1

Reconsidering the Notion of Fortaleza Kuelap By Robert Bradley Kuelap is a large pre-Columbian ruin in northeastern Peru associated with the Late Intermediate Period (900-1470 CE) Chachapoya people. In this text a brief history of the Chachapoya culture is followed by a physical description of the site and its surrounding environment. The colonial record of the Chachapoya and Kuelap is then thoroughly analyzed and the militaristic framing of the site is deconstructed. A plausible history of Kuelap is then presented for the time period after the Inca conquest of the Chachapoya. Se presenta un estudio de la enorme ruina precolombina Kuelap en la parte norte oriental del Perú. Kuelap fue asociado con el grupo etnía Chachapoya del período Intermedio Tardío (900-1470 CE). Este estudio ofrece, además, una breve historia de Kuelap que no se ha explorado lo suficiente a pesar de que se conoce en el mundo Occidental desde hace más de un siglo y medio. Tal vez este abandono se daba a que la ruina siempre se consideró una fortaleza. El presente ensayo ofrece una teoría alternativa que podría ofrecer otra explicación de la construcción y ocupación de Kuelap. Primero me hago la pregunta ¿‘qué enemigo hizo que se erigieran estos enormes muros’? Luego afirmo que las paredes no fueron construidas para la defensa, sino que constituyeron un paisaje sagrado construido para imitar la forma geográfica del acantilado adyacente. ROBERT C. BRADLEY is an Associate Professor of Art History at the University of Texas-Pan American [bradleyrc@utpa.edu]. Born in 1959, he erned a B.A. in history from Kenyon College in 1981 and then an MA. and Ph.D. from Columbia University’s Department of Art History and Archaeology (M.A., 2001; M.Phil. 2003; Ph.D. 2005). Bradley served as a Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps from 1982-1985. He has published a book entitled The Architecture of Kuelap (Saarbrücken: VDM, 2008). His recent publications include “Sudado de Raya: an Ancient Peruvian Dish” (Gastronomica, winter 12:4, pages 68-73), “Coca: An Andean Daily Chew”, Cualli: Latin American and Iberian Food Studies Review (Kennesaw State University, 2013, pages 22-36 http://www.kennesaw.edu/chs/journals.html) and “A Western Mirage on the Bolivian Altiplano” in Buen Gusto and Classicism in the Visual Cultures of Latin America, 1780-1910, edited by Paul B. Niell & Stacie G. Widdifield (University of New Mexico Press, 2013).

2

Introduction

Kuelap or Kuelape, a Chachapoya word, (Torero 1989: 238; Taylor 2000: 24) has over

time, become the designation for a massive construction encompassing a ridge in

northeastern Peru. For almost one hundred and fifty years, Kuelap has always been

identified as a pre-Columbian fortress. Architects Graziano Gasparini and Luise

Margolies have noted a rationale for this type of framing originating with the initial

Spanish conquerors, who labeled as a fortress, any building with stone enclosures and a

few entrances situated in broken terrain (Gasparini & Margolies 1980: 280). Kuelap has

obviously been defined by the site’s ridgeline setting, which epitomizes the ancient

warlord Sun Tzu’s dictum of occupying the heights (Sun Tzu 1994: 207). But this study

is not an examination of militarism in the pre-Columbian Andean world of which there

are many (Haas 1990; Topic & Topic 1987; Verano 2001; Arkush & Stanish 2005,

Arkush 2011).

A digression is essential at this point. The long running feud that has existed between

the academy and the military, since at least the Vietnam War, has recently thawed

(Bumiller 2012), but to this day studies of Andean warfare conspicuously ignore military

history (Haas 1990; Topic & Topic 1987; Verano 2001; Arkush & Stanish 2005). By

doing so, Andeanists tacitly maintain Victor Davis Hanson’s deterministic theory of

Western military hedgemony in assuming that Western battle models have little to do

with the primitive weapons and tactics of the pre-Columbian world (Hanson 2001). There

is also an aspect of lo andino, or only in the Andes, in this disreguard of a world-wide

militaristic overview, even thought these Andean scholars are surely trying to avoid this

regional predisposition. As a former Marine Corps officer, this author is conversant with

3

military history and as an Andeanist, with extensive fieldwork in northern Peru, fully

aware of the concept of lo andino. The author’s self-identification assumes no ultimate

authority but his balanced experience in the military and the academy is useful in

mitigating these persuasive schools of thought. That being said, this study belies any

militaristic framing for Kuelap because after formal analysis the designation ‘fortazela

Kuelap’ is inadequate. Curiously, in the more than one hundred and fifty years of

informed Western travelers visiting Kuelap, it was a retired career military officer,

Gerneral Louis Langlois, who defied the lable fortaleza and instead prefered the term

fortified city for the site (Langlois 1939: 28).

At the inception, this work is an outline of what is known about the pre-Columbian

Chachapoya culture. “Reconsidering the Notion of Fortaleza Kuelap” then attempts a

formal analysis of the settlement and a reconstruction of Kuelap’s architectural

significance. The history, or more precisely the lack of history, concerning Kuelap is

carefully examined and the misconceptions made by aficionados and scholars about

Kuelap’s function are deconstructed. Finally a credible account for the closing of the site

in the pre-Columbian era is presented.

The Chachapoya

The pre-Columbian Chachapoya people built Kuelap. This ethnic group thrived in the

northeastern forest and mountains of Peru from the ninth to the fifteenth centuries. In

1843 Chachapoya Judge Juan Crisóstomo Nieto came upon this place in forgotten and

abandoned state (Reichlen 1950). At this time the pre-Columbian construction was called

la malca and the hacienda located below the archaeological site was identified as Kuelap.

4

The name la malca was probably a provincial bastardization of the Quechua term marca,

meaning settlement. Antonio Raimondi was the first scholar to note the name disparity of

Kuelap and the pre-Columbian construction malta [sic] (Raimondi 1942: 411). McCown

added “… the word marca in Quechua and also in Aymara has the common meaning of

town or village but in Quechua it also has the additional meaning of something which is

hidden or carefully guarded” (McCown 1945; Paz Soldán 1878: 329).

Chachapoya culture is assigned to the Late Intermediate Period in the chronology of

the pre-Columbian Andes (Reichlen & Reichlen 1950; Schjellerup 1997). This temporal

frame, with its Horizon/Intermediate categorizations, began in the latter work of Max

Uhle, was added to by Alfred Kroeber in the 1940’s and became established as an

Andean standard by John Rowe in 1945 (Rice 1993: 17-19). The Horizon chronology is

now dated, and it has been rightly criticized as an “oppressive temporal framework”

(Silverman 2004: 11). In terminology alone, the Horizon classification trumps the

expansionistic polities that dominate the Early, Middle and Late Horizons. For the

purposes of this study the stereotype associated with the Late Intermediate Period

timeframe is particularly circumspect. This era has been typified as a balkanized time of

unease and localized conflict on a pan-Andean level (Hyslop 1977; Parsons 1997;

D’Altroy 2002; Covey 2008).

The model of small-fortified hilltop settlements epitomizes LIP sites in the Andes.

Elizabeth Arkush’s research on Colla pukaras (forts) around Lake Titicaca is one of the

most detailed records of this phenomenon. Arkush noted that the pukaras outlined in her

investigation “imposed substantial sacrifices” on the residents, because these sites were

typically constructed at an altitude of 4,000 masl, far above productive farmland and

5

almost always away from easy access to water. The architecture in these pukaras was

mostly undistinguished and residential structures did not differ greatly in material and

assembly (Arkush 2011: 81 & 103). But Kuelap’s unique architectural constructs and

easy access to temperate zones of agricultural production, and the rivers 1000 msal

below, differs from Arkush’s high and dry southern Andean model.

The Inca Empire, and most southern Andean highland polities, developed out of a

similar fortified hilltop existence (Covey 2008: 297). Early Inca imperial expansion was

marked by a sense of familiarity when they absorbed analogous southern highland

peoples (Morris & Thompson 1985; D’Altroy 1987). But the Chachapoya culture and

homeland were markedly different from the Inca highland way of life. The Chachapoya

territory covered a vast region of cordillera and wet cloud forest and they controlled

abundant fertile farmland below 2000 masl. Large tracts of this terrain were suitable for

production of the coveted crops like corn and coca. In contrast, the southern Andes

highlands are high (many areas 4,000 masl and above) and dry. Ethnic groups from this

region were mostly limited to pastoralism and production of marginal crops like potatoes

(Troll 1968; Salomon 1986). Therefore, given the lack of any central authority in the

southern Andes in the several hundred years before the Inca expansion, the struggle for

the limited resources of this region likely resulted in the ubiquitous conflict so closely

associated with the LIP.

The Chachapoya had no scarcity of resources like their southern Andean neighbors.

Therefore in contrast to the relatively efficient Inca imperial expansion in the southern

highlands, resistance marked the Inca occupation of the Chachapoya region. The

Chachapoya rebelled at least twice against Inca rule (Garcilaso 1989: 555-558; Sarmiento

6

1999: 173 & 185). Chachapoya insurrection must be imagined as a desperate act because

the Inca could retaliate by devastating their region or scattering the Chachapoya to the

four parts of the Inca realm (Sarmiento 1999: 119-121). The conquest of Chachapoya

abundance resulted in a colonization that befitted the conquerors at the expense of the

conquered. This invasion was not a seamless takeover of a people with a similar culture

and a familiar geographic homeland and therefore later rebellions by the Chachapoya

were inevitable (Guaman Poma 1993: 124; Garcilaso 1989: 485 & 623).

The Inca conquest likely began the process that would lead to the disappearance of

the Chachapoya language. Today only fragments of Chachapoya words are used east of

the Marañon River. Data concerning the pre-Columbian Chachapoya has been dependent

on a secondhand colonial record. But the lost Chachapoya language has been

linguistically linked to dialects to the north and east of the Chachapoya realm (Zevallos

Quiñones 1966; Schejellerup 1997; Taylor 2000), and evidence gleaned from the study of

ethnic groups in this geographical location can be applied to the pre-Columbian

Chachapoya with effect.

An excellent cultural analogue for the pre-Columbian Chachapoya would be the

Kogi people of Columbia’s Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta massif. The Kogi are a

Chibcha-speaking group from the ancient Tairona culture. The name Kogi is actually a

reference to the language of the Kaggaba people (Oyuela-Caycedo 1998: 40). The

Kaggaba number 5,000 to 6,000 individuals and live in and around small villages of this

isolated region. They retain many of their ancient traditions even in this modern era, ruled

by a priesthood (Mamás) whose influence extends to every aspect of family and village

life (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1990: 1-3). Andean scholars have used ethnographic evidence

7

gleaned from the Kaggaba way of life to gain insight into the practices of pre-Columbian

peoples (Burger 1992), and an examination of Kuelap, referencing the Kaggaba is useful.

Kaggaba architecture and dress bear a striking resemblance to the physical evidence

for the pre-Columbian Chachapoya. Additionally, the ancestors of the Kaggaba, the

previously mentioned Tairona, built “… settlements of all sizes, from pueblos of 20, 40

or 80 houses to large towns with 400 to 1,000 structures” (Bray 2003:2). This description

perfectly corresponds to the existing archaeological evidence of Chachapoya settlement

patterns. In 1881 French traveler Charles Wiener observed one of the last remaining

Chachapoya circular houses in use in the community of Jalca Grande (Wiener 1884). The

account of this circular building with thatched roof devoid of a central post compares

favorably to examples of smaller Kaggaba temples (Oyuela-Caycedo 1998: 48). Kaggaba

circular structures cluster around a ‘somewhat larger building’ functioning as a

ceremonial house. The lower level of Kuelap has a number of similar architectural

groupings (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1990: 3 & 31; Narváez 1987: 119 & 122; Kauffmann Doig

et al. 2013: 137).

Typically, Chachapoya material goods are simple and unadorned (Ruíz Estrada 1972:

VII). Chachapoya ceramics appear in two basic earth tones, brown and grey, and

decoration is often limited to a zigzag ‘serpentine’ design at the neck of the vessel (Vega

Ocampo 1978: 9-13). Kaggaba material culture is also “extremely simple and with very

few exceptions, the artifacts of daily life are devoid of ornamentation” (Reichel-

Dolmatoff 1990: 3). The simple cotton tunics of the Kaggaba males match the only extant

colonial era image of pre-Columbian Chachapoya warriors (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1990;

Guaman Poma 1993: 124).

8

Kuelap

Bandelier’s plan from 1893: Figure 1

The archaeological site of Kuelap occupies a large portion of a ridgeline about a four-

hour walk up from the banks of the Utcubamba River. Kaggaba settlement planning

reflects a similar altitudinal hierarchy and access to Kaggaba “… field temples are

difficult because they are located on mountain ridges” (Oyuela-Caycedo 1998: 44).

9

Indeed the architecture of Kuelap rises and falls with the highland terrain almost as if it

were an extension of the hill. The perimeter wall of Kuelap has no straight lines and the

foundations of buildings are surrounded by this splendid construction. This wall varies in

size from 10 meters to 19 meters or about 39 to more than 60 feet. The barrier is actually

a fieldstone shell filled with a rubble core.

Eastern Wall of Kuelap with Rubble Core: Figure 2

The distance through the wall by passageway into the site is about 10 meters (Narváez

1987: 120) and by adding stones (and fill) and canting the slopes, Chachapoya engineers

transformed the topography.

The north/south length of the settlement is approximately 580 meters and the

east/west width varies from a 100 meters to 60 meters. (Langlois 1930: 30; Ruíz Estrada

1972: 22). Kuelap’s overall plan is cigar shaped and Adolph Bandelier called it an

10

irregular trapezoid (Bandelier 1940: 26). Many LIP, including Chachapoya hilltop

settlements, have some sort of border wall (Parsons et al. 1997: 317-341), but no other

known Chachapoya site has a perimeter wall like Kuelap. However, the recently

discovered pre-Columbian truncated pyramid (La Penitenciaria/Huaca la Meseta) in the

eastern forest is constructed on a similar cyclopean scale (Muscutt 2007; Kauffmann

Doig et al. 2013: 212-213).

Kuelap lies at 6⁰25’02.78’S and 77⁰55’24.43’W. The site itself has a north/south

axis. This inclination is the same as the direction of the major ridgelines 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: east/west. This

direction echoes the extreme change of climate from wet low east to high and dry west,

then on to the ocean. The highlands of Peru follow this same topographical model farther

south, but this change is more gradual then the dramatic latitudinal differences. The

variations of high dry puna and mountains on the western side of the Marañon give way

to high swampy jalca and lush mountains to the east. These mountains then decline and

become rainforest. Kuelap stands on a ridge, which bisects this passage. Interestingly,

Oyuela-Caycedo has noted that the Kaggaba temples associated with the Mamás (priests)

have two doors in opposite direction on an east-west axis (Oyuela-Caycedo 1998: 48).

From the western wall of Kuelap one can see the dividing range which descends into the

hot, dry and deep Marañon 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

montaña and finally the Amazon basin. Kuelap is located high enough so an observer

could see these topographic changes, but the archaeological site’s altitude (3012 masl)

11

prohibits any vista of the local river valleys below. Kuelap is visible from many of the

hilltop pre-Columbian sites above the Utcubamba River. Jalca Grande is more than a

day’s walk from Kuelap, yet Kuelap’s walls are prominent in the distance. Kuelap is also

unmistakably visible from many points along the main pre-Columbian trail in this area.

Kuelap has three entrances. These “gates” permit and restrict access through the

perimeter. They restrict because there are only three passageways constructed through the

580 meters of the outer wall’s circumference, so naturally they limit access to the site.

The main entrance is on Kuelap’s southeastern side.

Kuelap Main Entrance: Figure 3

A second passage is located directly across the settlement from the primary entrance.

These two entrances are symmetrical opposites: southeast vs. southwest. The southwest

entrance proceeds out to a precipice dominating Kuelap’s western side. Another entrance

12

is located on the northeast side of the wall. This opening leads to the upper level. All the

entrances are channeled passages which use natural slopes and man made steps in unison.

Bandelier aptly noted the most striking feature of Kuelap was its entrances (Bandelier

1940: 266), and Langlois added they were completely different from anything else he had

seen in all his travels in Peru (Langlois 1939: 33).

Kuelap was constructed on two levels. Duality is a concept in both the ancient and

modern Quechua world and the concept of opposition is an influence on the Kaggaba

way of life (Tincuni in González Holguín 1842; Reichel-Dolmatoff 1990: 11). The lower

level of Kuelap makes up most of the settlement’s total area. This lower settlement

contains roughly 395 of Kuelap’s 420 circular structures. Circular dwellings are a

characteristic Chachapoya form. The circular structures of Kuelap have a diameter on

average of 7 to 9 meters. But by far the most enigmatic building in the lower level is the

Tintero, named for its curious inkpot shape, situated in the far southern end of the site.

The Tintero, now referred to as Kuelap’s Templo Mayor (Peter Lerche, personal

communication, February 11, 2012; Kauffmann Doig et al. 2013: 133), is a solid

construction about 14 meters in diameter and 5.5 meters high. The building has a bottle

shape empty core and many functions have been assigned to the structure (Narváez 1987:

138-139), but the attribution of the building as a sunturhuasi (solar observation platform)

has gained the most scholarly attention (McGraw et al. 1996; Kauffmann Doig et al.

2013; 133).

Like the high altitude vantage of Kuelap’s Templo Mayor, the Sierra Nevada

homeland of the Kaggaba priesthood “offers a splendid observation point for many

astronomical phenomena visible to the naked eye, and Kaggaba astronomy is well

13

developed” (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1990: 13). The Chachapoya also made and recorded

many celestial calculations (Urton 2001); therefore assigning the function of solar

observatory to the Templo Mayor seems reasonable. Finally the importance of this

structure has been highlighted by Narváez’s recent archaeological discoveries of

spondylus (spiny Pacific oyster) artifacts in the form of a human female, bird and snake

(Kauffmann Doig et al. 2013: 132). These mollusks were sourced hundreds of miles

away in coastal Ecuador, so the circuitous trade route of these precious pre-Columbian

offerings highlights the importance of the Templo.

The upper level of Kuelap circumscribes a small part of the settlement’s total area,

and this elevated plane dominates the far northwest corner of the site. Entrance to this

area is restricted to a passageway, which bisects the rectangular upper platform. Three of

Kuelap’s four rectangular structures are located in the upper level. The northern part of

the upper level contains about 25 circular structures. The circular constructions are

clustered south of Kuelap’s highest point: the Torreón. This tower provides by far the

best observation point of the settlement below. In the area surrounding the Torreón a

cache of 2,500 sling stones was uncovered (Narváez 1987). These projectiles will be

discussed at length later in this paper, but no other martial pre-Columbian artifacts, like

the warrior ceramic figures uncovered by Ivan Ghezzi at Chankillo (Isbell & Silverman

2006: 72-75), have been found at Kuelap.

The Colonial Record

Although we have no written record about the Chachapoya before the arrival of the Inca,

there are a number of early colonial writings documenting the Inca conquest of the

14

Chachapoya. Even though Alsonso de Alvarado undertook the first Spanish expedition

into the area of Chachapoyas in 1535 (Serna 1955; Espinoza Soriano 2003), the most

complete data of the Inca conquest of the Chachapoya comes from the chronicle of

Garcilaso de la Vega. Garcilaso was born in Cuzco where he was educated and lived until

1560. At this time he traveled to Spain and never returned to his home country. Garcilaso

was a mestizo author who, like Guaman Poma, celebrated the time before the Spanish

conquest. Garcilaso’s text was also the source for Vazquez de Espinoza’s Compendio y

Descripcion de las Indias Occidentales. However, unlike Vazquez, Garcilaso never

traveled to northern Peru. Garcilaso’s early years in Cuzco inadequately explain his

detailed account of the Inca conquest of the Chachapoya.

But Garcilaso wrote that he used fragments of documents from the hand of the Jesuit

priest Blas Valera (Garcilaso de la Vega 1961: 296). Blas Valera is an enormously

controversial figure in Andean studies. Even his origin is an intensely debated topic

(Hiltunen 1999: 189). According to the Society of Jesus records from 16th century Peru,

Valera was likely the son of the conquistador Luis Valera and a Chachapoya woman

Francisca Perez (Polo 1906: 546). He was born in Chachapoyas sometime around 1545

(Hyland 2003: 9). As a native of northern Peru, Valera would then have been imbued

with an intimate knowledge of Chachapoya history and geography. But because Valera’s

original texts are lost, his testimony comes down to us rewritten into Garcilaso’s

Comentarios Reales de los Incas.

The second-hand information from Valera recorded in Garcilaso provides a detailed

picture of the Inca conquest of the Chachapoya. Valera’s record accounts for two

chapters of Garcilaso’s commentaries. The Chachapoya history from this section is by far

15

the most nuanced colonial overview concerning this conquered ethnic group. According

to Valera, recorded in Garcilaso, the Inca ruler who subjugated the Chachapoya region

was Topa Inca. This Inca ruler invaded via a southerly route from the Huacrachucu area.

Topa Inca marched his army along the eastern side the Marañón River into Chachapoyas.

This is a very remote and difficult area and many of Topa Inca’s soldiers died crossing

the mountains when a furious snowstorm came upon them at a site the called Chirmac

Cassa, the harmful pass (Garcilaso 1989: 475-479).

The Chachapoya fought valiantly at Cuntur Marca, but the size of the Inca forces was

impossible to overcome. Another pitched battle took place eight leagues farther north on

the plain below the mountain of Cajamarquilla. Again the Inca numerical superiority

made the outcome a fait accompli (Garcilaso 1989: 479). The oral tradition in this remote

highland community has the pre-Columbian site of Pakariska as the fulcrum of this

pitched Inca and Chachapoya conflict (Bradley 2008: 137).

After winning the battle of Cajamarquilla, Topa Inca’s army continued north. Along

the way he stopped and celebrated his victories in conjunction with the important Inca

Inti Raimi festival. He named the spot Raymipampa and a linguistic bastardization of this

term is cited as the origin of the name of the modern town of Leymebamba. Leymebamba

is a few days by foot from Cajamarquilla. 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 Valley (Bradley 2008:

10-11). Suta and Levanto are in the vicinity of Kuelap, but no mention is made in

16

Valera’s account, recorded in Garcilaso, of Kuelap. Kuelap is located on a western high

point off the Utcubamba a short day’s walk from Levanto. But, according to Valera’s

record, Topa Inca did not cross the Utcubamba. Instead he turned east and proceeded on

to conqueror Moyobamba in the lowland forest (Garcilaso 1989: 480-481).

All of these locations in the Utcubamba Valley correspond to modern towns, so

Valera’s chronicle, recorded in Garcilaso, has a geographical authenticity. The town

Leymebamba is likely Topa Inca’s Raymipampa. Moyobamba is conveniently

Moyobamba, the modern capital of the Department of San Martín. In summary, Valera’s

record recorded in Garcilaso de la Vega’s 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 Valera’s writings about the

Peruvian past were the result of years of research and required the questioning of many

native informants (Hyland 2003: 94).

Deconstructing the Fortress

The record of Padre Blas Valera copied by Garcilaso de la Vega in his Comentarios

Reales de los Incas, contains no reference to any battle between the Inca and the

Chachapoya having occurred at Kuelap. In fact all early colonial documents are

completely silent concerning this enormous construction. But curiously the name Kuelap

is mentioned four times in the testimony from a sixteenth-century colonial court case

entitled the Expediente Repartimiento de Leymebamba y Cochabamba (Espinoza Soriano

1967: 299-312; Schjellerup 1997: 316-330). The first three times Kuelap is paired with

17

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,

which are far removed from the Kuelap’s locale. The forth and final reference to Kuelap

appears in an appendix to the Expediente Repartimiento de Leymebamba y Cochabamba

which refers to a Spanish colonial administrator’s 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 a Quechua term for a localized kin group. The ayllu varies

in size and inclusiveness but the cohesion for this social unit is a common ancestor (Isbell

1997: 98-99). 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” (Salomon 1978: 180). In this

particular discussion, Salomon is talking about colonial records from Quito, but the

argument can easily be applied with effect to Chachapoya documents. However vague

the terms and circumstances, these are the only colonial references which use the name

Kuelap.

From these four ambiguous references, a retro-history of Kuelap was created when

the Peruvian ethnohistorian Waldemar Espinoza Soriano’s wrote the introduction to his

seminal 1967 paper “Los señoríos étnicos de Chachapoyas y la alianza hispano-chacha”.

In his introduction, Espinoza Soriano listed the fortalezas Levanto and Kuelap as possible

refuges for Manco Inca during his war with the Spanish. The Spanish had established

Manco Inca as a puppet ruler in the late conquest era. He later rebelled against the

conquerors and took refuge in the southern cloud forests of Vilcabamba (Hemming

1970). Manco’s son Titu Cusi Yupanqui wrote an account of his father’s Empire in exile.

18

In this account Titu Cusi stated some Chachapoya captains suggested Levanto as a

possible refuge for his father instead of Vilcabamba (Titu Cusi Yupanqui 1973: 101).

Titu Cusi did not mention Kuelap in this dialogue. Espinoza Soriano, perhaps with 19th

and 20th century archaeological records in mind, projected Kuelap into Titu Cusi’s

discussion of a possible refuge.

Historian John Hemming reinforced this misidentification of Kuelap in his book The

Conquest of the Incas. Hemming described the events chronicled by Titu Cusi as follows:

…Some chiefs of the Chachapoyas told him (Manco Inca) that they would take him to their town Levanto where there was a fine fortress…The 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. (Hemming 1970: 236-237)

Hemming’s change of imperial refuge from Levanto to Kuelap is geographically

challenged but reasonable considering the timeframe for the work. The years leading up

to the publication date for Hemming’s book were heady days for adventure archaeology

in Chachapoyas. Gene Savoy’s heavily publicized expeditions in Chachapoyas took place

during this decade (Savoy 1970). Savoy epitomized the adventure archaeologist although

he was not trained in archaeology or anthropology. His ‘discovery’ of a pre-Columbian

settlement in the cloud forests of Abiseo (Gran Pajatén) popularized the Chachapoyas

region. When he ‘explored’ Kuelap this site reemerged from obscurity. Hemming cited

Savoy’s adventures on page 580 of his book The Conquest of the Incas. Perhaps much of

the work that followed in this decade, Duccio Bonavia’s excavations at Abiseo (Bonavia

19

1968) and even Espinoza Soriano’s groundbreaking article, are indebted to Savoy’s

sensationalism, however, historical accuracy concerning Kuelap was a victim. In Blas

Valera’s account (recorded in Garcilaso) Levanto not Kuelap was mentioned as a scene

of battle between the Imperial Inca army and the Chachapoya (Garcilaso 1960: 294).

Levanto, not Kuelap, was the established secure location for seven years for the city of

San Juan de la Frontera de Chachapoyas (Serna 1955: 13). Levanto, not Kuelap, was

mentioned in a letter of twenty four November 1542 to the King of Spain because of its

strategic importance (Porras Barrenechea 1955: 505). Schjellerup has pointed out there

are several large pre-Inca sites near Levanto that could have served Manco Inca well

(Schjellerup 1997: 66). Schjellerup continued by adding that Levanto was also an Inca

stronghold and Inca ruins and ceramics in the area support this claim (Schjellerup 1997:

77). Finally, Kuelap is a day’s walk from Levanto so the two sites are geographically

disconnected.

Many different theories have offered up belligerents which necessitated Kuelap’s

huge perimeter wall, yet none of these imagined enemies are satisfying. Espinoza Soriano

suggested wild animals could be the impetus for Kuelap’s massive perimeter wall, but

given the history of contact between human beings and animal predators this suggestion

is implausible (Espinoza Soriano 1967: 234). Mankind has been securely atop the food

chain for at least the past 10,000 years, and surely Kuelap’s inhabitants could have

formed a hunting party with far less effort than undertaking the construction of 60-foot

walls. Espinoza Soriano’s more serious proposal was that Kuelap was built in response to

raiders from the general vicinity (Espinoza Soriano 1967: 235-236). But any polity

20

capable of mustering the labor required to construct Kuelap would be able to field an

expeditionary force capable of eliminating any threat.

Perhaps Kuelap’s 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.

The southern highland based Huari people 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 Marañon River canyon. The Huari colony

in this area, Viracochapampa, places this expansionistic state on the fringes of the

Chachapoyas, but aside from ceramic shards (Ruíz Estrada 1972) and textiles of dubious

provenance no firm evidence of an established presence has ever been substantiated on

the eastern side of the Marañon River.

Schjellerup cited oral tradition from the villages around Kuelap to suggest that fear

of conquest from eastern lowland peoples facilitated the construction of Kuelap’s wall.

Specifically, Schjellerup hypothesized that this perimeter could have been constructed in

response to pressure from “fierce jungle tribes [such] as the Jivaro” (Schjellerup 1997:

238). A pre-Columbian highland/lowland trade network was likely, and although no

definitive study has been published on the subject. Frank Salomon has examined a

merchant Indian class mentioned in colonial history, mindaláes (Salomon 1986). The

burial 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 traders. But any hostile projection of power from the selva

was unlikely. Certainly any lowland threat did not warrant a construction on the scale of

21

Kuelap. Consider, for instance, Schjellerup’s suggestion of the lowland Jivaro. These

forest dwellers would have had to navigate an enormous distance upriver, against frigid

currents, to exert pressure on the Chachapoya. The forest people would then have had to

scale heights of fifteen hundred meters in order to attack the cold Chachapoya

settlements. This would have been a daunting task for the Jivaro, or for that matter any

other lowland group, accustomed to a tropical climate and topography.

Again many scholars have suggested Kuelap’s walls were constructed because of

internal conflict between the Chachapoya (Werthemann 1892; Middendorf 1974;

Bandelier 1940; Olsen 1931; Horkheimer 1958; Savoy 1970; Ruíz Estrada 1972;

Espinoza Soriano 1967). Could interregional warfare have been the catalyst for Kuelap’s

perimeter wall? Langlois observed 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 accessing the rives below? Narváez has

estimated the population of Kuelap at 3,000 individuals so the inhabitants would have

needed an extensive supply network accessing the Utcubamba during a siege (Narváez

1987: 140). Arkush and Stanish have noted the logistical nightmare imposed on the

attacking forces making any prolonged attack on Kuelap all the less likely (Arkush &

Stanish 2005: 9). And with a long-term battle scenario in mind, how then do the

indefensible sites of Macro

22

Macro on the Utcubamba: Figure 4

and Condechaca, located directly below Kuelap, just above the banks of the Utcubamba,

fit into this supposedly hostile environment? These settlements do not conform to the

LIP classification of settlements situated on high peaks suggesting endemic localized

conflict (Julien 1993: 246-273; Hyslop 1977: 218-225; D’Altroy 2002: 206; Covey

2008). Considering 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 evidence of political sophistication.

A Central Place of Power and Authority

23

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

(Brush 1977: 44). The suggestion that Kuelap was perhaps a fortified temple complex,

similar in its origins to Chankillo and ruled over by theocratic elites akin to Kaggaba

society is interesting, but ultimately, given the paucity of information about the pre-

Columbian Chachapoya, pure speculation, however Narváez, after excavating the

southern sector of Kuelap for many years, has compared the location to a pre-Columbian

Mecca or Vatican, because of the site’s central religious importance (Kauffmann Doig et

al. 2013: 140).

The huge perimeter wall of Kuelap was in fact man-made, so what could be a better

regional symbol of power, or what could offer a better placement for sacred ancestors?

Typically the Chachapoya put their important dead in cliffside chullpas or funeral houses.

But no specific geographical cliff is necessary for entombment because Kuelap’s walls

create a fantastic man-made burial space. The previously discussed Templo Mayor,

postulated as a solar observatory, is also an integral architectural feature at Kuelap

(McGraw et al. 1996). Whereas this architectural form transcends ethnic differences,

Kuelap’s three channeled entrances are indicative of the site’s exclusiveness. These

passageways restricted access. Therefore admission to Kuelap was likely limited to a

chosen few. The perimeter wall of Kuelap was a powerful social barrier.

Compelling evidence for the high social status of Kuelap’s inhabitants is the

deficiency of water at the settlement. Espinoza Soriano suggested bearers were assigned

the daily routine of supplying Kuelap’s large population with water even though the

24

settlement is a mile above the Utcubamba River (Espinoza Soriano 1967: 236). Espinoza

Soriano only failed to identify the laborers involved in this daily routine. Retainers

servicing fortress Kuelap would be stopped, and possibly slaughtered during a siege. But

a large group of workers assigned to the daily task supplying an elite settlement with

water is entirely reasonable. Peruvian archaeologist Arturo Ruíz Estrada noted the

foundations for 700 structures outside the wall of Kuelap, which he named Quiúquita-

Lahuancho. Quiúquita-Lahuancho perfectly conforms to a physical setting where the

community of workers who serviced Kuelap could have lived (Ruíz Estrada 1972).

The Sacred Landscape

In his insightful study of power and architecture in the pre-Columbian Andes, Jerry

Moore has assigned the qualities of permanence, scale, centrality, ubiquity and visibility

to Andean ritual architecture (Moore 1996: 223). All of these classifications apply to

Kuelap. Despite 600 years of neglect Kuelap’s relative intactness underscores its

permanence. Kuelap’s 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

The huge perimeter wall of Kuelap is ultimately a man-made attempt at forming this

sacred topography. This tradition of architecture is ubiquitous in Andean studies (Benson

1972: 98; Pillsbury 2001: 289). Typically the form being imitated is a sacred mountain,

but the architects of Kuelap fashioned the perimeter walls to imitate a cliff, which is the

omnipresent natural formation in highland Chachapoyas (Kauffmann Doig et al. 1991;

Bradley 2008; Toyne 2011). Natural canyons line the terrain in this part of the

25

northeastern Andes. These lush gorges were the preferred location for Chachapoya

burials, so unquestionably these geographic sites held special significance for the

Chachapoya.

As previously discussed, Kuelap’s perimeter wall is actually the “façade of a faux

terrace” (Muscutt 1998: 13). This façade contained more than one hundred burials when

it was originally excavated (Narváez 1987: 118; Muscutt 1998: 16; Von Hagen 2002: 18)

and recent excavations around the Templo Mayor have unearthed over 200 new

individual skeletons (Kauffmann Doig et al. 2013). These burials are likely interments

replicating the Chachapoya cliffside funeral sites (Bradley 2008: 131; Toyne 2011: 231).

Parsons et al. have aptly pointed out that whatever defensive function the walls in the LIP

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

(Parsons et al. 1997: 331-333). Therefore framing the perimeter wall of Kuelap as a great

barrier against attack is simplistic at best.

The size and scale of Kuelap has impressed every visitor to the site for the past one

hundred and fifty years. Typically the great wall has been assigned a defensive function.

But how defensive is a sixty-foot wall lacking parapets? Without these ramparts a large

wall becomes a liability because it affords cover that would conceal an enemy’s advance.

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” (Topic & Topic 1987: 48-49). Arkush

and Stanish have noted that even without parapets, palisades afford some protection to

the inhabitants but their discussion references simple village defenses not sixty-foot walls

26

(Arkush and Stanish 2005: 8). Finally, Narváez wrote that he found no clear evidence for

these fortifications (parapets) on the wall of Kuelap during his extensive excavation in

the nineteen eighties (Narváez 1987: 120; Kauffmann Doig et al. 2013).

Conclusions

Perhaps the most compelling evidence for fortaleza Kuelap was the discovery of

2,500 sling stones in the upper level by the excavation of Alfredo Narváez (Narváez

1987: 122). This unique cache of stones at Kuelap 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, used by both the Inca and Chachapoya forces (D’Altroy

2002: 227; Garcilaso 1989: 476), and they are commonly found in pre-Columbian

defensive positions (Topic & Topic 1987).

The sling stones discovered by Narváez’s team were found on the upper northwest

level of Kuelap near the Torreón. This upper level is the sector of Kuelap, which contains

the largest rectangular foundations in the settlement. Rectangularity is a form of

construction the Chachapoya reserved for chullpas, therefore rectangular constructions in

this area of a settlement is unprecedented. Also, more than ninety eight percent of the

four hundred and twenty structures found at Kuelap are circular. Rectangular Chachapoya

funeral houses are located affixed to cliff faces and not constructed in the middle of

settlements (Schjellerup 1997: 150).

Rectangular construction for dwellings was a common form in Inca architecture. In

fact a rectangular foundation in ruinous condition is often seen as an Inca footprint in this

northern part of the Andes. Therefore the rectangular constructions and cache of arms on

27

the upper level could be indicative of an Inca presence. This force, inside the perimeter,

would have occupied the heights and scrutinized the settlement below. Kuelap’s sling

stones were always imagined for use outside the wall, but the northwest tower complex

was the most secure section of the site. The entire northern wall of Kuelap is protected by

a steep cliff, which makes any artificial defense redundant. This sector however looms

over the dwellings in the settlement below (Langlois 1939: 39). This hoard of stones then

could have been an armory for an occupying Inca force (Kauffmann Doig et al. 2013:

157). If this was the case, the stones were not projectiles to be used to defend against a

force outside the perimeter wall, but rather to intimidate the ethnic elites below.

We have archaeological evidence suggesting the Inca stationed themselves in the

midst of their Chachapoya subjects. For example, data from Inge Schjellerup’s

excavation at the settlement La Peña Calata reveals an Inca structure constructed in the

middle of this Chachapoya site. She added that other Inca buildings were assembled

below the site (Schjellerup 1997: 176). Ruíz found 506 fragments of Kuelap Inca pottery

(Cuzco polychrome A) in the upper level location (Ruíz Estrada 1972: 57-70). Imagine

the intimidating and disenfranchising effect of an Inca force placed in the midst of the

conquered. Fernando Plaza Schuller has noted Inca amplification of indigenous

constructions in what is modern Ecuador (Plaza Schuller 1980). Finally, Schjellerup has

suggested that a cut stone building was an Inca elite compound set in the midst of a

remote Chachapoya cloud forest location (Schjellerup 2003: 33 & 263). Recently

Muscutt has surveyed a huge Chachapoya truncated pyramid, Huaca de la Meseta, less

than a few hours walk from an Inca Cuzco style building and bath (Lerche 1995;

Schjellerup 2003; Muscutt, 2007; Kauffmann Doig et al. 2013: 212-213).

28

An Inca outpost placed on top of Kuelap, in the midst of what was the ultimate

Chachapoya architectural achievement, would have undermined the symbolic power of

the Chachapoya elites. It is likely that this imperial occupation of Kuelap was terminated,

as was use of the settlement itself, after the rebellious Chachapoya murdered Huayna

Capac’s governors and captains. Kuelap could then have been closed in retaliation for the

massacre of the Inca forces stationed on Kuelap’s upper level. Anthropologist Marla

Toyne has published evidence of scalping and other violent acts that occurred at Kuelap

during the “final occupation” (Toyne 2011). Could this brutality be linked to the conflict

that led to in Kuelap’s closing? If the abandonment of Kuelap then took place in the late

15th century, the site was lost before the Spanish arrived in the region. Narváez has

recently excavated lead shot and bones with sword and projectile injuries to human

remains. Although these materials are indicative of a Spanish presence at the site,

foreigners could have arrived anytime in the colonial era. Perhaps the Western visitors

were building or defending the hacienda below the ruin described by Bandelier, and they

experienced some unwanted event in the ruin above (Kauffmann et al. 2013: 156 &

Bandelier 1893)? A more complete study of the type of shot found might help place the

Western weapons in a secure colonial time frame, but the lack of any mention of Kuelap

in the colonial record until 1843 is indicative of an abandoned settlement forgotten by a

subjugated population.

References Cited Alcock, Susan,Terence D'Altroy, Kathleen Morrison and Carla Sinopoli, ed. Empires. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Arkush, Elizabeth & Charles Stanish. “Interpreting Conflict in the Ancient Andes.” Current Anthropology (The Wernner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research) 46, no. 1 (2005): 3-27. Arkush, Elizabeth N. Hillforts of the Ancient Andes: Colla Warfare, society and Landscape. Gainsville: University of Flordia, 2011. Bandelier, Adolph Francis Alphonse. “Journal.” The American Museum of Natural History, 1893.

29

Bandelier, Aldolph Francis Alphonse. “Los Indios y las Ruinas Aborigenes Cerca de Chachapoyas en el Norte del Peru.” Chaski 1, no. 2 (1940). Betanzos, Juan de. Suma y Narración de los Incas. Madrid: Atlas, 1987. Bonavia, Duccio. Las ruinas del Abiseo. Lima: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias y Tecnologia, 1968. Bradley, Robert. The Architecture of Kuelap. Saarbrucken: Verlag Dr. Muller, 2008. Bram, Joseph. An Analysis of Inca Militarism. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1966. Bray, Warwick. “Gold, Stone and Ideology: Symbols of Power in the Tairona Tradition of Northern Colombia.” In Gold and Power in Ancient Costa Rica, Panama and Colombia, edited by Jeffery Quilter & John W. Hoopes. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2003. Buikstra, J. E. and Kenneth C. Nystrom. “Embodied traditions: The Chachapoya and Inca ancestors.” In Theory, Method and Practice in Modern Archaeology, edited by R. J. Jeske and D. K. Charles, 29-48. Westport, Connecticut: Praegar Publishers, 2003. Bumiller, Elisabeth. After War Room, Heading Ivy League Classroom. New York: New York Times, 2012. Burger, Richard L. Chavin and the Origins of Andean Civilization. London: Thames and Hudson, 1992. Church, Warren Brooks. Prehistoric Cultural Development and Interregional Interaction in the Tropical Montane Forests of Peru. New Haven: Ph.D. issertation, Yale University, 1996. Cobo, Father Bernabe. History of the Inca Empire. Translated by Roland Hamilton. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1979. Covey, R. Alan. “Multiregional Perspectives on the Archaeology of the Andes During the Late Intermediate Period (c. A.D. 1000-1400).” Journal of Archaeological Research 16 (2008): 287-338. Espinoza Soriano, Waldemar. Juan Pérez de Guevara y la historia de Moyobamba Siglo XVI. Lima: Editora Magisterial, 2003. Espinoza Soriano, Waldemar. “Los señoríos étnicos de Chachapoyas y la alianza hispano-chacha.” Revista Histórica XXX (1967): 224-333. Garcilaso de la Vega, [El Inca]. Comentarios Reales de los Incas in Obras Completas del Inca Garcilaso de la Vega. Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Españoles, 1960. —. Royal Commentaries of the Incas and General History of Peru. Translated by Harold V. Livermore. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1989. —. The Incas: The Royal Commentaries of the Inca. New York: Avon Books, 1961. Gasparini, Graziano and Luise Margolies. Inca Architecture. Translated by Patricia J. Lyon. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1980. Gil, Napoleon. “Dos pueblos prehistóricos Kuelapenses: Kacta y Chipuric.” Boletin de la Sociedad Geografica LV, no. 2-3 (1938): 132-39. González Holguín, Diego. Gramática y arte nueva de la lengua general de todo el Peru, llamada lengua qquichua o lengua del Inca. Genova: Pagano, 1842. —. Vocabulario de la Lengua General, de todo el Peru Llamada, Lengua Qquichua o del Inca. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcus, 1989. Guaman Poma de Ayala, Felipe. Nueva Corónica y Buen Gobinero. Edited by Franklin G. Y. Pease. Translated by Jan Szemiński. Lima: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1993. Guengerich, Anna. Monte Viudo: Residential Architecture and the Everyday Production of Space in a Chachapoya Community. Ph.D. dissertation, Chicago: University of Chicago, 2014. Haas, J., ed. The Anthropology of Warfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Hanson, Victor Davis. Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power. Dew York: Doubleday, 2001. —. The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000. Hemming, John. The Conquest of the Incas. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 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. Helsinki: Suomen Historiallinen Seura, 1999. Horkheimer, Hans. “Algunas Consideraciones Acerca de la Arqueología en el Valle del Utcubamba.” Actas y Trabajos del II Congreso Nacional de Historia del Perú. Lima, 1958. 71-101. Hyslop, John. “Hilltop cities in Peru.” Archaeology 30 (1977): 218-25. —. Inka Settlement Planning. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1990. —. The Inca Road System. Orlando: Academic Press, 1984.

30

Isbell, William H. and Helaine Silverman, ed. Andean Archaeology. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2002. Isbell, William H. and Helaine Silverman, ed. Andean Archaeology III: North and South. New York: Springer, 2006. Isbell, William H. Mummies and Mortuary Monuments. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1997. 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 4, no. 3 (1993): 246-73. Kauffmann Doig, Federico. Con que fin se construyò Kuelap? Lima: ECO, Rivista de Expreso, 1991. Kauffmann Doig, Federico et al. Los Chachapoyas. Lima: Banco de Credito, 2013. Langlois, Louis. Utcubamba. Lima: Imprenta del Museo Nacional, 1939. Lerche, Peter. Häuptlingstum, Jalca Bevölkerung und Ressoureen bei den vorspanischen Chachapoya, Peru. Berlin: Freien Universitat, 1985. —. Los chachapoya y los símbolos de su historia. Lima: Servicios Editoriales César Gayoso, 1995. Looper, Matthew G. “The Iconography and Social Context of Tairona Gold Pectorals.” Journal of Latin American Lore 19 (1996): 101-128. Makowski, Krzysztof. Señores de los reinos de la luna. Lima: Banco de Crédito, 2008. McCown, Theodore. “Pre-Incaic Huamachuco; Survey and Excavations in the Region of Huamachuco and Cajabamba.” University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 39, no. 4 (1945): 223-399. McGraw, James, Manuel Oncina, Douglas Sharon & Carlos Torres Mas. “Kuelap a Solar Observatory.” Ethnic Technology Notes (Museum of Man) 24: 1-12. Middendorf, Ernst Wilhelm. Peru Beobachtungen und Studien über das Land und seine Bewohner. Berlin: Band III, 1895. Moore, Jerry D. Architecture & Power in the Ancient Andes: The Archaeology of Public Buildings. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Morris, Craig and Donald E. Thompson. Huánuco Pampa: An Inca City and Its Hinterland. London: Thames and Hudson, 1985. Muscutt, Keith. “Pre-Columbian Ruin Discovered in Peru.” Science Daily, 2007 йил 17-January. —. Warriors of the Clouds a lost Civilization in the Upper Amazon of Peru. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1998. Narváez Vargas, Alfredo Luís. “Kuelap: una ciudad fortificada en los Andes nor-orientales de Amazonas, Peru.” In Arquitectura y Arqueologia pasado y futuro de la construccion en en Peru, edited by Victor Rangel Flores, 115-142. Chiclayo: Universidad de Chiclayo, 1987. Niles, Susan. The Shape of Inca History: Narrative and Architecture in an Andean Empire. Des Moines: University of Iowa Press, 1999. Nystrom, Kenneth C. & John Verano. “Warrior’s of the Clouds: Interface and Interpretation of Trauma from Chachapoya, Peru.” 73rd American Association of Physical Anthropology Meetings. Tempe: Arizona, 2003. Nystrom, Kenneth C., Jane E. Buikstra and Keith Muscutt. “Chachapoya Mortuary Behavior: A Consideration of Method and Meaning.” Chungra, Revista de Antropologia Chilena 42, no. 2 (2010): 477-495. Olsen, Ronald L. “Old Empire of the Andes, the Myron Granger Archaeological Expedition.” Natural History, 1931: 3-22. Oyuela Caycedo, Augusto & J. Scott Raymon, ed. Recent Advances in the Archaeology of the Northern Andes: In Memory of Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff. University of California, Loa Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, 1998. 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 8, no. 4 (1997): 317-41. Paz Soldan, Marino Felipe. Diccionario Geográfico Estadisco del Peru. Lima, 1878. Pillsbury, Joanne, ed. Moche Art and Archaeology in Ancient Peru. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001. Plaza Schuller, Fernando. “El Complejo de fortalezas de Pambamarca.” Serie Arqueología (Instituto Otavaleño de Antropología) 3 (1980). Polo, José Toribio. “Blas Valera.” Revista Histórica, 1906.

31

Porras Barrenechea, Raul. Cartas del Perú (1524-1543). Lima: edición de la Saciedad de bibliófilos peruanos, 1959. —. Los Cronistas del Perú (1528-1650) y Otros Ensayos. Lima: Biblioteca Clásicos del Perú, 1986. Raimondi, Antonio. El Perú. Vol. 1. Lima: Imprenta Torres Aguirre, 1942. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo. The Sacred Mountain of Columbia's Kogi Indians. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1990. Reichlen, H. and Paule Reichlen. “Recherches archeologiques dans les Andes du haut Utcubamba.” Journal de la Societe des Americanistes XXXIX (1950): 219-251. Rice, Don Stephen. Latin American Horizons. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1993. Ruíz Estrada, Arturo. La alfarería de Cuelap: tradición y cambio. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Tesis de Bachiller, 1972. Salomon, Frank. Ethnic Lords of Quito in the Age of the Incas, the Political Economy of North Andean Chiefdoms. Cornell University, 1978. —. Native Lords of Quito in the Age of the Inca. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Sarmiento de Gamboa, Pedro. History of the Incas. New York: Dover Publications, 1999. Savoy, Gene. The Antisuyu: The Search for the Lost Cities of the Amazon. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1970. Schjellerup, Inge. Incas and Spaniards in the Conquest of the Chachapoyas. Goteborg University, 1997. Schjellerup, Inge, & Mikael Kamp Sorensen, Carolina Espinoza, Victor Pena. The Forgotten Valleys: Past and Present in the Utilization of Resources in the Ceja de Sela. Vol. I. National Museum of Denmark: Ethnographic Monographs, 2003. Serna, Raul Rivera, ed. “Libro primero de Cabildos de San Juan de la Frontera de Chachapoyas.” Fénix de la Biblioteca Nacional, 1955. Taylor, Gerald. Estudios Lingüísticos sobre Chachapoyas. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, 2000. Titu Cusi Yupanqui, Inca Diego de Castro. Relación de la Conquista del Perú y hechos del Inca Manco II; Instrucción para el muy Ille. Señor Ldo. Lope Garciá de Castro, Gouernador que fue destos rreynos del Pirú. Vol. 2, in Colección de Libros y Documentos Referentes a la Historia del Peru, edited by Horacio H. Urteaga. Lima: Sanmartí, 1973. Topic, John & Theresa Topic. “The archaeological investigation of Andean militarism: some cautionary observations.” In The Origins and Development of the Andean State , edited by J., Tom Pozorski and Shelia Pozorski Haas. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Torero, Alfredo. “Áreas toponímicas e idiomas en la sierra norte peruana.” Revista Andina 1 (1989): 217-257. Toyne, J. Marla. “Possible Cases of Scalping from Pre-Hispanic Highland Peru.” International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 21 (2011): 229-42. Troll, Carl. Geo-Ecology of the Mountainous Regions of the Tropical Americas. Bonn: Ferd. Dummlers Verlag, 1968. Tzu, Sun. The Art of War. Translated by Ralph D. Sawyer. Boulder, Colorado: Weatview Press Inc., 1994. Urton, Gary. “A Calendrical and Demographic Tomb Text from Northern Peru.” Latin American Antiquity 12, no. 2 (2001): 127-147. Vázquez de Espinoza, Antonio. Compendium and Description of the West Indies. Translated by Charles Upson Clark. Washington D.C.: Simithsonian Institution, 1942. Vega Ocampo, Abel. “Complejo Arqueológico de Uchucmarca, Descripción del Elemento Cerámica de Pirca Pirca.” Revista Investigación Arqueológica, 1978: 9-19. Verano, John W. “War and Death in the Moche World: Osteological Evidence and Visual Discourse.” In Moche Art and Archaeology in Ancient Peru, edited by Joanne Pillsbury. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001. Von Clausewitz, Carl. On War. Translated by John James Graham. New York: Barnes & Noble, 2004. Von Hagen, Adriana. Los Chachapoyas y la Laguna de los Cóndores. Peru: Museo Leymebamba Amazonas, 2002. Werthemann, Arthur. “Ruinas de la fortaleza de Cuelap.” Boletín de la Sociedad Geográfica An�o II, 1892. Wiener, Charles. Amazone et Cordilléres 1879-82. Paris: Le Tour du Monde, 1884. Wild, E. M., S. Guillen, W. Kutschera, H. Seidler and P. Steier. “Radiocarbon dating of the Peruvian Chachapoya/Inca site at the Laguna de los Condores.” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, no. 259 (2007): 378-383.

32

Zevallos Quiñones, Jorge. “Onomástica prehispánica de Chachapoyas.” Lenguaje y Ciencias, 1966.