Examining Hillforts of the Peruvian Andes During the Late Intermediate Period

(LIP)

Elizabeth Arkush spent the years between 2000-2007 employing a variety of fieldwork

methods to explore hillforts nestled in the Peruvian Andes and the theoretical reasons as to why

they exist. The periods of time before and after the LIP were swollen with culture, kings,

sacrifices, wealth, and art, but the time in the middle (the LIP)was more unrefined with smaller

villages and towns instead of big cities. She further sought to understand the surrounding

political and social climate during the period when the hillforts and surrounding walls were built.

The first question she sought to solve was why were there hillforts and warfare in the area and

why at this time in regional history? She came up with three hypotheses, all based on when the

remains ended up dating from. Were the hillforts constructed right after the collapse of

Tiwanaku before the LIP? Or did they gradually emerge throughout the LIP as the regional

population and rancor slowly increased? What if they were put up after locals began facing

Incan aggression from the North?

The next part of her project focused on the societal and political organization when the

hillforts came into existence. Here she held two hypotheses, each presenting their own problem.

If the investigation took place on a regional scale, then the locations of hillforts might present

patterns of clustered groups who integrated with each other communally, paired with hostile,

outcropping, borderland settlements. Unfortunately, the standard method of a full-coverage

pedestrian survey wouldn’t be able to cover enough ground to capture that large of a political

expanse. If they investigated on a local scale, investigating only large hillfort settlements,

excavation could reveal what life and the class divide was like for the people who lived there.

This was a problem as well, because it didn’t make any sense to only collect detailed

information about one site amidst a sea of regional knowledge.

 Arkush faced several challenges from the beginning of the project. First off, the intended

stretch of her investigation targeted a larger than normal region of terrain. Her study began

before Google Earth came about. This meant that in order for her to chart survey maps, she had

to visit the local AIr Force base and spend hours pouring over air photos for potential

archaeological sites. Fortunately, her regional archaeological area had excellent satellite

coverage and she was able to comb over the pictures to find circular walls with a common

center and lay place markers on her maps. Once she was in the Andean mountains, she

scoured the land with binoculars from the ground and other hillforts to locate other hillforts in the

area. She eventually settled on forty-four hillforts across the North Western altiplano to focus

her study on by mapping the internal layouts and defensive walls of each one.

At an elevation of nearly thirteen thousand feet, agricultural work is not effectively

feasible. Local farmers think little of the land and had no real issues letting the archaeological

team explore their territories freely. She used several GPS-related tools during the study,

including a handheld GPS unit, ArcGis, and Trimble GeoExplorer. Her team made surface

collections and dug small pits to use for extracting carbon samples from the earth before

sending them off to the lab for radiocarbon dating. They measured and took photos of all

features and walls. They haphazardly collected “grab bags” of ceramic sherds to create a map

of localized and regionalized distributions of pottery styles. Grass was collected from mortar to

be tested from a few defensive walls at differing sites.

The findings and conclusions Arkush reached with her study answered some of the

questions she had while also throwing out a broad net of other future potential research

questions. The hillforts were too late to be an immediate response to the fall of Tiwanaku, but

also too early and widespread to be a result of Incan aggression. The settlements didn’t look

hierarchical, however there were clusters of hillforts in regional patterns suggesting confederate
or alliance groups who shared pottery styles and visual links. It didn’t seem likely that states

were encouraged to grow due to warfare. The hillforts didn’t seem to be a very gradual

development. Arkush originally thought drought may have caused the building of the

settlements, but after further research done by other scientists, she now thinks early aridity of

the region may have inhibited the spread of dense, regional population growth. She theorizes it

would have left a strong base for later generations, flush with hostility and beginning to expand

outwards towards each other when the environmental conditions got better. Her questions on

when construction occurred was answered along with evidence to produce further theories on

the societal and political climate at that time.

In my informed opinion, I believe Arkush followed the research steps pretty thoroughly.

The only one I feel she could’ve been more systematic on was the design and formulation step

for the collection of ceramics. She also didn’t spend too much time talking about the logistical

planning, which would have been nice to hear. She clearly got funding from somewhere and

only mentions finances once when she sent samples off to be radiocarbon dated, paid for by a

grant from a National Science Foundation Dissertation Improvement Grant. I learned a bit about

different theories on warfare and methodology, but the most surprising thing I learned was to

see how in depth she went in discussing her assorted biases and regrets for the study. It was

more self-reflection than I would’ve expected in a scientific publication.She talked about how

she cut corners when collecting the ceramic sherds because she didn’t think it was very

important until later when it was too late to go back and redo it. I liked how she described her

personal life experiences at the time to give an understanding of the rushed attitude she had. It

must have been difficult to leave loved ones and a new baby at home. It was interesting to hear

her talk about first research study jitters. I appreciated how she brought up opposing views by

two scientists whose opinions differed from hers and noted how there was empirical truth on

each side. Admitting you might be wrong is hard!

Arkush, E.2018. Climbing Hillforts and Thinking about Warfare in the Pre-Columbian Andes In
Silliman, Stephen W. Engaging Archaeology : 25 Case Studies in Research Practice. First ed.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2018. Web.

Fagan, Brain and Nadia Durrani. 2017. Archaeology: A Brief Introduction. 12th Edition, New
York: Routledge. Chapter 6