotomies between culture and function, individual
and society, statics and dynamics, and links to positivism.20

There are four points to this post-processual criticism, but the first three are really

closely linked. The problem with the dichotomy between culture and function is that

if you examine a past culture by using a norm your model loses variability. So, for

example, imagine a future archaeologist working with a model (think of a control in a

19
See Morris, Craig and Donald E. Thompson, Hunuco Pampa: An Inca City and Its Hinterland.
Thames and Hudson, London, 1985 and Dillehay, Tom D., The Settlement of the Americas: a New
Prehistory. Basic Books, New York, 2000
20
Hodder, Ian, editor, Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, 1982
 20

scientific study) of an average (North) American in the year 2005. This is of course

impossible. Would this model reflect blue or red states, immigrants or blue bloods,

coastal urbanites or good country people? Whatever norm you would pick for your

model would flaw your data. This is because (according to a post processual position)

cultures really are not like subjects in a laboratory and examining them is really not

an exact science. The second criticism is similar to the first: processual archaeology

ignores the individual. Any generalization about cultures ignores the numerous

individual actors who created the culture. Processual archaeology is not concerned

with the individual actor. Processual archaeology loves the idea of the individual man

but not the individual. The third point also relates to the first criticism about norms.

Any snapshot of a culture is static and cannot adequately represent the relentless

changes and movement of that culture. Think of trying to understand the meaning and

intent of an elaborate dance by seeing only a snap shot of the movement.

The fourth point to me is most straightforward and yet the most complicated.

Positivism in this sense is set in the idea that a rational scientific method will always

provide for greater understanding. A positivist would believe that in the future we will

have the capacity for recreating, and therefore understanding, cultures of the past. A

non- positivist would accept that our understanding will always be limited.

Unfortunately, the post processual critique of positivism has often been juxtaposed to

nihilism. This comparison is to me unhelpful. Processual archaeology assumes much

and the criticisms of post processual archaeology are valid. In the next chapter I will

present the methodology for this dissertation which sets the tone for this work in post

modernism (post modernism is the philosophical parent of the post processual

 21

movement). By this I mean I will outline a perspective of presentation which will

differentiate my text from literal scientific prose ubiquitous in modern archaeological

studies. By doing this I am not, however, flirting with nihilism. But my arguments in

the following chapters would have been impossible without new archaeology, and I

will close this paper with a plea for the application of a decidedly high-tech scientific

technique at Kuelap. Indeed my ideas concerning Kuelap also have been influenced

by old archaeology, and I believe Childe would have appreciated my ideological

positioning for the site of Kuelap.

5. Art History and Ethnohistory

During the heyday of processual archaeology in the pre-Columbian studies, art

historians were somewhat nonessential. The reason was simple. Art history is not a

scientific discipline, so as archaeologists positioned themselves closer to the pure

sciences they moved away from the humanistic discipline which is art history. If the

art historian was used, it was as a connoisseur of artifacts or not at all. However in

Moche studies the unique material goods (treasures) from this culture created an

environment where the art historian could thrive (Maya studies would be a

Mesoamerican counterpart). But generally speaking art historys chronology of style

was replaced during the processual timeframe by stratigraphy, which would separate

an era by rigorous classification and delineation into numbered phases and named

time frames (I will elaborate on this technique later). Also processual studies humbled

art historys connoisseurship with the advent of the radio carbon date. This technique

was a product of the atomic age and with it one could measure the loss of a type of
 22

carbon from organic material. This measure would produce an unequivocal time

frame for many recovered objects, thereby theoretically making the art connoisseurs

job obsolete.

But this distinct separation between art history and archaeology was not always

the case. Before the ascendancy of processual method the art historian was

indistinguishable from the archaeologist. During this early era both the archaeologist

and the art historian were seeking the same fantastic artifact from the depth of some

ancient major monument, so their ends and their means were identical. But today,

after the processual split, art history and archaeology seem to be again on similar

courses. Post processual archaeology is replete with the same theoretical problems as

art history. Therefore the two disciplines are less at odds.

Ethnohistory is the third investigative eye centered on the pre-Columbian world

after archaeology and art history. Ethnohistory involves developing histories and it is

informed by ethnography, linguistics, archaeology, and ecology. In the past the

developing histories were called primitive cultures but this prejudicial and misleading

term is (for now) seldom used. Ethnohistorians are cultural anthropologists so they

coexist in the anthropology departments of universities along with archaeologists. But

the two groups are separated by one very important criterion. Archaeologists study

the dead and their remains. Cultural anthropologists (ethnohistorians) are immersed in

the living culture of their specialization. Simply, ethnohistorians use information

(language, art, ritual, kin groupings, environment, diet, clothing, etc.) gleaned from

living sources. These cultural anthropologists can then extrapolate back and apply this

data to the previous eras of the culture of their expertise. So, for instance, an
 23

ethnohistorian might study weaving techniques in present day Cuzco and use this

information for an understanding of Inca textiles. Whereas archaeologists take pride

in the precision of their methods cultural anthropologists take pride in their complete

familiarity (often almost to a point of identification) with the culture in their field of

interest.

But no discipline emerged from the twentieth century without some form of

cathartic introspection. (For example recall art historys marginalization with the

advent of science based archaeology and this same science based archaeologys

difficulties with the philosophical critique from post processualism.) Certainly

cultural anthropology was not immune to these forces. Their challenge came when the

role of the ethnohistorian as an unbiased observer in his or her particular community

of study was questioned. Napoleon Chagnons work with Stone Age tribes in

Venezuela was the fulcrum of this controversy.21 Again the thrust of this criticism was

post modern in nature (pointing out the impossibility of conducting a scientific

experiment in while living with your subject) but the negative results from this work

were more apparent than any flaws attributed to processual archaeology. From my

viewpoint the ethnohistorians efforts are directly dependent on data assembled from

their informants, and I will discuss this two sided proposition in the next chapter.

6. Why Kuelap?

When I first presented my dissertation proposal two years ago my thoughts were

to write about architectural anomalies in the Chachapoyas region and in particular the

ruins of Pirca Pirca, Puca Huaca and Paksriska. I am now aware of the difficulty such
21
See Tierney, Patrick. Darkness in El Dorado. Norton, New York, 2000
 24

a project would present. These hard to reach sites have not even been cleared so

choosing them for a dissertation topic would involve a multi-year funded project. Dr.

Esther Pasztory suggested that a monograph concerning Kuelap has never been

written and today I am very grateful for her input. Even though this ruin is the best

known in the region the more I investigated the more I saw a need to compile

information and, most importantly, discuss the how and why of the site. As I will

discuss later many issues of pre-Columbian Chachapoya identity are tied up in our

present day ideas about Kuelap.

Now is also a very good time to study and reinvestigate the pre-Columbian

Chachapoya world. Every year the region attracts more of the worlds growing

number of tourists. Soon the image of the pre-Columbian Chachapoya will be firmly

fixed in the popular imagination. I think the positioning we now have for Kuelap in

our perception of the Chachapoya is at best incomplete and at worst incorrect.

CHAPTER TWO

OBSERVATIONS AND METHOD

7. Observations

The non-western specialist in Art History is in practice marginalized. Art

historical studies are western centric.22 The Greek miracle, development of one-point

perspective in painting and the modern tendency to abstraction are all vital to the
22
Changes are in the wind however. Holland Cotter recently wrote about non-western art being taken
out of its niche and being treated as art first, non-western second. Cotter, Holland Outside In, The
New York Times. Wednesday, March 30, 2005, pages G1 and G14
 25

study of western art history, yet are of little or no value to the non-western student.

For example, the introduction of one-point perspective by the Jesuit Guiseppi

Casteligone was greeted with a shrug by the Chinese court.23 Apparently, the 1000 or

so years of Chinese painterly tradition developed brilliantly without this western

innovation, so no renaissance invention was necessary. Another example of the limit

of western art history applied to a non-western subject can be found in Huari textiles.

These fabrics fracture their images in what can only be called an abstract manner.

This tradition appears in the middle phases of pre-Columbian Andean art around 800

AD. In the west abstraction is a late modern tendency and any examples pre-dating

1900 are generally considered crude or primitive.24 Why a modern western tendency

appeared at such an early time in Andean art is an unstudied phenomenon.

An art historian who selects the pre-Columbian field finds alienation from

western methods compounded by the lack of written sources. (Here I am specifically

referring to the Andean area of interest.) A dozen or so codices (many impossible to

interpret), some biased chronicles, and a great deal of marginally useful colonial

documents are our only pre-Columbian documents. Every so often a new find

complements the field (For instance the discovery of Guaman Pomas El Primer

Nueva Coronica y Buen Gobierno uncovered in a library in Copenhagen eighty years

ago (Fig. 13.), or the brilliant roundtable discussions and linguistic innovations that

have led to deciphering many Mayan glyphs). Even today, information has surfaced

that could reveal embedded text in some of the Inca mnemonic recording devices

23
Xin, Yang, Nie Chongzheng, Lang Shaojun, Richard M. Barnhart, James Cahill and Wu Hung, Three
Thousand Years of Chinese Painting, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1997, pages 282-285
24
The rationale here is that it is primitive to abbreviate or abstract the image unless we know, you
know, you are consciously doing it as a sort of aesthetic exercise.
 26

called quipus. But in all these instances, the finds, as spectacular and welcome as

they are, often raise as many questions as they answer.

The pre-Columbian art historian will always work in a historical vacuum: it is our

lot. Renaissance specialists have told me they envy this position because their area of

interest is awash in five hundred years of written sources and monographs. This

concentration of interest through time has made finding a research topic a daunting

task. But for the pre-Columbianist the struggle is finding meaning in the void.

Naturally then the pre-Columbian art historian is attracted to the archaeologist

and the ethnohistorian. These two figures first appear as lights in the void. The

archaeologist is manifested as the confident scientist with sensitive instruments

capable of probing the earth and finding the perpetrator of an event (lets call it a

crime) committed thousands of years in the past. The ethnohistorian is the

quintessential interrogator, skilled in languages and adept in understanding the daily

activity of a given community. The ethnohistorian is also intimate with a most

controversial source, the informant.

I am, of course playing with a crime scene metaphor. This facetious dialogue is

somewhat reminiscent of Kent Flannerys discourse involving the Real

Mesoamerican Archaeologist, the Great Synthesizer and the Skeptical Graduate

Student, but I have changed the characters and the forum.25 Not that all pre-

Columbian studies are like a crime but most investigations involve silent perpetrators

and victims. In pre-Columbian studies we really have no direct notes or confessions

left by the actors and the evidence is for the most part circumstantial. Also the crime

25
Flannery, Kent V., editor, The Early Mesoamerican Village. Academic Press, Orlando, 1976
 27

scenes are often remote and neglected, and we are led to these areas not by our

instincts, but always by an informant.

The crime analogy is worthwhile and, as a North American, irresistible. We have

been obsessed with crime scenes since the days of Edgar Allan Poe. So then isnt it

correct to present the archaeologist, the forensic specialist, and the ethnohistorian, the

skilled interrogator, as better equipped for the investigation than the art historian? I

would say no.

Why then no? For an example in pre-Columbian and in particular Andean

studies, I only need refer to the dispute between processual (science based

archaeology) and post-processual (post-modern) archaeology. Many Andean

archaeologists are convinced of impartiality concerning their scientific method. A

post-modern understanding that the individual's thoughts and feelings will always be

imbedded in the research is disavowed. I am sure much of this resistance has to do

with the nature of Andean studies. Travel and work in the Andean region is often

difficult and dangerous. Roads to all but the most famous sites are treacherous, and

car and bus rides are grueling. Obtaining the proper permits from the correct

government agency seems sometimes impossible, and weather and politics can be life

threatening. Often the basic problems of eating, sleeping and bathing can completely

occupy ones time. Andeanists take pride in being a resilient breed. Therefore,

Andeanists do not have time for complex western centric theories centered on doubt

and uncertainty, and as Terry Eagleton has aptly put it there is always something

rather navel-staring and narcissistic about theory.26 But I believe the archaeologist, the

forensic specialist, inevitably has to go through a post-modern deconstruction and

26
Terry Eagleton, After Theory, Basic Books, New York, 2003, page 27
 28

reemerge, not as a supposedly unbiased scientist, but instead as a highly skilled

individual very aware of his or her shortcomings (the post processual archaeologist).

Andean scholarship nears this paradigm shift every day. So the archaeologist is not a

light to blindly follow in the void. But the archaeologist is an asset to the art historian.

And considering the exponential technological advancements of the past few decades,

an asset growing daily in importance.

And what about the ethnohistorian? Could this interrogator and master of the all-

important informer perhaps light the void? Maybe a bit, but again circumspection is

necessary. The ethnohistorian can provide insight, but blindly following this light is

also equally unwise. For an example I need only refer to Alcide dOrbignys 1839

book Voyage dan lAmerique Meridionale. This text contains an account of a local

guide who led dOrbigny to the now famous Gateway of the Sun at Tiwanaku,

Bolivia.27 After dOrbignys pilgrimage, the monument received a steady flow of

distinguished visitors including Angrand, Tschudi, Squire, Von Stubel, Bennett and

Posnansky. Posnansky even became obsessed with the structure. A quick read of his

Tiahuanaku Cradle of the American Man reflects his monomania concerning the

Gateway of the Sun. This mania is curious considering the object of his fixation The

Gateway of the Sun is a block like gray slab less than seven feet high. We have no

idea of the original location, and today some scholars believe the monument was

never completed.28 I therefore would like to blame Posnanskys fixation on the

27
See DOrbidny, M. Alcide. Voyage dans les Deux Amriques. Furne et Cie, Paris 1854, pages 293-
294
28
Stbel, Alfons and Max Uhle, DieRuinensttte von Tiauanaco im Hochlande des alten Per: Eine
kulturgeschichtliche Studie auf Grund selbsstndiger Aufnahmen, Verlag von Karl W. Hiersemann,
Leipzig, 1892 and Protzen and Nairs article The Gateways of Tiwanaku: Symbols or Passages? in
Silverman, Helaine and William H. Isbell editors, Andean Archaeology II: Art, Landscape and Society,
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 2002
 29

original informer who guided dOrbigny. After all, an informer originally took the

Frenchman to the site and somehow convinced him of the monuments importance.

The monument at this time lay broken and buried. But after dOrbigny wrote about

The Gateway of the Sun and published a drawing, a steady flow of intellectual

pilgrims was assured. Even though the informant had no knowledge whatsoever of

this civilization, and even though these enigmatic people had disappeared from the

altiplano more than twelve centuries ago, the informant was dOrbignys guide and

expert witness. This particular local informant has influenced the scholarship

concerning the Gateway of the Sun for centuries. I am probably correct in saying

before Hiram Bingham was led to Machu Picchu, once again by an informant; the

Gateway of the Sun at Tiwanaku was the most famous pre-Columbian attraction in

South America!

Do my reservations about the dependence on informants mean I see no

connection between the people of the various regions where pre-Columbian sites exist

today and those pre-Columbian cultures of the past? Absolutely not! I am very proud

that the previously mentioned father of archaeology in the Americas, John Lloyd

Stephens, was the first enlightened traveler to make the ethnographic connection

between the ancient Maya and the people of the 19th century farms and villages of

Central America and Mexico. Stephens removed the blinders of racism and noted the

regal faces carved on the monuments and the faces of the poor farmers from these

communities were one and the same. But this correlation does not mean an ancient

Maya scribe or prince has anything in common with a contemporary shaman or

community leader. The ancient Maya culture disappeared hundreds of years before
 30

the conquest of the region by the Spanish. Many of the remaining cultural artifacts

were then destroyed in Bishop Landas book burning tour through 16th century

Mexico and Central America. The next few hundred years of disease, missionaries,

colonial overlords and warfare completed the cultural devastation.

In the Andes, like Mesoamerica, disease, overzealous inquisitors and warfare also

profoundly disrupted the pre-Columbian landscape. Yet today ethnohistorians connect

many ancient and modern communities by their subsistence and survival strategies.

This connection is perhaps valid because the Andean subsistence farmer, the

campesino, is obliged to use pre-Columbian strategies. No other solution is

economically viable. If you live, for instance, on a farm in highland Peru, you quickly

learn all effort is taken not to spend cash, plata. Food that is grown is for

consumption and barter. Selling produce for cash is incredibly difficult.29 Therefore,

the campesino has to use many ancient methods for survival, because there simply is

no plata for the many non-consumable necessities.

Even though his theories are urban not agriculturally based, Peruvian economist

Hernando de Soto has recorded the inability of the third world poor to accumulate

capital. The Peruvian farmer certainly fits into his schematic. Without property rights

and a system of lending in place the campesino is restricted from access to the

modern world. For an example we only need to refer to protein consumption in the

cordillera. In this protein deficient mountainous environment the campesino continues

the Andean practice of farming guinea pigs. When a member of the campesinos

29
Nugent, David, Modernity at the Edge of Empire: State, Individual, and Nation in the Northern
Peruvian Andes, 1885-1935, Stanford University Press, 1997, page 27, has stated that even for the elite
haciendas of the region their defining characteristic is subsistence rather than market orientation.
 31

family is sick non-western30 medicinal methods are often employed. All these

solutions require no cash. In almost every case Ive seen if the campesino had the

extra cash for a few chickens or a doctor from the local municipality he would pay.

The campesinos survival strategy is in place because of dire economic conditions, an

almost complete lack of capital, and not because the strategy presents a profound

solution to daily existence. The idea that the ancient Andean methods suffice in this

modern world is a romantically flawed viewpoint.

Another example of the gulf between ancient and modern can be seen in use of

building material in present day Chachapoyas. In this area, many campesinos have

built their homes from the cut stones of a nearby ruin. These stones are not assembled

to form a symmetrical Chachapoya circular house (Fig. 16b.), but instead the

masonry is haphazard and makeshift.31 Similarly while modern Andean strategies of

survival adapted from ancient methods are in use today, they are hollow performances

of desperation devoid of meaning.

The ethnohistorian is then no guiding light either. Many times the

ethnohistorians intimate relationship with the community and the informer can work

against him or her. The ethnohistorian can also develop a romanticized sense of

30
I have to add here that I believe people in the West overly depend on doctors and maybe an herbalist
could be of help to many western patients. In my analogy above Im referring to the time when a child
has an uncontrollable fever or maybe a family member contracted cholera. In these cases a doctor and
anti-biotics are, without doubt, live saving.
31
Chachapoya enthusiast Morgan Davis studied reconstruction of a pre-Columbian Chachapoya
circular dwelling also demonstrated ancient building methods were all but forgotten. (See Davis,
Morgan, A Photographic Essay Demonstrating the Construction Techniques Employed in a Typical
Circular Habitation in the Northeastern Highlands of Peru, Monetville, Canada, unpublished, 1989)
Davis also noted the French traveler Charles Wiener observed a circular house standing and in use in
the community of la Jalca Grande in 1881. This villages inhabitants are probably descendants of non-
Chachapoya Quechua speaking mitmakuna (forced migratory labor under Inca rule) and therefore
they were probably resettled here after 1475. So again while an original structure could be perhaps be
maintained on some level, the techniques for its construction were lost.
 32

continuity in his or her field of interest. To me this false sense of continuity is a major

flaw in pre-Columbian and in particularly Andean studies.

After all this talk about the archaeologist and the ethnohistorian, where then does

the art historian fit into this problem? Since it is my metaphor, and I am an art

historian, the answer is simple. The art historian is the lead investigator. It is the art

historians responsibility to edit raw information from the forensic expert and the

interrogator. The art historian must then use his or her philosophical training

(intuition) to assemble the most compelling evidence. Perhaps then those western

patterns of development I initially downplayed (the Greek miracle, the development

of one point perspective in painting and the modern tendency to abstraction) can be

applied to the investigation with effect. What the art historian is seeking is the

hunch from which he or she can develop theories. Solution of the crime is not the

focus but instead the focus is referencing past patterns and developing motive.

8. My Method

Before I close this chapter, I need to spend a little time discussing this art

historians theoretical makeup, because I believe a systematic reflection on ones

guiding assumptions is indispensable!32 Pierre Bourdieus Distinction was and is a

major influence on my thinking, not because I enjoyed endless surveys about popular

French culture in the sixties. I do not. Instead I was impressed by Bourdieus text

because I was fascinated with the almost mathematical precision in which he used

things, places and people to establish class conflict in modern French culture. The

32
See Eagleton (2003) page 2
 33

particular categories of class signifiers treated in Distinction are now dated33, but

Bourdieus search for habitus or social space resonates with my own personal

experiences. Habitus is a concept developed by Bourdieu. It is a product of his

distinctive blend of structuralism and Marxism.34 Briefly you are born and raised into

your particular social construct, your habitus. This environment influences your

perceptions of the world. One can shake off these influences but only with great

effort. So if for instance if one was born into a working class neighborhood in the

United States it would require great effort on someones part to become a professional

ballet dancer because access to this discipline is restricted by economics and

geography.35 But even though Distinction had a profound impact on me, I do not

consider myself a structuralist.

But I find the Marxist aspect of Bourdieus work very appealing. I am not sure

how I have specifically applied these ideas to pre-Columbian architecture. Maybe my

framing for the site of Kuelap belies subtle Marxist ideology (an elite enclave), or

perhaps Bourdieus idea of a reconversion strategy is apparent in my later discussion

of Chachapoya military retainers in service to the Inca Empire. Loosely defined

Bourdieus reconversion strategy is a set of changes by which a group reaffirms

power.36 For an example of this strategy in the United States consider a powerful

New England familys move of capital from banking to oil in the later part of the

33
Patrick Baerts discussion of quantum mechanics (the format has value even though it does not allow
for precise predictions, see Baert, Patrick, Social Theory in the Twentieth Century, New York
University Press, 1998, pages 180-181) could be applied with effect to Bourdieus theories.
34
See Baert (1998) pages 28-29
35
Remember this social construct is very sensitive to culture. For instance change the working class to
Russian and the idea of a professional ballet dancer coming from this part of society is not uncommon.
36
Bourdieu, Pierre, Distinction, a Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Translated by Richard
Nice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1984, page 125
 34

twentieth century. Pre-Columbian examples are much harder to imagine but the idea

of some part of Chachapoya society benefiting by serving the ruthlessly repressive

Inca Empire hints of this strategy.

One might question my dependence on Marxist theory because of my reference

to De Sotos The Mystery of Capital. De Sotos principles of applying capitalism in

the third world are completely at odds with previously mentioned theories. That is

fine. I do not want to be dogmatic in my philosophical approach. I understand

precision needs to accompany the application of any Marxist ideology in the pre-

Columbian Andean environment. Simply put, ideas can and have gone astray in the

Andes. For example, Jose Carlos Mariategui's indigenous Marxist utopia had a

profoundly disturbing influence on modern Peruvian culture. Mariategui was the

source of the view that the Inca world was a perfect Marxist society. Mariategui was

the father of the indigenous movement in Latin America, which yearned for a past

that never existed. The movement did so in protest to the injustices and brutality of

the Spanish rule in the New World. But while Mariategui furiously denounced

Spanish labor practices in colonial Peru, he failed to condemn the Inca states forced

labor relocations (mitmaqkuna). This Inca practice along with the societal disruption

they caused by imperial conquest, was indicative of a decidedly disharmonious pre-

Columbian environment. Also, from the perspective of this dissertation, historical

documents indicate that the Chachapoya suffered greatly at the hands of the Inca and

on two different occasions the Inca possibly planned a campaign of genocide against

them.37 In addition, Mariateguis philosophy has been blamed for the rise of the
37
See Garcilaso de la Vega, Royal Commentaries of the Incas and General History of Peru, Part I,
Translation and Introduction by Harold Livermore. Forward by Arnold J. Toynbee, University of Texas
Press, Austin, 1966, page 556 and Waldemar Espinoza Soriano, Los seoros tnicos de Chachapoyas
y la alianza hispano-chacha, Revista Histrica, Tomo XXX, Lima, 1967, footnote on page 260
 35

sendero luminoso. This Marxist group, active in the 1980s and led by philosophy

professor Abimael Guzmn, was responsible for a Peruvian civil war in which 60,000

people perished.38 Therefore, the application of my social critique is without dogma,

and applied with caution.

I am not concerned with Marxist utopias and I do not want to romanticize any

group or movement. If I have a Marxist agenda I do not flaunt it arrogantly and I do

not wear it prominently like some misunderstood martyrs tee-shirt image. My

Marxism would instead be an undergarment, insulating me from the chill of the

human condition. It would quietly remind me that those in power consolidate and

limit access to that power, and revolutions often end in Bourdieus previously

mentioned reconversion strategy. In other words those with power retain and

reconsolidate and those without pay for the revolts bill. But I will never relinquish

hope!

Like many other scholars, the work of Walter Benjamin has had an impact on my

thinking. His quote

There is no document of civilization, which is not equally and at the same time a
document of barbarism.39

resonates throughout this work. For the purposes of this dissertation the word

imperialism has replaced the word civilization. So then there is no document of

imperialism, which is not equally and at the same time a document of barbarism. The

Chachapoya were just one of historys countless imperial victims. Yet to view the
38
Stern, Peter A. Sendero Luminoso: An Annotated Bibliography of the Shining Path Guerrilla
Movement, 1980-1993. New Mexico : SALALM Secretariat, General Library, University of New
Mexico, 1995
39
Benjamin, Walter. Illuminations, Schocken Books, New York, 1968, page 256
 36

violent change coming from imperial conquest as completely negative is simplistic

and incorrect. Marilyn Norconk and Bruce Owen documented advances in the basic

standard of living as the Inca Empire expanded through the central highlands of

Peru.40 And even the most ruthless expansionistic Empires (the Romans, the Incas,

and the Nazis) build roads and public works that ultimately benefited the vanquished.

Perhaps some cultures gained more from Inca conquest than others? I will return to

this question later in this study.

As a North American, I am also very aware of the cultural imperialism often

inflicted on Latin American scholars. In my first few visits to Peru, I quickly learned

that the funding provided by western institutions is almost beyond belief to many

Peruvian academics. Even though these Andeanists publish volumes of important

books and papers every year, financial resources are out of reach to all but a handful.

Therefore I have to add this dissertation would have been impossible without the

previous work of the Peruvian scholars like Waldemar Espinoza Soriano, Arturo Ruiz

Estrada, Alfredo Narvaez, Federico Kauffmann Doig, Sonia Guilln and Adriana Von

Hagen.

I have made a point of studying the modern history and culture of my host

country, Peru. When I see a street sign in a Peruvian town that reads Grau, I think of

the admiral and the valiant futility of his stance in the War of the Pacific. I know

when the loudspeakers in a small pueblo play la Marseilles it is the rallying song for

the Aprista political party and not for the visit of some French official. Finally, I am
40
See Bruce Owens & Marylin Norconk in Earle, Timothy, Archaeological Field Research in the
Upper Mantaro, Peru, 1982-1983; Investigations of Inca Expansion and Exchange. Institute of
Archaeology, University of California, Monograph 28. Los Angles, 1987, page 110, appendix 1. In
their table the burials of older individuals increase which is indicative of a longer life span. On page
101 there is also an interesting discussion the nutritional benefit of increased protein (camelid)
consumption among non-elites after the Inca conquest.
 37

constantly amazed at the variety and quality of Peruvian cuisine, which is simply

some of the best the world has to offer. Everyday Peruvian food proves you dont

have to be rich to eat like a king. In short, I have tried to be a good guest. However, I

do not at all think my visitors visa makes me a less capable Andeanist. Hearing the

term gringo serves as a daily reminder that Im an outsider. I was once told that as a

gringo I have the luxury of being a clown. But clown is not quite correct. Fool is

correct. But fool in the classic Shakespearean sense.41 The fool in the play has the

ability to go places others cannot go and to say things others cannot say. A gringo is

like this in Peru, able to bypass Perus rigid social order (Bourdieu could have written

a three volume tome on Peruvian culture) and turn up in the strangest places. For

example, I often discuss my travels in Chachapoyas with friends who live on the

coast of Peru and they always marvel each year when I return in one piece. Their

Peruvian reality, I think, denies them access to remote areas, whereas my naivet (I

prefer open-mindedness) equips me with a certain sense of audacity. I do however

have to add that each year when I return to Peru I am more mindful of my

surroundings and obligations. In short I feel my sense of foolish freedom slipping

away and being replaced by a structuralism. But change is good. In any case, I cherish

the knowledge gained in my first years of blundering.

The theoretical tone of this work post-modernist. This post modern nod is not

meant to be coy or nihilistic (refer to the discussion of post processual archaeology

and nihilism in the introduction). Post modernism is a complicated critique of

Western philosophy. The language of post modern texts is often dense as the

arguments are subtle. I will try here to be neither. To me the easiest way to explain the
41
 38

post modern position in this dissertation is to play with the relationship between

science and philosophy. The science I am referring to is theoretical physics. This

relationship between the two disciplines was demonstrated by Kubler when he used

the similarities between philosophy and physics in his art histories. (Neils Bohr

principle of complementarity {multiple answers for the same question} was

exemplified in his work).42 Here I am not concerned with complementarity but instead

the dialogue between Einstein, and his view of relativity, and Neils Bohr, and his

quantum theory. The theory of Relativity is much like classic philosophical

constructions from Plato to Kant and onward. The proofs are elegant and the system

seems to appeal to a higher sense of order. Quantum mechanics is like post

modernism in that the proofs give one a sickening feeing of disorder that seem to

mock the limits of comprehension.

In a famous dialogue between the two physicists, Einstein responded to quantum

mechanics uncertainty by saying God does not play dice with the cosmos. Bohr's

answer was to tell Einstein dont tell God what to do. Well imagine the same

dialogue but substitute Kant for Einstein and lets say Derrida for Bohr. Einstein

(Kant) has taken on the viewpoint of the God because he is backed up by an elegant

theoretical standpoint. Derridas (Bohrs) comments simply refer to the hubris of

Einsteins statement in which he speaks for the Almighty. In other words no one can

speak from this infallible viewpoint no mater how seemingly perfects their science or

philosophy. I think few people would argue with this statement.

42
Reese, Thomas F. editor, Studies in Ancient American and European Art: the Collected Essays of
George Kubler. Yale University Press, 1985, editors introduction and pages 293, 294, 411, 416 and
420
 39

Unfortunately many academic texts tend to be positioned like Einsteins

statement. This prime mover stance is ubiquitous in scientific (and almost all

archaeological) prose. I wanted to avoid this stance in this dissertation (particularly

since my discipline is art history). This dissertation then is from my particular point

of view. I have made no attempt to impersonalize the language or tone in this

dissertation because it is a very personal study. The use of I and the asides are

intentional. I want the reader to be able to view the rationale for my insights: to

almost see the gears as they turned in my head when I wrote this work. Some might

think this perspective flaws this study. From my stance I think denying this position

flaws this study. Certainly the voice of this text leaves the work open to criticism. I

think that is beneficial. So with all the above discussions in mind I now turn my

attention to the architecture of Kuelap.

 40

CHAPTER THREE

THE SETTING

9. The Distinctive Andean Environment

I challenge someone to find a study of the Andean region that does not begin with

a detailed narrative about the unique environment. My study will be no different.

While some of the descriptions in this chapter could pertain to Columbia, Ecuador

and Bolivia, my concern is solely Peru, and particularly the northeastern region of

this country.

Peru is a remarkable land of topographic change, and every time I make the trip

from the northeastern United States to Peru I am in awe of its diversity. From the

vicinity of New York City you could travel 500 miles in any direction and experience

little or no change in the general landscape. Deciduous forest, wooded lakes, large

slow moving river networks and ancient green covered hills, sometimes called

mountains, are the standard. In contrast, if you travel 150 miles inland from Perus

western desert coast you are confronted with a dazzling array of different landscapes

the world has to offer. As you push east arid coastal dunes, much of the year shrouded
 41

in cold fog manufactured by the arctic Humboldt Current, rapidly give way to the

parched foothills of the Andes. These foothills then climb to become the western

cordillera of the Andes. This range is just out of reach of the ever threatening

moisture from the eastern lowlands, and this range adds to the fog umbrella (created

when the frigid Humboldt Current hits the tropical air of the Peruvian coast) that

keeps rainfall from Perus desert coast.43

Changes occur in this climatic zone once every ten years or so when the artic

Humboldt Current gets pushed away from Peruvian coastal waters by a warm

northern flow. This event is known as the El Nio-Southern Oscillation or ENSO

event. The El Nio event ushers in severe and destructive climatic changes for the

desert coast of Peru. (Indeed El Nio has an effect on a good portion of Latin America

and North America, but the coast of Peru is the epicenter for this phenomenons

devastation.) Archaeologists have postulated that these climatic transformations have

been responsible for the rise and fall of pre-Columbian polities on the coast of Peru.44

However, this event has very little effect on the eastern slopes of the Andes and is

therefore not a factor for cultural change in the pre-Columbian Chachapoyas.

After the western cordillera the terrain changes to puna. Andean puna is basically

high mountain desert, baked by the sun during the day and frigid by night.45 This is a

flat monotonous setting of wind blown ichu grassland, and the preferred environment
43
DAltroy, Terence, The Incas, Blackwell Publishers, Malden Massachusetts, 2002 page 28. As the
air warms up over land, the relative humidity drops so quickly that rain almost never falls near the
coast.
44
See Moche Art and Archaeology in Ancient Peru, Joanne Pillsbury editor, National Gallery of Art,
Yale University Press, New Haven, 2001, page 12
45
See Troll, Carl, The Cordilleras of the Tropical Americas: Aspects of Climatic,
Phytogeographical and Agrarian Ecology in Geo-Ecology of the Mountainous Regions of the
Tropical Americas, Carl Troll editor, Ferd. Dummlers Verlag, Bonn, 1968, Troll lists four types
of puna: moist, dry, thorn and desert. Much to the ecologists chagrin, in this study I will not be
ecologically correct and I will adhere to my less specific generalization.
 42

of the four species of South American camelids: the llama, the alpaca, the guanaco,

and the vicuna.

Following the puna east in northern Peru, the landscape again transforms as you

reach the Maraon River canyon. The flow of the Maraon is south/north and this

river changes name when it turns east to become the Amazon. The Maraon has

through millennia worn down the mountains from its origin in the snow covered

Callejn de Huaylas, to its eastern turn toward the selva (rain forest) at Bagua. This

canyon is a geographical wonder and the journey into and out of it from Celendin to

Leymebamba is spectacular! After Celendin the terrain drops more than 2,000 meters

to meet the Maraon River at the town of Balsas. Balsas and the region of the playa

Maraon are heat-soaked and parched. However, the irrigation farming of this region

produces tasty fruit like mangos and the excellent coca used by the highland

campesinos. This canyon, in addition to its beauty, is a west/east barrier and a natural

fortification for the Chachapoyas region. Indeed, David Nugent, in his

anthropological study of modern Chachapoya class structure, called this canyon the

major obstacle separating the region from Perus national political-economic forces.

In his book Nugent highlighted this barriers obstruction of outside influences. This

cultural isolation has continued into and perhaps even amplified in the twentieth

century!46

On the eastern side of the river, the banks climb more than 2,000 meters to an

area damp and green. This is the entrance to area we refer to today as Chachapoyas.

In contrast to the puna, the high flat areas of this region are called jalca. They are

transformed from puna by the incessant rain this flatland receives. Jalca is high wet
46
See Nugent, (1997) page 24
 43

grassland, a swamp or bog, cold and muddy. If then you continue east you would

encounter the eastern cordillera. This is the primary blockade of the moisture from the

lowland rain forest. It is a barrier of wet rock and patchy jalca lush with unique and

beautiful vegetation growing at amazing heights. From this jalca the mountains

descend into the foothills of the eastern cordillera: the region of the montaa. This

cloud forest is a land of rapid and powerful rivers replete with rare animals. Hot days

and cold nights with rainfall ever present are the norm. Finally, our 150-mile journey

ends when the cloud forest declines into the trackless Amazon basin.

This is a brief highlight of the trip from Trujillo through Cajamarca to

Leymebamba, in the Peruvian Department of Amazonas, and beyond. Today there are

three primary routes into the pre-Columbian Chachapoya landscape. The northern

highway begins in Chiclayo, on the north coast of Peru, and passes through one of the

lowest points in the western cordillera: the sweltering Bagua valley. The road then

continues up from this humid lowland plane, less than 1,000 meters above sea level,

to the Utcubamba River. The highway then follows the Utcubamba southward until it

finally climbs to the modern city of Chachapoyas located at about 2,300 meters. This

major artery continues on to the lowland centers of Rioja, Moyobamba (capital of the

Department of San Martin), Tarapoto and finally ending in Yurimaguas. The highway

into Chachapoyas was completed in 196147, but the real impediment of access to the

Department was surmounted after WW II when suspension bridges were built across

the Maraon and the region was opened to vehicular traffic. By bus the trip to the city

of Chachapoyas takes approximately ten hours from Chiclayo. The pass this route

47
See Nugent, (1997) page 24
 44

takes through the Andes lacks the spectacular vistas and drops of the road from

Cajamarca to Leymebamba. However, it is quick and efficient.

The city of Chachapoyas and the northern part of the Utcubamba, including

Kuelap, generally receive less rainfall than the southern part of this valley.

Leymebamba, which is three hours south of the city of Chachapoyas, seems to always

have persistent showers and I have never visited the town without experiencing at

least one wet day in every three. Generally speaking, this entire area of northeast Peru

has a dry season from May to August. In the time period of September to December

the mornings are normally clear but afternoon rainfall is typical. January to April the

rain is more or less constant. Traveling east from the city of Chachapoyas, montaa

ultimately becomes lowland rain forest. This area is a region of omnipresent rain.

The third road leading to the Chachapoya region is the seldom traveled southern

route. This road crosses the Maraon about 100 km south of Balsas. By car this

journey would again begin in Trujillo then proceed up over the cordillera. After the

cordillera the road crosses the Puna to Huamachuco, then down once again into the

Maraon canyon and across the river at Pias.48 For Chachapoya scholars this route is

the starting point for the difficult trip to the ruins of Abiseo.49 The topography of the

southern route displays the same general characteristics (cordillera, puna, steep river

canyon, montaa then rain forest) as the route from Cajamarca to Leymebamba. But

because this route is farther south in Peru the mountain landscape is generally at a

higher altitude.50
48
The north and central routes I know from experience, but so far I have not traveled on the southern
route further than Huamachuco.
49
Gene Savoy called this ruin Gran Pajaten. See Savoy, Gene, The Antisuyu the Search for the Lost
Cities of the Amazon, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1970
50
In Peru generally speaking the farther south you travel (inland not on the coast) the higher the
altitude.
 45

10. Puna And Pramo Andes

This then is a brief description of some of the different ecological zones and

entrances into the pre-Columbian Chachapoya region. The enormous diversity of this

area defies categorization but Carl Trolls model of puna Andes and pramo

Andes, later amplified by Salomon, merits attention. (See Appendix C) Troll

outlined a system of classification separating the southern Andean highlands from the

northern highlands. In the south the altitudes are dry and often have frost, while in the

north the highlands are wet and therefore do not freeze.51 This model does not exactly

define the Chachapoyas area because there are stretches of puna from Cajamarca to

Celendin and from Quirivilca east to Huamachuco. However, although this system

was designed primarily to distinguish between one, the highlands of Peru, and two,

the highlands of Ecuador and Colombia, the broad area of pre-Columbian

Chachapoyas generally conforms to Trolls classification. I will return to a more

complete discussion of Trolls topographical observations at the end of this

dissertation.

11. Andean Prehistory

Before we can highlight what we know of the pre-Columbian Chachapoya

people, I need to briefly trace the chronological development of the major Andean

cultures. This will give a time and space perspective to our discussion. The prehistory

51
For the Chachapoyas region a better classification would be Jalca Andes because the high wet
swampland is the Chachapoya counterpart for the high desert puna.
 46

of the Andean region generally starts around 13,000 BC when humans reached this

region. (Appendix B) Mummification began with the Chinchorro fisher folk of Chile

around 5,000 BC and beautiful ceramics were made in Ecuador in 3,000 BC.52

But my outline of pre-Columbian cultures will begin with and focus on Peru. The

focus of prehistory in Peru is the coast. After 1,000 BC the attention of Andean

scholarship vacillates from coast to highland. This shift in consideration seems linked

to the complexity and size of a culture. Also, the attractiveness of a cultures artifacts

is in direct proportion to the attention lavished upon said culture. Although this

statement is a dissertation topic in itself, an example of this leaning is apparent in

both Maya and Moche studies. Maya research eclipses all other pre-Columbian

studies in the western imagination largely because of the beauty of the cultures

material goods. The Moche culture of the North East Peruvian coast is roughly

comparable to this Mesoamerican example.

Concerning the development of complex polities, Andean prehistory has a

markedly coastal predisposition.53 Although the appearance of ceramics in coastal

Peru lagged behind Ecuador by fifteen hundred years, complex cultures created

massive architecture along the Peruvian coast during this Formative epoch. In all

other prehistoric developing centers of the world, Nile Valley, Indus River, China

Mexico and Mesopotamia, architecture of this kind is closely related to the

productivity of agrarian societies. In other words you need to have lots of crops to

52
Valdivia culture in Ecuador developed ceramics in the 4th millennium BC. See Keatinge, Richard W.,
Peruvian Prehistory: An overview of Pre-Inca and Inca Society, Cambridge University Press, 1988
53
I say for now because of work at the site of Caral which is located about 15 miles inland from the
marine abundant Pacific. This site with its large corporate architecture defies the maritime resource
model. This is a very topical discussion see, for instance Solis, Ruth Shady, J. Haas and W. Creamer.
Dating Caral, a Preceramic Site in the Supe Valley on the central Coast of Peru in Science Magazine,
# 292, April 27 2001, pages 723-6
 47

feed all the mouths building the pyramid. But in Peru it has been suggested that the

abundant maritime resources created by the cold and fertile Humboldt Current waters

fed these early population centers.54

In the highlands at this time, 1,800 BC, cultures generally developed more slowly

and on a much smaller scale. But, highland pre-history is an understudied era

probably because of the difficulty archaeologists encounter when working in this

environment.55 But scholars could not ignore the change that occurred in the Andes

around 1,000 BC with the development of the Chavin horizon.56 Chavin was a

Peruvian highland culture that scholars consider a religious cult because of its

nebulous but far-reaching influence.57 The center, Chavin de Huantar (and perhaps I

should include Kuntur Wasi), is in north central Peru. As I previously stated, this

culture is assigned to the Early Horizon by Andean scholarship. An Andean horizon is

defined by the recognized distribution of the cultures art style.58 The horizon concept

began in the latter work of Max Uhle, was added to by Alfred Kroeber in the 1940s

and became established as an Andean norm by John Rowe in 1945.59 Basically,

54
This time period is also called the Cotton Pre-Ceramic. Cotton figures prominently in the equation
because it can be used for fishing nets along with the gourd to provide flotation for these nets. See
Lathrap, Donald W., Our Father the Cayman, Our Mother the Gourd: Spinden Revisited, or a Unitary
Model for the Emergence of Agriculture in the New World in Origins of Agriculture, editor C. Reed,
1977 and Moseley, Michael E., The Maritime Foundations of Andean Civilization, Menlo Park, CA,
1975.
55
However some excellent work has been done in Chachapoyas region by Warren Church. In his
dissertation Church used archaeological evidence from Abiseos Manachaqui Cave to outline the
complexity of the montane forest pre-history. See Church, Warren Brooks, Prehistoric Cultural
Development and Interregional Interaction in the Tropical Montane Forests of Peru, Ph.D.
dissertation, Yale University, 1996
56
Michael Moseley has defined the Early Horizon as a time when the highland influence of Chavin de
Huantar was first seen in the ceramic arts of the south coast Ica Valley or 1400-800BC. Moseley,
Michael E., The Incas and Their Ancestors, Thames and Hudson, London, 1992
57
See Burger, Richard L., Chavin and the Origins of Andean Civilization, Thames and Hudson,
London, 1992
58
Phillips, Philip and Gordon R. Willey, Method and Theory in American Archaeology: An
Operational Basis for Culture-Historical Integration in American Anthropologist, #55, 1953, page 625
59
See Stone-Miller, Rebecca, An Overview of Horizon and Horizon Style in the Study of Ancient
American Objects, in Latin American Horizons, Don Stephen Rice editor, Dumbarton Oaks Research
 48

horizons, and the intermediate periods that separate them, are classifying constructs

used by Andeanists to simplify the complexity of more than 3,000 years of pre-

Columbian history. However as we all know history is anything but simple. For

example, Pasztory has pointed out that conquering empires disseminate each horizon

style therefore, the horizon system of grouping cultures rewards imperialism.60 So the

first preeminent Andean culture thus rewarded is then Chavin. Is Chavin then to be

considered an empire? According to Andean specialists no, but Chavin did exert

enough influence in the pre-Columbian world to be deemed a horizon by Andean

scholarship.

Beautiful cut stones assembled in the creation of a labyrinthian temple typify the

site of Chavin de Huantar. Chavin shares artistic similarities with Kuntur Wasi located

to the northwest and the architecture of the New Temple at Chavin is strikingly

similar to a ruin in the pre-Columbian Chachapoya area called Pirca Pirca. (Fig. 5a.)61

The temple complexes at Chavin include a sunken courtyard with stern visaged Teton

heads and contain an underground chamber leading to mysterious rock sculpture. The

iconography of Chavin is incredibly intricate and therefore difficult for the uninitiated

to comprehend. Chavin art and influence was so ubiquitous for a time in ancient Peru

that for most of the twentieth century it was seen as the mother culture of all pre-

Columbian societies to follow.62

Library and Collection, Washington D. C., 1993

60
Pasztory, Esther, An Image is Worth a Thousand Words: Teotihuacan and the Meanings of Style in
Classic Mesoamerica, , in Latin American Horizons, Don Stephen Rice editor, Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection, Washington D. C., 1993, page 139. Even though Chavin is not
considered imperial, the expansionistic aspects of this cult conform to Pasztorys analogy.
61
The possible connection of some or perhaps all of these locations is as yet in its infancy . Thompson,
Savoy, Ocampo, Muscutt and Schjellerup have all wondered about the origin of Pirca Pirca, but no
definitive study has been accomplished.
62
See Tello, J. C., Chavin: Cultura Matriz de la Civilizacin Andina, Publicacin Antropolgica del
Archivo Julio C. Tello de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, II. Lima: UNMSM, 1960
 49

After Chavin, Andean cultural development hit its first temporal valley or

intermediate period around the change of the millennium. As the name suggests these

eras are subordinate to horizons and therefore studied less extensively. For this reason

the body of knowledge concerning the Early Intermediate Period cultures of Paracas

and Nazca is deficient. The fantastic funeral offerings and earth art (from an

airplanes ten thousand-foot perspective) from these cultures serve only as an

interlude until the next horizons emergence. However, in contrast the Moche people

from the north coast of Peru created a civilization which has intrigued and engaged

scholars even though they were an intermediate period people. They defy the

intermediate period stereotype because Moche culture is extensively studied. As I

previously stated the stupendous material and craftsmanship of Moche Art has

apparently saved this culture from typical intermediate period scholarly indifference.63

Cultural development of the next time period, the Middle Horizon, began on the

high flat altiplano of northern Bolivia. Tiwanaku is the name for these people that has

come down through history. In the first chapter I mentioned one of the major

monuments of Tiwanaku, the Gateway of the Sun. Today, some aspects of Tiwanaku

iconography seem to share similarities with Chavin culture. This connection is

apparent in the intricate stonework and fantastic iconography from the Tiwanaku

ruins. But this continuity of horizon styles is perhaps prejudiced toward these

expansionistic societies and therefore the assumed relationship between Chavin and

Tiwanaku iconography could be distorted.

63
See Julien, Daniel G., Late Pre-Inkaic Ethnic Groups in Highland Peru: An Archaeological-
Ethnohistorical Model of the Political Geography of the Cajamarca Region, in Latin American
Antiquity, vol. 4, #3, pages 246-273, 1993, page 247. Here Julien laments the lack of scholastic
attention paid to the Late Intermediate Period (following shortly) and the disinterest towards this eras
less elaborate but more chronologically stable ceramics!
 50

Sometime after 600 AD the southern Peruvian centered culture of Huari became

established as an expansionist power throughout ancient Peru. The Huari influence

stretched from the shores of Lake Titicaca to the outpost center of Viracochapampa

(Fig. 6a.), just west of the Maraon River gorge and possibly beyond.64 The Peruvian

archaeologist Auturo Ruz Estrada suggested in the 1970s that Kuelap was built in

response to the Huari expansion.65He has recently backed off somewhat from this

earlier position,66 but the decline of the Huari influence ushers in the Late

Intermediate Period. This is the era of the Chachapoya.

12. Who Were The Chachapoya?

The Chachapoya was the Inca name for a people and a region. Historian Espinoza

Soriano has called the Chachapoya a unified culture but not a state,67 and Franklin

Pease has suggested that perhaps the order imposed by the conquering Inca around

1475 created Chachapoyas.68 However, by the time the Spanish arrived in 1535, this

ethnic group had experienced more than 50 years of Inca imperial occupation. No

doubt this occupation had a profound impact on these people, and calls into question

such basic information as the extent of their territory and even the name of the

vanquished. An early reference for the name Chachapuya (Chachapoya) is contained

in Garcilasos Commentarios Reales de los Incas. He refers to the Chachapoyas as the

64
Keith Muscutt has suggested Huari influence east of the Maraon. Personal communication 3/16/04
65
See conclusions in Ruiz Estrada, Arturo (1972). Later in this dissertation I will include page numbers
when I reference this document. I have to thank Dr. Peter Lerche for my copy of Ruzs work but this
hard to find document lacks page numbers, so I will also reference the chapter headings from his
Indice General (Table of Contents) when I cite his thesis.
66
Personal communication 7/02
67
Espinoza Soriano, (1967), page 233
68
Pease, Franklin, The Formation of Tawantinsuyu: Mechanisms of Colonization and Relationship
with Ethnic Groups in The Inca and Aztec States, 1400-1800, edited by George A. Collier, Renato I.
Rosaldo and John D. Wirth, Academic Press, New York, 1982, page 189
 51

place of strong men.69 (I will return to this reference in chapter sevens discussion of

Trolls puna/pramo Andes model.) Almost all other early references cite the pre-

Columbian languages of southern Peru and Bolivia and conclude Chachapoyas is

some manifestation of cloud people or people of the clouds.70 This designation is

however far from unequivocal.

The territory we delineate today as pre-Columbian Chachapoyas is again

ambiguous. Ruth Shady Solis set the northern limit when she found Chachapoya

pottery in Bagua during her archaeological fieldwork in the 1970s. The Maraon

River has been established as the western limit of the pre-Columbian Chachapoyas

region. As I previously mentioned the 2,000-meter deep canyon is a tremendous

natural barrier and therefore this western Chachapoya limit is the most defined. The

southern limit was established at the ruin of Abiseo, by the pioneering archaeological

fieldwork of Duccio Bonavia. However the true extent of the Chachapoya culture in

this remote and difficult region is still a matter of conjecture. In the eastern montaa

the same problem with boundaries occurs. Inge Schjellerup, Keith Muscutt and Peter

Lerche have all documented funeral sites in the cloud forest and certainly these three

will someday push the limits of the Chachapoya in this area.71 (Recently, I also

recorded a series of chullpas {funeral houses} in the area of Chilchos about a day east

of Leymebamba. (Fig. 16a.)) However, all that can be definitively stated at this time

69
Garcilaso de la Vega Garcilaso de la Vega, Comentarios Reales de los Incas in Obras Completas del
Inca Garcilaso de la Vega, Biblioteca de Autores Espaoles, Madrid, 1960 [1609], volume I, Chapter I,
page 291
70
Schjellerup has a good discussion of this etymology. See Schjellerup, Inge, (1997) page 25
71
Schjellerup, Inge, The Forgotten Valleys: Past and Present in the Utilization of Resources in the
Ceja de Selva, with Mikael Kamp Sorensen, Carolina Espinoza, Victor Pena, The National Museum of
Denmark Ethnographic Monographs, 2003, Keith Muscutt, Warriors of the Clouds a lost Civilization
in the Upper Amazon of Peru, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, 1998 and Peter Lerche,
Perus Lost Tombs, in National Geographic vol.198, #3, September 2000
 52

is that there was probably a substantial Chachapoya presence in the eastern cloud

forest.

Architectural ruins and material artifacts are the signs we use to define

Chachapoya culture. Chachapoya settlements are typically hilltop settlements of

several to many circular structures. (Fig. 18b.) The Chachapoya made beautiful

highly prized cotton textiles (Fig. 15a.), and coarse dull earthen tone ceramics (Fig.

7a.). This style of pottery was typical for the Late Intermediate Period highlands. I

would venture to say that the material goods from this era share the same reputation

as, for instance, artifacts from early medieval Europe. Beside intricately woven

textiles, Chachapoya artifacts lack artistic invention and precious material. In other

words Chachapoya material goods are a museum curators afterthoughts. The Late

Intermediate Period era of the Chachapoya is also typified as being a balkanized time

of unease and localized conflict. As DAltroy has pointed out:

the settlements of the Late Intermediate Period were situated on high peaks
throughout much of the Andean highlands suggesting that localized conflict was
endemic.72

In other words the population took to the hills after the order of the Middle Horizon

and they only ventured out to obtain the necessities for life. This Andean Dark Age

occurred while the Late Intermediate Period people anxiously awaited the coming of

a new order: the Inca Empire. I am, of course, being a bit facetious. But this

stereotype which highlights the breakdown of order and culture in the Chachapoya

72
DAltroy, (2002) page 206
 53

highland region during this time frame is really not far from the way the Late

Intermediate Period is viewed in Andean studies today.

But the Chachapoya dont really fit any stereotype because they not only peopled

many areas of the highlands, they also populated the eastern forest. The Chachapoya

territory was much larger and more varied than the Inca geographical limit for their

polity. We know from the colonial chronicles the Inca called their empire

Tawantinsuyu or literally the four parts together. These four sections emanated from

Cuzco, which was the Inca geographical and spiritual center of the universe.73

Tawantinsuyu consisted of Cuntisuyu (Cuzco to the Pacific and the far southern coast

of Peru), Kollasuyu (the area south of Cuzco to modern Bolivia, the northern half of

Chile and much of northwest Argentina), Chinchaysuyu (the north and central coast

of Peru including the central highlands, Ecuador and the northern Andes) and

Antisuyu (the forests of the eastern montaa). Interestingly the most famous account

of the Chachapoyas is contained in Gene Savoys book The Antisuyu. Obviously from

the title, Savoy firmly placed the Chachapoya in the eastern forest part of the Inca

Empire. But the Spanish historian Sarmiento de Gamboa wrote in 1572 that the

Chachapoyas was part of Chinchaysuyu.74Also, the Jesuit priest Diego Gonzalez

Holguin categorized Chachapoya as a province in Chinchay suyo (Chinchaysuyu) in

his 1608 Vocabulario de la Lengua Qquichua.75 So is Chachapoyas part of Antisuyu

or Chinchaysuyu? The most correct answer is Chachapoyas was part of both of the

73
See Cobo, Father Bernabe, History of the Inca Empire, University of Texas Press, 1979 [1653],
page 185
74
Sarmiento de Gamboa, Historia de los Incas, Biblioteca de Autores Espaoles, Madrid, 1960 [1572],
page 248
75
Holgun, Diego Gonzlez, Vocabulario de la Lengua General, de todo el Peru Llamada, Lengua
Qquichua o del Inca, introduction by Ral Porras Barrenechea, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San
Marcos, (1608) 1989, page 91
 54

parts. Tawantinsuyu is an Inca map of the world. As such the map seems inaccurate in

recording the size and complexity of Chachapoyas.76 Imperial insensitivity toward a

conquered peoples borders is typical. Take, for example, the Western worlds

colonial era, Imperial lines were often drawn through ethnic territories and names for

these makeshift polities were manufactured.77 So the pre-Columbian world also

suffered this negative aspect of Imperialism when these lines of demarcation were

surreptitiously drawn.

13. The Present Day Geographical Manifestation of Chachapoyas

As I previously mentioned, Chachapoyas is also the name for city of nearly

20,000 inhabitants located in the northern part of the Utcubamba valley. The city is

the capital of the Department of Amazonas. The modern site where the city is located

was established in the early 1540s as San Juan de la Frontera.78 Because

Chachapoyas was relatively close to Pizarros initial contact site of Cajamarca, the

Spanish arrived early in this region. Today the city of Chachapoyas is the axis for

many of the ruins located in the Utcubamba valley. These ruins (Kuelap, Revash,

Macro etc.) are the most immediately available to visitors.

Finally, Chachapoyas is the name for a province, which includes the city, in the

larger Department of Amazonas. The province extends northeast of the city of

Chachapoyas to the province of Rodriguez de Mendoza (also in the Dept. of

76
However DAltroy has pointed out that the Inca often respected ethnic territories because they made
for convenient administrative units. (personal communication (3/21/05)
77
Iraq, an arbitrary state formed by the British and now occupied by the US, has just begun to deal
with its volatile mix of cultures thrown together by colonialism. Also the continuing problem in the
Balkans is another example of makeshift territories.
78
See Libro primero de Cabildos de San Juan de la Frontera de Chachapoyas
 55

Amazonas), and south past Leymebamba to the cordillera and the border with the

Department of La Libertad.

Before leaving the discussion of setting it is worthwhile to review the modern

boundaries for the major pre-Columbian ruins in the area. Vilaya, Kuelap and Revash

are all in Luya province, Department of Amazonas, as are all northern Utcubamba

sites west of the river. The Laguna de los Cndores chullpas, cliffside chullpas of la

Petaca, and Chachapoya settlements la Congona and la Joya are all also in Amazonas.

The spectacular ruin Vira Vira, the enigmatic Pirca Pirca and the ruins around modern

Bolivar are not in Amazonas but instead in the Department of La Libertad. The

capital of this Department is the faraway coastal city of Trujillo. The eastern montaa

sites are even more problematic. Most of the ceja de selva (eyebrow of the jungle)

ruins, including Abiseo, are located in the Department of San Martin. The distant

capital for these areas is the lowland city of Moyobamba. Today the only connection

Moyobamba has with Chachapoya culture is historical. This partial list of

municipalities and capitals I hope can perhaps provide a clue as to the huge

geographical area of pre-Columbian Chachapoyas. The list is also a warning to future

Chachapoya archaeologists: be sure to establish the correct location of the local

authorities.
 56

CHAPTER FOUR

THE RECORD

14. Relevant Chronicles

The history we have today concerning the Chachapoya comes to us through an

Inca filter into a Spanish goblet. That is to say, after the initial activity of conquest

diminished, the Spanish soldiers, scribes, clerics, lawyers and administrators79

79
The chroniclers Blas Valera, Inca Garcilaso de la Vega and Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala, included
in this discussion, had mixed Andean/Spanish ancestry.
 57

gathered information from Inca informants to chronicle their Empire. This knowledge

of the Inca dominion was necessary to establish the Spanish Empires legitimacy of

rule and to assist in creating colonial order. Accounts of vanquished foes, like the

Chachapoya, were included, but never in detail and always from an Inca perspective.

Many narratives from the few dozen or so chronicles we have today contain

conflicting information. This confusion is understandable considering that each

historian who compiled these records depended on a different group of informers.

Also some of the chroniclers copied freely from each other, and footnotes, like

standardized spelling, would have to wait a few more centuries before

implementation. Some of the chroniclers used sources whose existence is purely

legendary to us. I will spend considerable time discussing one such phantom source

Padre Blas Valera. However, I have singled out the following authors because I they

are the most pertinent to the study of Chachapoyas. I have also tried to simplify this

complicated and conflicting information wherever possible.

I will begin my discussion of the chronicles with Padre Miguel Cabello Valboa.

Cabello Valboa began his adult life as a soldier, but later took the vows and became a

priest and missionary. He completed his Miscelanea Antartica in Lima in 1586.

Cabello Valboa traveled extensively in northern Peru and Ecuador. His knowledge of

northern Peru included details of Chimu history from Perus north coast.

Cabello Valboas chronicle is perhaps most famous for being the source for the

chronology of the Inca Empire. As I explained earlier, the expansion of the Inca

Empire began with the Inca ruler Pachacuti. The date for his reign has been taken

from Cabello Valboa and estimated at 1438. Fourteen seventy one is the date for the
 58

tapping (coronation) of his heir Topa Inca, and 1493 is recognized as the date for his

sons (Huayna Capac) secession. Finally, 1528 is the accepted date for the dynastic

war between Huascar and Altawalpa.80 The entire time period for the expansion of

one of the largest empires the world has ever seen is then less than a century.

Recently, some scholars have revised this chronology.81 The adjusted dates of the Inca

expansion would then be 1400 to 1532. This new chronology would push the initial

incursion of Topa Inca into the realm of the Chachapoyas back to perhaps 1450. For

the purpose of Chachapoya studies however, Cabello Valboas history is solely of

importance because it gives us possible dates for the destruction of Chachapoya

culture by the Inca invasion.

Of more interest is the chronicle Pedro Cieza de Leon. Cieza de Leon was

perhaps the greatest sixteenth-century Spanish chronicler. He arrived in Peru in 1542,

ten years after the initial conquest but in time to see the fires of change still

smoldering. He traveled extensively in northern Peru and could have visited

Chachapoyas. Cieza was a soldier trained in the art of war not observation, but his

keen perceptions belied a tremendous intellect and insight. Unfortunately, his

treatment of the Inca encounters in the Chachapoyas is terse. For instance, in the

second part of his Cronica del Peru Cieza recounted how Topa Inca took the road to

Chinchaysuyu and engaged the Chachapoya in this region.82 The entire event is

recorded without any detail. Schjellerup believes this initial invasion had the

80
See DAltroy (2002), page 45 and Rowe, John, Absolute Chronology in the Andean Area in
American Antiquity, #10, 1945. Also see Bauer, B. S. & David S. P. (1995) page 151 which links the
date of the dynastic war with celestial events.
81
Bauer, B. S., The Development of the Inca State, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1992 and
Adamska, Anna and Adam Michcznski, Towards Radiocarbon Chronology of the Inca State in the
Andes". Boletin de la Mission Arqueologica Andina, #1, 1996
82
Cieza de Leon, Pedro, Cronica del Per Primera Parte, Pontifica Universidad Catlica del Per,
Lima, 1984 [1554], page 162
 59

character of a lighting raid rather than a real conquest.83 Certainly the brevity of

Ciezas treatment of Topa Incas campaign must have attributed to the formulation of

her hypothesis. But Cieza did detail the great resistance of the Chachapoya against

Topa Incas successor Huayna Capac. Therefore from Ciezas record the second

incursion into the Chachapoyas appears to stand out as the major conflict of the

Chachapoya against the Inca.84

In contrast to the soldiers existence of Cieza de Leon, Pedro Sarmiento de

Gamboas life is almost unbelievable. According to the Peruvian historian Raul Porras

Barrenechea, Sarmiento was a naval pilot, astrologer, prisoner and explorer. He was

the type of exceptional individual who was capable of completing a history of the

Inca Empire with the same resolve that he put in to embarking on a sea hunt for the

British privateer Francis Drake.85 In other words Sarmiento de Gamboa served the

Spanish Crown in many different ways. He wrote his history of the Inca Empire while

in the service of Viceroy Toledo. Toledo entered into Peruvian history in the later part

of the 16th century during a rebellious era. At this time, the colonial system was

failing and there was a tendency for reversion to the imagined order of the past i.e.,

the Inca Empire. Sarmiento was put to work by the Spanish authority to highlight the

illegitimacy of the Inca Empire, and shatter this political regression. Therefore

83
Schjellerup (1997), p. 73
84
Interestingly, Cieza almost spends more ink describing the whiteness and beauty of the Chachapoya
women as he does describing the Chachapoya conquest. (For example Cieza (1984) page 229, book I,
and page 188, book II) To be fair, a later chronicler Garcilaso de la Vega also remarked on the extreme
beauty of the women in this area. (Garcilaso, (1960) Book VIII, page 325) These references can be
explained as an Inca fetish for the sequestered women. The Inca ruler kept the aqllakuna (Quechua for
chosen or hidden women, DAltroy (2002) page 325) for personal use and for barter. These women
were kept from the devastating rays of the tropical sun. Chachapoyas, with its frequent cloud cover,
naturally allowed for a fair complexion. A banal and ironic modern antithesis would be todays
obsession for a suntan.
85
Porras Barrenechea, Los Cronistas del Per (1528-1650) y Otros Ensayos, Biblioteca Clsicos del
Per, Lima 1986, pages 332-336
 60

Sarmientos record, although considered a major source, is tainted because of his

political agenda.

But to his credit, Sarmiento drew his information from over 100 Inca aristocrats

and record keepers and he had the work publicly read out and verified by forty two

witnesses.86 His Historia Indica has Topa Inca as the conqueror of Chinchaysuyu and

the Chachapoyas. But his account puts the Chachapoyas and Caares together as if

they were the same ethnic group.87 This treatment was obviously influenced greatly

by his informants and considering their Cuzco centric orientation, the specifics of the

Chachapoya conquest should be viewed with skepticism. Sarmientos chronicle

contains a few interesting specifics about the Chachapoya (a fortress Piajajalcain the

southern Chachapoya realm and a Chachapoya chief named Chuqui Sota), but

considering his sources ideological and physical distance from Chachapoyas, the

information lacks credibility. For instance, Sarmiento ends his discussion of the

Chachapoya with an elaborate account of the battle of Pomacocha. This Chachapoya

rebellion was part of the dynastic war between Atahualpa and Huascar.88 Sarmientos

studied retelling of this event as a Chachapoya rebellion is part of an agenda. The

authors separate account of this conflict is a political ploy which emphasizes the

discord in the Andean world before the arrival of the Spanish. Unfortunately

highlighting the battle of Pomacocha in this manner adds credence to the stereotype

of the Chachapoya as a barbarous and rebellious people. But I will discuss this topic

at length later in this dissertation.

86
See DAltroy (2002) page 13
87
Sarmiento de Gamboa, Historia de los Incas, Biblioteca de Autores Espaoles, Madrid, (1572) 1960,
pages 248-249
88
Sarmiento de Gamboa, (1960) [1572], page 267
 61

Carmelite friar Antonio Vazquez de Espinoza traveled to Leymebamba from

Cajamarca in 1615. Vazquez de Espinoza spent some time in the colonial region of

Chachapoyas journeying first to the city of San Juan de la Frontera89 then on to the

village of Luya, in the province of Chillos.90 These excursions would have put

Vazquez in the vicinity of Kuelap, but his Compendio y Descripcion de las Indias

Occidentales is silent concerning the subject. This is curious because from his text it

is apparent Vazquez was impressed with monumental architecture and its construction

even though there can be no doubt his primary purpose in this region was the

salvation of souls. In his record of the New World, Vazquez spent time describing the

stupendous architecture of Saqsahuaman. (Fig. 21a.) This clergyman seems to have

had an appreciation for earthly structures in imitation of the fortress of God. Yet even

though Vazquez came within a few hundred yards of Kuelaps sixty foot walls his

chronicle fails to record the site!91 I cannot stress the importance of Vazquezs lack of

documentation.

But Vazquezs chronicle is more explicit concerning what he didnt say because

throughout Compendio y Descripcion de las Indias Occidentales, he freely cited the

earlier chronicler Garcilaso de la Vega, and his record of the Inca and Chachapoya

conflict was obviously freely copied from this source. Briefly, (I will detail this

account in my discussion of Garcilaso de la Vega) Vazquez has Topa Inca enter the

area of Chachapoyas from the south and proceed northward on a path of conquest.92

89
After 1545 this city becomes the modern city of Chachapoyas.
90
Vzquez de Espinoza, Antonio, Compendium and Description of the West Indies, translated by
Charles Upson Clark, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D. C., 1942, pages 402-408
91
Vzquez de Espinoza, (1942) [1629], pages 565-570
92
Vzquez de Espinoza, (1942) [1629], page 581
 62

He continued his record with a retelling of Huayna Capacs suppression of a

Chachapoya rebellion, which is identical in detail to Garcilasos chronicle.93

15. The Problem of Guaman Poma and Blas Valera

So far I have purposely not listed the pertinent chronicles in chronological order

because I wanted to save Garcilaso de la Vega and Guaman Poma de Ayala for last.

This is because new controversies surround these indigenous authors. Also, I believe

the Comentarios Reales de los Incas of Garcilaso de la Vega is by far the most

important chronicle for the Chachapoya scholar! I cannot emphasize this enough! So

additionally I wanted to save the most important records for last. I will present my

argument for the importance of Garcilasos chronicle when I discuss his text. But first

I will begin this analysis with the account of Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala.

Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayalas autograph manuscript El Primer Nueva

Coronica y Buen Gobierno was discovered in Copenhagens Royal Library of

Denmark in 1908. The document was written in the form of a letter and this 1,189-

page dispatch includes 398 drawings.94 The manuscript was an appeal to King Philip

III of Spain to fix the breakdown of the rule of law and to correct the injustices

inflicted on the indigenous community during the colonial era.95 Rolena Adorno in

Guaman Poma: Writing and Resistance in Colonial Peru refers to Guaman Poma as a

mestizo by culture (but not by race) and adds the author would have been known as an

93
Vzquez de Espinoza, (1942) [1629]., page 585
94
Adorno, Rolena, Guaman Poma: Writing and Resistance in Colonial Peru, second edition with a
new introduction, University of Texas Press, 2000, pages xiii-xiv
95
Adorno, Rolena, (2000), page 7
 63

indio ladino because of his fluency in Spanish and his hispanicized ways.96 Guaman

Poma lived in Huamaga (todays Ayachuco, a Peruvian city in the southern highlands)

and his family had an elevated status in the Andean community. He became literate

with the help of a priest Martin de Ayala; therefore he received no formal training in

letters.97 His use of his hard won literacy in defense of his Andean community has

positioned Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala as an early champion of indigenous rights.

Guaman Pomas chronicle has very little content concerning the Chachapoya. He

credits Huayna Capac as the conqueror of the Chachapoya and the Caares. Guaman

Poma also speculated that Atahualpa was an illegitimate ruler and a bastard from a

Chachapoya mother and his record has the only early colonial image of the

Chachapoya. (Fig. 13.)98 They are depicted about to engage in battle with the Inca

army. The lead Chachapoya warrior is drawn barefoot and scowling. He has unkempt

hair, an earring and a nose ornament fit for a snarling beast. His appearance appears

to elicit shock and revulsion from the cherub-faced Inca opposition.

This unflattering image of the Chachapoya is completely understandable if we

consider Guaman Pomas personal history with them. During the closing years of the

16th century Guaman Poma was engaged in a land dispute with a powerful group of

Chachapoya. These relocated Chachapoya were rewarded with concessions for their

service to the Spanish crown during the early Peruvian colonial upheaval.99 The

concessions were wrought from Guaman Pomas estate, because a court case had

96
Adorno, Rolena, (2000), page xliv
97
Adorno, Rolena, (2000), page xiv
98
Guaman Poma de Ayala, El Primer Nueva Coronica y Buen Gobinero, John V. Murra & Rolena
Adorno editors, translation by Jorge L. Urioste, Siglo Veintiano, Mxico 1980 [1615], page 140
99
For a detailed discussion see Espinoza Soriano, Waldemar, Los Chachapoyas y Caares de Chiara
(Huamanga), Aliados de Espaa, in Historia Problema y Promesa, Pontificia Universidad Catolica del
Peru, 1978
 64

pitted him against the upstart Chachapoya. Although Guaman Pomas claims seemed

to be well grounded,100 he lost the ruling to the ethnic Chachapoya in the year sixteen

hundred. He was therefore publicly stripped of his title of Don Felipe Guaman Poma

de Ayala, and henceforth given the common name Lazaro. As if this stripping of title

was not enough, he was additionally banished from his home Huamaga.101

The humiliation of this court ruling was apparently a major impetus for Guaman

Pomas El Primer Nueva Coronica y Buen Gobierno. (Guaman Poma indeed felt

betrayed by the colonial justice system.) Therefore his history of the Chachapoya is

obviously biased and should be read with caution. To the Chachapoya specialist his

real life dealings with ethnic Chachapoya is more interesting than his record.

Inca Garcilaso de la Vega was born in Cuzco in 1539. His father was a

conquistador and his mother was an Inca noble. Garcilaso was educated in Cuzco and

he lived in that city until 1560. At this time Garcilaso traveled to Spain and never

returned to his home country. Garcilaso, like Guaman Poma, celebrated the time of

the Inca. His writings serve as a philosophical opposite to the account of Sarmiento.102

But as I mentioned previously, Garcilasos record of the Inca conquest of the

Chachapoya is by far the most complete and is also the textual source for Vazquez de

Espinozas Compendio y Descripcion de las Indias Occidentales. However, unlike

Vazquez, Garcilaso never traveled to northern Peru. So where did Garcilaso get the

expertise to write such a record? Garcilasos brief early years in Cuzco inadequately

100
See Prado Tello, Elizas and Alfredo Prado Prado editores, Phelipe Guaman Poma de Ayala; y no ay
[sic] rremedio, Centro de Investigacin y Promocin Amaznica, Lima, 1991
101
See Zorilla A., Juan C., La Posesin de Chiara por los Indios Chachapoyas, Wari Instituto
Nacional de Cultura, Filial Ayacucho, #1, 1977, page 62, f.26v.
102
Porras Barrenechea, (1986), pages 391-394
 65

explain his detailed chronicle of the Inca conquest of the Chachapoya. So who then

was the source for this information?

From his own pen, Garcilaso stated he used fragments of documents written by

the Jesuit priest Blas Valera.103 Blas Valera is an enormously controversial figure in

Andean studies. Even his origin is an intensely debated topic.104 According to the

Society of Jesus records from 16th century Peru, Valera was the son of the

conquistador Luis Valera and a Chachapoya woman Francisca Perez.105 In his

chronicle however, Garcilaso included a passage where Valera stated his fathers

name was Alonso (not Luis) Valera.106 I will return to the question of Valeras father

shortly, but for now I will assume Valera was born in Chachapoyas sometime around

1545.107 With a background like this Valera would then have an intimate knowledge

of Chachapoya history and geography? Unfortunately Valeras writings have

disappeared and all the information that we have today comes down to us rewritten in

Garcilasos Comentarios Reales de los Incas.

Although not a direct source, this information from Valera recorded in Garcilaso

is substantial. Valeras record in Garcilaso contains two complete chapters concerning

the Inca conquest of the Chachapoyas. The first Inca conqueror from this chronicle to

enter the Chachapoya region is Topa Inca. He is recorded entering Chachapoyas from
103
For example, see Garcilaso de la Vega, The Incas: The Royal Commentaries of the Inca, Avon
Books, 1961 [1609], page 296
104
See Hiltunen, Juha J., Ancient Kings of Peru: The Reliability of the Chronicle of Fernando de
Montesinos; Correlating the Dynasty Lists with Current Prehistoric Periodization in the Andes,
Suomen Historiallinen Seura, Helsinki, 1999, page 189 for a discussion of alternate possibilities.
105
Libro de asientos hechos por el Rector de Lima los Padres y Hermanos de la Compania 1560-1610,
recorded in Polo, Jos Toribio, Blas Valera in Revista Histrica, tomo II, Lima, 1906, page 546
106
Garcilaso de la Vega. Historia general del Per, segunda parte de los Comentarios Reales de los
Incas. Biblioteca de Autores Espaoles, Madrid, 1960 [1609] page 53 and See Hyland, Sabine, The
Jesuit and the Incas, the Extraordinary Life of Padre Blas Valera, S.J., University of Michigan Press,
2003, page 234 & 235
107
Hyland has Valera born in the Chachapoya town of Quitaya (northeast of Levanto) in 1544. See
Hyland, (2003), page 9
 66

the south near Pias (see chapter ones description of the southern route to Abiseo).

After minor resistance, the Inca encountered blizzard-like conditions in the highlands

and many Inca soldiers died. After a time Topa Inca continued his path of conquest

northward to Condormarca. In Condormarca and Cajamarquilla (modern day Bolivar)

the Imperial army encountered fierce resistance. (Fig. 5b. shows a fortress-like

construction in this area)108

After Cajamarquilla, Topa Inca again proceeded north and celebrated his victories

and the important Inca festival Inti Rami (feast of the sun). He named the spot

Raymipampa and this designation is the attributed origin of the modern town of

Leymebamba, a few days walk from Bolivar. This festival was probably a welcome

respite after the freezing weather and fighting, and the celebration adds a real human

dimension to this record lacking in the other accounts. Finally the Inca and his force

proceeded up the Utcubamba Valley and attacked Suta and Levanto. This route

coincides with the pre-Columbian trail located on the high eastern hills of the

Utcubamba.109 Suta and Levanto are in the vicinity of Kuelap, but no mention is made

in Valeras account (recorded in Garcilaso) of this site. Kuelap is located on a western

high point off the Utcubamba about a days walk from Levanto. But Topa Inca did not

cross the Utcubamba and instead he turned east and proceeded to conqueror

Moyobamba.110

All these locations correspond to sites in the Utcubamba Valley today, so Valeras

chronicle (recorded in Garcilaso) has a geographical authenticity. As I previously

mentioned the town Leymebamba is likely Topa Incas Raymipampa. Moyobamba is

108
Garcilaso, (1966) pages 478-479
109
I know this trail personally from my many seasons living in the area of Chillo.
110
Garcilaso, (!966), page 480
 67

conveniently Moyobamba, the modern capital of the Department of San Martin.

Therefore, this account of Chachapoya history, full of specific details and written by a

native of the region, is the most accurate record for the specialist!

Valeras retelling (recorded in Garcilaso) of the intended uprising of the

Chachapoya against Huayna Capac is also vivid and full of specific information

lacking in other chronicles. Huayna Capac is recorded traveling to the region because

the rebellious Chachapoya murdered his governors and captains. The account has him

crossing the Hatun Mayo or Great River, the Quechua name for the Maraon, on

rafts. Huayna Capac most likely entered the region at Balsas (see chapter twos

discussion of the central route into the Chachapoyas region). He traveled from Balsas

to the area of Cajamarquilla with a large force in tow intent on the destruction of

these rebellious subjects.111 This was a perilous time for the Chachapoya because the

Inca could devastate the region or perhaps scatter this ethnic group to the Four Parts

of the Empire. But the Chachapoya, who were in hiding, afraid of the wrath of the

Inca, were saved from these fates when a matron of Cajamarquilla, a former

concubine of his father Topa Inca, intervened and pleaded for the lives of her people.

The Incas anger was appeased by the heroism of this womans gesture and he

relented. The chronicle then records that Huayna Capac was so touched by the event

he ordered a shrine erected to commemorate the matron of Cajamarquillas valor.112

111
Garcilaso, (1960) [1609], book IX, chapter VII, page 341
112
Garcilaso, (1960) [1609], book IX, chapter VII, page 342, the central structure of this memorial was,
according to Valera (recorded in Garcilaso), to be made of fine cut Cuzco style stone. The building in
question has been perhaps identified. In 1995 Peter Lerche published a plan of a rare Inca fine cut
stone structure in the eastern montaa a few days from Cajamarquilla. (see Lerche, Peter, Los
chachapoya y los smbolos de su historia, Lima, 1995, pages 64-65) I followed up on Lerches
hypothesis by presenting a paper on this site at the 19th Annual East Coast Conference on Andean
Archaeology and Ethnohistory. In the paper I reinforced the identification of this site as a shrine to the
Matron of Cajamarquilla, by bringing in arguments from Susan Niles, The Shape of Inca History:
Narrative and Architecture in an Andean Empire, University of Iowa Press, 1999. Briefly, Niles used
historical accounts and specific architectural sites around Cuzco to portray Huayna Capac as an
 68

Again this event, with all its specificity, is found only in Valeras testimony recorded

in Garcilaso.113 Sabine Hylands recent biography of Blas Valera portrays the Jesuit as

a young man greatly influenced by his mother. So it is possible that a historian thus

inclined could have spent time recounting the details of the Matron of Cajamarquillas

heroism.114

In summary, Valeras record recorded in Garcilaso de la Vegas Comentarios

Reales de los Incas, trumps the other chronicled accounts of the Inca campaigns

against the Chachapoya. This record includes specific information with place names

and substantial historic detail about the Chachapoya region. Additionally, Hyland has

stated that Valeras writings about the Peruvian past were the result of years of

research and required the questioning of many native informants.115

We need now to return to the discussion of how much of Garcilasos record was

copied from Blas Valera. In his Comentarios Reales de los Incas, Garcilaso openly

remarked that he used fragments of Valeras documents.116 But Peruvian historian

inventive architect. However she stressed the Inca was first a bereaved son completely at a loss when
his mother died. (Betanzos, Juan de, Suma y Narracin de los Incas, Atlas, Madrid 1987 [1576],
mentions that Huayna Capac would not leave his room for a month after his mother died. Part 1,
chapter XLIV, page 189) Valeras story (recorded in Garcilaso) of the Matron of Cajamarquilla
conforms perfectly to the profile of a grieving son who recently lost his mother. (The punitive action
against the Chachapoya occurs shortly after her death in the chronicles) The pleas of his aunt would
then have a powerful effect on this leader if we use this profile. Lerche named the structure in the
montaa Puca Huaca or red shrine. It is located in a remote area and the quarry for the stones is
located miles away. Therefore the construction of Puca Huaca would have been a tremendous
undertaking and this achievement matches the image of Huayna Capac as an inventive architect.
Schjellerup has presented a different view of the function of this site. In her 1998 paper Aspects of the
Inca Frontier in the Chachapoyas, Schjellerup suggested the cut stone building was an Inca elite
compound set in a fortified location. For this identification Schjellerup relied heavily on the chronicle
of Cieza de Leon. She has since renamed the site Inca Llacta but backed off somewhat from her
original position by stating Huaya Capac could have indeed visited the site. See Schjellerup, Inge, The
Forgotten Valleys: Past and Present in the Utilization of Resources in the Ceja de Selva, with Mikael
Kamp Sorensen, Carolina Espinoza, Victor Pena, The National Museum of Denmark Ethnographic
Monographs, 2003, pages 33 and 263
113
Once again the account of Vazquez de Espinoza is obviously copied from Valera recorded in
Garcilaso.
114
See Hyland (2003) pages 22 and 30 for example.
115
Hyland (2003) page 94
116
Garcilaso (1966) page 19
 69

Gonzalez de la Rosa postulated Garcilaso was disingenuous and most likely the

chronicler copied from Valeras intact manuscripts. These complete records are now

lost. The loss of Valeras work and its resurfacing in the chronicle of Garcilaso was

brought on by a tragic event in the life of this Jesuit priest. In 1596 Valera presumably

died from a beating inflicted by British sailors when Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex,

sacked the city of Cadiz. Valera had unfortunately settled in a Jesuit house in this

location after leaving Peru. According to Garcilaso, Valeras papers were scattered or

lost during this event and Valera died soon afterward.117 But de la Rosa believed

Garcilaso was disingenuous concerning Valeras papers and he was in fact a

plagiarist. De la Rosas accusation of Garcilaso as a plagiarist centered on a British

doctors testimony from the raid which provided conflicting information. In Dr.

Marbecks testimony concerning the raid, the physician stated that the clergy were not

molested and their personal possessions were not disturbed.118 Therefore, de la Rosa

inferred that Garcilaso received intact material and used the information as his own.119

In this case the entire chronicle would then have reached Garcilaso after Valera died

from some undetermined cause because obviously the dead priest would have been

unable to accuse Garcilaso of stealing his work.

I can easily imagine that during this era of Reformation and warfare, a few

British sailors would only be too happy to beat a papist and then lie to their superiors,

but the incredible saga of Padre Blas Valeras life does not end with this conjecture.

Recently controversial documents have surfaced from a private collection in a Naples

117
Garcilaso (1966) page 19 and for more details on the subject see Hiltunen (1999) pages 190-191 and
Hyland (2003) pages 193-194.
118
Gonzlez de la Rosa, M., El Padre Valera Primer Historiador Peruano in Revista Histrica, tomo
II, Lima, 1907, page 185
119
De la Rosa also accused Montesinos of copying from Valeras documents. See Gonzalez de la Rosa
(1907) pages 188-193 and also Hiltunen (1999) pages 192-193
 70

library. Two Jesuits Juan Anello Oliva and Joan Antonio Cumis wrote most of the two

documents Historia et Rudimenta Linguae Piruanorum and Exsul Immeritus in the

early 17th century. Their text also includes three and a half pages of drawings that

contain information on how to read quipus signed, supposedly, by Blas Valera.120

Revelations concerning these groundbreaking manuscripts is still ongoing but also

includes startling new information about Blas Valera. Historia et Rudimenta Linguae

Piruanorum states that Valera did not die in 1596 in Cadiz but instead he lived on and

died in 1618 in Alcala de Henares.121 Valera disappeared after 1596 when he was

forced by the Jesuit Order to fake his own death. Apparently, Valera was accused of

heresy and he therefore had become an embarrassment to the Society of Jesus, so

oblivion was an accepted punishment.122 But during this time the documents relate

that Valera returned to Peru and was the ghostwriter for Guaman Pomas El Primer

Nueva Coronica y Buen Gobierno. Another Jesuit one Gonzalo Ruiz completed the

illustrations of this work. For the purposes of this study it is important to note Ruiz

was a native of Moyobamba which was cited in Valeras chronicle (recorded in

Garcilaso) as Topa Incas last conquest in his campaign against Chachapoya.123

120
See Hyland (2003) pages 196-197
121
See Cantu, Francesca, Introduction in Guaman Poma y Blas Valera Tradicion Andina e Historia
Colonial, Actas del Coloquio Internacional Instituto Italo-Latinamericano Poma, 29-30 Septiembre
1999
122
See Laurencich Minelli Un Aporte de Exusul Immeritus Blas Valera Populo Suo y de Historia et
Rudimenta Linguae Piruanorum a la Historia Peruana: La Figura del Cronista Blas Valera pages 252-
254 and Manuel M. Marzal Blas Valera y la Verdadera Historia Incaica both are in Guaman Poma y
Blas Valera Tradicion Andina e Historia Colonial, Actas del Coloquio Internacional Instituto Italo-
Latinamericano Poma, 29-30 Septiembre 1999. For a discussion of judicial death see Hyland, Sabine,
The Imprisonment of Blas Valera: Heresy and Inca History in Colonial Peru, in Latin American
Historical Review, winter 1998 and chapter 7 of her The Jesuit and the Incas (2003).Briefly the end of
the 16th century saw in Peru the first rumblings of revolutionary theology. Some Jesuits in particular
pushed for indigenous rights over the Spanish crown and the newly imposed reforms of Viceroy
Toledo. Valera was one of these Jesuits and his actions and writings became an embarrassment to the
Order during this politically charged time period.
123
For information on Valeras origin see Maurizio Gnerres La Telarna de las Verdades: El F. 139 del
Tomo Cast. 33 Del Archivium Romanum Societatis IESU (ARSI) in Guaman Poma y Blas Valera
Tradicion Andina e Historia Colonial, Actas del Coloquio Internacional Instituto Italo-Latinamericano
 71

Hyland, using Society of Jesus records, connects the lives of these two mestizo priests

historically at least.124

The Naples documents also contain a brief biography of the tortured life of Blas

Valera and include his birth date 1545 and birth location Chachapoyas. The details

from this manuscript relay that Valeras natural father was Alonso Valera and not

Luis.125 This would agree with Garcilasos information concerning Blas Valera but

differ from the Jesuit records mentioned earlier. The text continues with the

astounding revelation that Valeras mother, an india named Allpu Urpi126, was

murdered in front of him by his father Alonso when Valera was 13 years old. The

change of parents on his recorded entrance into the Jesuit Order was then

understandable. The parents names were changed in order to leave this tragic event

unmentioned and forgotten. Historia et Rudimenta Linguae Piruanorum and Exsul

Immeritus contain other shocking details from the 16th century but these equally

controversial topics remain beyond the scope of this study.127

Poma, 29-30 Septiembre 1999, page 216
124
Hyland (2003) pages 28 and 35
125
Recently Hyland has noted there is absolutely no record whatsoever of Alonso Valera in the Indies.
(Hyland (2003) page 227) Interestingly, Hemming in his The Conquest of the Incas combines Luis and
Alonso into one person, see Hemming, John, The Conquest of the Incas, New York, Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1970, pages 588- 589, footnote 284.
126
Laurencich Minelli Un Aporte de Exusul Immeritus Blas Valera Populo Suo y de Historia et
Rudimenta Linguae Piruanorum a la Historia Peruana: La Figura del Cronista Blas Valera in Guaman
Poma y Blas Valera Tradicion Andina e Historia Colonial, Actas del Coloquio Internacional Instituto
Italo-Latinamericano Poma, 29-30 Septiembre 1999, pages 247-248. In her discussion of the mother
from the documents, Laurencich Minelli adds that the texts state that Valeras uncle was named
Illavanqa. According to Gerald Taylors, Estudios Lingsticos sobre Chachapoyas, Instituto Francs
de Estudios Andinos, Lima 2000, Illavanqa (illwanka or ighwanga) means cuervo or crow in the
northern Quechua tradition and is therefore most likely a Chachapoya name.
127
Other startling details include instructions on how to read text from certain pre-Columbian
string/knot records called quipus and an accusation that Pizarro poisoned Atahualpas captains the
night before the legendary engagement at Cajamarca. Although these revelations at this late date seem
to stretch the limits of the imagination, keep in mind El Primer Nueva Coronica y Buen Gobierno
languished on the self of a northern European library for several hundred years. Also around 1800 the
great Alexander von Humboldt rescued a priceless pre-Columbian book or codex from the Borgia
household in Italy. The beautiful deerskin screen fold, brought to Italy after the conquest, had become a
plaything to the children of the Giustiniani family. See Daz, Gisele and Alan Rogers, The Codex
Borgia, a full Restoration of the Ancient Mexican Manuscript, Dover Publications, New York, 1993,
 72

So what can be gleaned from an excursion into this labyrinth of documents? My

approach is solely from a selfish standpoint. Since all the previously mentioned

documents are tied in some fashion to Chachapoyas, these complex arguments cannot

be avoided. But, I am not concerned with peripheral information. I only want to build

a foundation for discussion on what is important to the Chachapoya specialist. Then

keeping this Chachapoya-centric view in mind I will state: if Guaman Poma was the

true author of El Primer Nueva Coronica y Buen Gobierno, his contentious trial

against the ethnic Chachapoya of Huamaga prejudices his record against the

Chachapoya. It is therefore of little value to the specialist. If Blas Valera wrote the El

Primer Nueva Coronica y Buen Gobierno for Guaman Poma I have to ask: why

would he abbreviate and change the record he detailed in Garcilaso concerning the

Chachapoya? This would be eliminating glorious exploits of the Incas and the

resistance of the Chachapoya. Wouldnt Valera want to record every aspect of this

plight like he did in his chronicle copied by Garcilaso? The only rational answer to

this question is that because of Valeras fake death he needed to remain incognito.

Therefore, specificity lacking in the other chronicles would draw unwanted attention

to the cleric in hiding and perhaps jeopardize his new life. If this is then the case El

Primer Nueva Coronica y Buen Gobierno is again of little value to the Chachapoya

specialist for details concerning the Inca and Chachapoya because in order to hide his

identity and conform to the outrageous circumstances of his troubled life, Blas Valera

altered the facts of history in the El Primer Nueva Coronica y Buen Gobierno.128

page xi
128
Before I end this discussion I have to remark from a Chachapoya specialists perspective, the
drawing of the conflict between the Inca and Chachapoya (Fig. 13) authored by Gonzalo Ruiz and not
Guaman Poma is troubling. According to Gnerre (1999; page 216) Ruiz was a native of Moyobamba.
So why then would an artist with ethnic ties to Chachapoyas portray his kinfolk in such a negative
manner? For example the nose ornament of the lead warrior resembles a ring for a hog and not the
 73

In conclusion I will again state the most important chronicle for the study of the

Chachapoya remains the record of Padre Blas Valera copied, from a more likely intact

manuscript than not, by Garcilaso de la Vega in his Comentarios Reales de los Incas.

16. Early Contact with the Spanish

Earlier in this work I mentioned that the area of the pre-Chachapoya was

relatively close to the initial meeting of the Spanish conquistadors and Inca ruler at

Cajamarca. If we recall the chronicle of Valera (recorded in Garcilaso) this meeting

was close enough for Huayna Capac to make Cajamarca the starting point for his

punitive campaign against the Chachapoya. Therefore, the colonial history of

Chachapoyas begins very early, especially if we consider the remoteness of the region

and the difficulty of travel from the coast of Peru. This history began when Alonso de

Alvarado entered the area in the fifteen thirties and founded the city of San Juan de la

Frontera de Chachapoyas. This is also the time when the book, the Libro Primero de

Cabildos de San Juan de la Frontera de Chachapoyas, started to be written. This

book is basically the first seven years of town council minutes from this early

frontier capital. The passages follow norms for all town councils: formal titles

endlessly repeated129 citations of public works and locations etc. The early officers of

Chachapoyas seem preoccupied with security issues because the indigenous

austere and enigmatic ornamentation of the Chachapoya. See Von Hagen, Adriana, Los Chachapoyas
y la Laguna de los Cndores, Museo Leymebamba, Amazonas, Peru, 2002, page 11, Von Hagen,
Adriana & Sonia Guillen (1998), page 54 and Lerche, Peter, Perus Lost Tombs, in National
Geographic vol.198, #3, September 2000 for depictions of nose piece imagery from Chachapoya
burials. These stern and graceful faces bear no resemblance to the drawing in El Primer Nueva
Coronica y Buen Gobierno.
129
Luis Valera was an early city officer and his name is ubiquitous in the Libro Primero de Cabildos de
San Juan de la Frontera de Chachapoyas. This is the same Luis Valera who is posited as the father of
the chronicler Blas Valera.
 74

populations enmity toward the Spanish.130 The Peruvian ethnohistorian Waldemar

Espinoza Soriano has pointed out this book contains vital information about early

Spanish excursions into northern Peru, however the brief and formal entries leave

much to the imagination.

Libro Primero de Cabildos de San Juan de la Frontera de Chachapoyas was first

published by Raul Rivera Serna in Fenix: Revista de la Biblioteca Nacional #11 and

12 in 1955. This version of the original documents housed in the Harkness Collection

of the Library of Congress is spread over two issues of the compiled magazine. A less

cumbersome edition of the Libro Primero was published separately by Serna in 1958.

From the minutes we know the city of San Juan de la Frontera de Chachapoyas

was founded the 5th of September 1538 in Jalca, a town located about a days walk

from Kuelap. From the discussions of record we know the council quickly determined

Jalca was unsuitable and the location of the city was moved up the Utcubamba Valley

to Levanto. Levanto was deemed a good location because of the many sturdy houses

the Inca had constructed.131 The city was again moved sometime around 1545 to its

present day location north of Levanto, which is the modern city of Chachapoyas.132

When the Carmelite friar and chronicler Vazquez de Espinoza arrived in San Juan

de la Frontera (Chachapoyas) in 1615 he found a fine city with two hundred Spanish

residents, well made houses with tile roofs and a very good hospital.133 So apparently

130
See Hyland (2003) page 18
131
See Serna, Ral Rivera, editor, Libro primero de Cabildos de San Juan de la Frontera de
Chachapoyas in Fnix de la Biblioteca Nacional, #11 and #12, Lima 1955 [1538], page 13. Levanto is
also referred to in a letter of 24 November 1542 from Governor Vaca de Castro to the King of Spain as
a new city in the province of Chachapoyas founded by Alonso de Alvarado (see Porras Barrenechea,
Raul, Cartas del Per (1524-1543), edicin de la Saciedad de biblifilos peruanos, Lima, 1959, page
505. This letter attests to the strategic importance of the location.
132
Libro Primero de Cabildos de San Juan de la Frontera de Chachapoyas, (1958) [1538] page 64 and
see Schjellerup (1997) page 30, footnote #1 and Lerche 1995 page 12.
133
Vazquez de Espinoza, (1942) [1615] chapter VIII, 1192, page 405
 75

the councils early efforts in creating a secure and viable location were not in vain.

However the scarcity of available indigenous souls for salvation was the cost of this

prosperity. The forced labor and privations of the early colonial period had decimated

the aboriginal population.134

17. An Oblique Court Reference

I want to end the discussion of the historical documents with Espinoza Sorianos

1967 article Los senorios etnicos de Chachapoyas y la alianza hispano-chacha. This

groundbreaking presentation centered on a late 16th century court case between

different Chachapoya ethnic leaders. Espinoza Soriano published the court record

entitled the Expediente Repartimiento de Leymebamba y Cochabamba, Encomienda

de Francisco de Guevara along with a letter from Alvarado to Francisco Pizarro

discussing the Chachapoya territory. Also included in Espinoza Sorianos presentation

was a 1574 questioning of the leaders of the communities of Leymebamba and

Cochabamba by the official in charge of colonial reform Don Diego Vizcarra.

Espinoza Sorianos compilation really began Chachapoya ethnohistoric studies.

As the discussions in this chapter have shown we have very little information

concerning the pre-Columbian and early conquest periods of the Chachapoya, so this

work was a windfall. The new documents from Espinoza Sorianos article more than

greatly added to the field. Throughout the twentieth century new discoveries of

funeral sites and lost cities in the Departments of Amazonas and San Martin have

drawn attention to the region. But to the Chachapoya specialist Espinoza Sorianos

discovery in the Biblioteca Nacional surpassed all of these adventures.

134
For discussions see Schjellerup (1997) pages 39 and 54 and Lerche (1995), page 37.
 76

Recently, Inge Schjellerup has followed up on Espinoza Sorianos work. In her

1997 dissertation Incas and Spaniards in the Conquest of the Chachapoyas,

Schjellerup reinforced the information contained in the Expediente Repartimiento de

Leymebamba y Cochabamba, Encomienda de Francisco de Guevara with details

from later colonial records. She also included a non-abbreviated transcription of the

Expediente Repartimiento de Leymebamba y Cochabamba including the questioning

of Chachapoya leaders by the Spanish colonial authority Diego de Vizcarra.135

Before I begin the discussion of these documents I should remind the reader this

was a colonial court case during the reforms of Toledo. As I previously mentioned

Toledo had an agenda. His agenda was to weaken the legacy of the Inca Empire and

strengthen the right of Spanish rule in Peru. The Toledo era marked the decline of

indigenous rights and ushered in a complete restructuring of what little remained of

the aboriginal communities.

The outcome of the Expediente Repartimiento de Leymebamba y Cochabamba, a

ruling in favor of the heirs of the ethnic leader Francisco Pizarro Guaman, depended

on the litigants ability to demonstrate loyalty to the Spanish crown. Francisco Pizarro

Guamans name alone attests to the compromises necessary for an ethnic Chachapoya

to survive this epoch. Although these informants were under oath, never forget they

are actors struggling for land and power in a hostile and changing environment of

diminishing resources.

But, in his introduction to these documents Espinoza Soriano correctly noted the

Expediente Repartimiento de Leymebamba y Cochabamba is not solely the voice of

135
For research purposes Espinoza Sorianos transcription, while abbreviated, lacks no important
content and his emphasis, even with breaks and added capitalization, is right on point.
 77

one indigenous author (for an example of a lone commentator think back to Blas

Valeras information recorded in Garcilaso).136 However to avoid any complacency in

the number of informants I should point out instead we have multiple witnesses

questioned by the system that created the Inquisition. Additionally, more than one

hundred years and two foreign conquests have occurred since these informants or

their families had independence as an indigenous group. Therefore, testimony must

first be seen as presented under these circumstances.

Finally, before beginning a discussion of the documents, I need to introduce

Francisco Pizarro Guaman. By the time of the Expediente this important Chachapoya

leader had been dead for about twenty years. According to testimony concerning his

life, Guaman negotiated terms successfully with an enraged Inca ruler.137 He remained

calm and in command while facing the mass relocation and or genocide of his

people.138 Intuitively Guaman must have understood the meaning of the Spanish

arrival because he immediately pledged obedience to this alien people very early in

their excursions into his territory.139 And last but not least, Guaman, as a middle aged

man, killed one of Pizarros African/Spanish slaves in what was apparently a

gladiatorial hand to hand competition.140 Obviously, this brief sketch of Guaman

presented by his heirs pushes the limits of believability. Yet we know there was a

historical Francisco Pizarro Guaman and he figured prominently in the initial meeting

between the Spanish conquistadors and the Chachapoya ethnic lords.

136
Espinoza Soriano, (1967), page 227
137
Espinoza Soriano, (1967), page 295
138
Espinoza Soriano, (1967), page 298 and in Schjellerup (1997) page 74
139
Espinoza Soriano, (1967), page 317
140
Espinoza Soriano, (1967), page 318 and Schjellerup (1997), page 333
 78

My treatment of the Expediente Repartimiento de Leymebamba y Cochabamba

will mimic my approach to the controversial Naples documents. I am not concerned

with establishing the validity of all the testimony from these documents. Once again

this daunting task is beyond the limits of this study. My concern is completely selfish

in that I want to investigate the documents for information solely pertinent to the

study at hand: Kuelap.

First, how does the testimony of the witnesses pertain to the records from the

chronicles? In the Expediente Repartimiento de Leymebamba y Cochabamba Topa

Inca is mentioned, in a roundabout way, as the conqueror of the Chachapoyas.141 The

downplayed testimony concerning this event would be expected in a Toledan

courtroom. Certainly elaborating the glorious conquests of the Inca would not have

been apropos in this venue. But the statements given are sufficient enough to validate

Blas Valeras account in Garcilaso, which also cites Topa Inca as the conqueror of the

Chachapoya.

The Expediente also clearly has Huayna Capac traveling to the region after his

father.142 The witnesses testimony however was not clear about Huayna Capacs

mission and was more concerned with the power relationships between the ethnic

lords and the Inca Emperor. Espinoza Soriano pointed out this event was probably

Huayna Capacs punitive strike against the rebellious Chachapoya preempted by the

Matron of Cajamarquillas pleas.143 The story of the Matron and the Incas

magnanimous gesture toward her are, of course, absent from the record. Again

141
Espinoza Soriano, (1967), page 312 and Schjellerup, page 331
142
Espinoza Soriano, (1967), page 313 and Schjellerup page 331
143
Espinoza Soriano, (1967), page 241
 79

remember the informants are giving testimony in a venue hostile to positive

representations of Inca sovereignty.

But negative information about Inca rule certainly was acceptable, and the

testimony at the end of Vizcarras questioning is indicative. In this dialogue the

leaders discussed a rebellion in the northern Chachapoya territory during the reign of

Atahualpa. Both Espinoza Soriano and Schjellerup have elaborated on this Valley of

the Pipos uprising as indicative of the rebellious nature of the Chachapoya.144

However, I think this rebellion should be framed as part of the dynastic war between

Huascar and Atahualpa. Therefore, this event should be considered with this pan-

Andean war in mind and should not just be treated provincially.145

Although the matching of the Expediente to the chronicles is significant, the

single most important piece of information, for the purpose of this study, contained in

the Expediente is the first 16th century reference to Kuelap.146 As Espinoza Soriano
144
Espinoza Soriano, (1967), pages 254-262 and Schjellerup pages 72-73
145
The consequences of the Chacha being loyal to the vanquished and not the victor should, however,
not be downplayed. Espinoza Soriano rightly points out a passage from the Expediente that has
overtones of modern day ethnic cleansing. (Espinoza Soriano (1967) page 298) There seems to be a
search in Chachapoya studies for a critical mass of Inca wrath. In other words when did the Inca
decide they had had enough of these pesky Chachapoya? I think the rebellious nature of the
Chachapoya is grossly overstated and any Chachapoya insurrection after Topa Incas initial conquest
could result in the gravest consequences! I also believe the Matron of Cajamarquilla actions on behalf
of her people were real and heroic. The event fits the actors and the circumstances. Without her
intervention the Chachapoya would have probably vanished from their region.
146
See Espinoza Soriano (1967), page 228. On page 64 of her 1997 dissertation, Schjellerup cites a
passage from Albornoz (see Albornoz, Cristbal de, La instruccin para descubrir todas las guacas del
Pir y sus camayos y haziendas, Ed. Duviols, Journal de la Socit des Amricanistes, Vol. 55, #1,
Paris, 1967 [1570]) and concludes this is the first 16th century reference to Kuelap. Albornoz was intent
upon the elimination of idolatry in Peru. In the passage (referenced by Schjellerup) he mentions a
huaca (shrine) targeted for elimination near the village of coyallap in the Chachapoya area. Schjellerup
continues the identification by adding coyallap is most probably a misspelling of Kuelap. However,
Espinoza Soriano (1967), Taylor (Taylor, Gerald, La tradicin oral quechua de Chachapoyas, Instituto
Francs de Estudios Andinos, Lima 1996), and Lerche (1995) all mention a tradition of huaca worship
continuing into the colonial era in the village of Conilap in Luya province. Espinoza Soriano
references Ramos Gavilan (see Ramos Gaviln, Alonso, Historia del Santuario de Nuestra Seores de
Copacabana, Ignacio Prado P., Lima, 1988 [1621], page 73) and Lerche adds Calancha (Calancha,
Antino de la, Cronica Moralizada, six volumen, Ignacio Prado Pastor, 1974, volume II, page 744) and
Vazquez de Espinoza (1942 [1629]) as sources for pre-Columbian rites continuing into the colonial era
in this village. Conilap is about 25 miles north of Kuelap. Albornoz never journeyed to the region but
 80

observed the name Kuelap will not appear again in print until it is rediscovered by

Juan Crisstomo Nieto in the 19th century.147

The name Kuelap appears four times in the testimony from the Expediente

Repartimiento de Leymebamba y Cochabamba.148 The first three times Kuelap is

paired with another site Pauxamarca, which is located about ten miles to the

northeast. All three times Kuelap and Pauxamarca are included in the provinces of

Leymebamba and Cochabamba. The forth and final reference to Kuelap in the

Expediente Repartimiento de Leymebamba y Cochabamba is included in Vizcarras

questioning of the Chachapoya leaders about their holdings. In this text, Kuelap is

referred to as one of six ayllus in the province of Leymebamba. An ayllu is an Inca

term for a localized kin group. The ayllu varies in size and inclusiveness but the

cohesion for the social unit is a common ancestor.149 As Frank Salomon has pointed

out:

The term ayllu became part of the Spanish administrative jargon, and in one
of those retroactive Inca-izations, becomes common in the local paperwork of the
later XVI century.150

Vazquez de Espinoza made a point of visiting Conilap. I think then, even though the reference of
Albornoz used by Schjellerup is very early [1570], the village in question is most likely Conilap not
Kuelap.
147
Espinoza Soriano (1967) page 228
148
Espinoza Soriano (1967) pages 299, 301 and 312 and Schjellerup (1997) pages 316, 317 and 330
149
See DAltroy (2002) page 326 and Isbell (1997) pages 98-99
150
Salomon, (Salomon, Frank, Ethnic Lords of Quito in the Age of the Incas, the Political Economy of
North Andean Chiefdoms, Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University, 1978, page 180). In this particular
discussion, Salomon is talking about colonial records from Quito, but the argument can easily be
applied to Chachapoya records. Also, Isbell (Isbell, William H., Mummies and Mortuary Monuments,
University of Texas Press, 1997) provides a good discussion of changes in the ayllu through the Inca
and Spanish conquests. Generally speaking Isbell suggests Inca policies strengthened the corporate
character of ayllu construction. (Isbell, 1997; 127) This is apparent in the Expediente by the ethnic
leaders use of the term ayllu to describe their holdings. With the coming of Toledo, Isbell notes a
transformation of the Andean order. The timing of the Expediente and the beginning of the era of
Toledian reforms suggests the Chachapoya leaders could have sensed a political change at this time.
(Isbell, 1997; 128)
 81

Kuelap being mentioned as one of six ayllus in Leymebamba is a perfect example of

what Salomon was describing. The Chachapoya ethnic leaders are using an Inca term

to describe their territories in a Spanish courtroom. Perhaps the name Kuelap was

applied to some sort of Chachapoya kin group, but then how does this information

help us identify the physical site which is the ruin? If Kuelap (the ruin) was some sort

of ancestral center for the kin group wouldnt it have been mentioned? Unless some

unknown proof emerges, the physical site of Kuelap was in disuse and likely

forgotten at this time. Maybe the ayllu purposely kept their sacred site secret. But,

however strange the terms and circumstances, these are the only four references to

Kuelap in the Expediente Repartimiento de Leymebamba y Cochabamba.

From these four ambiguous references, somehow the view that Kuelap was a

fortress was extrapolated. How? To ascertain this we need to look at colonial history.

I think a retro-history of Kuelap was created when Espinoza Sorianos wrote the

introduction to his 1967 paper. In his introduction, Espinoza Soriano listed the

fortalezas Levanto and Kuelap as possible refuges for Manco Inca during his war

with the Spanish. Manco Inca was established by the Spanish as a puppet ruler but he

later rebelled against the Spanish and took refuge in the southern cloud forests of

Vilcabamba.151 Mancos son Titu Cusi Yupanqui wrote an account of this Inca Empire

in exile. In this account Titu Cusi stated some Chachapoya captains suggested

Levanto as a possible refuge for his father instead of Vilcabamba.152 Kuelap is not, I

repeat not mentioned by Titu Cusi in his dialogue! Espinoza Soriano, perhaps with

151
See Hemming (1970) chapters 13 and 16
152
Titu Cusi Yupanqui, Relacin de la Conquista del Per, Lima 1973 [1570], page 101
 82

19th and 20th century archaeological records in mind, projected Kuelap into Titu Cusis

discussion of a possible refuge.153

Historian John Hemming unfortunately reinforced this misidentification of

Kuelap in his very popular 1970 book entitled The Conquest of the Incas. On pages

236 and 237 of his text Hemming described the events chronicled by Titu Cusi.

Some chiefs of the Chachapoyas told him (Manco Inca) that they would
take him to their town Levanto where there was a fine fortressThe proposal of the
Chiefs was a fascinating one. They were probably referring to the great hilltop
fortress of Kuelap that rises high above the Utcubamba river, not far from the south of
(the city of) Chachapoyas. The choice would have been admirable. Of all the myriad
ruins in Peru, Kuelap is the most spectacularly defended the strongest by European
standards of military fortification (emphasis mine).

Hemmings change of refuge from Levanto to Kuelap is simply incorrect.154 In Blas

Valeras account (recorded in Garcilaso) Levanto not Kuelap was mentioned as a

scene of battle between the Imperial Inca army and the Chachapoya.155 Levanto, not

Kuelap, was the established secure location for seven years for the city of San Juan de

la Frontera de Chachapoyas.156 Levanto, not Kuelap, was strategically important

enough to be mentioned in a letter of twenty four November 1542 to the King of

153
The impetus for this addition was a passage at the end of the Expediente. (Espinoza Soriano (1967),
page 321 and Schjellerup (1997), page 335) In the text a captain of Manco Inca, Cayo Topa, is killed
by Francisco Pizarro Guaman for trying to assassinate many Spanish in the Chachapoya territory. This
captain is then linked to the passage from Titu Cusi and the struggle of the Empire in exile.
154
An explanation is necessary here. The late sixties were heady days for Chachapoyas. Gene Savoys
heavily publicized expeditions in Chachapoyas took place during this decade. (see Savoy, Gene, The
Antisuyu the Search for the Lost Cities of the Amazon, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1970) Savoy was
the prototype for the adventuring archaeologist although he was not trained in archaeology or
anthropology. His discovery of ruins in the cloud forests of Abiseo (Gran Pajatan) popularized the
Chachapoyas region. When he explored Kuelap this site once reemerged from obscurity. Hemming
cited Savoys explorations on page 580 of his The Conquest of the Incas (see footnote 237 south of
Chachapoyas) Perhaps much of the work that followed in this decade, Duccio Bonavias excavations
at Abiseo (see Bonavia, Duccio, Las ruinas del Abiseo, University Peruana de Ciencias y Tecnologia,
Lima. 1968) and even Espinoza Sorianos groundbreaking article, are indebted to Savoys
sensationalism, however, historical accuracy concerning Kuelap was its victim.
155
Garcilaso (1960), volume I, book VIII, chapter 3, page 294
156
Libro Primero de Cabildos de San Juan de la Frontera de Chachapoyas (1958), [1538] page 13
 83

Spain.157 Schjellerup has pointed out there are several large pre-Inca sites near

Levanto that could have served Manco Inca well even though Hemming wanted to

place the Empire in exile at Kuelap.158

Schjellerup continued by adding that Levanto was also an Inca stronghold and Inca

ruins and ceramics in the area support this claim.159 Finally, Kuelap is a days walk

from Levanto so the two sites cannot be geographically lumped together.

For the record then through the pre-Columbian, conquest and colonial periods we

have only the four brief references to Kuelap. In lieu of newly discovered documents,

there exists no other testimony concerning the site until 1843!

CHAPTER FIVE

SIGNIFICANT VISITORS

18. A Time Capsule

Pre-Columbian sites in the Americas suffered a fairy-tale like fate after the

conquest and early colonial eras. Structures and settlements that were not torn down

or reassembled as churches were often reclaimed by nature and forgotten. Their

indigenous inhabitants were by this time either relocated or dead. In Peru Viceroy

Toledos reducciones (movement of the aboriginal population from a higher to a

lower more manageable altitude), disease and back-breaking forced labor,

ubiquitous in the colonial era, were manifestations of this trend. Because the initial

157
Porras Barrenechea (1959), page 505
158
Schjellerup (1997), page 66, footnote #1
159
Schjellerup (1997), page 77, footnote #6
 84

conquests preoccupation with indigenous cultures focused on the search for riches, or

in the case of the clergy the search for new souls, when the abundant supply of both

ran out pre-Columbian cultures were no longer of interest.

For roughly a two hundred year period wind, rain and vegetation changed once

functional centers into what Heinrich Wlfflin called the picturesque ruin. The ruin

Wlfflin noted unites a man-made structure with the free forms of nature to shape a

whole.160 In short this unification of forms produced dream like settings languishing

in oblivion. But the earlier colonial era was a time to forget. Insurrection and

rebellion had soured the colonists against the pre-Columbian world and any

celebration or discovery from the pre-Conquest era was, quite simply, demonic and

subversive. For an example recall that the Aztec statue of Coatlique, discovered in

Mexico City in 1790, was shortly reburied by the Catholic priests because they feared

the icon would return the peasants to idolatrous past. Pasztory has pointed out the

Spanish authoritys fear of rebellion even at this late date in colonial Mexico.161

Sometime around the year 1800 the apprehension toward things pre-Columbian

waned. What followed was an age of unprecedented exploration and discovery. The

treasure these new explorers sought was intellectual booty. This was the era of the

enlightened traveler: the prototypical tourist. These men were polymaths, expert in so

many different fields that for us today their achievements seem almost unbelievable.

The names of these visitors are legendary and titles like Humboldt, Tschudi, and

Raimondi now adorn pre-Colombian monuments and natural wonders, not to mention

schools and street signs. As the century passed into the 20th these initial larger than

160
Wlfflin, Heinrich, Principles of Art History: the Problem of the Development of Style in Later Art,
translated by M. D. Hottinger, Dover Publications, 1940, page 24
161
See Pasztory, Esther, Aztec Art, Harry Abrams, New York, 1983, page 140
 85

life figures were replaced by scientists. These scientists, archaeologists,

anthropologists, biologists and cartographers, relished specificity, and their channeled

focus was in direct contrast to the centurys early explorers.

19. The Judges Biblical Vision

Kuelap unfortunately escaped the gaze of these 19th century polymaths. It was a

local Chachapoya Judge Juan Crisstomo Nieto who introduced the western world to

Kuelap after he was led to the site on January 31, 1843. His account was published

the following September in the newspaper El Peruano.162 But Nietos imaginative

observations about Kuelap first came to the attention of the world when Mariano

Eduardo de Rivero and Juan Diego de Tschudi published them in their 1851 book

entitled Antigedades Peruanas, Nieto more than doubled the size of the walls before

he went on to conclude the ruin was the lost biblical tower of Babel. Before this

improbable identification, Nieto mentioned different burials at Kuelap: elites interred

in a mausoleum and common folk interred in a nearby cliff.163 Nietos spectacular

descriptions attracted some interest in the site, but the remoteness of the Chachapoya

region kept Kuelap from becoming a matinee pre-Columbian ruin like, for instance,

the Gateway of the Sun at Tiwanaku.

Kuelap however did entice some 19th century aficionados. Arthur Werthemann

visited the ruin a dozen times in the late 19th century but his notes, including

astronomical observations made at the Kuelap, were lost with his personnel effects in

162
See Ruiz (1972) page 9, El Informe Nieto. I have added my own page numbers to Ruizs
unnumbered tesis de bachiller La Alfarera de Cuelap: Tradicin y Cambio. For clarification I will
also add chapter titles to the reference.
163
See Kauffmann Doig, Federico, and Giancarlo Ligabue, Los Chachapoyas: Moradores Ancestrales
de los Andes Amaznicos Peruanos, Universidad Alas Peruanas, 2003, pp. 142-143
 86

the shipwreck of the Valdivia. Werthemann matter-of-factly referred to Kuelap as a

fortress, almost as if no other possibility was an option. 164 Why did Werthemann, and

many visitors who followed, jump to this conclusion when we know from chapter

three the colonial chronicles have no record of the site ever being used for defense or

warfare by either the Chachapoya against the Inca or the Inca against the Spanish.165

There simply was no historic precedent for this conclusion. Although we can never be

certain exactly why this framing began (perhaps a guides anecdote?), Graziano

Gasparini and Luise Margolies provide a possible philosophical answer behind the

thinking for such assumptions. In their book Inca Architecture, these architects allude

to a manner of thinking constantly applied to explain an Andean pre-Columbian

world. This mind set originated with the initial Spanish conquerors from late

Medieval Europe. This thinking labels as a fortress any building with stone enclosures

and a few entrances situated in broken terrain.166 Clearly Werthemanns observations

about Kuelap are indicative of this prejudice even though he was a traveler visiting

during a much later era. But Werthemann was not the only observer to frame Kuelap

militarily and, as I mentioned at the end of chapter three, this idea of Fortaleza

Kuelap gets somehow extrapolated back on the colonial record, even though no

evidence exists for this supposition. I will continue this discussion at length in chapter

six.

Ernst Middendorf visited Kuelap in the late nineteenth century and noted that the

ruin itself was called La Malca by the locals and the hacienda were he stayed, located

164
Werthemann, Arthur, Ruinas de la fortaleza de Cuelap, Boletn de la Sociedad Geogrfica, Ano
II, 1892, page 149
165
See the discussion at the end of chapter three concerning the misidentification of Levanto.
166
Gasparini, Graziano, & Luise Margolies, Inca Architecture, Indiana University Press, 1980, page
280
 87

below the ruin, was called Kuelap. Middendorf thought Malca was a provincial

bastardization of the Quechua marca which means settlement.167 He also suggested

Malca could be some short of manifestation of the Spanish muro (wall). A few

decades earlier Raimondi also made the same correlation between the name for the

ruin at Kuelap (Malta) and the Spanish muro.168 As I mentioned in chapter three, the

first reference to the name Kuelap was made in the Expediente Repartimiento de

Leymebamba y Cochabamba court case from the late 16th century. Remember in this

record Kuelap was referred to as an ayllu kin group and the record attaches no

architectural significance to the name.169 Linguistically speaking we are fairly certain

Kuelap is an ancient Chachapoya name. Alfredo Toreros linguistic study of the pre-

Columbian languages of northern Peru confirms this assumption. 170 But what does

the term signify: 1) the ruin in question, 2) a kin group 3) another nearby site? I will

return to this discussion shortly.

20. A Scientific Perspective

167
McCown (McCown, Theodore, Pre-Incaic Huamachuco; Survey and Excavations in the Region of
Huamachuco and Cajabamba in American Archaeology and Ethnology, University of California
Publications, 1945) has added The word marca in Quechua and also in Aymara has the common
meaning of town or village, but in Quechua it also has, according to Paz Soldn (Paz Soldan, Marino
Felipe, Diccionario Geogrfico Estadisco del Peru, Lima, 1678 [1613]), the additional meaning of
something which is hidden or carefully guarded. (page 329)
168
Raimondi, Antonio, El Per, volumen 1, Imprenta Torres Aguirre, 1942, page 411. DAltroy has
pointed out that marca is a Word frequently used by Andean farmers as a generic term for an
archaeological town. (Personal communication 3/21/05)
169
In Kuelap a Solar Observatory? McGraw, Oncina, Sharon and Torres Ms mention Kuelaps
inhabitants were relocated as part of Toledos reducciones (McGraw, James, Manuel Oncina, Douglas
Sharon & Carlos Torres Mas, Kuelap a Solar Observatory, Ethnic Technology Notes, #24, San Diego
Museum of Man, 1996). The reference is from Espinoza Sorianos article from 1967. On page 237
Espinoza Soriano does, without citation, suggest relocation but even if this is the case, we do not know
if this was a movement from the ruin or from another nearby inhabited site. In other words without any
records from the conquest or colonial eras, we cannot be sure the ruin we now call Kuelap was
inhabited when the Spanish arrived.
170
See Torero, Alfredo, reas toponmicas e idiomas en la sierra norte peruana. Un trabajo de
recuperacin lingstica, in Revista Andina, ano 7, #1, Julio 1989, page 238. Also Kuelape is
generally accepted in the region as an ancient regional name not derived from Quechua.
 88

Many other 19th century travelers visited Kuelap but the first serious

archaeological work at the site was completed by Aldolf Bandelier. I prefer to

concentrate on each specific visitor so for the remainder of this chapter I will outline

the fieldwork of Bandelier then continue with a discussion of the efforts of the French

General Louis Langlois. Following Langlois I will examine the sequencing of

Chachapoya ceramics by the Swiss archaeologists Henry and Paule Reichlen. The

Reichlens work then provides a natural introduction for the Peruvian archaeologist

Arturo Ruiz Estradas 1972 masters thesis on the ceramics of Kuelap. I will end with

a discussion of Alfredo Luis Narvaez Vargas excavation in the 1980s. Later on in the

closing remarks I will also discuss some recent work concerning the site and suggest

topics for future studies.

In 1893 Bandelier spend nearly two months at the ruin of Kuelap beginning on

September 14. His record of the excavation was published in 1907 and it included a

plan of the ruin.171 Bandelier did beautiful drawings of the site which were recently

published in Chachapoyas el Reino Perdido by Adriana Von Hagen (Figs. 1b., 4a.,

9a., 10b., 11b., 18b., 19b. and 20b.). He also noted the ruin was called Malca or

malquia and Kuelap was the name for the hacienda below. Bandelier also added that

the name for the hacienda was either Kuelap or Kuelape. This observation by

Bandelier is important because it adds to information from Toreros previously

mentioned etymology of the Chachapoya language. In his Estudios Lingisticos sobre

Chachapoyas linguist Gerald Taylor indicated the lape in Kuelape is a Chachapoya

suffix. He continued by adding the Chachapoya ruins Conlape and Ylape share the

171
Bandelier mentioned on page 35 of his 1907 article that there were mommies located on the left
slope of the ruin. (See Bandelier, Adolph Francis Alphonse, Los Indios y las Ruinas Aborgenes Cerca
de Chachapoyas en el Norte del Per, in Chaski, volumen I, #2, September 1940
 89

same ending. Taylor then postulated the ending could signify fortress or fortified

settlement in the Chachapoya tongue.172 This interpretation, although interesting,

relies on too much on the previously mentioned prejudiced conclusions about location

and structure of Chachapoya architecture. In other words the names might have a

shared meaning but hilltop walls around a settlement do not necessarily signify a

fortress. Taylors reading however does link the ruin of Kuelap to the name Kuelap

and not to the name Malca.

From his journal we know Bandelier entered the vicinity of Kuelap from the

south and it is possible he climbed up to the ruin from what is today Nogol Chuco and

not from the area of Tingo, which is currently the primary entry point for the climb.

Bandelier spent considerable time at Kuelap making his scientific study. Even at

present the living conditions at the ruin are rudimentary, so at the end of the 19th

century Bandelier must have endured considerable hardship because the constant

rains made Bandelier believe the Kuelaps walls secondary function (the first was

defense) was preventing soil erosion.173 In his journal Bandelier relayed that the

hacienda at the time was owned by a Senor Anduaga.174 Bandelier seems to have

been in escort the whole time because he mentioned other companions: the sub-

prefect Seor Arce, the secretary of Chachapoyas Don Leopold Perez and his guides

(arrieros). Here we should remember the earlier discussion from this dissertation

about the informer.

172
See Taylor (2000), page 24
173
Bandelier, (1940) [1907] page 31
174
See Bandelier, Adolph Francis Alphonse, Journal in the American Museum of Natural History,
pages 231-232. Nugent (1997) has one Alejandro Anduaga as a powerful landowning member of the
Chachapoya elite in 1910. See page 124 and footnote #17 on page 352. Nugents book provides a vivid
portrait of Chachapoya elites at the turn of the century. Braggadocio and tall tales told for the sake of
elevated status certainly fit his profile.
 90

I need to spend time on this issue of informants. Bandeliers journal reveals a

heavy dependence on locals for information. This reliance, while understandable

given the remoteness of the Chachapoyas in the eighteen nineties, is suspect. For

instance a Senor Ramos, an administrator of the Hacienda of Kuelap, told Bandelier

Malca (the ruin) was occupied when the Spanish got to Chachapoyas. He continued

this unlikely story by adding the conquistadors then began a long siege of the ruin but

finally succumbed to hunger outside the walls.175 I said unlikely because of the

complete absence of any colonial record of this event or for that matter any colonial

record that specifically mentions the ruin. Don Ramos continued on with his tale and

told Bandelier of the existence of a document in Trujillo which told of the Indians of

Kuelap mustering 1,000 warriors for a conflict with the people of nearby Huanca and

Levanto. Finally Don Ramos said after Malca was built the people of Kuelap gained

the upper hand on their neighbors.176 There are many problems with Don Ramos oral

history. The most glaring problem is that the people of Huanca were Inca mitmakuna

(relocated colonists). Therefore it would have been impossible for such a fight to have

occurred before the arrival of the Incas.177 If this conflict occurred after the arrival of

the Inca and their colonists, this would then mean the ruin Kuelap (Malca to the

guides) was built in 50 years under Inca supervision and this construction would have

occurred after the Chachapoya conquest. Accomplishing this Herculean task during

occupation, in the midst of a regional conflict, would have been unlikely.178

175
Bandeliers Journal AMNH, pages 270-271
176
Bandeliers Journal AMNH, pages 291-292
177
See Serna, Ral Rivera, editor, Libro primero de Cabildos de San Juan de la Frontera de
Chachapoyas, Separata de la Revista Fnix de la Biblioteca Nacional, Lima 1958, page 64 for the first
reference to this group, and Schjellerup (1997) page 69 for their mitmakuna status.
178
I say unlikely because DAltroy has pointed out that the histories tell us the Inca fortress
Saqsawaman was built in only 20 years.
 91

Simply, I believe Bandeliers guides were creating more than exaggerating the

oral history of Kuelap the ruin. Anyone who has ever been on a guided tour can

understand how this sort of disinformation spreads and that the informants probably

had no malicious intent. The hardest statement any guide can make is I dont know.

With this in mind imagine Bandeliers nearly two month rain-soaked stay at the ruin,

and the opportunity for hyperbole! Bandeliers empirical observations are, to his

credit, right on point. But what sort of influence did his conversations with the

informants have on his, and the previous visitors, thinking? Bandeliers 1907 article

filters most of the elements from his journal that would give serious pause. But

because of the problematic nature of his informants oral testimony (in addition to

Taylors previously mentioned etymology of the name Kuelap) I am inclined to

believe the term Kuelap signifies the ruin and not the Hacienda below.179

21. The Unbiased Soldier

Louis Langlois was a retired French army general who visited Chachapoyas in

the early nineteen thirties. Although he had no formal archaeological or

anthropological training, Langlois was a keen observer. His record of Kuelap stands

out among the earlier travelers to the site like Cieza de Lens chronicle stands out

among his fellow 16th century historians. Langlois published his results in his 1939

monograph Utcubamba. The one hundred page text replete with photographs has

some glaring errors. For instance Langlois photographed some strange figurines

which are not pre-Columbian and might not even have been made on the South

179
I do not believe, however that lape signifies fortress. Taylors fortified settlement is more, I think,
on point.
 92

American continent.180 However Langlois text remains seminal because he excelled

in his simple observations about Kuelap and the surrounding ruins of the Utcubamba

drainage.

I have to add that General Langlois studied his mission and he did not just

wander into the Utcubamba valley without doing any research. He might not have had

any formal training, but Langlois seems to have taken his explorations very seriously.

For example, Langlois noted the absence of any reference to Kuelap in Valeras

(recorded in Garcilaso) account of Topa Incas conquest of the Chachapoya. Langlois

did choose the most complete account of the conquest of the Chachapoya from all the

chronicles. Perhaps this was because in the early part of the twentieth century

Garcilasos record was considered much more reliable than it is today181 or perhaps

Langlois appreciated this nuanced account of the Inca campaign. In any case,

Langlois noted the Inca invasion proceeding up from Pias in the south to

Condormarca then on to the Utcubamba region. He then speculated on reasons why

Kuelap great walls were never tested .182 However, Langlois did not try to make the

facts from the chronicle fit a scenario. Specifically, Langlois never postulated

Levanto was Kuelap!

Maybe this was because Langlois visited and recorded many other sites in the

vicinity of Kuelap. Indeed, Langlois map of the Utcubamba on page 62 of his text

180
For the figurines see Langlois, Louis, Utcubamba, Imprenta del Museo Nacional, Lima, 1939, page
14.
181
DAltroy (2002) has a good discussion of the rise and fall of Garcilasos record on pages 14-15 but
on the topic of the Chachapoya, Rowe related that Blas Valera was one of Garcilasos most reliable
sources! (Rowe, John, Inca Culture at the Time of the Spanish Conquest in Handbook of South
American Indians, edited by Julian Steward, Bulletin 143, vol. 2, pages 183-330, Bureau of American
Ethnology, Washington, D.C., 1946, page 196)
182
See Langlois, (1939) page 32 and on page 52 he noted the absence of any mention of Kuelap in the
chronicles.
 93

was a masterful piece of work for this era. Up until the time this map was published,

Kuelap was always treated as an anomaly. In other words the visitors to the ruin,

beginning with Nietos biblical identification, always envisioned Kuelap as a

singularity having little connection with its environs. Bandelier discussed the

Chachapoya ruin of Macro below Kuelap (Fig. 8a.) and he toured the area also, but

he was more preoccupied with the stories from his informants than studying Kuelaps

surroundings. Kuelaps walls (Fig. 4b.)and entrances (Fig. 10a.) seem to have

enchanted and occupied visitors imaginations and schedules. The interesting

architectural aspects of Kuelap kept visitors from venturing, physically or

intellectually, further to investigate the immediate vicinity. In contrast Langlois study

placed Kuelap in context. Langlois map recorded, for instance, the distance from

Kuelap to Levanto. His rendering demonstrated the separateness of the two sites and

it also illustrated the complexity of Chachapoya settlements in this part of the

Utcubamba river drainage. Langlois also explored the enigmatic ruins of

Condorchaca and Macro, located about 100 feet about the banks of the Utcubamba

1,000 meters below Kuelap. These mysterious ruins lack the size and complexity of

their lofty neighbor, and even today tour buses and minivans full of Chachapoya

aficionados routinely pass these locations on their way to the more matinee

Chachapoya sites. But, looking ahead to the discussion in chapter six, if the

Chachapoya were such a barbarous and belligerent people living in a constant state of

warfare, as many Andean texts would have us believe, what function did indefensible

sites like Condorchaca and Macro serve?

 94

This thought could have occurred to Langlois because even though his

background was that of a career soldier, Langlois did not classify Kuelap as a

fortaleza. The general began his discussion of the ruin by simply stating he preferred

the term fortified city to fortress.183 As a military man, Langlois knew Kuelap had one

great problem for a state of siege: no water source.184Bandelier noted this deficiency

and Horkheimer would later speculate wildly about sources of water185 but Langlois

ventured a reasonable opinion on this topic. Langlois drew a diagram of a

Chachapoya dwelling at Kuelap and postulated that the stone gutter around the

outside of the circular structure formed a cistern.186 This cistern could provide the

population of the city an emergency reservoir during a state of siege. However,

Langlois implied this source for water was temporary and he did not envision Kuelap

as a refuge for an extended attack. For Langlois, Kuelaps walls only provided short-

term shelter!

Langlois seems to have been immune to the tales told by informants. Although

his conclusions include some diffusionist rhetoric, expected during the time frame in

which he wrote, he did not advance any of the theories that Bandelier presented.

Langlois prudently remained silent about warfare with Huancas and Levanto recorded

by Bandelier. It is possible Langlois was not told the same tales as Bandelier, but I

would like to posit the General, as a military man accustomed to exaggeration, was

probably an excellent judge of character and he therefore knew cock-and-bull stories

183
Langlois (1939) page 28
184
Langlois (1939) page 29
185
Schjellerup nixes Horkheimers suggestion that parasitic tree plants could have supplied Kuelaps
inhabitants with a source of water; accurately noting that the site was probably not landscaped in the
past like it is today. Schjellerup (1997) page 108 and Horkheimer, Hans, Algunas Consideraciones
Acerca de la Arqueologa en el Valle del Utcubamba, Actas y Trabajos del II Congreso Nacional de
Historia del Per, Tomo I: 71-101, Lima 1958
186
Langlois, (1939) page 44 figure#24
 95

when he heard them. Langlois was also much more active in the Utcubamba region

than any of his predecessors. I mentioned previously he visited Macro and

Condorchaca but in addition he visited a site near Magdalena, Teya (Fig. 17a.) and he

even visited the community of Jalca. Langlois kept a schedule which would exhaust

any modern visitor to Chachapoyas, and he did it in a time when travel by foot and

animal was the norm.

22. A Ceramic Sequence: Kuelap, Chipurik and Revash

Henry and Paule Reichlen were a husband and wife French archaeological team

famous for their work at Cajamarca in the 1940s. The Reichlens traveled across the

Maraon River canyon to work in the area of the pre-Columbian Chachapoya for a

period of four months.187Although Chachapoya studies needed (and needs) all the

archaeological attention it can get, the Reichlens work in the region was really only a

brief sojourn from their more complete investigations on the western side of the

Maraon.188 The Reichlens were products of the high age of stratigraphy, established

by the then pioneering work of Alfred Kroeber.189 This was the era of rigorous

classification and the delineation of cultures into numbered phases and named time

frames. Stratigraphy was a science of classification borrowed from geology, and in

this case the separations were used to separate culture not lithics. The stratigraphist

read phases of cultural growth from different strata of soil. More metaphorically

187
Schjellerup sums up their work on page 107 of her Incas and Spaniards in the Conquest of the
Chachapoyas.
188
Again Schjellerup has pointed out seventy-three boxes weighing 1,400 kg were sent to Paris, but
this material has languished in a museums basement. Schjellerup (1997) page 107
189
See Stone-Miller, Rebecca, An Overview of Horizon and Horizon Style in the Study of Ancient
American Objects, in Latin American Horizons, Don Stephen Rice editor, Dumbarton Oaks Research
Library and Collection, Washington D. C., 1993, pages 16-17
 96

stated he or she would cut the cake of a civilization and gather information from the

layers.

By this time, mid twentieth century, the drawer full of pre-Columbian Andean

material, gathered by earlier visitors, was overflowing. The stratigraphist then entered

upon this scene and cleaned up the mess by creating many smaller drawers to store

the data. Previously excavated material was then sequenced with the newly

recovered artifacts. Of course, as this analogy implies, this system of classifications

only arranges and does not explain. So, while the new categories are tidier they really,

in and of themselves, imply no greater understanding of the cultures in question. To

really gain an understanding of a forgotten culture this sort of archaeology should be

done at major sites over a period of years (refer back to a large processual project like

Vir Valley). The work should include architectural restoration and combine a

number of disciplines: archaeology, ethnohistory, and art history (to name but a few).

The four month excursion into the region by the Reichlens was therefore inadequate

for their type of investigation.

But this archaeological vacation was then the setting for the Reichlens

development of the three phases of Chachapoya ceramics: Kuelap, Chipurik and

Revash. In order to gather their data they visited sites to back up their new system of

classifications. From their schedule it appears that they used this time traveling to

every known Chachapoya ruin along the Utcubamba drainage.190 The Reichlens tied

their Chachapoya chronology directly to their Cajamarca ceramic sequence. Kuelap,

the oldest Chachapoya phase according to the Reichlens, is then contemporaneous

190
Schjellerup mentioned on page 107 of her 1997 dissertation that Lerche has proven that the
Reichlens did not visit all the surveyed sites chronicled (See Reichlen, H. and Paule Reichlen,
Recherches archeologiques dans les Andes du haut Utcubamba, Journal de la Societe des
Americanistes, tome XXXVIII, 1950).
 97

with Cajamarca III pottery. This phases coarse brown ware was supposedly

indicative of the early (900 AD) monumental building phase of Chachapoya culture

which culminated in the construction of the settlement at Kuelap. Possibly, this

theoretical time period owes its existence to the Huari presence at Viracochapampa

(Fig. 6a.) on the other side of the Maraon at Huamachuco. Although it was not

specifically stated, until Ruiz made the association in 1972, the Reichlens Kuelap

phase perhaps suggests that Kuelap was constructed in response to the Huari.191 It is

also interesting how the Reichlens posit the construction of Kuelap early in the

development of Chachapoya culture. This early architectural achievement mimics

development in, for example, ancient Egypt where the pyramids were built very early

in this civilizations history. In any case, this classification of Kuelap, however

interesting, only orders the data. There are no radiocarbon dates to back up this

sequencing, 192and the Reichlens did no architectural analysis at the site.

The later phases of Chachapoya ceramics, Chipurik and Revash, are, according to

the Reichlins, more closely connected.193 Chipurik culture follows Kuelap and was

supposedly centered in the area of Luya province.194 Revash culture, further south,

was named for the famous ruins off the Utcubamba River near the village of San

Tomas. As Schjellerup has pointed out the late Revash style was associated with the

chullpas (funeral houses) located in the ecological zones to the southeast.195 So then

191
The Huari were an expansionistic power centered in the southern highlands of Peru in what is today
Ayachucho. They had outposts in the north and could possibly have been a threat to the Chachapoya up
to about 1000 AD.
192
See Schjellerup (1997) page 108 where she states ...Revash culture thus does not give an
impression of being a new culture.
193
Horkheimer would also note the lack of evidence for a separate Chipurik Phase. No es rasgos
suficientes para definer una unidad cultural. Horkheimer (1958) page 76
194
Henry & Paule Reichlen (1950) page 233
195
Schjellerup (1997) page 108
 98

according to this chronology the early Chachapoya Kuelap phase population (circa

900 AD) excelled in monumental construction and their successors, the Revash phase

people of approximately 1400 AD, stood out for erecting elaborate funeral houses.

This is an interesting supposition but one which has never been investigated. In the

area of pre-Columbian Chachapoyas we have both funeral house and funeral

platforms.196 However at this time we do not know if the platform predated the

chullpa or visa versa. One could be inclined to think (cultural evolution) that the

funeral platform came first and then was followed by the more elaborate form, the

chullpa. I am assuming a sort of architectural progression. But this linear progression

is simplistic. For example, as I previously mentioned the Reichlens themselves

suggested Kuelap was constructed early in the development of Chachapoya culture.

We only need to refer to a Mesoamerican example to show how a simple linear

progression is not always sufficient. The elaborate Maya pyramids of the classic age

were followed by the smaller scale faux tower imitations of the later Ro Bec

culture.197 The buildings in this time period mimicked the massive constructions of an

earlier age. They had to because Ro Bec culture lacked the manpower and the

expertise of the Classic Era Maya and these people could no longer construct the

earlier forms. In other words they just couldnt build things like they did in the old

days.

Maybe then Chachapoya funerary architecture imitates this regressive history. So

then perhaps earlier on the Chachapoya built elaborate chullpas (Fig. 16a.) and in the

196
There are also free standing chullpas, see Olsen, Ronald L., Old Empire of the Andes, the Myron
Granger Archaeological Expedition in Natural History, volume XXXI, #1, 1931
page 21
197
Proskouriakoff, Tatiana, An Album of Maya Architecture, University of Oklahoma Press, 1963,
pages 51-53
 99

later eras these complex constructions gave way to the more architecturally modest

platform. Muscutt has pointed out that funeral platforms could have been staging

areas for the presentation of Chachapoya mummies.198 Theatrical use of ancestors was

recorded from Inca history and is a common theme in Andean studies. 199 Therefore,

Muscutts suggestion could mean a more visual ritual developed as the Chachapoya

abandoned the chullpa. I will continue with speculations concerning this topic later,

but my point here is to note that we have no firm ground on which to categorize

Chachapoya funeral sites. No systematic study has ever been done, and even today

we are still in the discovery mode when it comes to these sites. So the Reichlens

ceramic sequence should be more accurately called Chachapoya Phase I, Chachapoya

Phase II and Chachapoya Phase III. This naming would eliminate the ambiguous and

misleading aspects of their sequencing, and yet provide a framework for the

development of different styles of ceramics over the long six hundred year history of

Chachapoya cultural growth.

The Reichlens, like Langlois, used the record of Valera (recorded in Garcilaso) to

explain the Inca conquest of the Chachapoya. They refer to an Inca presence in the

southern Utcubamba environs (Leymebamba, Tambillo and Chuquibamba) but they

avoided a discussion of Inca ceramics at Kuelap.200 I have to wonder if their neglect in

recording an Inca presence at Kuelap was the result of a failure to uncover Imperial

artifacts or again implied another conclusion. This conclusion would be that Kuelap

198
See Muscutt, Keith, Cueva de Osiris: A Pictograph Site in the Peruvian Amazon in Rock Art
Papers, Ken Hedges editor, San Diego Museum Papers, volume 6, #24, 1988, page 110
199
See, for instance, Dillehay, Tom D., Tombs for the Living: Andean Mortuary Practices, Dumbarton
Oaks, Washington D.C., 1991, and for the Inca customs see Cobo, Father Bernabe, Inca Religion and
Customs, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1990 [1653], pages 39-43
200
See Reichlen & Reichlen (1950) page 243. McGraw, Oncina, Sharon and Torres Ms (1996), page
1, have the Reichlens excavating at the southern end of the settlement of Kuelap and perhaps the
position of their dig had an effect on their findings.
 100

was an early Chachapoya construction and because of the absence of any record of

this great architectural achievement during the Inca or Spanish conquests of the

region, we should assume the settlement was abandoned many years before the

Spanish arrived and possibly much earlier. But the Inca presence at Kuelap and the

possible Huari threat to the Chachapoya were two topics the next archaeological

visitor to Kuelap, Auturo Ruz Estrada, would address.

23. Recent Peruvian Archaeology

In the late sixties and early seventies Arturo Ruz Estrada carried out

archaeological excavations at Kuelap. He published his findings in his 1972

bachelors thesis La Alfarera de Cuelap: Tradicin y Cambio. Ruz made a major

contribution toward the understanding of Kuelap by advancing the method Langlois

applied to the ruin more than thirty years earlier. Ruz, like Langlois, did not treat the

colossal walls and structures of Kuelap as all inclusive. Whereas Langlois explored

Kuelap proper and then ventured to ruins a few hours hike from the perimeter, Ruz

was the first scholar to explore the immediate vicinity outside the ruins walls. He

therefore brought to light the site of Malcapamba (300 meters from the southern end

of Kuelap with 23 circular structures), la Barreta (370 meters to the north with three

platforms), Pampalinda (500 meters east of the main entrance with 25 structures) and

finally the enigmatic el Imperio (300 meters further east from Pampalinda containing

several foundations for rectangular structures).201Although virtually nothing has been

done further to investigate the relevance of these sites to Kuelap, Ruzs

201
See Ruz (1972) pages 25-29 under the chapter heading Descripcion del Conjunto Arqueolgico. I
did not include Ruz Quiquita-Lahuancho because this name delineates no specific site, but instead
signifies 700 structures in a five kilometer square grid around the central ruin of Kuelap. I will refer to
these structures later in this studys discussion of the lack of water at Kuelap.
 101

groundbreaking contribution was to imagine Kuelap not as a fortress surrounded by a

no-mans-land, but instead as a centralized core projecting out related communities.

Again Kuelap was not a large redoubt sitting isolated on a hilltop but instead had

auxiliary settlements in the immediate vicinity. The traditional lone fortress on a hill

mindset regarding Kuelap had retarded simple investigations of the neighborhood

for almost one hundred and thirty years.

Ruz also enhanced our knowledge of the ceramics at Kuelap. He did not really

elaborate on the ceramic sequence of the Reichlens, but instead created a completely

different categorization. Ruzs chronology began with the Early Intermediate Period

Cancharin Phase ceramics (100 BC-600 AD). The Cancharin Phase was followed by

the Pumahuanchina contemporaneous with the Middle Horizon Andean time frame

(600 AD-900 AD) and linked chronologically to the Reichlens Kuelap Phase pottery.

Ruz then added his own Kuelap Phase which corresponded to the Late Intermediate

Period commonly associated with Chachapoya culture (900 AD-1400 AD).202 Ruz

ended his chronology of ceramics from his excavations in and around the walls of

Kuelap with a Kuelap Inca Phase. By adding this level to the ceramic sequence of

Kuelap proper, Ruz was the first scholar to definitively note material evidence of an

Inca presence at this specific site.203

202
See Ruz (1972) pages 81-88 under the chapter heading Cambios Cultures for his new
chronology. For more on the Cancharin see Narvez Vargas, Alfredo Lus, Kuelap: una ciudad
fortificada en los Andes nor-orientales de Amazonas, Peru, in Arquitectura y Arqueologa pasado y
futuro de la construccion en el Peru, Victor Rangel Flores editor, Universidad de Chiclayo, 1987, page
115 and McGraw, Oncina, Sharon & Torres Ms (1996) page 1. For the Pumahuanchina see page
Narvaez (1987) page 116 and McGraw et. al (1996) page 2
203
Ruz (1972) pages 84-88 In contrast to the Reichlens earlier excavation, Ruz worked mostly in the
northern upper section of the ruin of Kuelap on building 426.(See his Excavaciones Arqueologicas
subheading Escavaciones en la Fortaleza pages 30-31) I will return to a discussion of his findings in
the northern part of the ruin later in this study.
 102

Ruz also was the first (and the only) scholar to find remnants of Huari ceramics

inside the walls of Kuelap.204Even though he only recovered three fragments, this

discovery was extremely important. As I mentioned previously, the Reichlens brief

work in the pre-Columbia Chachapoyas suggests a Huari presence projected from the

other side of the Maraon River Gorge (Fig. 6a.). Ruz found physical evidence and

went on to conclude Kuelap could have been constructed in response to a Huari

threat.205 The problem with this scenario is that the Huari shards found at Kuelap were

negligible. Therefore these fragments could have been from someones heirloom or

perhaps fragments from a gift that made its way from Viracochapampa, the nearest

recorded Huari settlement, across the Maraon by trade over an extended period of

time. In other words the ceramic could have been an exotic souvenir and therefore the

material does not signify any Huari presence or pressure on the inhabitants of

Kuelap.206An established presence of Huari east of the Maraon is a hotly debated

topic in Chachapoyas studies, but, as yet, no substantial evidence (a colony or burial)

has been uncovered.

By putting forward the idea that the early building phase for Kuelap began in the

Middle Horizon (600AD-900AD) Ruzs new ceramic sequence pushed the initial

construction date for the ruin back at least a few hundred years.207 Ruz also went on

to record Chachapoya-Inca ceramics at the upper northern level inside the wall at

204
See Ruz (1972) page 59 under the subheading Alfarera tipo Huari.
205
See Ruz (1972) page 93 under the chapter heading Discusiones, and also see McGraw et. al
(1996) page 2. Here they state that Ruz noting the almost total absence of Huari pottery at the site
suggests that Kuelap was built as part of a successful defense against this expansionistic Middle
Horizon culture. I think what the authors meant to say was the scant Huari material from Ruzs
excavation is indicative of a Huari presence that was perhaps expelled from the region.
206
For an example of this sort of practice see Pasztorys (1983: 250) discussion of lapidary heirlooms
being passed down in Mesoamerica from the Olmec time until the Aztecs.
207
Ruz (1972) subheading Fase Pumahuanchina page 83
 103

Kuelap. These Inca style ceramics were found in conjunction with local (Ruzs

Kuelap Inca Phase) style ceramics. Of the 2,260 fragments of pottery excavated

inside the walls of Kuelap, 506 were Chachapoya-Inca shards from Ruzs Kuelap

Inca Phase.208 We will return to this finding later when I discuss the possible nature of

the Inca presence at Kuelap. Finally, when Ruz began his thesis he mentioned a site

about 800 meters from Kuelaps eastern main entrance which he revealingly

designated el Imperio. As I previously mentioned he recorded rectangular structures

(an Inca architectural signature) at this site. Therefore this location could be important

for an understanding of the relation between Kuelap and its Inca occupiers.

Unfortunately Ruz did not present any specific data concerning this site, and no

further investigations have been undertaken at el Imperio.

Luis Alfredo Narvaez Vargas excavation at Kuelap in the 1980s was by far the

most modern and complete work ever undertaken at the site. Unfortunately, perhaps

because of the necessity for focus or perhaps financial considerations, Narvaezs

approach regressed to the inside the walls approach of the early visitors. In the

report from his excavation, Narvaez listed sites from Ruzs survey of the immediate

vicinity of Kuelap.209 However, this early nod was the only archaeological treatment

these locations would get because while Narvaez mentioned this other sectors in his

final commentary as rural extensions of Kuelaps urban core,210 all his archaeological

work was completed inside the walls of the ruin of Kuelap. Pre-Columbian

Chachapoya studies benefit from all the archaeological attention they can get, so my

208
See Ruz (1972), Descripcin de la Alfarera page 39 and later in the chapter page 71 subheading
Alfarera Inca.
209
See Narvaez (1987) page 116
210
Narvaez (1987) page 140
 104

critique of the scope of Narvaezs effort in no way intended to disparage the

incredible effort he focused on the ruin.

Narvaez was responsible for documenting the number and layout of Kuelaps

buildings (420 circular (see reconstruction Fig. 16b.), 4 rectangular and 1 square) in

use today.211 Narvaezs descriptions and measurements concerning Kuelap are

generally are more accurate and precise than previous efforts. Narvaez discussed the

rectangular and U shaped structures of Kuelap. He noted that Langlois had

previously proposed the rectangular structures of the upper level indicated an Inca

presence inside the walls. Again the rectangular form is common for Inca

constructions but Narvaez dismissed Langlois theory as conjecture because of

insufficient archaeological evidence.212 Narvaez recorded four U shaped structures

at the ruin and he remarked that they had a western orientation and were located just

above the perimeter wall.213 The U shaped architectural structure is an ancient and

ubiquitous Andean form probably as old as civilization in this part of the world.214

The exact reasons for each Andean cultures use of the form are a subject of debate,

but the general theme is that the U shaped form often had a public function.

Narvaez envisioned these structures as niches for an ancestor mummy that had

probably been looted in a previous era.215 Included in Narvaezs list of ceremonial

architecture at Kuelap were the rectangular structures (Fig. 11a. & Fig. 11b.), all

located on an upper level in the northern part of the site, and an enigmatic inverted

211
Narvaez (1987) page 118
212
Narvaez (1987) pages 118 & 135
213
Narvaez (1987) page 136
214
For a good discussion of the ancient and ubiquitous U shaped form in Andean Studies see
Keatinge, Richard W., Peruvian Prehistory: An overview of Pre-Inca and Inca Society, Cambridge
University Press, 1988, pages 85-93. For a discussion of the form in a specific culture (Chimu) see, for
example, Moore, Jerry D.(1996) pages 205-209
215
Narvaez (1987) page 136
 105

cone-like structure, located in the southern part of the ruin, called the tintero (Fig.

9a.). The tintero has this name because of its ink pot shape (Fig. 9b.).216 Narvaez

labeled a tower structure, the torren located on the upper northern level, as clearly

defensive in nature (Figs. 20a. & 20b.).217

On the upper northern level of Kuelap, Narvaez documented 2,500 round sling

stones, carbon fragments that were probably used for night vigils, pieces of axes and

material evidence of destruction.218From his archaeological findings, Narvaez implied

that clearly some sort of conflict occurred on this upper northern level of Kuelap.

Narvaez went on to conclude, like Langlois before him, the term fortress for Kuelap

should be abandoned and the ruin should instead be called a fortified city. Narvaez

envisioned Kuelap being a city of about 3,000 inhabitants and this great pre-

Columbian architectural project was built over a five hundred year time period from

approximately 800 AD-1300 AD.

216
McGraw, Oncina, Sharon and Torres Ms (1996) would go on to assert, convincingly, that this
structure was a solar observation device or sunturhuasi. Pages 7-10
217
Narvaez (1987) page 121
218
Narvaez (1987) page 122
 106

CHAPTER SIX

THE PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF KUELAP

24. Kuelap And The Immediate Environment

Kuelap occupies a large portion of a hilltop about a four hour walk up from the

town of old Tingo, 219 located on the banks of the Utcubamba River (Fig. 3a.).

Because the vertical distance covered is about one thousand meters, this is a steep

four hour hike. A difficult unpaved road, with harrowing drops, also leads to the site

from the town of Tingo. I say difficult because the traveling time to the ruin by car or

truck is, for now, about equal to the travel time walking!

Anyone journeying to Kuelap has to be impressed by its almost organic precision.

Kuelap rises and falls with the highland terrain almost as if it were a natural extension

of the hill. Kuelap has no straight lines and therefore seems strange to have been

fashioned by human hands. Instead the construction looks grown. (for example Figs.

1a, 1b, 4b & 10b) The ruin undulates, so the altitude varies depending on where you

stand inside the walls. But the approximate average altitude for Kuelap is 2,900

meters or 10,000 feet. For a reference, consider the height of Mount Washington in

New Hampshire is only 6,288 and Mount Hood in Oregon is only about a thousand

feet higher in altitude than Kuelap at 11,239 feet. Huascaran, the highest snow capped

peak in Peru and one of the greatest climbs in the western hemisphere, pushes 23,000

feet.

219
This is the lower town of Tingo. Nuevo Tingo is located on a hill a few hundred meters above old
Tingo, and the town was built after an earthquake destroyed the original pueblo.
 107

Werthemann, the German engineer who visited Kuelap in the late eighteenth

century, put the ruin at 77 48 15 (west Greenwich mean) longitude and 6 25 45

latitude.220 The ruin itself has a north/south orientation the same as the direction of the

major ridge lines in this region. This orientation is interesting because it places the

entrances and vistas of Kuelap along the most important heading in this part of the

pre-Columbian world: that is an east/west orientation. This direction echoes the

extreme change of climate from wet low east to high and dry west and as I detailed in

chapter two, the major changes in this regions climate and topography occur

traveling in this direction. The highlands of Peru do increase in altitude the farther

south one would travel, but this change is more gradual then the dramatic latitudinal

differences. These variations are, again generally speaking, high dry puna and

mountains on the western side of the Maraon giving way to high swampy jalca and

lush mountains to the east which then decline into rainforest. Kuelap stands on a ridge

which bisects this passage. From the western wall of Kuelap one can see the dividing

range which descends into the hot, dry and deep Maraon River Gorge then onward

to the western cordillera. From the eastern wall you can look out to the high green

eastern cordillera which plunges into montaa and finally the Amazon basin. The ruin

itself is located high enough to see these distances, but Kuelaps great altitude

prohibits any vista of the local river valleys below. However, Kuelap is visible from

many of the pre-Columbian sites above the Utcubamba River. Jalca Grande is more

than a days walks from Kuelap, yet standing at the site Kuelaps walls are

prominently seen in the distance. Indeed Kuelap is unmistakably visible from many

points along the main pre-Columbian trail in this area. The pre-Columbian trail above
220
See Ruz (1972) page 6, chapter heading Localizacin Geogrfica de Cuelap
 108

the Utcubamba runs north/south along a ridgeline of hills located on the eastern side

of the river.221 The walls of the ruin are also clear from the modern western highway

going up to the Yumal Pass and then the Vilaya Valley. This valley is replete with pre-

Columbian ruins and today it is a major tourist attraction for the Chachapoyas region.

As I mentioned in chapter two Kuelap shares the dry/wet seasonal changes that

occur every year in the Chachapoyas region. May through to about September is the

dry season with October to April the time of rainfall. The southern hemisphere winter

months of February and March are the height of the rains and by far the worst months

to travel in the region. During Bandeliers waterlogged stay at Kuelap, the weather

was so foul he proposed a secondary purpose for the walls of Kuelap: prevention of

soil erosion which could result in destruction to the settlement.222 That being said, the

central part of the Utcubamba region where Kuelap is located can be very dry in the

June to August time frame. In this season the area then becomes parched and the

hillsides brown. The only plants that thrive during this arid season are the agaves

(both blue and green) and the cacti. During this Chachapoya summer223 the slash and

burn fires, set by the campesinos to clear and fertilize their fields, often blaze out of

control.

25. Barriers and Passageways

221
Dr Peter Lerche fist pointed out this trail to me, which runs through his hacienda, and recently
(September 2003) the trail was surveyed by a team from the Museum in Leymebamba.
222
Bandelier, (1940) page 27
223
Chachapoyas, like all South America, has reversed southern hemisphere seasons, but this
mountainous area shares our summer. The people in the region often refer to the period June through
August as their summer and, much to their chagrin the Chachapoya schoolchildren, their vacation
period January, February and March is the time of incessant rain while their coastal contemporaries
relax in the summer sun.
 109

The ruin of Kuelap is surrounded by an enormous wall. (Fig. 1a.) The wall varies

in size from 10 meters to 19 meters or about 39 to more than 60 feet. The wall is

actually a fieldstone shell filled with a rubble core. The distance through the wall by

passageway into the site is more than 20 meters. (Figs. 10a. & 10b.) These walls lack

parapets; I will return to a discussion of the defensive necessity for this form in the

next chapter.224 Again the outer wall shell of Kuelap is made up of large limestone

blocks that can weigh up to three tons each.225 Schjellerup has proposed that the use

of lithic architecture based on large uniform cut lime stone blocks in the pre-

Columbian Chachapoya region is a construction technique that seems to have started

in the Middle Horizon.226 Muscutt has rightly pointed out that Kuelaps perimeter wall

is actuality the faade of a faux terrace.227 In other words, the perimeter wall is a

human attempt at creating an artificial cliff. (Fig. 4a.) Imagine a natural hilltop

location being transformed by Chachapoya engineers by adding stones (and fill) and

canting the slopes. This is perhaps the most accurate description of the construction.

The north/south length of the settlement is approximately 580 meters (more than six

football fields) and the east/west width varies from a fat 100 meters to a skinny 60

meters (about an Olympic pools length).228 Kuelaps overall plan is said to be cigar

shaped however, Bandelier called it an irregular trapezoid.229 (Fig. 1b. & Appendix

F) No other known Chachapoya site has a perimeter wall on the scale of Kuelaps.

(compare Figs. 17a. & 17b.)

224
See Narvaez (1987) page 120
225
See Muscutt, Keith, Warriors of the Clouds a lost Civilization in the Upper Amazon of Peru,
University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, 1998, page 13
226
See Schjellerup (1997) page 238
227
See Muscutt (1998) page 13
228
These measurements round Langlois measurements, Langlois (1939) page 30, and Ruzs
measurements, Ruz (1972) page 22 subheading La Fortaleza.
229
Bandelier, (1940) page 26
 110

Many Chachapoya hilltop settlements have some sort of border wall.230 Consider

the ruin of Teya which is about a five hour hike from Kuelap. This site is seldom

visited, and because of the lack of protective status, could perhaps become a future

pre-Columbian casualty. (In other words the encroaching modern world has taken a

heavy toll on this site.) The border wall of Teya is shown in Fig. 17a. Although the

stonework is in a horrible state of repair, the walls of Teya never exceeded a few

meters in height and were probably only about 2meters thick. The height of this wall

was roughly the same few meters. The perimeter wall of Teya pales then in

comparison to Kuelap. Indeed no other Chachapoyas site has walls close to the scale

of Kuelap, and other details, like the channeled entrances, make Kuelap a true

anomaly.

Kuelap has three main entrances. These gates permit and restrict access through

the perimeter. (Figs. 10a. & 10b.) I say restrict because there are only three of these

small passageways constructed through the 580 meters of the outer walls

circumference; therefore they naturally limit access to the site. The main entrance is

on the southeastern side of the site. A second passage is located directly across the

settlement from the primary entrance. These two entrances are symmetrical opposites:

southeast vs. southwest. (Fig. 10b.) The southwest entrance proceeds out to a very

steep drop which is a characteristic of Kuelaps western side. (Fig. 4b.) In other

words the western border of Kuelap is dominated by a precipice. Another entrance is

located on the northeast side of the wall. This opening leads to the upper level which I
230
Parsons, Hastings and Matos M., noted that 80% of their Late Intermediate sites (in the southern
Peruvian Highlands) had some sort of wall. (page 331) I am using this data because no similar survey
has been completed like this in the Chachapoya region. See Parsons, Jeffrey R., Charles M. Hastings,
and Ramiro Matos Mendieta, Rebuilding the State in Highlands Peru: Herder-Cultivator Interaction
during the Late Intermediate Period in the Tarama-Chinchaycocha Region in Latin American
Antiquity, vol. 8, #4, pages 317-341, 1997
 111

have referred to in previous chapters and will discuss in detail shortly. All the

entrances are channeled passages which use natural slopes and man made steps in

unison. They are womb-like gateways that narrow as you enter the ruin. Bandelier

aptly noted the most striking feature of Kuelap was its entrances, 231and Langlois

added they were completely different from anything else he had seen in all his travels

in Peru.232The entrances are only a few meters in diameter each and as I stated earlier

they taper as the passage climbs into the ruin.

26. The Lower Level

The settlement of Kuelap comes down to us through history constructed on two

levels. The larger lower level makes up the preponderance of the Kuelaps area. The

lower level is accessed by the three main entrances previously discussed. This lower

settlement contains roughly 395 of Kuelaps 420 circular structures. (Appendix F)

Circular dwellings are a characteristic Chachapoya form ubiquitous in the area. These

sort of structures have been considered a typical architectural of the Late Intermediate

Period. The circular structures of Kuelap have a diameter on average of 7 to 9 meters;

however Narvaezs excavation recorded one large construction with a diameter of 12

meters.

These circular houses have no windows and because of this a hole in the cone like

thatched roof has been suggested for ventilation. Although this style of roof is

speculative and can be traced to French traveler Charles Wiener. Wiener observed a

circular house standing and in use in the community of la Jalca Grande in 1881. But

231
See Bandeliers Journal in AMNH page 266
232
See Langlois (1939) page 33
 112

the Jalca Grande community was transplanted into the region during the Inca era;

therefore it is unlikely that this community knew of Chachapoya building technique.

Nevertheless this now destroyed Jalca house has been used as the template to

reconstruct the Chachapoya houses. (Fig. 16b.) The houses were made of stones with

moderate to fine masonry. This technique of construction is not speculative because it

is supported by evidence from the numerous circular foundations found in the

Chachapoyas region.

The floors of these structures are flattened earth with a stone lined chamber in the

center. Schjellerup has pointed out this feature is a very important part of Chachapoya

architectural style.233 These pits could have been used for warmth or perhaps cooking.

I should emphasize here that even though these structures were used for shelter the

preponderance of waking hours for the Chachapoya were probably spent outside

these habitations.

Forms for the buildings varied with some having two entrances but most having

one. A few of the constructions were not perfectly circular, but instead more in the

shape of a D.234 Some of the buildings were and are adorned with gutters and frieze

work. The friezes at Kuelap are inlaid stone geometric forms which ring the lower

parts of the buildings like a necklace. (Fig. 18b.) I will discuss these friezes shortly.

The lower level of Kuelap has one rectangular construction located near the

entrance to the upper level. This structure is divided by a wall into two compartments.

Two U shaped structures are also located on the lower level south of the third

233
Schjellerup (1997) page 127
234
See Narvaez (1987) pages 122-123. The D shaped form is also a hotly debated topic in Andean
studies. See, Ochatoma & Cabrera in Religious Ideology and Military Organization in the
Iconography of a D-Shaped Ceremonial Precinct at Conchopata from Andean Archaeology II (2002)
 113

(northeast) entrance.235 But by far the most enigmatic building in the lower level is the

tintero situated in the far southern end of the site. (Figs 9a. & 9b.) As I mentioned

before the tintero was named for its curious ink pot shape. Werthemann noted a

human head low relief sculpture near the tintero during his visit to Kuelap in the 19th

century. He suggested these sculptures, still in situ today, could represent the sun and

the moon. Also, Werthemann said that the stones on which these friezes are carved are

granite. Werthemann identified the quarry for these stones as being near the Maraon

River, a good two days journey away.236 However Werthemann could not have been

certain this specific quarry was used by the Chachapoya. (How? What was his

source?) Therefore it is likely this information was provided by informants. The

tintero is a solid construction about 14 meters in diameter and 5.5 meters high. The

building has a bottle shape empty core which led Narvaez to hypothesize the tintero

as a reservoir, prison, or funeral house.237 Narvaez concluded by assigning a

ceremonial function to the structure but as I pointed out earlier the recent attribution

of the building as a sunturhausi (solar observation platform) by the team of McGraw,

Oncina, Sharon and Torres Ms has won many converts and placed Werthemann in a

somewhat prophetic role.

27. The Upper Level

The upper level of Kuelap represents less than one tenth of the settlements total

area. This elevated plane dominates the far northwest corner of the site. (Appendix F

upper right) Entrance to this area is restricted to a passageway which bisects the

235
See Ruiz (1972) pages 134-137
236
See Werthemann, (1892) page 150
237
See Narvaez (1987) pages 138-139
 114

rectangular upper platform. Three of Kuelaps four rectangular structures are

located in the upper pueblo, along with two of the previously cited U shaped

forms. The northern part of the upper level contains about 25 circular structures. The

rectangular structures lack the stone lined chambers of the circular dwellings. The

circular constructions are clustered south of Kuelaps highest point: the torreon.

Narvaez called this tower clearly defensive in nature and he added it was 7 meters

high and shaped in the form of a D. (Fig. 20b.) This tower provides by far the best

observation point in the entire site, both looking out and looking in,238 (Fig. 20a.) and

as I discussed earlier, the area surrounding the torreon norte was also the location

when Narvaez discovered the 2,500 sling stones and the other evidence of conflict or

warfare. Every time I visit the ruin of Kuelap I have the impression of being on a ship

floating above the Utcubamba Valley below. Whereas others have seen a cigar shape

or an odd trapezoid I envision a vessels hull. By following through on interpretation

and considering the ruin a ship, I would then add that the northern upper platform

and torreon would unmistakably be the bridge.

Ruzs archaeological excavation was localized at Kuelaps extreme north end. In

other words the work took place in the upper level. In particular Ruz was concerned

with a building 426 at this upper level location. Again in his excavation Ruz found

506 fragments of Kuelap Inca pottery (Cuzco polychrome A) in this location. For

comparison of fragments consider that in this same area Ruz recorded 1,057

fragments of his Kuelap C pottery and three trace Huari pot shards.239 Ruzs work,

important as it is, was not aided by a large archaeological grant. His survey was

238
Narvaez (1987) page 121. Langlois also observed that this area dominated the dwellings below. Also
Langlois (1939) page 39
239
Ruz (1972) page 28 & pages 57-70
 115

completed more than thirty years ago as a tesis de bachiller for the Universidad

Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. So here I am not concerned here with Ruzs new

ceramic sequence, even though it improves on the Reichlens earlier work. I have

presented his data to point out that a substantial amount of Inca style ceramics were

recovered at Kuelaps upper level.

28. The Dead

Kuelap was packed with tombs and funerary imagery. This is understandable

because the Chachapoya were obsessed with the placement of their dead. Chachapoya

chullpas, often constructed on to the face of some impossibly sheer cliff have been

fascinating visitors to the region ever since Englishman Joseph Skinner made these

funeral houses known to the western world in 1805.240 The Reichlens Revash Phase

ceramic sequence was named after a spectacular funeral site near the Utcubamba

River, and the discovery of the Laguna de los Cndores mausoleums recently brought

worldwide attention the Chachapoya region.241 Funeral sites were first recorded at

Kuelap when Judge Juan Crisstomo Nieto recorded elite mausoleums and cliff

burials in the report from his initial investigation of the ruin in 1843.242 Werthemann

found mummies at Kuelap and later in the century Bandelier recorded them interred

in the eastern perimeter.243 Both Narvaez and Langlois recorded possible cemeteries

in Kuelaps upper level. Narvaez called one of the ruined rectangular buildings a

mausoleum because he believed much of the structure was destroyed by huaqueros

240
Schjellerup (1997) page 56 and Skinner, Joseph, The Present State of Peru, London, 1805
241
For the sensational Laguna de los Condores find see Adriana Von Hagen & Sonia Guillen, Tombs
with a View, Archaeology 51, #2, April, 1998
242
See Kauffmann Doig (2003) pages 142-143
243
Werthemann (1892) page 150 & Bandelier (1940) page 35
 116

(grave robbers).244 Langlois diagramed a funeral area just north on the torreon plaza

and added that he was told precious metals had been excavated from this site.245 But

by far the most startling mortuary finds at Kuelap were the over one hundred burials

that have been found placed in the ruins colossal walls. 246 These interments need to

be studied in conjunction with the Chachapoya penchant for cliffside funeral sites. To

put it more precisely, do the walls of Kuelap have some connection with the

constructions from the sacred cliff locations: the sites where the Chachapoya

routinely put their dead? I will continue the discussion of this line of thought in

chapter seven.

29. Architectural Friezes

The patterns of architectural friezes at Kuelap consist of various flattened

rhomboid shapes and another separate zigzag design. (Appendix E) In 1995 Peter

Lerche presented a study of the geographic distribution of these friezes in the

Chachapoyas region, which was later elaborated upon by Inge Schjellerup. Lerche

read the symbolism as zoomorphic, and he associated the rhombus with the eye of a

predatory cat and the zigzag with the movement and coiling of a serpent. The cat

symbolism perhaps has a colonial precedent in Calanchas247 obsession with feline

predators in this part of the Andes, but the assignment of a serpent designation to the

architectural zigzag frieze is less convincing. (I will return to this discussion in

chapter seven.) Schjellerup has added that the invasion of the Incas, and the
244
Narvaez (1987) page 136
245
Langlois (1939) the diagram is on page 42 and text on page 44. One has to wonder who the
excavators of this precious metal artifacts were considering there is no other record of sumptuary
goods found at Kuelap
246
See Narvaez (1987) page 118, Von Hagen (2002b) page 18 and Muscutt (1998) page 16
247
Calancha, Antino de la, Cronica Moralizada. six volumen. Ignacio Prado Pastor, 1974
 117

subsequent loss of Chachapoya ethnic identity, probably expanded the distribution of

this generic frieze work. In other words Schjellerup suggests that the Chachapoya

necessity for this imagery increased after they experienced the destabilizing effects of

Inca occupation.248 The zigzag form of frieze is ubiquitous to the entire area of the

pre-Columbian Chachapoya from the northern Utcubamba to the less known southern

Chachapoyas area which contains the ruins of Abiseo. It is the most widespread and

commonly used Chachapoya symbol. The rhombus shape is rarer and is mostly seen

in the area north of the town of Leymebamba. Other variations on these simple

geometric shapes have been recorded, but a step fret like design, prominent in the

area south of Leymebamba, is worthy of separate consideration. (Fig. 15b.)

Although zoomorphic significance has been suggested for the first two simple

friezes (cat eye/rhombus and zigzag/ serpent) the only positive zoomorphic

identification for an architectural frieze in the Chachapoyas region is a condor. This

high mountain bird was probably the shape for the major Chachapoya deity

Curichaculla,249 and a stylized representation of this animal adorns architecture at the

Chachapoya ruin of Abiseo, Gran Pajaten. (Fig. 21b.) This elaborate representation is

seen only in the southern area of Abiseo and not in the Utcubamba drainage. The

other elaborate representation from the Abiseo area is decidedly anthropomorphic and

248
See Lerche (1995) pages 49-51 & Schjellerup (1997) page 37. Lerches iconography is interesting,
but Kuelap, does not have an indigenous dangerous or large serpent. Further east in the ceja de selva
there are very venomous snakes and the community of Chilchos recorded a fatality two years ago
(personal conversation with the villagers) but the Utcubamba area has a benign reptilian population.
Jaguars (very rare in even the most remote parts of the montaa) and puma disappear in direct
proportion to the arrival of man, so even the pre-Columbian Chachapoya population would have taxed
the food supply and endangered these predators. Of course the people could still have used this power
imagery even though the symbols had no real authority. For example, we in the US often use symbols
(animal and human) for sports teams that we have almost all but destroyed.
249
Espinoza Soriano (1967) page 235
 118

it displays a human central figure with headdress. (Fig. 21a. Compare this frieze with

the Chachapoya textile shown in Fig. 15a.)

30. Low Relief Sculpture

Kuelap contains a number of simple relief sculptures. (Appendix D)250 The

easiest identifiable forms are human heads and coiled lines. The human head near the

tintero is perhaps Kuelaps most famous artwork because of the stylized face. The

cheeks of the individual are puffed out; the eyes are rendered with a distant gaze. The

overall effect of this sculpture has been suggested as resembling someone under a

narcotic-like effect, perhaps he is chewing coca. Today most campesinos chew coca

leaves (with tiny amounts of the mineral lime) to ward off fatigue, thirst and hunger

and break the monotony of their laborious existence. Chewing coca is roughly their

equivalent of our cigarette break or perhaps in this more health conscious era, having

an energy drink. In pre-Columbian times chewing coca was a way of life that

permeated all aspects of culture. Today the chewing of coca is a pastime associated

only with the working class, but in Museums we have artifacts which indicate coca

was also an elite habit in the pre-Columbian era (chewing paraphernalia made from

precious materials). Therefore it is likely that the face depicted on the stone of the

tintero could have had high status in this community.

The coil reliefs are small (about a foot). The most visual is carved on one of the

large stones at Kuelaps main entrance. Other forms from the site are geometric and

they resemble eyes and a line curled in at each end. These shapes seem related to the

architectural step fret design seen in Fig. 15b.

250
Narvaez (1987) has a glossary of these reliefs on page 133 of his text.
 119

31. High and Dry

I want to close this chapter with a discussion about water. As I cited earlier the

summer months (June-August) can be very dry at Kuelap and there is no natural

water source at the site. Today the visitors who climb up, or who decide to stay

overnight at the Instituto Nacional de Culturas hotel, must either bring their own

water or purchase refreshment that has been brought in to the site. In the 19th century

Werthemann suggested the holes in the floor seen in many of the Chachapoya circular

structures at Kuelap were actually built to hold water. Werthemann continued by

comparing these wells to similar forms he saw in the Great Pyramid of Egypt, 251but

these holes were most probably used for the fire which provided warmth for cooking

and comfort. Again Langlois believed the external gutters of the houses provided a

temporary source of water but he saw use for this system only in the case of

emergency. Espinoza Soriano attempted a solution for Kuelaps water problem by

referencing a 17th century colonial text. This record chronicled the inhabitants of

Andean community hauling water from a lowland source up to their community.

From this document Espinoza Soriano proposed that water for Kuelap was

laboriously carried on a daily basis up from the Utcubamba River to the settlement.252

On the surface this suggestion defies logic. If Kuelap was a community of 3,000

individuals, as Narvaez suggested,253 wouldnt the labor requirements for obtaining

251
Werthemann (1892) page 150
252
Espinoza Soriano (1967) page 236
253
Narvaez (1987) page 140
 120

water stress the settlements population? I would suggest (I will discuss this idea

again at some length in chapter six) Espinoza Sorianos suggestion is perfectly

reasonable if we consider the perhaps special nature of Kuelaps community.

And finally keeping within the water theme, three Chachapoya ruins dot the

upper banks of the Utcubamba River a thousand meters below Kuelaps heights.

These sites Condorchaca, Tunich and Macro lay at the confluence of three of the

areas rivers: the Utcubamba, the Tingo and the Yuyac. These lowland and

indefensible settlements defy a Late Intermediate Period stereotype insisting all

communities must by nature be defensively arrayed in a highland setting. Of course

the Late Intermediate Period has exceptions to this categorization, but the utter

indefensibility of these three Utcubamba sites is noteworthy. Lerche has suggested a

holistic study of the confluence of these rivers, including the ruins of the lower

Utcubamba in conjunction with the dominating highland location of Kuelap, could be

of great benefit Chachapoya studies in this important region.254

254
Personal conversation 7/03, for good overview of the confluence of these rivers see the IGN map of
Chachapoyas, J631, 1358, (13H)
 121

CHAPTER SEVEN

THEORIES

32. Mistaken Identity: A People and Their Time

Previous studies concerning Kuelap have been marked by three flawed premises.

The first faulty premise is a pan-Andean assumption that the Late Intermediate Period

in the Andean Highlands was a ubiquitous time of localization and discord. The

second is that most prejudiced Inca accounts of the warlike Chachapoya are more

than simplistic imperial propaganda. The third erroneous premise is a confused

representation of the geographical limits of Chachapoya territory. As I outlined in

chapter two, criticisms of the Andean chronology and the use of a horizon approach
 122

to classify cultures, which privileges expansionistic polities, are not new. In the early

nineties scholars devoted a conference at Dumbarton Oaks to rethinking this flawed

chronology.255 Recently Helaine Silverman has urged Andeanists

to find a way out of the now oppressive temporal framework within which we
work256

But the standards for categorization put into play by this temporal framework persist.

The underlining presumptions innate in the horizon/intermediate time frame never

been eradicated from Andean studies. For example, from the discussion of the record

concerning Kuelap (chapter three) we know there is no historical account of the site

ever functioning as a fortress. So, even though the evidence from chapter three

reveals that a martial history for the site is an artificial construct, Kuelap to this day

stubbornly remains la Fortaleza. Generalizations about the Late Intermediate Period

buttress this erroneous conviction. With its sixty foot walls and hilltop location,

Kuelap is supposedly the epitome of a Late Intermediate Period sanctuary. According

to this mindset the static defense offered by Kuelaps walls must be a response to the

uncertain era of fighting which defines the Late Intermediate Period. However it is

easy to shake this unsubstantiated presumption by asking the following question.

Who was the enemy that Kuelaps walls were made to defend against?

33. Walls as Defense?

255
See Latin American Horizons, Don Stephen Rice editor, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collection, Washington D. C., 1993
256
See Silverman, Helaine, Introduction: Space and Time in the Central Andes, In Andean
Archaeology, edited by Helaine Silverman, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, 2004
 123

Many different theories have offered up belligerents which necessitated Kuelaps

construction. Yet none of these adversaries is convincing. For instance Espinoza

Soriano offered one of the most imaginative foes when he suggested wild animals

could be the impetus for Kuelaps massive perimeter wall.257 Obviously, against any

beastly adversary, a camp fire would have had accomplish the same function as a

sixty foot wall. The history of contact between people and predators clearly

demonstrates that the inhabitants of Kuelap would have killed and eaten any four

legged threats to their community. Mankind has been securely atop the food chain for

at least the past 10,000 years. Surely the community of Kuelaps inhabitants could

have formed a hunting party with far less effort than undertaking the construction of

60 foot walls. Espinoza Sorianos more serious proposal was that Kuelap was built in

response to raiders from the general vicinity.258 But again the idea the threat and the

time necessary to form the defense needs consideration. In other words couldnt any

polity capable of mustering the labor required to construct Kuelap field an

expeditionary force capable of destroying, or perhaps exterminating, any threat?

Historically it is interesting to observe that even the greatest defensive construction

the world has ever seen, the Great Wall of China, was no deterrent to the northern

nomadic raiders. Stopping the raiders took the efforts of the Emperor Han Wu Ti, who

assembled a fighting force to deal with the attackers.259 However these Chinese

defenders were pitted against a force equipped with lighting quick horses and tactics.

The suggested raiders attacking Kuelap would have done so on foot. Therefore escape

257
See Espinoza Soriano (1967) page 234
258
See Espinoza Soriano (1967) pages 235-236
259
Barfield, Thomas J., The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China 221 BC to AD 1757,
Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge MA, 1989
 124

and evasion, with captives in tow, would have been an impossible task for these

Andean raiders.

Perhaps Kuelaps perimeter wall was erected in response to a large outside enemy

force threatening the region? The short list of candidates for such an excursion during

the time period AD 800 until the arrival of the Inca has one prominent nominee: the

Huari. Earlier in chapters two and four I mentioned Ruz Estradas suggestion that

Kuelap could have been constructed in response to the advancing Huari threat. The

southern Peruvian centered Huari polity created an outpost far from the center of their

territory in Huamachuco. Huamachuco lies at the southwestern extreme of the

Chachapoya territory on the western side of the Maraon River gorge (Fig. 6b.). The

Huari colony in this area, Viracochapampa (Fig. 6a.), places this expansionistic state

on the fringes of the Chachapoyas, but aside from ceramic shards and textiles of

dubious provenance no firm evidence of an established presence has ever been

substantiated on the eastern side of the Maraon River.

Perhaps we need to look in the opposite direction and consider a threat to the

Chachapoyas from the eastern lowlands? Schjellerup did just this when she cited

evidence from local oral tradition at Kuelap, and used her findings to suggest that fear

of conquest from the northeastern lowlands facilitated the construction of Kuelaps

wall. Specifically Schjellerup hypothesized that this perimeter could have been

constructed in response to pressure from fierce jungle tribes [such} as the

Jivaro260 But whereas a trade network was probable from lowland to highland (and

visa versa),261 any hostile pressure from the selva (jungle) was unlikely. Certainly any
260
Schjellerup, (1997), page 238
261
Although no definitive study has been published, the Chachapoya probably had some kind of
exchange network with lowland people from the selva. In Native Lords of Quito in the Age of the
Incas, (pages 102-102) Frank Salomon applied the quechua term mindales to great effect. Mindales
 125

lowland threat did not warrant a construction on the scale of Kuelap. Consider, for

instance, Schjellerups suggestion of the lowland Jivaro. These forest dwellers would

have had to navigate upriver an enormous distance (against the current of many

different chilly rivers) to exert any pressure on the Chachapoya. Any force would then

have had to scale heights of about a thousand meters in order to attack the cold high-

altitude Chachapoya settlements. This would have been a daunting task for the Jivaro

(or any other lowland group) accustomed to a tropical climate and topography.

What about the idea then of conflict between different Chachapoya ethnic

groups? Could interregional warfare have been the catalyst for Kuelaps perimeter

wall? The previously mentioned Late Intermediate Period chauvinism, suggesting

balkanized conflict in the Andean highlands from 1000 AD until the arrival of the

Inca, would have us believe this scenario. However, to counter this mindset, we only

need to remember Langlois observation that there is no source of water at Kuelap. If

warfare was ubiquitous during this time in this region, then how long could the

defenders of Kuelap resist a dry season siege without a water source inside the walls?

The inhabitants would have had to climb down to the Utcubamba for their water

during an attack. And keeping this thought, how then do the indefensible ruins of

Macro (Fig. 8a.) and Condorchaca, located directly below Kuelap, just above the

banks of the Utcubamba, fit into this supposedly hostile environment? These ruins do

not conform to the Late Intermediate Period classification of settlements situated on

high peaks suggesting endemic localized conflict.262 It is, of course, impossible to

were a merchant Indian class but he added that evidence for these groups south of Quito is scarce.
However the burials offerings in the Museum at Leymebamba and the Chachapoya sites that line the
entradas (entrances into the rainforest from the highlands) are indicative of exchange and could be
attributed to these mindales. Salomon, Frank, Native Lords of Quito in the Age of the Incas,
Cambridge University Press, 1986
262
DAltroy (2002) page 206
 126

generalize about the entire Andean highlands from time period 800-1400 AD. But

when we consider the Late Intermediate Period from a specific Chachapoya

standpoint, it is likely the region of the upper/central Utcubamba valley experienced a

florescence of complex social interaction during this era. The intricacy of architecture

from this part of the Utcubamba River valley provides traces of political

sophistication.

Stephen Brush first commented on the unstudied complexity of Chachapoya

culture when he observed that the large amounts of manpower necessary for the

construction of Kuelap was indicative of the existence of a [unknown] centralized

authority and administration.263 However insightful, Brushs observation is, as yet,

unsubstantiated. Maybe we will never be able to confirm these suspicions.

Unfortunately, we are left with only the scarcest remnants of the Chachapoya culture

and language. What has come down to us through history is a biased Inca record of a

conquered people presented during a disingenuous colonial era. Therefore the

machinations of the interregional activity responsible for the construction of Kuelap,

and other sites in the immediate vicinity, could possibly remain a mystery.

34. Walls as Mimetic Representations of Cliffs

But there are pre-Columbian models which are instructional. These models can

be applied with effect to Kuelap. I want to enlist a study of naturalistic forms from the

ancient Americas to frame Kuelap. Specifically, I we need to consider Robert

Heizers comparison from Mesoamerica of a volcano and the made-made Olmec

263
Brush, Family the Economy and Human Ecology of an Andean Valley, University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1977, page 44
 127

mound at La Venta. Up until this time that Heizer presented his work, the Olmec

mound had been considered a pyramid, a common form in Mesoamerica. But Heizer

added that the mounds natural fluting and roundness could be an imitation of a

volcano found about seventy kilometers away in the Tuxtla Mountains.264 Elizabeth

Benson applied this model of man-made naturalistic architecture to Andean pre-

Columbian studies, when she presented her book Mochica: A Culture of Peru. In her

work she suggested that Moche platform mounds were constructed to imitate sacred

mountains.265 Recently, Garth Bawden reaffirmed a natural/man made connection in

pre-Columbian architecture by adding:

platforms also played active continuing roles in affirming the dominant

ideology of power. Their great bulk and height conveyed the power of central
authority. As symbols they recreated the sacred mountains whose divinities provided
the rivers that supported life. It was in their shadow that the general populace
participated in ceremonies ensuring social integration In their role as locations of
sacred time and space their summits acted as stages where, in full view (Moore 1996),
leaders conducted the rituals that manifested the tenets of north coast religious
belief.266

In his quote Bawden tied the construction of synthetic alpine Moche mounds to Jerry

Moores insightful study of power and architecture in the pre-Columbian Andes.

Moore had earlier assigned the qualities of permanence, scale, centrality, ubiquity and

visibility to Andean ritual architecture.267 Bawden applied Moores criterion to north

coast architecture to great effect. Similarly, all of these classifications also work in

reference to Kuelap. Despite 600 years of neglect Kuelaps relative intactness

264
See New Observations on La Venta in Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec, Elizabeth P.
Benson editor, 1967, pages 19-20
265
Benson (1972) page 98
266
See Joanne Pillsbury (2001) page 289
267
Moore, (1996) page 223
 128

underscores its permanence. Kuelaps scale is obvious. And Kuelap can be seen from

all surrounding hilltops. Therefore the site can easily be characterized by the qualities

of centrality, ubiquity and visibility

But the form being imitated at Kuelap is not a pyramidic representation of a

mountain. Instead I suggest that the architects of Kuelap formed the perimeter walls

in imitation of a cliff! (Fig. 4b.) Like the small arid mountains and hills that rise up

on the coast of Peru near the Moche centers, the ubiquitous natural form in highland

Chachapoyas is the cliff face. Natural canyons line the terrain in this part of the

northeastern Andes. These lush gorges were the preferred location for Chachapoya

burials (Fig. 16a), so unquestionably these geographic locations had special

significance for the Chachapoya. So why not consider Kuelap a mimetic cliff? If we

make this assumption, then Kuelaps architecture could have been a man-made

attempt at imitating the ultimate powerful and ubiquitous form of this region.

Remember, I noted earlier in this dissertation Keith Muscutts observation that

Kuelaps perimeter wall is actually the faade of a faux terrace (Fig. 4a illustrates this

nicely).268 So the wall is not really a wall but instead an artificial mound with a steep

sides resembling a precipice.269 This mound contained more than one hundred

burials.270 These burials are likely to be interments replicating the Chachapoya

cliffside funeral sites.271 Parsons, Hastings and Matos M. have aptly pointed out that

268
See Muscutt (1998) page 13
269
Again it is helpful to remember Heizers identification of fluting and the round form as suggestive
of a natural form (a volcano). Kuelaps perimeter is not a wall, but an artificial terrace, which perfectly
imitates a cliff!
270
See Narvaez (1987) page 118, Von Hagen (2002b) page 18 and Muscutt (1998) page 16
271
With burials contained in the walls would they then be defensive? Would the Chachapoya want
attackers to first encounter their sacred dead? It is possible they could have considered the dead a first
line of defense, a ghostly moat, but considering pan-Andean concepts of reverence for the dead and
specifically the careful placement of the Chachapoya dead in chullpas throughout the region I think
this would be unlikely.
 129

whatever defensive function the walls in the Late Intermediate Period settlements had

they also played some significant role in public ritual. The authors went on to

specifically note the importance of public ritual setting of the tomb/wall at Kuelap.272

Therefore thinking of the perimeter of Kuelap simply as a great barrier against is a

mistake!

The perimeter wall of Kuelap has impressed every visitor to the site for the past

one hundred and fifty years. But how good is a sixty foot wall defensively which

completely lacks parapets? Without these ramparts a large wall loses its defensive

qualities because it then affords cover which would conceal an enemys advance.

(Consider Fig. 22., the Inca fortress Saqsahuaman. This structure allows defenders to

see over the barrier and yet the stonework affords cover.) Theresa and John Topic

have noted: There is a longstanding misconception that a high wall implies a defense

function. Certainly a high wall serves as a barrier but true defensibility requires the

presence of a parapet.273 Narvaez wrote that he found no clear evidence for these

fortifications on the wall of Kuelap during his extensive excavation.274 So Kuelaps

perimeter without these additions would be like a pre-Columbian Maginot Line. At

first glance the defense would be sound but a quick probe by the enemy would reveal

Kuelaps defensive inadequacy.

35. The Enemy within the Gates?

272
See Jeffrey R. Parsons, Charles M. Hastings, and Ramiro Matos Mendieta, Rebuilding the State in
Highlands Peru: Herder-Cultivator Interaction during the Late Intermediate Period in the Tarama-
Chinchaycocha Region in Latin American Antiquity, vol. 8, #4, (1997) pages 331-333
273
Topic, John & Theresa, The Archaeological Investigation of Andean Militarism: Some Cautionary
Observations, in The Origins and Development of the Andean State, edited by J. Haas, S. Pozorski,
and T. Pozorski, Cambridge University Press, 1987, page 48
274
Narvaez, (1987), page 120
 130

Finally, perhaps the most compelling evidence for fortelaza Kuelap was the

discovery of 2,500 sling stones in the upper level by the excavation of Alfredo

Narvaez in the 1980s. This cache of stones was almost certainly a weapons store of

projectiles. Small smooth stones, able to fit in the palm of the hand, were a pre-

Columbian Andean weapon and they are commonly found in pre-Columbian

defensive positions. These stones were fired from a sling not unlike the device used

by the Biblical David to defeat Goliath. The 16th century chronicler Felipe Guaman

Poma de Ayala illustrated this weapon numerous times in drawings which he sent to

the King of Spain in 1615. But Pomas only depiction of the Chachapoya shows them

meeting the Inca sling man with clubs and spears (probably made of Chonta palm)

(Fig. 13.). The Chachapoya warriors have distinct headbands, which could be used as

slings, but in this Guaman Pomas drawing these are not employed either indicating a

preference tactically on the Chachapoya part or artistically on the part of Guaman

Poma.275 But even though the Chachapoya order of battle is lost to us, the importance

and use of the sling by the Chachapoya in warfare comes to down us from Valera

(recorded in Garcilaso) In Valeras record he stated

their [the Chachapoya] principal weapon was the sling, of which they wore the
emblem on their headdress.276

Whatever the importance of the weapons cache of projectiles at Kuelap, it is

important to note that the sling stones discovered by Narvaezs team were found on
275
See pages 85, 121, 187 and 251 in Guaman Poma Nueva Cornica Y Buen Gobierno, prologue by
Franklin Pease (1993) volume 1, for examples of the Inca preferred use of the sling in battle. Page 124
of the same volume shows the Chachapoya fighting the Inca. (Guaman Poma de Ayala, Nueva
Cornica y Buen Gobinero, edicin y prlogo de Franklin Pease G. Y., vocabulario y traducciones de
Jan Szemiski, Fondo de Cultura Econmica, Per, 1993 [1615])
276
Garcilaso de la Vega, The Incas: The Royal Commentaries of the Inca, Avon Books, 1961 [1609],
page 296
 131

the upper northwest level of Kuelap near the tower (torren). This upper level is the

sector of Kuelap which contains most of Kuelaps rectangular structures (Fig. 11a.).

Rectangularity is a form of construction which the Chachapoya reserved for chullpas

(compare Fig 16a. to Fig 16b.) In fact this form of construction is so ubiquitous to

Chachapoya burials, that if a rectangular Chachapoya habitat was ever found in a

settlement, I would immediately presume that the structure had some kind of funerary

significance! Corners are of particular significance in Chachapoya architecture. I

think the corner in a Chachapoya construction could be compared, with great effect,

to the basements of our houses. A basement is a room in the ground. The smell, the

quiet and the lack of air are not our ideal living space. These conditions do signal

foreboding or more exactly death. How many stories of death and ghosts emanate out

from the basement? I understand many people do live in basements, I myself resided

in a in ground apartment for a year, but given a preference I imagine nine out of ten

people would opt for an above ground dwelling. Some would be able to articulate

specific misgivings but I think many, even without specifically saying so, would find

a basement dwelling creepy. This sense of unease, I believe, is a good way to

visualize the Chachapoya response to a cornered dwelling.

So then we know that more than ninety five percent of the four hundred or so

structures found at Kuelap are circular. This is then to be expected. Rectangular

Chachapoya funeral houses are located affixed to cliff faces. Kuelap on the other

hand is a hilltop settlement and circular buildings are predictable. Also we must

remember there are more than 100 burials in the faux cliff face that is Kuelaps
 132

perimeter wall. The inhabitants of Kuelap did not need chullpas (funeral houses)

because the massive walls of their community sufficed.

But rectangular construction for dwellings is a common form in Inca architecture.

In fact the rectangular form is often an Inca footprint in this northern part of the

Andes. Is it possible then that the rectangular constructions predominant on the upper

level are indicative of permanent Inca presence? More precisely could the

constructions and cache of arms signify a garrison of conquerors inside the perimeter,

occupying and scrutinizing the settlement below? Kuelaps sling stones were always

imagined for use outside the wall, but the northwest tower complex is the most

impregnable section of the site. The entire northern wall of Kuelap is protected by a

steep cliff making any artificial defense almost redundant. This sector however looms

over the dwellings in the settlement below like the bridge of a ship. (Fig. 20a.)277

Almost any movement or activity would then be subject to scrutiny. What I am

suggesting here is the possibility that the hoard of stones could have supplied an

armory of occupying Incas. If this was the case the stones were not projectiles to be

used against a force outside the perimeter wall, but they were to be used against the

enemy within. In other words the weapons were for the Inca force to check disorder

and coerce the Chachapoya within and not to quiet disorder from without!

We have archaeological evidence which suggests the Inca stationed themselves in

the midst of their Chachapoya subjects. For example, data from Inge Schjellerups

excavation at the settlement La Pea Calata (Fig. 8b.) reveals an Inca structure

plunked in the middle of this Chachapoya site. She added that other Inca structures

277
French General Louis Langlois noted how the upper level dominated the lower city. (1939) page
39
 133

were built below the site,278 but imagine for a minute the intimidating and

disenfranchising effect of an Inca force placed in the midst of the conquered. This

imperial tactic of coercion echoes though the past in examples as diverse as northern

Roman garrisons, Saharan Foreign Legion outposts and Vietnam fire bases. But

returning to the Andean region, Andeanist Fernando Plaza Schuller noted Inca

amplification of indigenous constructions in what is modern Ecuador.279 However,

Plaza Schullers study specifically cites Inca cooption of native forts and their

subsequent reuse as Inca imperial installations. So far I have stressed that the

application of a militaristic function for Kuelap is erroneous. Using Plaza Schullers

evidence of Inca capture and reuse of indigenous fortresses would then undermine my

argument. But suppose the Inca, like almost all 19th and 20th century visitors, never

saw past the walls. In other words the Inca perception was akin to the previously

mentioned mind set which originated with the initial Spanish conquerors from late

Medieval Europe. Recall this type of thinking labels as a fortress any building with

stone enclosures and a few entrances situated in broken terrain.280 In other words the

Europeans had their medieval fortresses as a reference point but the Inca had an

equally secure point fortress prototype in Saqsawaman: their large hilltop citadel just

above Cuzco. An Inca outpost placed on top of Kuelap, in the midst of the most

significant Chachapoya architectural achievement, would have undermined the

symbolic power and security of Kuelap in the region! Additionally this recycling

would in effect provide a secure base for the imperial occupation. The best example I

278
Schjellerup (1997) page 176
279
See Plaza Schuller, Fernando, El Complejo de fortalezas de Pambamarca in Serie Arqueologa, no.
3, Instituto Otavaleo de Antropologa, Otavalo, 1980
280
Gasparini & Margolies, 1980, page 280
 134

can propose which imagines Kuelaps realignment by the Inca is the common

example of military reuse of a church or mosque.

Additionally, Kuelaps tower complex and upper level is reminiscent of another

pre-Columbian site near modern Bolivar (about a five day walk south from Kuelap).

This site is today called Pakariska (Fig. 5b.) Quechua for ancestor or forefather, but

this is obviously not the original designation for the site. The pre-conquest (Inca)

name for Pakariska is probably lost because that name would have been a

Chachapoya name and not a Quechua name. Pakariska rises from a plane in the

shadow of the mountain Cajamarquilla. The ruin is oriented on a north/south axis just

like Kuelap. The north end has a tower like construction which has a similar look and

feel to Kuelap. Pakariska has never been excavated, but there are rectangular

foundations hidden by undergrowth on the site. The area around Pakariska is

specifically mentioned in the chronicle of Blas Valera (recorded in Garcilaso) as an

area of stiff resistance to the Inca imperial army.281 It is then possible that this site,

which dominates the plain around Bolivar (Cajamarquilla), could have been co-opted

as an Inca outpost. If so, perhaps Pakariska was a prototype for the tower complex

addition to Kuelap.282 Pakariskas tower area certainly has the appearance of a fortress

from almost any perspective and the heights of the site provide great visuals of the

surrounding valley floor in every direction. In contrast Kuelap is so vertically

positioned above the vertically distant Utcubamba it is useless as a lookout point for

the valleys below. But Pakariska is only a few hundred meters about the major access

point connecting the eastern cordillera with the western decent to the dry Maraon
281
Garcilaso (1961) [1609], page 298
282
Dale McElrath considered the significance of this ruin in his 1975 paper Preliminary Report of
Excavations in the Uchumarca Valley: North Highlands of Peru. My observations are from my
fieldwork in the summer of 2003, with special thanks to Peter Lerche.
 135

River Gorge. Pakariskas strategic visual advantage is profound. Even though I would

suggest that Kuelap and Pakariska served completely different functions for the

Chachapoya, it is possible they were enlisted to serve somewhat similar ends by the

Inca.

36. An Exclusive Place to Live

So far I have avoided any suggestion of Kuelaps original function as militaristic.

Indeed I have illustrated that a martial historiography concerning the site is a modern

misunderstanding extrapolated back through time.283 Historically, there is no mention

of the ruin of Kuelap until 1843 when the site appears as the mislabeled Tower of

Babel. Then what was the settlement of Kuelap? If Kuelap wasnt a hilltop citadel

what purpose did Kuelap serve? To understand this we need to go back to my earlier

suggestion that the perimeter wall was faux cliff symbolizing power. If this is the case

then who were the powerful people living inside this perimeter, and why would the

Inca want to scrutinize them? Again we are dealing with a complete absence of any

record concerning these issues. However, a Mesoamerican model can once more be

applied to this discussion with some effect. This time we need to refer to the hilltop

settlement of Monte Alban in the valley of Oaxaca (Fig. 12a.). Early studies

pigeonholed Monte Alban as having militaristic aspects because of the strategic

terrain upon which it is built. Today the classic era Monte Alban settlement is

imagined as a disembedded capital like, for example, Washington DC. The

Mesoamerican scholars Blanton, Feinman, Kowalewski & Nicholas define this

disembedded capital as a site which strengthens linkages between autonomous or

283
See footnote #120
 136

partially autonomous local polities. This capital must be able to transcend local

differences and serve as a conjunction of all things.284 Although it is almost certain

Chachapoya society was never a polity on the level of complexity like that

established in the ancient Valley of Oaxaca, Kuelap fulfills the criterion outlined

above. If the perimeter wall of Kuelap was in fact a man-made cliff, what could be a

better regional symbol of power, or what could offer a better generic placement for

ancestors? No specific geographical cliff is necessary for entombment because

Kuelaps walls create a neutral burial space which while constructed would also be

coveted. Think of the walls mausoleum as a very exclusive version of Arlington

Cemetery. The prestige of interment in this location would trump any loss of status by

geographical displacement. Additionally, the site of Kuelap has a building like Mound

J at Monte Alban (Fig. 12a.) which has been postulated as a solar observatory like

Kuelaps tintero (Fig. 9b.).285 Although this comparison seems somewhat contrived,

imagine the universalizing effect of solar observation. Even in the complex world we

live in today the solar observatory is universally accepted architectural form that

brings together disparate groups of people. Simply, pondering the cosmos unifies us

earthlings. In the instance of Kuelap, Monte Alban, the Maya etc, the solar

observation would have had a unifying effect on the inhabitants of this hilltop site.

Whereas the architectural form listed above would break down barriers between

ethnic groups, Kuelaps three channeled entrances are signs of the exclusiveness of

the site. These passageways symbolize restricted access into the site (Figs. 10a &

284
See Blanton, Richard E., Ancient Oaxaca: The Monte Alban State, with Gary M. Feinman, Stephen
A. Kowalewski and Linda M. Nicholas, Cambridge University Press, 1999, page 65
285
See McGraw, Oncina, Sharon and Torres Ms, (1996) for the tintero and Kubler, George, The Art
and Architecture of Ancient America: The Mexican, Maya and Andean Peoples, Yale University Press,
New Haven, 1990, pages 162-163 for the calendric significance of Mound J
 137

10b.). This admission was likely limited to a chosen few. Blanton, Kowalewski,

Feinman & Finsten noticed a similar limit of access at Monte Alban when the wrote

the entire plaza complex could be entered only through three narrow, easily guarded

openings-which suggests it was open to only a select group of people.286 Following

this logic we should then intuit that the restricted access at Kuelap is indeed similar.

Outside the perimeter wall of Kuelap was the powerful image of a man made cliff.

This construction was and is seen from miles in all directions. But access inside the

wall to structures like the tintero was restricted to the elite inhabitants. Perhaps the

most compelling evidence for the high social status of Kuelaps inhabitants is the

previously mentioned deficiency of water at the settlement. Similarly, Monte Alban

has no natural source of water, and Mesoamerican scholars have assumed for a time

all water was laboriously carried up to the population.287 Espinoza Soriano suggested

this seemingly ridiculous but (I believe) plausible assumption more than thirty years

ago when he wrote about the hilltop llactas of Chachapoyas, and in particular

Kuelap.288 But the problem underlying Espinoza Sorianos argument is the question,

who were the water bearers involved in this daily routine? Kuelap imagined as a

fortress provides no answer, because obviously the water bearers would be

slaughtered during a siege. But supplying an elite settlement with water could easily

be accomplished by a large group of workers assigned to this daily task. But where

would these retainers live? To answer this question we need to refer to the discussion

286
See Blanton, Richard E., Ancient Mesoamerica: a Comparison of Change in Three Regions, with
Stephen Kowalewski, Gary M. Feinman, and Laura M. Finsten, Cambridge University Press, 1993,
page 93
287
See Blanton, Feinman, Kowalewski & Nicholas (1999) page 50
288
See Waldemar Espinoza Soriano (1967), page 236. Espinoza Soriano uses the colonial account of
Gonzalo Fernndez de Oviedo & Antonio de Herrera which specifically refers to water bearers from
the province of Nasaya.
 138

of the 700 structures associated with Ruzs Quiquita-Lahuancho (see footnote

#177). Quiquita-Lahuancho was the name for the miscellaneous foundations

recorded by Ruz in 1972. Imagine these buildings as dwellings for the inhabitants

who were in support of the inhabitants of Kuelap. In other words Quiquita-

Lahuancho was the home of the water bearers. This scenario provides circumstantial

evidence for the elevated status for the inhabitants of Kuelap.

37. Five Hundred Years of Prejudice

I want now to discuss an Inca prejudice which has thrived for almost five

hundred years: the Chachapoya, located in Northeastern Peru, and the Caari, their

far northern neighbors centered in highland Ecuador, are the same ethnic group. Their

common ethnic trait, according to the slanted Inca viewpoint, was their distain of

order which manifested itself in their penchant for warlike barbarity. I believe this

Inca doctrine was fundamentally flawed and it developed from their frustration in

controlling the Northeastern extremes of their Empire. This frustration led to a basic

disdain for the defenders of this fertile pramo Andean environment and a subsequent

campaign of negative imperial propaganda. The use of imperial propaganda as a

cover for alarming events has a familiar ring to the modern reader but this technique

was also used actively in the pre-Columbian world. For example the Aztecs spun

the details surrounding their ignominious defeat at the hands of their bronze wielding

neighbors the Tarascans.289 Later in this chapter I will provide an Andean example of

imperial propaganda when I discuss at length the brother of Topa Inca, Inca Achache

and his metaphorical battle with a jaguar. The purpose of this elaborately graphic
289
Pasztory (1983) page 52
 139

story was to create of a victory out of the misguided Inca military campaign into the

unconquerable rainforest.

But to begin a discussion of the Inca disdain for the defenders of the pramo

Andean environment, we need first to return to Carl Trolls discussion, later enhanced

by Frank Salomon, of puna and pramo Andes. (Appendix C)290 Trolls original idea

was that the lack of rainfall and natural resources of the high and dry southern puna

Andes created an environment which fostered an aggregation of polities which

crystallized in the formation of the Inca Empire.291 In other words the puna Andean

ethnic groups of the Late Intermediate Period near Cuzco banded together to form the

Inca Empire. They reached this imperial critical mass because their environment was

deficient in natural resources. After this cohesion the now imperial southern puna

Andean highlanders attacked outside their realm in order to conquer terrain with, for

instance, the environmental advantages of their northern neighbors. Salomon

criticized the down side of Trolls argument which implied that the resource and water

rich pramo Andean groups, which the Inca conquered, were basically too fat and

happy to concern themselves with empire building.292 I am not concerned here with

this pre-Columbian Malthusian economic critique which has fascinating inter-Andean

racist overtones (indeed Trolls original text seems very much to conform to the 1943

publication date). Instead I want to look at this argument from again another

perspective which is: the resource abundant pramo Andean reputation for ferocity

and belligerence stemmed from the necessity to resist an occupation which had little

or nothing to present in return. In other words these areas were not the dry and barren
290
See Chapter two
291
See Troll, Carl, Die Stellung der Indianer-Hochkulturen im Landschaftsaubau der tropischen
Anden, Ztsch. Ges. F. Erdk. Berlin, 1943, pages 93-128
292
See Salomon, (1986), pages 22-29
 140

southern Andean sphere which could benefit from Inca rule.293 These areas only

gained an overlord who would siphon off their abundance!

Presented with these enormous stakes it would be natural for the larger northern

Andean ethnic groups to vociferously resist and, given the opportunity, revolt. It

would also be expected for the Inca to be contemptuous, almost to the point of

racism, of this resistance because such opposition to their imposed order would seem,

to them, the willfulness of brutish barbarians. This one sided Inca imperial perception

served as the vehicle upon which the Chachapoya, hopelessly entangled in Inca

records with their northern pramo neighbors the Caari, entered our history. As I

mentioned earlier the Chachapoya and Caari are two distinct ethnic groups. Their

territories were located hundreds apart in what is today northeastern Peru for the

Chachapoya and highland Ecuador for the Caari. However these distinct pre-

Columbian ethnic groups were, and are, always lumped together as the epitome of

warlike Late Intermediate Period peoples. For instance consider Guaman Pomas

drawing of the Inca military leader Challcochima: one of his several hundred

depictions from his 16th century visual ethnography (Fig. 13.). In this four hundred

year old picture the Inca captain is shown in a graceful attacking mode fighting

animalistic Chachapoya and Caari hordes.294 The two groups are imagined as one

belligerent monolith. This Inca prejudice is perhaps somewhat understandable when

we consider that the two groups were conquered during the northern campaigns of

293
Refer back to Bruce Owens & Marylin Norconks appendix 1, page 110 in Earles (1987)
Archaeological Field Research in the Upper Mantaro, Peru 1982-1983. In their table the older burials
increase which is indicative of a longer life span. On page 101 there is also an interesting discussion of
the nutritional benefit of increased protein (camelid) consumption among non-elites after the Inca
conquest.
294
See Guaman Poma (1993) page 124
 141

Topa Inca.295 But we are left with a lack of differentiation in the record between these

groups and the wars against them in these regions. It was in this manner that the

information was passed down to the early colonial chroniclers.

We also know from the colonial chronicles that the Chachapoya and the Caari

were prized for their service as Inca Emperors personnel guard. The justification for

this selection was again their supposed toughness and aggressiveness. However

Thomas Patterson has noted an aspect of Inca upward mobility which could explain

the Chachapoya penchant for service as bodyguards. Patterson observed in the Inca

state the development of a plunder economy which rewarded the exploits of a soldier

class. This plunder economy offered a means for advancement and accumulation of

wealth for soldiers in the Inca Empire. If we then remember this scheme of reward for

service and apply it to a conquered lord, and his finest fighters, we then can see that

the personnel guard had a powerful incentive to serve the emperor. Even though the

destructive Inca system afforded their rewards is secondary to the prominence they

gained. In other words the job of loyal retainer, in service of the Emperor, must have

offered Chachapoya warriors an alternative to a dismal future under occupation.

(Remember this occupation was also dismantling their pramo environment). So the

Chachapoya warriors service would, using Pattersons model, be more motivated by

greed and personal advancement than by ferocity!296

Unfortunately, the bogus stereotyping of these distinct peoples persists in Andean

studies to this day. The erroneous concept of the Chachapoya as natural born fighters

295
See Garcilaso (1961) book eight
296
See DAltroy, (2002) page 219 and Patterson, Thomas C., The Inca Empire: The Formation and
Disintegration of a Pre-Capitalist State, Berg Publishers, New York, 1991, page 58
 142

contributes greatly to the label fortaleza Kuelap.297 This mythical image of ferocity is

promoted in modern day Chachapoyas to improve tourism. The strong and fierce

image of the Chachapoya men, along with the previously mentioned

misrepresentation of light skinned beautiful women, has become a standard creating,

perhaps intentionally, a climate receptive for hardy Andean tourists (the regions

principal visitors). For the Caari, although they are far from my specialty, the

misleading stereotyping seems no better. For example, this ethnic group was recently

proposed as possible participants in a pre-Columbian trans-Pacific maritime event.

The extreme unlikelihood of a highland group as competent seafarers was

outweighed, I think, by their feral historical misrepresentation.298

38. Antisuyu or Chinchasuyu?

Before finishing this chapter, we need bring into question the geographic limits

of the people the Inca called the Chachapoya. As I have now stated numerous times,

we inherited the Andean pre-Columbian setting from the Inca imagination. But this

Inca-centric worldview failed to measure the scope and territorial complexity of the

conquered Chachapoya. Remember, the Inca envisioned the world as Tawantinsuyu: a

four parted whole. Unfortunately the area of the Chachapoya did not fit seamlessly

into this Inca worldview. Chachapoyas was highland. But Chachapoyas was surely

also forested montaa. This mountain cloud forest is basically dense jungle at

altitude. The extent of Chachapoya settlements in this montaa is relatively unknown,

297
Oberem & Hartmann noticed this continuing mixing of Chachapoya and Caari almost thirty years
ago. See Oberem, Udo & Roswith Hartmann, Indios Caaris de la Sierra Sur del Ecuador en el Cuzco
del Siglo XVI, in El Cuzco del Siglo XVI, Seminar fr Vlderkunde, Universitt Bonn, 1976
298
See the 22nd Northeast Conference on Andean Archaeology and Ethnohistory paper entitled Trans-
Pacific Contact in the Ecuadorian Gulf of Guayaquil?
 143

but we do know of the existence of at least one important site: Abiseo. Chachapoya

scholars have documented only a fraction of the Chachapoya sites in the eastern

montaa. But whereas the extent of the Chachapoya influence is this region is

unknown, their presence was assured. Many of the funeral sites and hidden

Chachapoya architecture of the eastern montaa are a testament to an undiscovered

country. On the other hand, Chachapoya highland sites, 2,700 meters and above, are

common and known. These highland locations are often cold and isolated while the

montaa sites are temperate and wet. The highland sites also lack the heavy forested

cover which nature lavishes upon the montaa settlements. Clearly then, when we use

the Inca delineation of the world we find that Chachapoyas encompassed two corners

of their Tawantinsuyu: chinchasuyu and antisuyu. Chinchasuyu was the previously

cited land of plenty, coveted by the Inca. This is the area of temperate rainfall, replete

with corn, which collectively resisted Inca domination. But Chachapoyas also

extended into the eyebrow of the jungle. This was the boundary of imperial Inca

influence. The montaa was an area of limitless cloud forest which shrugged at

colonization and military might. The montaa was an expanse where the largest

military ever assembled in the history of South America, the Inca army, proved

ineffective. Schjellerup has recently compared an elite Inca compound in the eastern

montaa location of la meseta to an oasis in the dense forest.299 This site must have

seemed a green wilderness on the edge of the world for the unfortunate Inca colonists.

The Incas fruitless venture into antisuyu, or the forest, has antecedents in history

both real and imagined. Events like the ill-fated El Dorado Expedition of the

conquistador Alvarado and the fruitless attacks of Joseph Conrads fictional man-of-
299
Schjellerup (2003) page 263
 144

war in Heart of Darkness are but a few examples. But where their armies failed, Inca

legendary history triumphed. For example, according to the chronicles the brother of

Topa Inca, Inca Achache, carried the day for the Emperor when the people of the

antisuyu revolted. In this insurrection Achache supposedly killed a jaguar that had

attacked him and ate the raw meat of its flesh in front of his rebellious enemies.300

Achache demonstrated that he was more ferocious than the most powerful jungle

predator by killing the jaguar. The predatory symbol of a cat epitomizes all that is

powerful in the selva. But Inca Achache also engaged in a sort of barbaric one-

upmanship by eating the uncooked cat. This action is so fearsome and revolting even

uncivilized and ferocious lowlanders fled in terror from the sight. Symbolically then

this anecdote created an imperial victory from a dubious military excursion.

Loaded predatory imagery has permeated Chachapoya studies to the point of

neglecting the highland part of the Chachapoya territory. For instance, the importance

of the feline, and the snake, has been emphasized in Chachapoya art even though the

influence of these animals on the highland realm of the Chachapoya is strained at

best. The cat as a universal Chachapoya symbol is somewhat grounded,301 but the

sierra was and is not snake country. Currently, for instance, it is possible to search

under rocks and find a serpent at Kuelap, but this task would likely take all day and

the result would be a creature less then intimidating. For a feline example we need
300
See Betanzos (1996) page 141. The jaguar is a notoriously stealthy predator an even today, with
modern tracking equipment, sighting this animal is considered a privilege. I presume many Inca
soldiers used some system to corner and kill this animal in order to use it as a psychological tactic
against their enemy. Of course the story could be a complete fiction and the skin perhaps obtained
through trade.
301
Von Hagens article Chachapoya Iconography and Society at Laguna de los Cndores, Peru cites
the oncilla (a Central American term for felis tigrina) as having a range up to 3,200 meters. This
species is what we would call a tomcat or a small bobcat, so they are like wild versions of domestic
pets. In the Utcubamba area they refer to this feline as tigrina, and although I have never seen one, I
image many of these sightings are really abandoned domestic cats gone feral. For Von Hagens
reference see Silverman and Isbell (2002) page 151.
 145

only to refer to the red puma. At present the red puma of the ceja de selva lives a

precarious existence on the fringes of the Chachapoya region. If the cat is seen, in

what is today a remote and sparsely populated area, it would be hunted down and

eaten. It is likely that the highland cousin of this feline disappeared hundreds of years

earlier, and, as I previously discussed, a predator like this would have been greatly

reduced by human populations.302 The competition for precious protein resources in

the Andes would simply not have been tolerated by humans at the top of the food

chain.

If we then go back to Peter Lerches previously cited zoomorphic reading

(zigzag/snake, rhombus/feline eye) for the frieze work on Chachapoya architecture

(Fig. 18a. shows both designs), we can see that this iconography fails to resonate

throughout the entire realm. This iconography flirts with the lowland carnivorous

animal influence on highland areas first suggested in Chavin studies.303 But I believe

this reliance on this predator symbolism is hampered by a sort of forested

romanticism which highlights the montaa region of the pre-Columbian Chachapoyas

not the sierra, and until a link is established from lets say Chavin to Recuay and then

on to Chachapoyas I think this iconography is distracting.304 The recent efforts of

Adriana Von Hagen, a detailed report and analysis on the symbolism of many objects

found in the famous Laguna de los Cndores archeological rescue operation, is much

302
Garcilaso mentioned that there were lions in the pre-Columbian Andean environment but they were
not numerous in the highlands. He also recorded that the Incas reduced the number of wild cats by
hunting. Garcilaso (1966) page 518
303
Burger (1992) page 150
304
I will however remain open minded because both George Lau Northern Exposures: Evidence for
Recuay-Cajamarca Interaction, 23rd Northeast Conference on Andean Archaeology and Ethnohistory,
Yale University, November 12-14, 2004 & Alex Mantha Late Prehispanic Households and Settlement
Patterns of the Rapayan Valley, Upper Maraon Drainage, Central Andes of Peru, 23rd Northeast
Conference on Andean Archaeology and Ethnohistory, November 12-14, Yale University, 2004, are
working on these topics.
 146

in the same vain.305 Von Hagens work outlined the early influence of pre-Columbian

cultures west and east, but in her study relies on the impact of the eastern montaa

and selva on the development of a Chachapoya art style.306 This montaa

iconographic slant is apparent when we consider her elaborate discussion of feline

images and their importance in Chachapoya art. Von Hagen emphasized these feline

representations on vessels and textiles. She also emphasized a mummified cat interred

with the mummies from the Laguna de los Cndores. Von Hagens iconology

resonates perfectly with Lerches cat eye and rhombus association. However, for the

time being, I want refrain from emphasizing of such predatory animal icons. I am not

ignoring the animal iconography, but instead I prefer to look at another more human,

and more firmly grounded, source for the geometric frieze work of Chachapoya

architecture. But before we examine the architecture of the Chachapoya, we need to

first discuss the sumptuous finds at the Laguna de los Cndores and cliffside

pictographs in this sites vicinity.

Adriana Von Hagen has presented a number of papers on the material goods

rescued from the looters at the Laguna de los Cndores. Above I mentioned that Von

Hagen chose primarily to concentrate on the textiles and ceramics from the site and

305
See Von Hagen Chachapoya Iconography and Society at Laguna de los Cndores, Peru in
Silverman and Isbell (2002) pages 137-155
306
Extreme topographical changes over relatively short distances, foster an environment where
legendary exploits and assumptions, whether reasonable or not, move from the imagination into reality.
In this shift the fiercer and stronger are always on the other side of the mountain. For Example, on the
Peruvian coast the Serrano is the subject of myth, while the highlanders in turn romanticize the eastern
lowlands. Today in the center of South American tourism (Cuzco) tour agencies push jungle excursions
to travelers who have yet to acclimatize to their mountainous surroundings. The lowland with its
mystery and teeming life serves as a perfect foil to the highlands. Anthropologist Michael Taussig has
remarked that even though the Qollahaya medicine men of northern Bolivia regard the lowlanders of
the hot eastern Andes as inferior naked Indians, these people are the source of their power: plants
essential to their medicine. Therefore the power and reputation of the lowlands even supplants
prejudice, a most resilient human belief system. Taussig, Folk Healing and the Structure of Conquest
in Southwest Columbia, in Journal of Latin American Lore, 6:2 (1980) page 230
 147

not on the architecture of the chullpas, or the nearby cliff face rock art. Von Hagen did

present a brief treatment of some of the pictographs from the lake in an earlier

Laguna de los Cndores article, but again her concentration was on the funerary

offerings.307 This attention is understandable because new Chachapoya chullpas are

still in the process of being discovered, and, as of now, no systematic study of

known funeral sites exists.308 It is therefore difficult to present any convincing

discussion of these sites based on as yet incomplete data. However, even though our

knowledge is incomplete, I think we need to examine what is available, because this

effort would be revealing. For instance, Chachapoya cliffside chullpas309 are

characterized by oversized red paintings around the funerary architecture. Many of

these paintings have faded over time and therefore they have become large

indecipherable red ink blots on the cliff face. However, some of these paintings are

legible enough to reveal at least their outline and some content. If I presented a theme

for the known Chachapoya pictographs it would be headhunting. Headhunting was a

common practice in pre-Columbian South America. For example the Initial Period

site of Cerro Sechn contains stone friezes replete with depictions of severed heads,

and the later Paracas and Nazca cultures elevated headhunter art to an unprecedented

level of beauty and status. In Chachapoyas art the theme is also prominent. For

example, Keith Muscutt recorded headhunter renderings on the artwork of the cliffs

of la Petaca. Muscutts photos clearly illustrate the headhunter and his victim. His

307
See Von Hagen (2002b) pages 39-40
308
Muscutt has done some pioneering work with chullpas in the eastern montaa, and the future of
these studies looks promising. At the Primera Conferencia Internacional sobre el Arte, la Arqueologa
y la Etnohistoria de los Chachapoyas, held at the museum in Leymebamba (August 2003) the scholars
Jose Ruz Barcillos and Ken Nystrom both presented excellent new archaeological studies.
309
Chullpas are funeral houses: buildings. Funeral platforms are less architecturally complete
versions of chullpas but I will reluctantly combine them in this discussion for simplicitys sake.
 148

shots of the red paintings show a victorious figure presenting a trophy head next to

what is apparently the losers spasmodically contorting body.310 This content of this

imagery was reinforced by the recent discovery of headhunter motif at the site of

Quinta Cocha (just above the Laguna de los Cndores). This site has a moving

headless victim gushing fountains of blood from his severed neck. The victim is

literally dancing like a chicken with its head cut off! When I was first shown photos

from this site someone in the room suggested the victim was a stylized dancer. This

misguided assumption is predictable because it has a historical precedent. An initially

benign iconographic reading also occurred at the Mesoamerican site of Monte Alban.

Frieze works of contorting figures from this settlement were presumed to be

depictions of dancers and therefore these sculptures were named danzantes (Fig.

12b.). Later analysis indicated the figures were not dancing but instead they were

representations of tortured captives flailing about in their death throes.311

The Chachapoya would then have witnessed examples of beheadings. These

decapitations would have graphically illustrated chaotic bodily movement when

detached from the head. In other words the headhunter tradition would have

illustrated the macabre movement of the headless body. I therefore want to suggest

the head as the center of being to the Chachapoya. Support for this line of thought is

easy to discern in Chachapoya art, religion and symbolism. Many Chachapoya ruins

are replete with low relief stone renderings known as a cabezas clavas. (Fig. 14b.)

These carvings are often referred to as nail heads because of their long cylindrical

form and architectural placement, which calls to mind a nail being driven into a
310
See Muscutt (1998) page 53. Unfortunately we do not have any dates associated with the cliff art.
However, stylistically speaking the art is certainly Chachapoya. The proximity to the chullpas with a
holistic compositional effect adds to this identification.
311
See Coe, Michael D., Mxico, Praeger, New York, 1977, page 64
 149

board. Typically, the imagery of these cabezas clavas consists of two bulging eyes

and a jaw displaying prominent teeth. (Von Hagen has pointed out these forms

resemblance to Early Horizon era Chavin Teton heads).312 Again their theme is head-

centric. Continuing on with this line of thought, many Chachapoya cliffside red

funerary paintings, tucked away in the green slopes east of the Utcubamba River

Valley, prominently display an eye.313 Again the theme here is vision. In addition to

the nail head sculpture I have previously cited, low relief carvings of stylized heads

are found inside the walls of Kuelap. (Appendix D. f,g,h,i, & j) Indeed one of these

heads adorns the wall of a building the tintero which has been postulated as a solar

observatory.314 If correct then this artistic placement links the head and sight with the

one of most profound applications of vision: perception of the cosmos.

Artistic depictions of heads are really the only known manifestation of the human

form in Chachapoya artwork except for the abstract and stylized full body frieze work

found in the ruins at Abiseo and small human forms from the Chilchos lintel (now in

the Museum at Leymebamba). But in the sculptures from this lintel, the head is

proportionally equal to the figures entire body and the full body friezes of Abiseo do

not illustrate cats or snakes. Instead this art work is anthropomorphic! (Fig. 21a.)

These works mimic the common Andean artistic convention of an oversized head

dominating the form. Examples are easily found in the smiling god from the New

Temple at Chavin, the staff god on the Gateway of the Sun at Tiwanaku, and the

figure atop a Sicn tumi knife in the Miguel Mijica Gallo museum in Lima. In
312
Von Hagen has referred to a least one of these heads as feline. (See Von Hagen Chachapoya
Iconography and Society at Laguna de los Cndores, Peru in Silberman & Isbell (2002) page 150)
313
Muscutt has noted this painting does not appear west of the montaa. See Muscutt, Keith, Vira
Vira: A New Chachapoyas Site in South American Explorer, with Vincent Lee and Douglas Sharon,
1994, page 6
314
See Narvaez (1987) page 133
 150

addition, Chachapoya funeral sites provide other links to the head and its senses. For

instance, why did the Chachapoya inter their dead in cliffs? The precipitous

architecture was obviously an extremely difficult architectural convention. The

selection of cliff interments highlights the sense of sight centered in the head. These

cliffs are also good natural amphitheatres and from these locations voices can carry

over great distances. This phenomenon again stresses a cranium-centric sense: human

speech. Keith Muscutt has even suggested some funeral platforms could be a stage for

displaying ancestor mummies.315 Imagine an Andean ceremonial performance of

heredity and power staged from these lofty perches. We also know that when the Inca

arrived in the region they appropriated these venerated Chachapoya sites. The

Laguna de los Cndores discovery revealed that the Inca removed Chachapoya dead

from the chullpa to make space for their own deceased.316 Perhaps this repositioning

even caused the end of the previously suggested performances and could have

possibly destroyed the chullpas ceremonial significance. Finally, the mummies in

Chachapoya chullpas are wrapped in an outer cloth which typically features a

prominent head design stressing eye, nose and mouth. Lerche has proposed that when

these mummy bundles were placed in a typical wooden plank Chachapoya coffin a

carved figure of a head was placed at the top of the interment.317This artwork could be

described as a cranial popsicle with exaggerated eyes, nose and ears.

39. The Trophy Head

315
See Muscutt, Keith, Cueva de Osiris: A Pictograph Site in the Peruvian Amazon in Rock Art
Papers, Ken Hedges editor, San Diego Museum Papers, volume 6, #24, 1988, page 110
316
See Von Hagen Chachapoya Iconography and Society at Laguna de los Cndores, Peru in
Silverman & Isbell (2002) page 142
317
Personal communication 7/02
 151

Returning then to the geometric frieze work ubiquitous to the architectural

embellishment of many Chachapoya structures, why not consider these designs

elements as associated with the head? The rhombus, in all its forms, would, of course,

be the eye component. (compare Figs. 14a. & 18a. right frieze) The zigzag I suggest

is teeth! (compare Figs. 14b. & 18a left frieze) As I have stated the jagged teeth

element is a common theme for Chachapoya nail heads.318 This feature highlights the

mouth and the process consumption or sustenance. This symbol was the most widely

spread form in the pre-Columbian Chachapoyas. Why not? The mouth and teeth are

indicative of nourishment and possibly vigor. In her teams archaeological fieldwork

in the Chuquibamba area Schjellerup noted that the dental conditions of the

population showed teeth and jaws were functioning up until old age and from an

examination of the remains of the inhabitants, the population appears to have eaten

well in life.319 Chinchasuyu (or the corner of corn production) was the breadbasket of

pre-Columbian South America. A great percentage of the Chachapoya territory was

part of this Inca designated corner of their Empire. Frank Salomon has even

suggested that acquisition of Chinchasuyus abundant corn production was the reason

for the Inca conquests in this northern part of their realm.320 The term Chincha (maybe

the same as chicha), could perhaps reference corn. Corn beer which was a prized elite

drink in Andean pre-history. Consumption, the primary purpose of the mouth and

teeth, was intimately associated with this realm.

318
See Muscutt (1998) page 40 and Von Hagen (2002b) page 19
319
See Schjellerup, (1997) page 225
320
See Salomon, (1986) chapter #1. Again Salomon amplifies Trolls idea of puna and pramo Andean
ecosystems, the puna being high dry terrain suitable for only tubers and pasture and the northern
pramo characterized by rainfall and agricultural abundance.
 152

Continuing on with the elements of the head analogy we then come to the

stylized step fret (Fig. 15b.). This design is manifested in the decoration of buildings

at Abiseo and los Pinchudos. I see this artwork as representative of the human ear

(compare Figs. 15a. & 15b.). Some wooden sculptures in the Museum at

Leymebamba, the previously mentioned popsicles, have geometrically constructed

ears which mimic this fret design (Fig. 7b. shows this sculpture without ear

piece).321In the 1990s Lerche brought the previously mentioned Chilchos wooden

lintel to the attention of Chachapoya scholarship. This important sculpture, now a

centerpiece of the museum in Leymebamba, is imbued with fantastic iconography.

But, most importantly for the purposes of this discussion, is the fact that the

anthropomorphic figures from the two ends of this sculpture have a stylized ear

design exactly in the form of the geometric frieze step fret.322

Why then is it necessary to propose a new iconography for the geometric

Chachapoya forms that adorn the outside of many of their circular structures. Also,

how does this alternative viewpoint enhance perception of the Chachapoya? Of

course having another way of considering the art of the Chachapoya can only be

beneficial but I would also suggest that not only are the identifications more simple,

they also are less grounded in the predator symbolism of antisuyu. This iconography

frames these geometric design forms more in human terms. The artwork decorating

the buildings of the Chachapoya could also be indicative of the mitigation of the

earlier Chachapoya headhunter tradition and perhaps the development of a more

unified polity. Small groups thriving on hostility toward each other is almost a

321
See Von Hagen Nueva Iconografa Chachapoya de la Laguna de los Cndores, in Iconos #4,
(2000-2) page 13
322
See Lerche (1995) page 69
 153

universal form for the practice of headhunting.323 But could a group or a people

remaining so belligerent build a structure like Kuelap? Is it possible over time the

artistic tradition of a lopped off head, featured prominently in cliffside pictographs

became more stylized. Is this indicative of a Chachapoya cultural shift from an early

belligerent and tumultuous phase into a polity capable of constructing a settlement on

the scale of Kuelap? More precisely is the artwork indicative of cultural cohesion and

change? Remember by all accounts the history of the pre-Columbian Chachapoya

covers a time frame of at about five hundred years. The expansionistic Inca Empire is

typically assigned less than one fourth of this duration. Andean pre-Columbian

chronology assigns Chachapoya culture to the Late Intermediate Period. Again

according to the Late Intermediate Period stereotype, the Chachapoya, and all the

other neglected highland cultures of this era, are envisioned as a brutish and warlike

assembly of fractious communities that unify solely in response to the Inca invasion.

This perception is reinforced by the previously cited predatory animal image,

embodied by references to the puma and the snake, which has been assigned to the

geometric frieze work. While there are definite zoomorphic representations in

Chachapoya artwork, the evidence cited in the previous discussion also supports the

elements of a head reading. This iconography does not rely on cult-like predator

symbolism which reinforces an enduring and timeless vision of ferociousness and its

subsequent application to Chachapoya culture. The ferocious Chachapoya stereotype

is, as I hopefully have shown, a remnant of another cultures campaign of

propaganda. This dubious representation of the Chachapoya gained a life of its own

from colonial history to the present. The result of this propagation was the creation an
323
See Pasztory, Esther, Pre-Columbian Art, Cambridge University Press, 1998, page 109
 154

image of the Chachapoya which was both cult-like and opaque and the stuff of legend

and myth. Blas Valeras reference to the strong men324 of Chachapoyas became

distorted into an image of relentless warriors. This vision was far removed from the

more realistic representation of the Chachapoya: a people of a culture tragically

aborted.

CHAPTER EIGHT

CLOSING REMARKS

40. A Journeymans Approach

About a decade ago I viewed an exhibition of the works of Henri Darger at the

Museum of American Folk Art in midtown Manhattan. After walking through the

324
Garcilaso (1961) page 296
 155

show I immediately realized how much I greatly appreciated Dargers works. Perhaps

it was his struggle as an artist/janitor which appealed to my sense of perseverance, or

maybe I was impressed by Dargers frantic sublimation of his inner destructive

impulses. But I think what most impressed me about Dargers work was that the

exhibition was displayed in such a humble venue. The location appealed to the pre-

Columbian chip on my shoulder. After all, many pre-Columbian masterpieces, textiles

and ceramics for example, are consigned to the folk art and crafts sections of

museums. I was very comfortable in this unassuming locale. When I read the

curators wall mounted text I paused. Observations contained in this catalog have

helped me compose this dissertation, specifically a section on Dargers technique, or

the lack there of. This passage relayed that Darger, because of his difficult origins,

had no formal instruction in sculpting or painting. He therefore demonstrated his

mastery as an artist by cutting and pasting pictures from magazines. The arrangement

and selection of Dargers unique collages brought to life the adventures of his

heroines, the Vivian Girls. What Darger lacked in formal training he made up in

imagination. In other words Darger used what was available to create his art!
 156

I make no claim to being on Dargers artistic level, and I certainly would not

want to suffer his life even for any sort of artistic mastery. But I often thought of

the curators statement about using what was available, in absence of a singular

specialized technique. This dissertation is a product of this journeyman approach

in assembling a Chachapoya architectural collage. For an explanation just refer

back to the discussion in Chapter one. Remember, I am not an ethnohistorian

well versed in the languages necessary (Latin, Italian, Quechua etc.) for a

comprehensive study of colonial manuscripts. But I have made due with my

examination of the importance of Blas Valeras record (recorded in Garcilaso). I

am not an archaeologist. My department (Art History) was informally stripped of

this function (at least in the Americas) in the sixties during the previously

mentioned processual or new archaeology movement. I have however used the

archaeological record to form opinions in this dissertation. I am not an

anthropologist, and even though I have lived and worked for six years in

Chachapoyas I have no charts, graphs and DNA analysis to show for my efforts.

But I genuinely think of myself as wielding some of the instruments of all of the

above. I am not expert in any one of these fields. But my knowledge of the

methods and problems of ethnohistory, archaeology and anthropology was

sufficient to assemble the Dargerlike work which is my dissertation.

 157

This study is formed from a patchwork of interdisciplinary information which is

the state of Chachapoya scholarship. In reality, I think it would be difficult to

adequately investigate Chachapoyas through the lens of any one specific field.

We simply do not have enough specificity upon which to build a comprehensive

study. In the future Chachapoyas will provide a bounty for the graduate student

in anthropology seeking to examine, for example, the plantation of Inca

mitmaqkuna in the modern day Utcubamba or perhaps a revelation of the

household water and food requirements for a specific kin group inhabiting

Chachapoya circular dwellings. These research papers are, for now, in the future.

41. Future Studies

Does then specificity of study concerning pre-Columbian Chachapoya have to

languish for the next few years until the area draws the interest of well funded multi-

disciplinary projects? Do we in the field have to wait for another Laguna de los

Cndores find, and this time capitalize on the fame for the overall benefit of the

region? Certainly, the Chachapoya montaa is replete with hidden treasures waiting

for revelation. But as this dissertation has shown, even the regions most distinct and

prominent ruin, Kuelap, is woefully under-investigated. Kuelap definitely needs

scientific attention in the future. But this scientific investigation should be like that

bestowed upon Chavin de Huantar recently by Silvia Kembel. Kembels approach to

Chavin de Huantar325 was an updated scientific analysis which calls to mind of the

artistic work of Tatiana Proskouriakoff four decades earlier. In her An Album of Maya
325
Kembel, Silvia Rodriguez & John W. Rick, Building Authority at Chavin de Huntar: Models of
Social Organization and Development in the Initial Period and Early Horizon, In Andean
Archaeology, edited by Helaine Silverman, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, 2004
 158

Architecture, Proskouriakoff illustrated the history the Maya temple Structure A-V

with a staged series of drawings. These drawings imaginatively unfolded eight

hundred years of this complexs architectural change.326 Visually then,

Proskouriakoffs drawings peeled back the phases of construction, like skin of the

onion, in an effort to put on view Structure A-Vs architectural development.

Kembels modern update of Proskouriakoffs groundbreaking architectural sequence

employed more science than imagination but the result was the same: a deep

understanding of the phases of formation for a particular construction. Kembel and

her team developed new technology and used a new methodology to collect data from

the interior architectural spaces at Chavin de Huantar. By using laser based

technology they mapped the temple at Chavin much like the imagination and artistic

skill of Proskouriakoff mapped the construction of Structure A-V years earlier.327

To Luddites Kembels study must seem like another example of a state-of-the-art

societys struggle to find uses for new technological applications. After all Kembels

work, like the previous efforts of Proskouriakoff, depends on previously completed

old-fashioned archeology: i.e., digging.328 Therefore, this high tech alternative to more

traditional methods has the disadvantage of depending on intrusive techniques which

seem more and more outdated in this hyper-modern era. By hyper-modern era I mean

we need to remember that todays museum cellars are filled with stuff. Additionally

young and previously under funded governments have, of necessity, adapted a more

defensive attitude toward their patrimonial resources. Therefore the physical moving

of the earth does not seem to be archaeologys immediate future. So then if three
326
Proskouriakoff, (1963) pages 111-130
327
Kembel, Silvia Rodriguez, Architectural Sequence and Chronology at Chavin de Huntar, Peru,
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropological Sciences, Stanford University, 2001, pages 14-16
328
See Proskouriakoff, (1963) pages 112 and Kembel (2001) page 14
 159

dimensional mapping using laser technologies is dependent on previous

archaeological excavations that are no longer viable, then this methodology is no

silver bullet for sequencing pre-Columbian constructions.

But fortunately or unfortunately Kuelap has a history of past archaeological

excavations and restorations. Some of these efforts have been first-rate, like the

previously cited work of Alfredo Narvaez; however, many have not. On the

positive side I am certain that Kuelap has been cleared and dug so often that

the ruin would likely benefit from the kind of study Kembel accomplished at

Chavin de Huantar. This mapping of the architectural spaces of Kuelap would

help to answer many important questions. How many decades or centuries did it

take to complete the construction in its present form? What architectural forms

were completed first? How does the upper level and tower complex relate to the

settlement as a whole? With some of these answers the Theories chapter of this

dissertation would either take on prescient significance or be disproved and

assigned to a, hopefully, well argued footnote in the history of Chachapoya

studies.

Before closing this section on future studies I need to mention the recent work of

Ken Nystrom. Nystrom has contributed greatly to the field of Chachapoya studies

with an examination of skeletal remains from Kuelap. Nystrom, a physical

anthropologist, reveals that the skeletal remains he examined showed little evidence

of the internecine warfare one would expect from a people (the Chachapoya) with

such a belligerent reputation. Although Nystroms sampling of remains was small, his

results are provocative because they could begin to provide material evidence, in
 160

addition to art historical musings, for the need to deconstruct our image of the

Chachapoya.329

42. The Lead Inspector Redux

Before closing this dissertation I want to again recall the position of the lead

inspector outlined in chapter one of this study. Remember, I selfishly positioned the

art historian as this actor, the mediator of evidence and arguments put forward by the

archaeologist (the forensic expert) and the ethnohistorian (the interrogator). This lead

inspector was, in my analogy, assigned with the task of developing a hunch from

the body of evidence which would sum up the claims and solve the problem at hand.

My hunch, put forward in this study, should by now be clear: the Chachapoya were

falsely assigned a belligerent reputation by their Imperial conquerors, the Inca. This

framing has misdirected Chachapoya studies and it has filled the blank spaces of this

lost culture with a bellicose stereotype lacking any factual basis. This stereotype has

also diminished imaginative approaches in looking at Kuelaps architecture and its

function. Simply, our initial record from the Inca was not impartial.

If we remove the straitjacket which is the militaristic framing of Kuelap, then

alternate functions become apparent for the site. The imitation of a cliff presented in

this dissertation has pre-Columbian precedents. Restricted access to Kuelap, the

possibility of water carriers, ancestors entombed in the walls and a unique

astronomical construction (the tintero) lead to the conclusion that Kuelap was a site
329
Nystrom, Kenneth C. Warriors of the Clouds: Interface and Interpretation of Trauma from
Chachapoya, Per. 73rd American Association of Physical Anthropology Meetings. Tempe, AZ, April
23-26, 2003
 161

inhabited by elites. This site was so important it was avoided during the Inca

invasion. After the Inca conquest, Kuelap was occupied but we need a better

archaeological to state more than this with certainty. Kuelap was uninhabited and

possibly forgotten by the time the Spanish arrived. Could Kuelap have been emptied

after the Chachapoya rebelled? Again we need more archaeological work. One fact

from this study is however certain. Kuelap was much more than just a fortaleza!

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adamska, Anna and Adam Michcznski. Towards Radiocarbon Chronology of the

Inca State in the Andes". Boletin de la Mission Arqueologica Andina, #1, 1996

Adorno, Rolena. Guaman Poma: Writing and Resistance in Colonial Peru. Second
edition with a new introduction, University of Texas Press, 2000

Albornoz, Cristbal de. La instruccin para descubrir todas las guacas del Pir y sus
camayos y haziendas. Ed. Duviols. Journal de la Socit des Amricanistes, Vol. 55,
#1, Paris, 1967 [1570]

Alcock, Susan, editor. Empires, with Terence DAltroy, Kathleen Morrison, and Carla
Sinopoli. Cambridge University Press, 2001

Antal, Frederick. Classicism and Romanticism with Other Studies in Art History.
Harper and Row, New York, 1973

Baert, Patrick. Social Theory in the Twentieth Century. New York University Press,
1998

Bandelier, Adolph Francis Alphonse. Journal. The American Museum of Natural

History, 1893

Bandelier, Adolph Francis Alphonse. Los Indios y las Ruinas Aborgenes Cerca de
Chachapoyas en el Norte del Per. Chaski, volumen I, #2, September, 1940
 162

Bandelier, Adolph Francis Alphonse. The Indians and Aboriginal Ruins Near
Chachapoyas in Northern Peru. Historical Records and Studies, 1907

Barfield, Thomas J. The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China 221 BC to
AD 1757. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge MA, 1989

Bauer, B. S. Pacaritambo and the Mythical Origins of the Inca. Latin American
Antiquity, 2, 1991

Bauer, B. S. The Development of the Inca State. University of Texas Press, Austin,
1992

Bauer, B. S. & David S. P. Dearborn. Astronomy and Empire in the Ancient Andes.
University of Texas Press, Austin, 1995

Benjamin, Walter. Illuminations. Schocken Books, New York, 1968

Benson, Elizabeth P. The Mochica: A Culture of Peru. Praeger Publishers, New York,
1972

Betanzos, Juan de. Narrative of the Incas. translated and edited by Ross Hamilton &
Dana Buchanan. University of Texas Press, 1996 [1576]

Betanzos, Juan de. Suma y Narracin de los Incas. Atlas, Madrid 1987 [1576]

Bingham, Hiram. Machu Picchu, a Citadel of the Incas: Report of the Explorations
and Escavations made in 1911, 1912 and 1915 under the Auspices of Yale University
and the National Geographic Society. Yale University Press, New Haven

Blanton, Richard E. Ancient Oaxaca: The Monte Alban State. with Gary M. Feinman,
Stephen A. Kowalewski and Linda M. Nicholas, Cambridge University Press, 1999

Blanton, Richard E. Ancient Mesoamerica: a Comparison of Change in Three

Regions. with Stephen Kowalewski, Gary M. Feinman, and Laura M. Finsten.
Cambridge University Press, 1993

Bonavia, Duccio. Las ruinas del Abiseo. University Peruana de Ciencias y

Tecnologia, Lima, 1968

Bourdieu, Pierre, Distinction, a Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Translated

by Richard Nice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1984

Brush, Stephen B. Field and Family the Economy and Human Ecology of an Andean
Valley. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977
 163

Burger, Richard L. Chavin and the Origins of Andean Civilization. Thames and
Hudson, London, 1992

Cabello Balboa, Miguel. Miscelanea Antartica. the Rich Collection, New York City
Public Library, 1586

Calancha, Antino de la, Cronica Moralizada. six volumen. Ignacio Prado Pastor, 1974

Cantu, Francesca a cura. Guaman Poma y Blas Valera Tradicion Andina e Historia
Colonial. Antonio Pellicani editore. Actas del Coloquio Internacional Instituto Italo-
Latinamericano Poma, 29-30 Septiembre 1999

Church, Warren and Ricardo Morales Gamarra. Tomb Raiders of El Dorado:

Conservation Dilemmas on a New Archaeological Frontier in Peru in Society for
American Archaeology. Volume 4, #1, January, 2004

Church, Warren Brooks. Prehistoric Cultural Development and Interregional

Interaction in the Tropical Montane Forests of Peru. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale
University, 1996

Cieza de Leon, Pedro. The Discovery and Conquest of Peru. edited and translated by
Alexandra Parma Cook & Noble David Cook. Duke University Press, Durham, 1998
[1554]

Cieza de Leon, Pedro. Cronica del Per Primera Parte. Pontifica Universidad
Catlica del Per, Lima, 1984 [1554]

Cieza de Leon, Pedro. The Incas. translated by Harriet de Onis. University of

Oklahoma Press, 1959 [1554]

Cobo, Father Bernabe. Inca Religion and Customs. University of Texas Press, Austin,
1990 [1653]

Cobo, Father Bernabe. History of the Inca Empire. University of Texas Press, 1979
[1653]

Coe, Michael D. Mxico. Praeger, New York, 1977

Coe, Michael D. Breaking the Maya Code. Thames and Hudson, New York, 1999

Conrad, Joseph. Heart of Darkness. Penguin Books, New York, 1999

Cotter, Holland Outside In, The New York Times. Wednesday, March 30, 2005

DAltroy, Terence. The Incas. Blackwell Publishers, Malden Massachusetts, 2002

 164

DAltroy, Terence. Transitions in Power: Centralization of Wanka Political

Organization under Inka Rule. Ethnohistory, 34, #1, Winter, 1987

Daggett, Richard, The Myron I. Granger Archaeological Expedition from the 18th
Annual Northeast Conference on Andean Archaeology and Ethnohistory, University
of Massachusetts, October 23-24, 1999

Davis, Morgan. A Photographic Essay Demonstrating the Construction Techniques

Employed in a Typical Circular Habitation in the Northeastern Highlands of Peru.
Monetville, Canada, unpublished, 1989

Davis, Morgan. Chachapoyas; the Cloud People Additions, Corrections, and

Selected Themes. Monetville, Ontario, Canada, unpublished, 1985

De Soto, Hernando. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West
and Fails Everywhere Else. Basic Books, 2000

Daz, Gisele and Alan Rogers. The Codex Borgia, a full Restoration of the Ancient
Mexican Manuscript. Dover Publications, New York, 1993

Dillehay, Tom D., The Settlement of the Americas: a New Prehistory. Basic Books,
New York, 2000

Dillehay, Tom D. Tombs for the Living: Andean Mortuary Practices. Dumbarton
Oaks, Washington D.C., 1991

Dillehay, Tom D. Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile. Washington

D.C., 1989

Dobyns, Henry F. An Outline of Andean Epidemic History to 1720. Bulletin of the

History of Medicine, volume XXXVII, #6, Nov-Dec, 1963

DOrbidny, M. Alcide. Voyage dans les Deux Amriques. Furne et Cie, Paris 1854

Eagleton, Ferry. Alter Theory. Basic Books, New York, 2003

Earle, Timothy K. et al. Archaeological Field Research in the Upper Mantaro, Peru,
1982-1983; Investigations of Inca Expansion and Exchange. Institute of Archaeology,
University of California, Monograph 28. Los Angles, 1987

Espinoza Soriano, Waldemar. Los Chachapoyas y Caares de Chiara (Huamanga),

Aliados de Espaa. Historia Problema y Promesa, Pontificia Universidad Catolica
del Peru, 1978

Espinoza Soriano, Waldemar. Los seoros tnicos de Chachapoyas y la alianza

hispano-chacha. Revista Histrica, Tomo XXX, Lima, 1967
 165

Etienne, Roland & Franoise. The Search for Ancient Greece. Discoveries. Harry N.
Abrams Publishers, 1992

Expediente repartimiento de Leymebamba y Cochabamba, encomienda de Francisco

de Guevara. Biblioteca nacional, Lima. Chachapoyas 6 de Mayo, 1577

Farnsworth, Dewey and Elizabeth. The Americas Before Columbus. Desert Book
Company, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1949

Flannery, Kent V., editor, The Early Mesoamerican Village. Academic Press, Orlando,
1976

Flornoy, Bertrand. Voyages en Haut-Amazone. Atlantica Editora, 1945

Ford, James Alfred. Surface Survey of the Vir Valley, Anthropological Papers of the
Museum of Natural History, Volume 43, part 1, New York, 1949

Garcilaso de la Vega. Royal Commentaries of the Incas and General History of Peru.
Part I, Translation and Introduction by Harold Livermore. Forward by Arnold J.
Toynbee. University of Texas Press, Austin, 1966

Garcilaso de la Vega. The Incas: The Royal Commentaries of the Inca. Avon Books,
1961 [1609]

Garcilaso de la Vega Garcilaso de la Vega, Comentarios Reales de los Incas in Obras

Completas del Inca Garcilaso de la Vega, Biblioteca de Autores Espaoles, Madrid,
1960 [1609]

Garcilaso de la Vega. Historia general del Per, segunda parte de los Comentarios
Reales de los Incas. Biblioteca de Autores Espaoles, Madrid, 1960 [1609]

Gasparini, Graziano, & Luise Margolies. Inca Architecture. Indiana University Press,
1980

Gil, Napolen, Dos pueblos prehistricos Kuelapenses: Kacta y Chipuric. Boletn de

la Sociedad Geogrfica. Tomo LV, 2-3, 132-139, 1938

Gombrich, E.H. Art and Illusion, a Study in the Psychology of Pictorial

Representation. Pantheon Books, New York, 1960

Gonzlez de la Rosa, M. El Padre Valera Primer Historiador Peruano. Revista

Histrica, tomo II, Lima, 1907
 166

Guaman Poma de Ayala. Nueva Cornica y Buen Gobinero. edicin y prlogo de

Franklin Pease G. Y. vocabulario y traducciones de Jan Szemiski. Fondo de Cultura
Econmica, Per, 1993 [1615]

Guaman Poma de Ayala. El Primer Nueva Cornica y Buen Gobinero. John V. Murra
& Rolena Adorno editors, translation by Jorge L. Urioste. Siglo Veintiano, Mxico
1980 [1615]

Heizer, Robert F. New Observations on La Venta. Dumbarton Oaks Conference on

the Olmec, October 28th and 29th 1967. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collection, Washington D.C., 1967

Hemming, John. The Conquest of the Incas. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York,
1970

Hiltunen, Juha J. Ancient Kings of Peru: The Reliability of the Chronicle of Fernando
de Montesinos; Correlating the Dynasty Lists with Current Prehistoric Periodization
in the Andes. Suomen Historiallinen Seura, Helsinki, 1999

Hodder, Ian, editor, Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge University

Press, 1982

Holgun, Diego Gonzlez. Vocabulario de la Lengua General, de todo el Peru

Llamada, Lengua Qquichua o del Inca. Introduction by Ral Porras Barrenechea.
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, (1608) 1989

Horkheimer, Hans. Algunas Consideraciones Acerca de la Arqueologa en el Valle

del Utcubamba. Actas y Trabajos del II Congreso Nacional de Historia del Per,
Tomo I, 71-101, Lima, 1958

Humboldt, Alexander von. Vues des Cordilleres, Paris, 1810

Hyland, Sabine. The Jesuit and the Incas, the Extraordinary Life of Padre Blas
Valera, S.J. University of Michigan Press, 2003

Hyland, Sabine. The Imprisonment of Blas Valera: Heresy and Inca History in
Colonial Peru. Latin American Historical Review, winter, 1998

Hyland, Sabine. Conversion, Custom and Culture: Jesuit Racial Policy in

Sixteenth-Century Peru. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1994

Instituto Geogrfico Nacional. Map of Chachapoyas. Edition 1-IGN, series J631,

Sheet 1358 (13-H), Peru 1/100,000, 1997

Isbell, William H. Mummies and Mortuary Monuments. University of Texas Press,

1997
 167

Julien, Catherine. Reading Inca History. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, 2000

Julien, Daniel G. Late Pre-Inkaic Ethnic Groups in Highland Peru: An

Archaeological-Ethnohistorical Model of the Political Geography of the Cajamarca
Region. Latin American Antiquity, vol. 4, #3, 246-273, 1993

Kauffmann Doig, Federico, and Giancarlo Ligabue. Los Chachapoyas: Moradores

Ancestrales de los Andes Amaznicos Peruanos. Universidad Alas Peruanas, 2003

Kauffmann Doig, Federico. Historia y Arte del Peru Antiguo, Lima 2002

Kauffmann Doig, Federico. Los Pinchudos: Exploracin de Ruinas Intactas en la

Selva. Boletn de Lima, #35, 1980

Keatinge, Richard W. Peruvian Prehistory: An overview of Pre-Inca and Inca Society.

Cambridge University Press, 1988

Kembel, Silvia Rodriguez. Architectural Sequence and Chronology at Chavin de

Huantar, Peru, 21st Annual Northeast Conference on Andean Archaeology and
Ethnohistory, Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
November 2nd-3rd, 2002

Kembel, Silvia Rodriguez. Architectural Sequence and Chronology at Chavin de

Huntar, Peru. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropological Sciences, Stanford
University, 2001

Kirkpatrick, Sidney D. Lords of Sipan: A True Story of Pre-Inca Tombs, Archaeology,

and Crime. William Morrow and Company, New York, 1992

Kohl, Philip L. and Clare Fawcett, editors, Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of
Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, 1995

Kolata, Alan L. Tiwanaku Portrait of an Andean Civilization. Blackwell Publishing,

Cambridge, MA, 1993

Kosok, Paul. Life, Land and Water in Ancient Peru. Long Island University Press,
New York, 1965

Kubler, George. The Art and Architecture of Ancient America: The Mexican, Maya
and Andean Peoples. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1990

Kubler, George. Studies in Ancient American and European Art: The Collected
Essays of George Kubler. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1985

Langlois, Louis. Utcubamba. Imprenta del Museo Nacional, Lima, 1939

 168

Larco Hoyle, Rafael. Cronologa arqueolgica del norte del Peru. Museo de
Arqueologa Rafael Larco Herrera, Buenos Aires, 1948

Lathrap, Donald W. Our Father the Cayman, Our Mother the Gourd: Spinden
Revisited, or a Unitary Model for the Emergence of Agriculture in the New World.
Origins of Agriculture. Editor C. Reed. The Hague, Mouton, 1977

Lathrap, Donald W. The Upper Amazon. Thames and Hudson, 1970

Lau, George. Northern Exposures: Evidence for Recuay-Cajamarca Interaction, 23rd

Northeast Conference on Andean Archaeology and Ethnohistory, Yale University,
November 12-14, 2004

Lavallee, Daniele. Estructura y Organization el Habitat en los Andes Centrals Durant

el Period Intermediate Tardie. Revisit el Muse National, tome XXXIX, Lima, 1973

Lerche, Peter. Perus Lost Tombs. National Geographic vol.198, #3, September
2000

Lerche, Peter. Los chachapoya y los smbolos de su historia. Lima, 1995

Lerche, Peter. Huptlingstum, Jalca Bevlkerung und Ressoureen bei den

vorspanischen Chachapoya, Peru. Ph.D. dissertation. Freien Universitat, Berlin, 1985

Libro Primero de Cabildos de la Cuidad de San Juan de la Frontera de

Chachapoyas. The Harkness Collection. Library of Congress, Washington D.C., 1577

Mantha, Alex. Late Prehispanic Households and Settlement Patterns of the Rapayan
Valley, Upper Maraon Drainage, Central Andes of Peru, 23rd Northeast Conference
on Andean Archaeology and Ethnohistory, November 12-14, Yale University, 2004

Mariategui, Jose Carlos. Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality. Translation

by Marjory Urquidi. University of Texas Press, 1971

Martnez Campanon, Baltasar Jaime, Trujillo del Peru, Ediciones Cultura Hispnica
del Centro Iberoamericano de Cooperacin, vol. I-IX, Madrid, 1978-1988 [1789]

McCown, Theodore. Pre-Incaic Huamachuco; Survey and Excavations in the Region

of Huamachuco and Cajabamba. American Archaeology and Ethnology. University
of California Publications, 1945

McElrath, Dale. Preliminary Report of Excavations in the Uchumarca Valley: North

Highlands of Peru. University of Wisconsin, unpublished, (1975)
 169

McGraw, James, Manuel Oncina, Douglas Sharon & Carlos Torres Mas. Kuelap a
Solar Observatory. Ethnic Technology Notes, #24. San Diego Museum of Man, 1996

Means, Philip Ainsworth. Biblioteca Andina. Transactions of the Connecticut

Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1928

Meskell, L., C. Gosden, I. Hodder, R. Joyce, and R. Precucel. Editorial. Journal of

Scientific Archaeology,; I, pages 5-12, 2001

Middendorf, Ernst Wilhelm. Peru observaciones y estudios del pas y sus habitantes
durante una permanencia de 25 anos. La Seria, Tomo III. Universidad Nacional
Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, 1974 [1895]

Moore, Jerry D. Architecture & Power in the Ancient Andes: The Archaeology of
Public Buildings. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1996

Morris, Craig and Donald E. Thompson, Hunuco Pampa: An Inca City and Its
Hinterland. Thames and Hudson, London, 1985

Moseley, Michael E. The Maritime Foundations of Andean Civilization. Menlo Park,

CA, 1975

Moseley, Michael E. The Incas and Their Ancestors. Thames and Hudson, London,
1992

Muscutt, Keith. Warriors of the Clouds a lost Civilization in the Upper Amazon of
Peru. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, 1998

Muscutt, Keith. Vira Vira: A New Chachapoyas Site.With Vincent Lee and
Douglas Sharon. South American Explorer, 1994

Muscutt, Keith. Cueva de Osiris: A Pictograph Site in the Peruvian Amazon. Rock
Art Papers. Editor Ken Hedges. San Diego Museum Papers, volume 6, #24, 1988

Narvez Vargas, Alfredo Lus. Kuelap: una ciudad fortificada en los Andes nor-
orientales de Amazonas, Peru. Arquitectura y Arqueologa pasado y futuro de la
construccion en el Peru. Editor Victor Rangel Flores, Universidad de Chiclayo, 1987

Niles, Susan. The Shape of Inca History: Narrative and Architecture in an Andean
Empire. University of Iowa Press, 1999

Nugent, David. Modernity at the Edge of Empire: State, Individual, and Nation in the
Northern Peruvian Andes, 1885-1935. Stanford University Press, 1997

Nystrom, Kenneth C. Trauma y identidad entre los Chachapoya. Primera

Conferencia Internacional sobre el Arte, la Arqueologa y la Etnohistoria de los
Chachapoya, Leymebamba, Peru, el sbado 9 y el domingo 10 de agosto, 2003
 170

Nystrom, Kenneth C. Warriors of the Clouds: Interface and Interpretation of

Trauma from Chachapoya, Per. 73rd American Association of Physical
Anthropology Meetings. Tempe, AZ, April 23-26, 2003

Oberem, Udo & Roswith Hartmann. Indios Caaris de la Sierra Sur del Ecuador en
el Cuzco del Siglo XVI. El Cuzco del Siglo XVI. Seminar fr Vlderkunde,
Universitt Bonn, 1976

Olsen, Ronald L. Field notes from the Myron Granger Archaeological Expedition.
American Museum of Natural History, 1931

Olsen, Ronald L. Old Empire of the Andes, the Myron Granger Archaeological
Expedition. Natural History, volume XXXI, #1, 1931

Panofsky, Erwin. Early Netherlandish Painting, its Origin and Character. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, 1953

Parsons, Jeffrey R., Charles M. Hastings, and Ramiro Matos Mendieta. Rebuilding
the State in Highlands Peru: Herder-Cultivator Interaction during the Late
Intermediate Period in the Tarama-Chinchaycocha Region. Latin American
Antiquity, vol. 8, #4, 317-341, 1997

Pasztory, Esther. Pre-Columbian Art. Cambridge University Press, 1998

Pasztory, Esther. Teotihuacan: An Experiment in Living. University of Oklahoma

Press, Norman, 1997

Pasztory, Esther. Aztec Art. Harry Abrams, New York, 1983

Patterson, Thomas C. and Charles E. Orser Jr., Foundations of Social Archaeology:

Selected Writings of V. Gordon Childe. Alta Mira Press, California, 2004

Patterson, Thomas C. The Inca Empire: The Formation and Disintegration of a Pre-
Capitalist State. Berg Publishers, New York, 1991

Paz Soldan, Marino Felipe. Diccionario Geogrfico Estadisco del Peru. Lima, 1878
[1613]

Pease, Franklin. The Formation of Tawantinsuyu: Mechanisms of Colonization and

Relationship with Ethnic Groups. The Inca and Aztec States, 1400-1800. Editors
George A. Collier, Renato I. Rosaldo and John D. Wirth. Academic Press, New York,
1982
 171

Phillips, Philip and Gordon R. Willey. Method and Theory in American

Archaeology: An Operational Basis for Culture-Historical Integration. American
Anthropologist, #55, 1953

Pillsbury Joanne, Editor. Moche Art and Archaeology in Ancient Peru. National
Gallery of Art, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2001

Plaza Schuller, Fernando. El Complejo de fortalezas de Pambamarca. Serie

Arqueologa, no. 3. Instituto Otavaleo de Antropologa, Otavalo, 1980

Poe, Edgar Allan. The Complete Poems and Stories of Edgar Allan Poe. Editor Arthur
Hobson Quinn. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1946

Polo, Jos Toribio. Blas Valera. Revista Histrica, tomo II, Lima, 1906

Porras Barrenechea. Los Cronistas del Per (1528-1650) y Otros Ensayos. Biblioteca
Clsicos del Per, Lima 1986

Porras Barrenechea, Raul. Cartas del Per (1524-1543). edicin de la Saciedad de

biblifilos peruanos, Lima, 1959

Posnansky, Authur. Tiahuanacu: The Cradle of American Man. J.J. Augustine, New
York, 1945

Prado Tello, Elizas and Alfredo Prado Prado editores. Phelipe Guaman Poma de
Ayala; y no ay [sic] rremedio Centro de Investigacin y Promocin Amaznica,
Lima, 1991

Proskouriakoff, Tatiana. An Album of Maya Architecture. University of Oklahoma

Press, 1963

Raimondi, Antonio. El Per, volumen 1. Imprenta Torres Aguirre, 1942

Ramos Gaviln, Alonso. Historia del Santuario de Nuestra Seores de Copacabana.

Ignacio Prado P., Lima, 1988 [1621]

Ravines, Rogger. Antiguos Sitos de Ocupacin en el Ro Huayabamba, Per.

Historia Problema y Promesa, Pontificia Universidad Catlica del Per, 1978

Reese, Thomas F. editor, Studies in Ancient American and European Art: the
Collected Essays of George Kubler. Yale University Press, 1985

Reichlen, H. and Paule Reichlen. Recherches archeologiques dans les Andes du haut
Utcubamba. Journal de la Societe des Americanistes, tome XXXVIII, 1950
 172

Rice, Don Stephen, Editor. Latin American Horizons. Dumbarton Oaks Research
Library and Collection, Washington D. C., 1993

Rowe, John. Stages and Periods in Archaeological Interpretation. Southwestern

Journal of Anthropology, #18, 1962

Rowe, John. Inca Culture at the Time of the Spanish Conquest. Handbook of South
American Indians. Editor Julian Steward. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin
143, vol. 2, 183-330, Washington, D.C., 1946

Rowe, John. Absolute Chronology in the Andean Area. American Antiquity, #10,
1945

Ruiz Estrada, Arturo. La alfarera de Cuelap: tradicin y cambio. Tesis de Bachiller.

Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, 1972

Ruiz Estrada, Arturo. Alfarera del Estilo Huari en Cuelap. Boletn del Seminario
de Arqueologa. Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru, #4, Lima, Octubre 1969

Said, Edgard. Culture and Imperialism. Alfred A. Knopf Inc., New York, 1993

Said, E., Orientalism. Pantheon, New York, 1978

Salomon, Frank. Native Lords of Quito in the Age of the Incas. Cambridge University
Press, 1986

Salomon, Frank. Ethnic Lords of Quito in the Age of the Incas, the Political Economy
of North Andean Chiefdoms. Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University, 1978

Sarmiento de Gamboa. Historia de los Incas. Biblioteca de Autores Espaoles,

Madrid, 1960 [1572]

Savoy, Gene. The Antisuyu the Search for the Lost Cities of the Amazon. Simon &
Schuster, New York, 1970

Scaglion, Richard, and Mara-Auxiliadora Cordero. Trans-Pacific Contact in the

Ecuadorian Gulf of Guayaquil. 21st Annual Northeast Conference on Andean
Archaeology and Ethnohistory, November 2nd-3rd, 2002, Carnegie Museum of Natural
History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Schjellerup, Inge. The Forgotten Valleys: Past and Present in the Utilization of
Resources in the Ceja de Selva. Mikael Kamp Sorensen, Carolina Espinoza, Victor
Pena. The National Museum of Denmark Ethnographic Monographs, 2003

Schjellerup, Inge. Aspects of the Inca Frontier in the Chachapoyas. Tawantinsuyu,

1998
 173

Schjellerup, Inge, Incas and Spaniards in the Conquest of the Chachapoyas, Ph.D.
dissertation, Goteborg University, Sweden, 1997

Schjellerup, Inge. Settlement Patterns on the Eastern Slopes of the Andes in the
Chachapoyas region. Technology, Ideology and Society in the Andes, 46th
International Congress of Americanists, July 4-8, Amsterdam, 1988

Schjellerup, Inge. Cochabamba-An Inca Administrative Center in the Rebellious

Province of Chachapoyas. 44th International Congress of Americanists, Manchester
1982. Current Archaeological Projects in the Central Andes, Ann Kendall Editor.
BAR International Series 210, 1984

Schjellerup, Inge. Documents on Paper and in Stone. A preliminary report on the

Inca ruins in Cochabamba, Province of Chachapoyas, Peru. Folk. Kobenhaven,
volumes 21-22, 1979/1980

Serna, Ral Rivera, Editor. Libro primero de Cabildos de San Juan de la Frontera de
Chachapoyas. Fnix de la Biblioteca Nacional, #11 and #12, Lima, 1955

Shady Solis, Ruth, J. Haas and W. Creamer. Dating Caral, a Preceramic Site in the
Supe Valley on the central Coast of Peru in Science Magazine, # 292, April 27, 2001,
pages 723-6

Shady Sols, Ruth. Investigaciones arqueolgicas en la cuenca del Utcubamba.

Actas del XLI Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, volumen III, Mxico, 1976

Shakespeare, William. The Riverside Shakespeare. Houghton Mifflin Company,

Boston 1974

Silverman, Helaine, Editor. Andean Archaeology. Blackwell Publishing, Malden,

MA, 2004

Silverman, Helaine and William H. Isbell, Editors. Andean Archaeology II: Art,
Landscape and Society. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 2002

Skinner, Joseph. The Present State of Peru. London, 1805

Squire, E. George. Incidents of Travel and Explorations in the Land of the Incas.
AMS Press, New York, 1973 [1877]

Starn, Orin. The Peru Reader, History, Culture, Politics. Carlos Ivan Degregori, and
Robin Cook Editors. Duke University Press, Chapel Hill, 1995
 174

Stern, Peter A. Sendero Luminoso: An Annotated Bibliography of the Shining Path

Guerrilla Movement, 1980-1993. New Mexico : SALALM Secretariat, General
Library, University of New Mexico, 1995

Stbel, Alfons and Max Uhle. DieRuinensttte von Tiauanaco im Hochlande des
alten Per: Eine kulturgeschichtliche Studie auf Grund selbsstndiger Aufnahmen.
Verlag von Karl W. Hiersemann, Leipzig, 1892

Taussig, Michael. Folk Healing and the Structure of Conquest in Southwest

Columbia. Journal of Latin American Lore, volume 6, #2, 217-278, 1980

Taylor, Gerald. Estudios Lingsticos sobre Chachapoyas. Instituto Francs de

Estudios Andinos, Lima 2000

Taylor, Gerald. La tradicin oral quechua de Chachapoyas. Instituto Francs de

Estudios Andinos, Lima 1996

Taylor, Gerald. Diccionario Normalizado y Comparativo Quechua: chachapoyas-

lamas. LHarmattan, Paris 1979

Taylor, Gerald. Le Parler Quechua DOlto Amazonas (Perou). Centre Nacional de la

Recherche Scientifique, 1975

Tello, J. C. Chavin: Cultura Matriz de la Civilizacin Andina. Publicacin

Antropolgica del Archivo Julio C. Tello, de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San
Marcos, II, Lima, UNMSM, 1960

Thompson, Donald E. Prehistory of the Uchumarca Valley in the North Highlands of

Peru. Actas del XLI Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, volume II, Mexico,
1976

Thompson, Donald E.Archaeological Investigations in the Eastern Andes of Northern

Peru. Congresso Internazionale degli Americanisti, Roma/Genova, vol. I, 1972

Thompson, Donald E. Late Prehispanic Occupations in the Eastern Peruvian Andes.

Rivista del Museo Nacional, tomo XXXVII, Lima, 1971

Tierney, Patrick. Darkness in El Dorado. Norton, New York, 2000

Titu Cusi Yupanqui. Relacin de la Conquista del Per. Lima 1973 [1570]

Topic, John & Theresa. The Archaeological Investigation of Andean Militarism:

Some Cautionary Observations. The Origins and Development of the Andean State.
J. Haas, S. Pozorski, and T. Pozorski, Editors. Cambridge University Press, 1987
 175

Torero, Alfredo. reas toponmicas e idiomas en la sierra norte peruana. Un trabajo

de recuperacin lingstica. Revista Andina. Ao 7, #1, Julio, 1989

Troll, Carl. The Cordilleras of the Tropical Americas: Aspects of Climatic,

Phytogeographical and Agrarian Ecology. Geo-Ecology of the Mountainous
Regions of the Tropical Americas. Carl Troll Editor. Ferd. Dummlers Verlag,
Bonn, 1968

Troll, Carl. Die Stellung der Indianer-Hochkulturen im Landschaftsaubau der

tropischen Anden. Ztsch. Ges. F. Erdk. Berlin, 1943

Urton, Gary. A Calendrical and Demographic Tomb Text from Northern Peru. Latin
American Antiquity. 12, #2, 2001

Urton, Gary. From Knots to Narratives: Reconstructing the Art of Historical Record
Keeping in the Andes from Spanish Transcriptions of Inka Khipus. Ethnohistory, 45,
3, Summer, 1998

Vzquez de Espinoza, Antonio. Compendio y Descripcin de las Indias Occidenials,

Smithsonian Institution. Washington D. C., 1948

Vzquez de Espinoza, Antonio. Compendium and Description of the West Indies.

Translated by Charles Upson Clark. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D. C., 1942
[1629]

Vega Ocampo, Abel. El Complejo Arqueolgico de Uchucmarca, Trabajo de

Investigacin: Conjunto de Pirca Pirca. Revista Universitaria, # 4:41-45, Trujillo,
1982

Vega Ocampo, Abel. Importancia Arqueolgica de la Provincia de Bolvar.

Universidad Nacional de Trujillo, Trujillo, 1979

Vega Ocampo, Abel. Complejo Arqueolgico de Uchucmarca, Descripcin del

Elemento Cermica de Pirca Pirca. Revista Investigacin Arqueolgica, #2, Trujillo,
1978

Von Hagen, Adriana. Chachapoyas el Reino Perdido. Elena Gonzlez and Rafo Leon
Editors. Integra, 2002a

Von Hagen, Adriana. Los Chachapoyas y la Laguna de los Cndores. Museo

Leymebamba, Amazonas, Peru, 2002b

Von Hagen, Adriana. Nueva Iconografa Chachapoya de la Laguna de los

Cndores. Iconos #4, Lima, 2000-2
 176

Von Hagen, Adriana & Sonia Guillen. Tombs with a View. Archaeology. 51, #2,
April, 1998

Von Hagen, Victor. Maya Explorer; John Lloyd Stephens and the Lost Cities of
Central America and Yucatn. Chronicle Books, San Francisco, 1947

Werthemann, Arthur. Ruinas de la fortaleza de Cuelap. Boletn de la Sociedad

Geogrfica, Ano II, 1892

Wlfflin, Heinrich. Principles of Art History: the Problem of the Development of

Style in Later Art. Translated by M. D. Hottinger. Dover Publications, 1940

Xin, Yang, Nie Chongzheng, Lang Shaojun, Richard M. Barnhart, James Cahill and
Wu Hung, Three Thousand Years of Chinese Painting, Yale University Press, New
Haven, 1997

Zorilla A., Juan C. La Posesin de Chiara por los Indios Chachapoyas. Wari
Instituto Nacional de Cultura, Filial Ayacucho, #1, 1977
 177

MAPS & ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 1a. Aerial view of Kuelap (National Geographic)

Fig. 1b. Grand Plan of Kuelap (Bandelier, 1894) (AMNH)

 178

Fig. 2. Map of South America, Peru and suggested pre-Columbian Chachapoya

territory (Leymebamba Museum)
 179

Fig. 3. Map of ethnic Chachapoya groups from a three river region (Waldemar
Espinoza Soriano: 1967)
 180

Fig. 3a. Map of Kuelap and Immediate Vicinity (IGN series 1/100,000)
181
 182

Fig. 4a. Bandeliers (1894) drawing of the cross section of Kuelap illustrating the
construction technique for Kuelaps walls. The right side is the western wall.
(AMNH)

Fig. 4b. Kuelaps western wall

 183

Fig. 5a. Pirca Pirca near the town of Uchumarca

Fig. 5b. Pakariska near the town of Bolivar, Cajamarquilla

 184

Fig. 6a. Reconstruction of Huari Building at Huamachuco.

Fig. 6b. Late Intermediate Period site of Marco Huamachuco above

Huamachuco
 185

Fig. 7a. A Chachapoya ceramic (Keith Muscutt)

Fig. 7b. A wooden sculpture for a Chachapoya mummy bundle (Leymebamba

Museum)
186
 187

Fig. 8a. The site of Macro 1000 meters below Kuelap.

 188

Fig. 8b. The Chachapoya site of La Pia Calata just above Atuen
 189

Fig. 9a. Bandeliers (1894) drawing of the tintero at Kuelaps southern end

(AMNH)

Fig. 9b. Photo of the tintero today

 190

Fig. 10a. Kuelaps channeled main entrance

Fig. 10b. Bandeliers (1894) drawing of the main entrance, entrance at left

(AMNH)
 191

Fig. 11a. A rectangular foundation for a structure from Kuelaps upper level,
north end

Fig. 11b. Bandeliers (1894) drawing of a rectangular foundation (AMNH)

 192

Fig. 12a. Building J from Monte Alban, Oaxaca, Mexico (Tulane U.)

Fig. 12b. Danzantes sculpture from Monte Alban, Oaxaca, Mexico (Tulane U.)
193
 194

Fig. 13. Guaman Pomas depiction (1615) of Inca captain Challcochima fighting
an unlikely combination of Chachapoya and Caari warriors. (Royal
Library, Copenhagen)
 195

Fig. 14a. Chachapoya mummy bundle with face (Keith Muscutt)

Fig. 14b. Chachapoya cabeza clava from La Joya (Keith Muscutt)

 196

Fig. 15a. Chachapoya textile (Leyemebamba Museum)

Fig. 15b. Chachapoya frieze from Abiseo area (Warren Church)

 197

Fig. 16a. Chachapoya funeral house Yaku Wasi near Chilchos

Fig. 16b. Reconstruction of a Chachapoya house (Keith Muscutt)

 198

Fig. 17a. Wall from the Chachapoya ruin of Teya a five hour walk from
Kuelap

Fig. 17b. Northern portion of perimeter wall of Kuelap

 199

Fig. 18a. Examples of two Chachapoya architectural friezes from Kuelap

200
 201

Fig. 18b. Bandeliers (1894) drawing of circular structures at Kuelap

(AMNH)
 202

Fig. 19a. View through one of Kuelaps passageways

Fig. 19b. Bandeliers (1894) drawings of Kuelaps entrances (AMNH)

 203

Fig. 20a. The tower at the upper northern end of Kuelap

Fig. 20b. Bandeliers (1894) drawing of the tower at Kuelap (AMNH)

 204

Fig. 21a. Anthropomorphic Frieze from Abiseo, Gran Pajaten (Warren Church)

Fig. 21b. Condor Frieze from Abiseo, Gran Pajaten (Warren Church)
 205

Fig. 22 The Inca Fortress Saqsahuaman above Cuzco

 206

APPENDIX A List of notable travelers to Kuelap including date

Juan Crisstomo Nieto (1843)

Ernest Middendorf (1866 or 1887)

Antonio Raimondi (1870)

Arthur Werthemann (1875)

Wilhelm Reiss & Alfons Stbel (1875)

Charles Wiener (1881)

Coronel don Jos Alayza (1892)

Adolph Bandelier (1893)

Phillippe Kieffer (1910)

Ronald L. Olsen (1930)

Louis Langlois (1933)

Napolen Gil (1936)

Henry and Paule Reichlen (1948)

Hans Horkheimer (1957)

Gene Savoy (1966)

Arturo Ruz Estrada (1972)

Luis Alfredo Narvaez Vargas (1987)

 207

APPENDIX B Andean Chronology (Museo Antropolgico de Guayaquil)

Andes Centrales Central Andes

<Anterior/Back> <Contenido/Contents> <Prximo/Next>
Museo Antropolgico de Guayaquil. 2000. Cronologa Cultural Pre-colombina: 7 cuadros / Pre-
Columbian Cultural Chronology: 7 Tables. MAG, Guayaquil.
Andes Centrales - Central Andes Coastal Ecuador
a b c d e
[1532-1645 d.C.]
1534 d.C. Colonial
[1532 Zeidler (1994:113,
1532 d.C. Colonial Conquista
d.C.] 206)
1470 d.C.
[1440-
1440 d.C. Inca 1532 Horizonte Tardo
d.C.]
[1430 -
Imperio
1430 d.C. Inka 1532
Tahuantinsuyo
d.C.]
[1400 -
1400 d.C. Inca:Machu Picchu, Cuzco 1532 Late Horizon
d.C.]
[1300-
Omaguas, Cumancaya,
1300 d.C. 1532 Imperial
Cuelap
d.C.]
Chim, Chancay, Inka, [1200 -
1200 d.C. Wanca, Chanca, K'illke, 1470 Estados regionales
Mollo d.C.]
1100 d.C. [400-1532 d.C.]
[1000 -
1000 d.C. Chimu: Chan Chan 1400 Late Intermediate Integracin
d.C.]
Chim, Chancay, [900-
900 d.C. Pachacamac, Cajamarca, 1400 Intermedio Tardo Zeidler (1994:204)
Huanca, Chanca d.C.]
[800 -
Wari, Ica, Cajamarca IV,
800 d.C. 1200 Imperio Wari
Tiawanaku Expansivo
d.C.]
Huari - Lambayeque,
Huari Norteo A y B.
[800-
Huari Central A y B,
800 d.C. 1300 Fusional
Humaya, Teatino
d.C.]
Huari Sureo A y B,
Chanca B, Rucana, Beiges
700 d.C.
[600 -
600 d.C. Huari: Huari, Tiahuanaco 1000 Middle Horizon
d.C.]
Lambayeque, Pachacamac- [500-800
500 d.C. Horizonte Medio
Nievera, Moche V, Wari d.C.]
Tefra III [400
400 d.C.
d.C.]
300 d.C.
 208

200 d.C.
Lambayeque,Moche I-V,
Vicus, Lima, Wari, Recuay,
[100 - Desarrollos [355 a.C.- 400
100 d.C. Higueras, Ayacucho Huarpa,
800 d.C.] Regionales d.C.]
Rancha, Waru, Tiawanaku
III-IV
Mochica, Santa,
Lambayeque
Lima, Interlocking
Nazca A y B, Paracas [1-800
1 d.C. Auge
Necrpolis, Chanca d.C.]
Cajamarca, Santa,
Pallasca, Quilque,
Tiahuanaco, Pucar
Cumancaya, Cuelap- [0 - 1300 Desarrollo
0
Chancharin, El Salado d.C.] Regional
100 a.C. Zeidler (1994:204)
Moche (I-IV), Lima
[200 a.C.
(Maranga), Vics, Paracas Intermedio
200 a.C. - 400
Necrpolis, Huaraz, Huarpa, Temprano
d.C.]
Chanapata
[200
Moche: Sipan; Nazca:
200 a.C. a.C.- 600 Early Intermediate
Nazca
d.C.]
300 a.C.
Tefra II [355 -
355 a.C.
400 a.C.]
400 a.C.
Tigre y Shakimu, Bagua- [500 a.C.
500 a.C.
Pacopampa, Cerezal - 0 d.C.]
600 a.C. [1000-355 a.C.]
700 a.C. Formativo tardo
800 a.C. Zeidler (1994:204)
Chavn, Garagay,
[900-300 Horizonte
900 a.C. Cupisnique, Huaca Luca,
a.C.] Temprano
Pacopampa, Kotosh
[1000 -
1000 a.C. Chavin: Chavin Early Horizon
200 a.C.]
1100 a.C. [3500-355 a.C.]
Vir,Salinar,Cupisnique,
Miramar, Ancon, Nasca I -
IV,
Cajamarca I-II, Huaraz [1200
1200 a.C. Chavin (Rocas), San Blas, a.C.-100 Formativo Formativo
Chavin, Kotosh, Wayrajirca, d.C.]
Rancha, Chupas, Wichgana,
Pagallamoqo Chanapata,
Tiawanaku I-II
Complejo Mochica,
[1250
Anaranjados, Vicus, Vir,
1250 a.C. a.C.-1 Formativo
Salinar, Cupisnique
d.C.]
Paracas Cavernas
1300 a.C. Zeidler (1994:204)
1400 a.C.
 209

1500 a.C.
Tefra I [1635
1635 a.C.
a.C.]
1700 a.C.
Guaape, La Florida,
[1800-
1800 a.C. Chira-Villa, Pacopampa, Inicial [3300-1500 a.C.]
800 a.C.]
Huaricoto, Kotosh
Formativo
1900 a.C.
temprano
[2000-
Inicial de Stothert (1998:
2000 a.C. Queneto 1250
Cermica Tabla 1)
a.C.]
2300 a.C.
2600 a.C.
2900 a.C.
Huaca Prieta, El Paraiso,
Chilca, La Galgada, Kotosh- [3000-
3000 a.C. Mito, 1800 Precermico Tardo
Chambira, Pandanche y a.C.]
Wairajirca
3300 a.C.
3500 a.C. [4600-3300 a.C.]
Guaape, Huaca Prieta,
Haldas, Paraiso, Encanto,
Ocucaje (Paracas), Hachas, ? [4000-
4000 a.C. Otuma, Cabeza larga, 1200 Arcaico Hiato
Kunturwasi, Kishkipunku, a.C.]
Mito, Lauricocha III, Cunas,
Chiripa Qalayu
(Stothert 1998:
4650 a.C.
Tabla 1)
5000 a.C.
6000 a.C. [9050-4650 a.C.]
7800 a.C. Precermico
[8000-
Huaca Prieta, Pampa de Salazar (1990: 95 y
8000 a.C. 2000 Pre-Cermica
los fsiles ss)
a.C.]
9050 a.C.
[10,000-
10,000 a.C. 8000 Fin de Pleistoceno
a.C.]
[11,000-
Paijan, Telarmachay, Precermico
11,000 a.C. 3500
Lauricocha, Toquepala Temprano
a.C.]
12,000 a.C.
13,000 a.C.
14,000 a.C.
Quirihuac, La Cumbre,
Paijan, Canario, Luz, Arenal,
[15,000-
Oquendo, Chivateros, Santo
15,000 a.C. 3000 Litco
Domingo, Kishkipunku,
a.C.]
Lauricocha I-II, Cunas,
Ichua Viscachani
 210

[19,000-
19,000 a.C. Michinal 8000
a.C.]

Abreviaturas
"Fechas"
"antes de Cristo"
"Acontecimiento/Cultura: Fase/Sitio
"Desde - Hasta"
"Perodo/poca (Andes Centrales)"
"despus de Cristo"
"Perodo (Costa ecuatoriana)"
"(y las) sigientes (pginas)"
"sin fecha"
"antes de"
"entre"
Abbreviations
a "Dates"
a.C. "Before Christ"
b "Event/Culture: Phase/Site
c "From - To"
d "Period/Epoch (Central Andes)"
d.C. "anno domini"
e "Period (Coastal Ecuador)"
y ss "(and the) following (pages)"
sf "no date"
< "before"
/ "between"
 211

Appendix C Comparison of Puna and Pramo Andes (Carol Troll)

 212

Appendix D Stone Carvings from Kuelap after Narvaez 1987 (Serenella Rios
Bradley)
 213

Appendix E Architectural Friezes from Kuelap after Narvaez 1987 (Serenella Rios
Bradley)
 214

Appendix F Plan of Kuelap after Narvaez (Serenella Rios Bradley)