El Fuerte de Samaipata w szerszym kontekście. Wprowadzenie

2020

2(62)

DOI: 10.37190/arc200202

Samaipata, a little Machu Picchu

and a small Cusco in Bolivia

The name “El Fuerte de Samaipata”, the ocial title

with which this mysterious archaeological and historical

site in eastern Bolivia was inscribed on the UNESCO

World Heritage List a little more than twenty years ago,

is in some sense misleading, as the fortication aspect

of the site is not particularly characteristic, at least when

considering its prehistoric origin(s). UNESCO’s brief de-

scription on its ocial website

mentions the strategic im-

portance of this site for the Inca as it was located on the

eastern slopes of the Andes and formed “a bulwark against

the incursions of the warlike Chiriguanos of the Chaco re-

gion in the 1520s”. However, the reuse of the Inca site for

military purposes by the Spaniards during the wars under

Viceroy Toledo and later seems to be the reason for its lat-

er name of “El Fuerte”. Regardless of its name, the prin-

cipal reason for the inscription of this site on the World

Heritage List is its huge sculptured rock, which is classi-

ed as “a unique testimony to pre-Hispanic traditions and

beliefs, and has no parallel anywhere in the Americas”.

In the early nineties of the last century, when we were

prospecting the area and uncovered the structures in the

small valley adjacent to the monumental carved rock

known among the local people and in the sparse literature

as “El Fuerte de Samaipata”, we soon became aware of

the uniqueness of this site

. It is unique not only in the

* Department of Anthropology of the Americas, University of Bonn

(Germany), e-mail: a.meyers@uni-bonn.de

The Samaipata Archeological Research Project (Proyecto Arqueo -

lógico en Samaipata, PIAS) of the University of Bonn included ve eld

campaigns in Samaipata during the years of 1992 to 1996 under the

Albert Meyers*

El Fuerte de Samaipata in context. Introduction

El Fuerte de Samaipata w szerszym kontekście. Wprowadzenie

Bolivian context of cultural patrimony, but also in a much

broader geographical and cultural sense. In our rst enthu-

siasm, we started talking about a little Machu Picchu, and

I still think we did not exaggerate.

Firstly, let me recall the archaeological situation in Bo-

livia at that time. At a supercial level, the only archaeo-

logical site known by people not considered as insiders

was Tiwanaku (Tiahuanaco), the mysterious megalithic

site surrounding the famous Gateway of the Sun situated

on the Altiplano close to Lake Titicaca. Tiwanaku culture

was considered the uniting prehistoric national culture,

whose cultural remains were dispersed around most of the

national territory except the Chaco and part of the Amazo-

nian regions. Ironically, Carlos Ponce Sanginés, who could

be called a national(ist) archaeologist and who dominated

Bolivian understanding of their prehistoric origin, already

early in the 1970s recognised the importance of Samai-

pata, as he was promoting it as a national monument. As

he told me in 1974, when I had the opportunity to work

on a museum collection in La Paz, the site “belonged”

to the Mollo culture, a culture dened by their ceramics

and architecture and associated with the spectacular ruins

of Iskanwaya that dominate the mountain slopes east of

Lake Titicaca, and whose remains are distributed along

the eastern border of the Andes practically from southern

Peru to the Yungas of Cochabamba. As an outcome of this

Andean-centric or Tiwanaku-centric view, he lled the

local museum of the town of Samaipata with “foreign”

pieces of Tiwanaku culture. It must be stated that during

direction of the author. These were supported by the German Research

Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) and other institutions

whose contribution is kindly acknowledged.

6 Albert Meyers

our excavations, among the thousands of shards found,

curiously we found not a single piece belonging to the

classic Tiwanaku culture, or at least none that displayed

the characteristic painted decoration of that culture.

Secondly, at that time, the common understanding of

the eastern border of the Inca realm was that only a slight

part of it reached the Amazonian or Chaco lowlands, and

that this had occurred nearer to the end of the Inca Empire.

Due to this, nobody would have thought that there was

a little Machu Picchu so far to the east. Although early

travellers like d’Orbigny in the thirties of the 19

centu-

ry and Nordenskiöld at the beginning of the 20

century

described Samaipata as an Inca gold-washing place or the

last Inca fortress to the east against the belligerent Guaraní

people, the carved rock itself was considered as pre-Inca

style in the scientic literature [1], [2]. On the other hand,

Hermann Trimborn underlined the Incan character of Sa-

maipata. However, his detailed description dating from

the sixties of the last century was translated into Spanish

too late and thus has been scarcely considered by local

scholars [3].

Thirdly, the comparison with Machu Picchu was a sort

of cry for help: help for nancial support for the most ur-

gent measurements – the planimetry of the rock and the

whole archaeological complex – and the excavation of the

main structures. The results of this excavation could be

perhaps summarised in the following short way: although

there is clear evidence of pre-Inca cultural manifestations

in the form of ceramics, remains of habitations beneath

the Inca buildings at the gran plaza, and perhaps a con-

siderable amount of the rock carvings, the whole rock has

to be viewed in correlation with the adjacent architectural

remains and the landscaping and seen as a complete unit.

There are two phases recognisable in the architecture

and landscaping of the site. In the rst phase, smaller hous-

es were built on the slope to the south of the rock. Then, the

whole landscape south of the rock and the valley ground

were remodelled and structured with one large platform

adjacent to the rock, several terraces, and nally a gran

plaza of 100 × 100 m (appr.) bordered by medium-sized

stone buildings 30–40 m long, and huge stone buildings,

kallanka, nearly 70 m long (Fig. 1). This is the same kind

of structure for “new Cuscos” as described for other Inca

sites in the province [4, p. 53]. Samaipata only lacks a sac-

rice stone or altar (ushnu) in the centre of the plaza

– but

what more spectacular ushnu could be imagined than the

carved rock? It was during this phase in the history of

Samaipata that the southern part of the whole rock was

cut vertically and provided with lots of niches of human

shape, which formed the northern longitudinal walls of

the large temple buildings whose foundation walls on the

opposite side were documented during the excavations.

Let us now take a short look at the UNESCO descrip-

tion of Machu Picchu: Embedded within a dramatic land-

scape at the meeting point between the Peruvian Andes

It is possible that a stone sculpture or altar in front of the kallanka

similar to that of the other large Bolivian Inca centre of Inkallacta near

Cochabamba existed, but it may have been removed later when the area

was used as an agricultural eld.

and the Amazon Basin, the Historic Sanctuary of Machu

Picchu is among the greatest artistic, architectural and

land use achievements anywhere and the most signicant

tangible legacy of the Inca civilization [5]. Concededly, the

landscape of Samaipata is not as dramatic as that of Machu

Picchu, but the special and surpassing characteristic of it is

its position as an Inca town located at the meeting point of

three macro-regions: additionally to the Andes and Ama-

zon, the Chaco – a unique and distinctive environment.

As generations of botanists, zoologists, and ecologists in

general have explained, this special arrangement at the so-

called codo de los Andes (“Elbow of the Andes”) is famous

for its combination of dierent ecological characteristics.

This has been conrmed by the ndings of a group of

botanists and zoologists whom we invited to the site be-

fore clearing it of vegetation [6]. Additionally, in a recent

ethnohistoric study, Samaipata has been characterised as

a centre of trade routes for stone and metal products from

the highlands to the lowlands [7]

. The notion of a macro-

regional meeting point is also reected in the ceramic

material that points to regional styles of the mesothermic

Andean valleys (Mojocoya, Presto Puno, Yampará, etc.)

as well of the Amazonian and Chaco lowland wares (at-

tributed to Arawak and Guaraní-speaking people).

To consider all these elements in terms of a chrono-

logical framework, especially as most of the material

that has been excavated is undiagnostic and a lot of oth-

er material was removed during habitation activities es-

pecially during the last horizons, is still a challenge and

requires future research. However, stratigraphically, there

is a clear pre-Inca cultural manifestation best document-

ed in the gran plaza [8, pp. 122–123, Fig. 101]. This is

superimposed by a double horizon of Incan settlement,

which in almost all habitation contexts is interrupted by

the presence of coarse ware ceramics of lowland origin,

and above all, the presence of Spanish colonial activity in

the form of a typical colonial house (casa de patio) dating

from the 2

half of the 16

century and abandoned at

the latest during the founding of the town of Samaipata

around 1618. Inca culture at Samaipata, as I have argued

repeatedly, was certainly present for longer than suggest-

ed so far. This has been conrmed by recent research in

the neighbouring areas of the south-eastern Bolivian An-

des as well as in Chile and Argentina

The same, by the way, could be supposed for Machu Picchu, but

until now, it seems that the ethnohistoric interpretation of it being a sum-

mer residence, a sort of Castel Gandolfo, for the Inca King Pachacuti

distracts from consideration any pre-Inca history as well as other as-

pects, for example that it may have been a port of trade for Andean and

Amazonian people.

Sonia Alconini, a Bolivian archaeologist teaching in the US, with

considerable research experience in the region, also speaks of a dou-

ble-phase presence of the Inca culture at the fortress of Cuzcotuyo, in

the Cordillera de los Chiriguanos, south of Samaipata, with the rst

phase dating from 1400 to 1480 and the second from 1480 to 1536 [9,

pp. 137–139]. The almost-hundred early dates for Inca sites in Chile and

Argentina published in the last thirty years are currently under debate

due to obvious methodological reasons, but at least one conclusion of

this situation seems to be reasonable: the historical and mythical dynasty

of Inca rulers and the chronological treatment and interpretation of the

archaeological context of Inca sites are considered separately [10].

El Fuerte de Samaipata in context. Introduction / El Fuerte de Samaipata w szerszym kontekście. Wprowadzenie 7

The sculptured rock in a broader context

Let us return to the comparison with Machu Picchu,

where we also have rock carvings, but not the gigantic en-

semble of dierent elements or the dimensions of the rock

present at Samaipata. This has no parallel in the Ameri-

cas, as indicated in the UNESCO list, and perhaps even

no global parallel. Of course, many examples of huge rock

carvings can be enumerated, including ones from India,

Cambodia, South Africa, the well-known town of Petra

(Jordan), another Heritage Site, and the long list of what

are generally understood as “rock art” dispersed all over

the globe. However, as this point, it is useful to distin-

guish painting from carving; the former being much more

common than the latter. Rock painting is very common

and comparatively well studied in the Americas, in-

cluding Bolivia

, but examples of rock sculpture of the

dimensions at Samaipata are rare. Malinalco in Central

Mexico, with its rock-cut temples and chambers with

The Bolivian Rock Art Research Society (Sociedad de Investi-

gación del Arte Rupestre de Bolivia), who are also engaged in the pres-

ervation of rock sites and in whose journal we published our rst exca-

vation reports, show great commitment to the study of rock painting in

Bolivia.

wall niches is a spectacular exception. Perhaps the fact

that this megalithic mountain sanctuary belonged to the

Aztec state could make it a point of comparison with Sa-

maipata, where the Inca state, far away towards the east-

ern lowlands, manifested the power and strength of its

sun cult.

As for a general understanding and comparison, it

seems interesting to look at the Iberian Peninsula where,

especially in the western part, there are archaeological

sites, sometimes called fortresses, but mostly multi-com-

ponential habitation sites with rooms, altars, niches, etc.

carved in rock. Generally, they are subsumed under the

somewhat diuse Celtiberian culture of the pre-Roman

European Iron Age with strong religious and astronomical

aspects. Heuristically, in my opinion, comparing the Inca

rock-carving complex with these elements of Celtic cul-

ture is useful as both cultures were illiterate, and for their

interpretation, especially religious interpretation, we need

to rely on “foreign” descriptions, i.e., Roman or Spanish

narratives. In both cases, because of the absence of preco-

lonial “emic” literal documents (not even for the names

of the gods or the kings), our understanding is deeply in-

uenced by the (mis)interpretations of the victors of these

cultures. Therefore, the tendency in recent Celtic studies

is to separate the archaeological material, including the

Fig. 1. Samaipata, general plan with excavation sectors, 1992–1996.

Created by Peter Pahlen and Cornelius Ulbert © PIAS

(Samaipata Archeological Research Project [Proyecto Arqueológico en Samaipata],

Institute of Archaeology and Cultural Anthropology, Department of Ancient American

Studies of the University of Bonn)

8 Albert Meyers

art, from its analysis in order to create a more emic vision,

and in another step compare the results of analysis to his-

toric or historical and mythical sources

. This procedure

could also be fruitfully applied to Incan studies. Another

tendency, used worldwide, is to interpret these rock-sculp-

tured sites in terms of cultural astronomy, for which Sa-

maipata is also an outstanding example.

On a regional, Andean, level, we can nd many ele-

ments in the Inca realm that are useful for comparison.

These are found particularly in the Cusco region and have

been determined in recent studies to be of Incan geomet-

ric style: rock-cut benches, basins, staircases, channels of

dierent forms, etc. The uniqueness of Samaipata in this

aspect is that it has an accumulation of practically all these

elements in one place, whereas they appear isolated else-

where. The multiplicity of niches is well known from the

Inca heartland, but in Samaipata we have, for example,

a high number of cut seats forming a gallery, which were

intended to form a public theatre. In sum, considering the

clear superposition of some of the carvings at strategic

points at the east and the west end of the rock with classic

Inca niched stone walls, there seems to be a clash of two

religious systems: one perhaps pan-Andean, more gener-

ally oriented to the earth (telluric) and the xed unmova-

ble rocks, and the other an expression of a standardised,

“transportable” state cult. However, certainly, there are

elements of more cosmologies that have to be identied

by considering especially the other macro-regions – the

Chaco and the Amazon.

The need for protection for the sculptured rock

Ironically, in relation to the mentioned reservations

about written sources on pre-Hispanic events, we have

a chronicle that provides some valuable information

about Samaipata in Inca times. Although it dates from

the 17

century, the author, a priest named Diego Felipe

de Alcaya(ga), got his information as early as from the

times of Paullu Inca, one of the half-brothers of the last

pre-Hispanic Sapa Inca, and the information was provided

by Alcaya’s father, one of the founders of Ancient Santa

Cruz de la Sierra (in 1561). Alcaya’s chronicle indicates

that Samaipata had been an asiento real (king seat) that

was destroyed by the lowland Chiriguanos before the

Inca recovered it again. This information is reected in

the excavation results. The main purpose of the chronicle

is, however, to declare and prove that there is no more

gold at Samaipata as it was transported by the last gov-

ernor to the jungle “where it will be hidden until the end

of the world”. As conrmation of this, Alcaya indicates

that Father Miguel de Corella, dean of the province of

Santa Cruz, went with people to the rock at Samaipata to

look for gold, but did not nd any

. This is just one part

Although there is a bulk of critical literature on the Celtiberian

culture, it might be more lucid and pleasant to refer to the mystication

of Asterix and the Gauls as described in a short interview with a French

archaeologist and conservator [11].

This treasure hunt that was “legitimated” as extirpation of idola-

try must have happened between 1626 and 1628 according to biograph-

of the long history of vandalism of the site in post-His-

panic times. It starts with the conquistadors, escorted

by their indigenous auxiliary troops for several decades

after the conquest, who reused the Inca houses as habi-

tations and as building material, as well as damaged the

rock and caused other destruction during that time. An-

thropogenic damage reduced in the seventies of the last

century, when most of the territory that had been declared

national patrimony was fenced o, and any tourist visi-

tors trespassing onto the area in the 1990s were impeded

or prohibited.

It must be recognised that the person mostly respon-

sible for these and other protective measures was Prof.

Omar Claure Callaú, long-time director of the local mu-

seum and archaeological centre. He is now retired from

his position as departmental archaeologist of Santa Cruz,

but lives in Samaipata and is still engaged and interested

in any protective initiative and continues to be a source

of information for the many experiments that have been

conducted in the last fty years to try to stop the deterio-

ration of the rock. It was also due to his initiative that the

Samaipata Archeological Research Project (Proyecto Ar-

queológico en Samaipata, PIAS) started, which included

not only investigation of the planimetry of the rock using

the latest technology (a total station) and the excavation

of the surrounding archaeological site, but also protective

measures in correlation with national (conservation of un-

covered building structures) and international (Venice and

other charters) norms.

As is well known, the rock in the Samaipata region is

principally soft sandstone, which suers much under the

changing weather conditions of this exposed transitional

region. Therefore, during our eld campaigns that lasted

a few months, we were able to observe the dramatic dete-

rioration of some of the structures – for example, sever-

al niches on the southern side of the rock fell down. The

various initiatives and projects that we proposed during

our campaigns and afterwards to preserve the rock were

never implemented, even after the inscription of the site

on the World Heritage List. A single example might be

sucient in this context. As the environmental conditions

are the principle element in the process of erosion, one

of our proposals was to install a weather monitoring sta-

tion near the rock in order to have a solid statistical basis

for future measurements of protection. However, this was

never done.

Finally, I want to refer again to the example of Machu

Picchu, which has known problems of protection that are

repeatedly addressed in UNESCO meetings and decla-

rations (although it is not included on the List of World

Heritage in Danger). Samaipata also needs these sorts

of updates in order to nd a way to protect this site. As

archaeological resource management in Bolivia has to

struggle with the conicting elds of national, regional,

and local pretentions in relation to the cultural patrimo-

ny, it is desirable that the World Heritage Centre takes the

ical information [12], which also includes more information about the

historical context of Samaipata and a reproduction of Alcaya’s chronicle.

El Fuerte de Samaipata in context. Introduction / El Fuerte de Samaipata w szerszym kontekście. Wprowadzenie 9

References /Bibliografia

[1] Pucher L., Ensayo sobre el arte prehistórico de Samaypata, “Revista

de la Universidad de San Francisco Xavier”, Universidad Mayor de

San Francisco Xavier Sucre, Sucre 1945, 17–61.

[2] Boero Rojo H., Oswaldo Rivera Sundt A., El Fuerte preincaico de

Samaipata, Ed. Los Amigos del Libro, La Paz 1979.

[3] Trimborn H., Der skulptierte Berg von Samaipata, “Archäologische

Studien in den Kordilleren Boliviens”, Bd. 3, “Baessler Archiv, Bei-

träge zur Völkerkunde” 1967, NF 5, 130–169.

[4] Farrington I., The Concept of Cusco, “Tawantinsuyu” 1998, No. 5,

53–59.

[5]

https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/274/ [accessed: 10.07.2019].

[6]

Ibisch P., Rojas P., de la Barra N. et al., Un “lugar de encuentro”. Flora

de la zona arqueoló gica “El Fuerte”, Samaipata (Provincia Florida,

Dpto. Santa Cruz, Bolivia), “Ecología en Bolivia” 1996, No. 28, 1–28.

[7] Combès I., Planchas, brazaletes y hachuelas: las rutas prehispáni-

cas del metal andino desde el Guapay hasta el Pantanal, “Revista

Andina” 2008, No. 47, 53–82.

[8] Szykulski J., Investigaciones en los Sectores 1 y 2, [in:] A. Mey-

ers, I. Combès (comp.), El Fuerte de Samaipata. Estudios arque-

ológicos, Biblioteca del Museo de Historia Universidad Autónoma

Gabriel René Moreno, Santa Cruz de la Sierra 2015, 116–132.

[9] Alconini S., La expansión guaraní en el sur de Bolivia: Cuzcotuyo

en perspectiva, [in:] S. Alconini, C. Jaimes (eds.), En el Corazón de

América del Sur 3: Arqueología de las Tierras Bajas de Boli via y

zo-

nas limítrofes, Biblioteca del Museo de Historia Universidad Autó-

noma Gabriel René Moreno, Santa Cruz de la Sierra 2015, 129–154.

[10] Meyers A., Dos mundos diferentes: Incas históricos e Incas ar-

queológicos, “Tambo. Boletín de Arqueología” 2019, No. 4, 153– 199.

[11] Olivier L., Que reste-t-il du mythe gaulois?, [in:] F. Malrain,

M. Poux (dir.), Qui étaient les Gaulois?, Martinière, Universcience,

Paris 2011, 173–189.

[12] Combès I., Meyers A., El Fuerte de Samaipata en contexto: Es-

tudios históricos, Biblioteca del Museo de Historia Universidad

Autónoma Gabriel René Moreno, Santa Cruz de la Sierra 2018.

Acknowledgements /Podziękowania

The presented work is part of the research sponsored by the grant giv-

en to the Wrocław University of Science and Technology by the Polish

National Science Centre (grant No. 2014/15/B/HS2/01108). Additio-

nally, the municipality of Samaipata, represented by Mayor Falvio Ló-

pes Escalera, contributed to this research by providing the accommo-

dation during the eldwork in June and July 2016, as well as in July

2017. The Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Bolivia kindly granted

all necessary permits (UDAM No. 014/2016; UDAM No. 060/2017).

The research was conducted in close cooperation with the Centre of

Pre-Columbian Studies of the University of Warsaw in Cusco. Spe-

cialists from many other universities and research centres also joined

the project.

Abstract

This article oers an introduction to the El Fuerte de Samaipata site as a unique example of pre-Hispanic cultural heritage in Bolivia, and discusses the

importance of current research for the conservation and preservation of the site. The rock carvings and the actual rock on the site have to be viewed

in correlation with the adjacent architectural remains and the landscaping and seen as a complete unit. A summary of current knowledge concerning

the site is presented, and it shows that the scale of the rock art at Samaipata has no parallel in the Americas, as specied in the description of the site

on the UNESCO World Heritage List. The site has been compared to some sites in Bolivia and Peru in terms of the problems facing the protection of

heritage monuments. The new approach guided by the Polish mission for research on the architecture and rock art of the site is well justied by the

methods and methodology used for its comprehensive documentation.

Key words: cultural heritage, rock art, Samaipata, Tiwanaku, Machu Picchu, Bolivia, Peru

Streszczenie

Artykuł jest tekstem wprowadzającym do przedstawienia stanowiska El Fuerte de Samaipata jako wyjątkowego przykładu dziedzictwa latynoskiego

w Boliwii i omawia znaczenie bieżących badań dla zachowania tego miejsca. Zarówno ryty naskalne, jak i samą skałę należy postrzegać łącznie i roz-

patrywać w powiązaniu z pobliskimi reliktami architektonicznymi i całym krajobrazem. Zaprezentowano stan obecnej wiedzy na temat tego miejsca

i jednocześnie podkreślono, jak podsumowano to we wpisie Samaipata na Listę Światowego Dziedzictwa UNESCO, że skala i waga tych przykładów

sztuki naskalnej nie ma swojego odpowiednika w obu Amerykach. W artykule porównano Samaipata z niektórymi przykładami w Boliwii i Peru pod

względem problemów związanych z ochroną zabytków. Nowe podejście wykreowane przez polską misję badań nad architekturą i sztuką naskalną

Samaipata jest dobrze uzasadnione metodami i metodologią zastosowaną do jego kompleksowej dokumentacji.

Słowa kluczowe: dziedzictwo kulturowe, sztuka naskalna, Samaipata, Tiwanaku, Machu Picchu, Boliwia, Peru

initiative in that eld before it is too late. A new plan for

the rock is provided by the Polish mission for research on

the architecture and rock art of the site and is based on

the application of the latest technical instruments as well

as the other outcomes of the project presented in this vol-

ume. This plan can be considered an excellent and highly

welcomed precondition for the ambitious but necessary

initiative of protecting Samaipata.

Research team members

analyzing petroglyphs

(photo by J. Kościuk)

Członkowie zespołu badawczego

podczas analizy petroglifów

(fot. J. Kościuk)

El Fuerte de Samaipata w szerszym kontekście. Wprowadzenie

Albert Meyers

doi:10.37190/arc200202

Streszczenie