“Chachapoya” describes the ancient Andean societies inhabiting the cordillera between the Maranon and Huallaga rivers that were subjugated by the Incas during the mid-fifteenth century, while “Chachapoyas” refers to the pre-Hispanic geographic domain surrounding the modern city of Chachapoyas (see Figure 45.1). Scholars debate the term’s etymology, although “Chacha” evidently referred to a major ethnos occupying the upper Utcubamba Valley during the sixteenth century. As an ethnohistorical culture-area construct, there is little documentary evidence for a body of Chachapoya core traits. Espinoza (1967) cites worship of similar deities and music, dance, costume and language as unifying elements, but the imposition of Inca Quechua has complicated historical reconstruction of aboriginal language(s). Based on available ethnohistorical information, and distributions of archaeological traits, the most reliably identified Chachapoya boundary is the Maranon to the west. Scant documentary evidence places a southern limit around 8° south latitude near the boundary shared by the modern departments of La Libertad and Huanuco. The northern and eastern and boundaries remain unknown, and are likely to have fluctuated.
Some ethnohistorians argue that Chachapoya ayllus lacked pan-regional political unity, except when they formed confederacies to confront external threats such as those posed by the Incas (Espinoza 1967; Pease 1982; Zevallos 1995). Among pre-Inca Chach-apoya ayllus, sociopolitical organization probably ranged through a continuum of egalitarian and ranked levels of complexity. Espinoza (1967) has suggested village-centered ayllus as maximal sociopolitical units, while archaeologists have assumed chiefdom (Schjellerup 1997), and even state (Morales C. 1994) levels of sociopolitical integration. No settlement survey has documented the kinds of site hierarchies expected of complex chiefdoms or states. Both inter-site and intra-site architectural and mortuary variability do suggest social inequality, and early documentary evidence intimates that demonstrated prowess in warfare and sorcery, as well as heredity, provided routes to leadership status. These institutions, however, may have been amplified under Inca and Spanish domination. Control of exchange alliances and acquisition of wealth may have offered an additional route to positions of high status and leadership.
In reality, the archaeological evidence for local and regional Chachapoya sociopolitical development is paltry, and open to various interpretations. We believe that similarities in pottery styles, architectural details and settlement patterns indicate that by the beginning of the Late Intermediate Period (LIP, AD 1000), a regional identity emerged throughout Chachapoyas based upon the growth and fissioning of ayllus that remained linked by kinship, regional sodalities and trade alliances. This identity coalesced into an ethnic category labeled “Chachapoya” for administrative convenience by the Incas when they incorporated local ayllus into a single province organized by decimal census categories. Some ayllus’ names appear in the earliest Colonial census records, but frequent
Figure 45.1. Map of northeastern Peruvian Andes indicating Chachapoya archaeological sites. (Warren Church and Adriana von Hagen)
Reshuffling of populations by Inca and Spanish administrators makes it difficult to ascertain their pre-Inca status.
Chachapoya archaeology, architecture, and artistic canons have been under study for some time (e. g. Bandelier 1907; Kauffmann 1983; Langlois 1939, 1940a, 1940b; Lerche 1986, 1995; Reichlen and Reichlen 1950), and recent mortuary finds are broadening our perspective on Chachapoya art and iconography (von Hagen 2000, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c; von Hagen and Guillen 1998; Morales G. 2002a, 2002b; Morales G. et al. 2002). Chronological sequences from stratified sites are now available (Church 1994; Ruiz E. 1972; Schjellerup 1997). Bioarchaeological studies of population genetics and mortuary practices are underway (Buikstra and Nystrom 2003; Guillen 2003; Jakobsen et al. 1987; Nystrom in press) and offer insights into population interactions. Many of these publications offer interpretations regarding Chachapoya religion and ideology. We begin with a discussion of regional geography and ancient Chachapoya land-use, and then launch into our interpretation of Chachapoya cultural development based upon the evidence on hand. Unfortunately, we must rely on data from a single southern site, Manachaqui Cave, to sketch the Chachapoya developmental sequence during the millennia preceding AD 1.
World History
