Previous Studies of Pucaras

Mentioned many times by the Spanish chroniclers, the pucaras were studied by the first archaeologists to explore the altiplano at the beginning of the twentieth century (Bandelier Reference Bandelier1910); however, they did not offer precise definitions for those structures. It was not until the middle of the twentieth century that pioneering work was carried out: during his excavations at the site of Pucara Khonkho, Ryden (Reference Ryden1947:286, 327) identified a pucara, simply translating it as “fortress,” and Tschopik (Reference Tschopik1951) did extensive studies of the Aymara populations.

The first complete study of these hilltop sites took place in the 1970s with Hyslop's (Reference Hyslop1976) surveys. His objective was to produce an archaeological map of the Lupaca territory, particularly for the late periods (Figure 1). Hyslop (Reference Hyslop1977:218–219) defined pucaras as having these major features: the existence of large enclosures, the presence of domestic structures and empty spaces (often considered as central places), and the use of natural topographical elements as protection. His surveys have been one of the most important contributions of archaeological knowledge to the Lupaca zone, although he acknowledges that systematic surveys would have led to the discovery of “many more of these sites” (Hyslop Reference Hyslop1976:110).

Figure 1.

Map of the main previous archaeological research carried out on the Aymara divisions of the circum-Titicaca altiplano (Bouysse Cassagne Reference Bouysse-Cassagne1978) and delineation of the present study area.

Charles Stanish and his team took over Hyslop's work during the 1990s. They demonstrated the great diversity in size and probable functions of pucara-type sites on the altiplano (Stanish Reference Stanish2003:209; Stanish et al. Reference Stanish, de la Vega, Steadman, Chávez, Frye, Onofre, Seddon and Calisaya1997:25). Stanish and his team selected vast areas along the lake (Figure 1) in which they carried out systematic surveys, with excavations of some of the major sites, such as the pucaras Juli or Llaquepa; these excavations made it possible to document the uses of these pucaras (Frye Reference Frye and Stanish1997; Frye and de la Vega Reference Frye, de la Vega, Stanish, Cohen and Aldenderfer2005; Stanish et al. Reference Stanish, de la Vega, Frye and Aldenderfer1993, Reference Stanish, Cohen and Aldenderfer2005). This work also led to the discovery of several new pucara-type settlements and to the observation of a dispersed pattern of occupation in the LIP, in which residential structures were occupied sporadically and functioned in a network (de la Vega Reference de la Vega1990). On the Bolivian side, several archaeological studies used methods similar to those of Stanish, notably Albarracín-Jordán (Reference Albarracín-Jordán1996a, Reference Albarracín-Jordán1996b) and Janusek (Reference Janusek2003, Reference Janusek2004) in the Tiwanaku region. However, because most of these intensively studied areas were in the river valleys, far from the heights where the pucaras are located, some archaeologists considered the Pacajes territory to be almost devoid of pucaras. Arkush (Reference Arkush2011:52–53), based on the work of Albarracín-Jordán and Matthews (Reference Albarracín-Jordán and Mathews1990:279), states, “There is only limited fortification in the Pacajes area of the southeastern basin, with one refuge pukara (with bola stones) in the Tiwanaku river valley.” In the Pacajes area, only five pucaras are identified in the archaeological literature (see Bandy Reference Bandy2001; Villanueva Reference Villanueva2015; Zovar Reference Zovar2012).

The work of Elizabeth Arkush in the Colla territory, northwest of the Lake Titicaca basin, has recently yielded more archaeological data of the pucaras. Arkush carried out systematic aerial surveys and drew up an important archaeological map, showing for the first time how numerous and evenly distributed these hilltop settlements are across the Colla territory. Her exhaustive work (Reference Arkush2008, Reference Arkush2011) supports the conclusions of previous research on the quantity of fortified settlements on the shores of Lake Titicaca (Stanish Reference Stanish2003) and their organization in a network (de la Vega Reference de la Vega1990; Frye and de la Vega Reference Frye, de la Vega, Stanish, Cohen and Aldenderfer2005). The use of computer techniques for the survey phases and to analyze settlement patterns has highlighted the importance of intervisibility between the pucaras. GIS analyses also show the division of the territory into several subgroups (Arkush Reference Arkush2011). Arkush's works “I against My Brother” (Reference Arkush, Scherer and Verano2014) and “Pukara de los Collas: Guerra y Poder” (Reference Arkush, Richard and Mendoza2012) have profoundly altered the monolithic image we had of Aymara chiefdoms and have renewed interest in these Andean settlements (Álvarez Larrain and Greco Reference Álvarez Larrain and Greco2018; Anderson Reference Anderson2014; Arkush and Ikehara Reference Arkush and Ikehara2019; Housse Reference Housse2021; Kohut Reference Kohut2016; Mouquet Reference Mouquet2019; Villanueva Reference Villanueva2015; Zovar Reference Zovar2012).

These studies have yielded a more nuanced view of the functions of pucaras, going beyond defensive purposes. A fortress can be defined using many criteria (Bischof Reference Bischof, Eeckhout and Fort2005; Chamussy Reference Chamussy2009; Haas Reference Haas, Carman and Harding1999; Keeley Reference Keeley1996; Nielsen Reference Nielsen2003; Topic and Topic Reference Topic, Topic, Haas, Pozorski and Pozorski1987). We use the following definition in our study: a fortress is (1) a site built in a strategic location that is (2) fully protected by a defensive system, whether natural or anthropic, and (3) may or may not have internal structures. If one of the first two criteria is not met, we consider the site to be a defensive settlement and not a fortress. This distinction between defensive and fortified sites is essential because, even if all settlements built on hilltop locations can serve a strategic and defensive function, those that lack walls or natural protections cannot be fortresses. This differentiation was first proposed in the Colca Valley (Arequipa) by Kohut (Reference Kohut2016) and then more widely developed in the thesis work of Housse (Reference Housse2021).

Methodology

We set the boundaries of our study area based on archaeological and ethnohistorical data (Capoche Reference Capoche1959 [1589]:136) for the recognized territories of the Lupacas and the Pacajes (Figure 1). To the east, in the Pacajes territory, the boundaries correspond to the Tiwanaku River basin and the plain of the Desaguadero River, bordered by the river to the south (Bouysse Cassagne Reference Bouysse-Cassagne1978; Villanueva Reference Villanueva2013:26). To the north, in the absence of a share in the Uma for the Lupaca chiefdom (Bouysse Cassagne Reference Bouysse-Cassagne1978), the boundaries correspond to the southern shores of the lake (including the various islands). To the west the boundaries correspond to the border area between the Lupaca and Colla territories (between Puno and Chucuito).

To carry out a study of this size, it is necessary to set up a rigorous methodological framework, developed and tested by previous relevant research. Our work is largely inspired by the approaches implemented in the Tacna and Arica precordillera (Housse and Huaman Oros Reference Housse, Oros and Barría2016; Saintenoy et al. Reference Saintenoy, Ajata, Guevara and Sepúlveda2016), especially on the shores of Lake Titicaca (Arkush Reference Arkush2008, Reference Arkush2011; Housse Reference Housse2021; Mouquet Reference Mouquet2019). It proceeded in four phases: documentary research of historical and geographical data, inventory of the archaeological evidence, computer analysis of remote imaging of summit sites, and targeted field visits.

The third phase was not only the most important but also the most ambitious one. Satellite images covered an area of about 32,000 km². We relied most on the Digital Globe images of NASA (Housse Reference Housse2021:176–177). These images enabled us to identify 252 new hilltop settlements absent from the archaeological literature (some of these sites were observed in the Pacajes area by Cruz and Joffre [Reference Cruz and Joffre2020] but were not described or studied). Finally, the field observation of a dozen sites, either identified by remote analysis or poorly documented by archaeology, made it possible to verify the soundness of our corpus and of the recording criteria. We also developed a simple but comprehensive registration method for all hilltop settlements. Because some architectural characteristics could not be determined solely by aerial images, we set up three levels of reading of the same anomaly observed on the images. These three levels enabled us to devise a “reliability index” (Figure 2) ranging from 1 to 3, indicating the number of criteria identified:

1. (1) Identification of the topographical reliefs (summit, plateau, spur, etc.) and their intrinsic defensive qualities (slopes, rocks, cliffs, etc.) leading to their selection as an archaeological site of the pucara-type

2. (2) Identification of visible human-made fortifications (walls, ditches, bastion, concentric terraces, etc.) and the possible presence of additional facilities (shape of accesses, presence of parapets, etc.)

3. (3) Recognition of internal structures, if any

Figure 2.

Schematic of the reliability index.

The listed archaeological settlements were divided into five categories according to their total area (i.e., the entire space included within the enclosures or by the natural defenses of the site): very small settlements, pucaras smaller than 1 ha (n = 15); small settlements, pucaras 1–5 ha (n = 98); medium-sized settlements, pucaras 5–10 ha (n = 81); large settlements, pucaras 10–15 ha (n = 49); and very large settlements, pucaras greater than 20 ha (n = 52). Our approach compared the overall footprints of every site based on the number of structures and the surface area of the inhabited (or constructed) space, without considering their likely functions. We thus avoided characterizing the “empty” sites found in previous archaeological studies as a “refuge” (Arkush Reference Arkush2011:145; Stanish et al. Reference Stanish, de la Vega, Steadman, Chávez, Frye, Onofre, Seddon and Calisaya1997:57). These earlier studies recognize that these settlements often served ceremonial functions that continued from the colonial era to the present day (Arkush Reference Arkush2011:84, 135; Stanish et al. Reference Stanish, de la Vega, Steadman, Chávez, Frye, Onofre, Seddon and Calisaya1997:82).

In addition to this classification by size, we proposed a second typology comprising four categories based on the residential function of the site (with internal domestic structures) or its probable nonresidential function (without visible construction inside the enclosures) and whether the sites were fortified or defensive. These four categories are residential fortified (RF), residential defensive (RD), nonresidential fortified (NRF), and nonresidential defensive (NRD). Our study identified 323 pucara-type settlements, but only 295 had a reliability index greater than 2; therefore, our database includes 295 settlements (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Typological distribution and percentage of the reliability index.

Study Results

The sites are unevenly distributed in the study area (Figure 4), with a clear concentration in the immediate vicinity of the shores of Lake Titicaca or along the main waterways—locations that enabled access to and control of arable land (Arkush Reference Arkush2011:109; Zovar Reference Zovar2012:155). Isolated sites, far from arable land, could reflect the presence of semi-nomadic pastoralist populations who set up settlements close to grazing areas where they could find refuge in case of attack (Housse Reference Housse2021:462).

Figure 4.

Location of the sites. (Color online)

More than three-quarters of the sites (nearly 77.6%) are fortified: 226 NRFs and RFs compared to 69 NRDs and RDs (Figure 2). We also identified more than 940 enclosures, indicating the high density of walls built within these settlements. However, many pucaras have no or few walls; when the site is built on top of a mesa (or tanga in Aymara: a volcanic plateau), enclosures are not necessary because of the landscape's natural protections. In contrast, some settlements located on low topographical prominences have multiple peripheral enclosures (Figure 5). One of the most noteworthy features of our corpus is the overrepresentation of empty settlements without any obvious internal structures but that are fully fortified (164 NRF sites = 55.6%).

Figure 5.

Views of two pucara-type settlements. (Color online)

Characteristics of Residential Fortified Sites

The RF sites correspond to the typical image of the fortified villages of the LIP and therefore to the very idea of a pucara. We identified 60 fortified villages built on the tops of mountains, surrounded by one or more walls to protect the site; access to some is extremely difficult. The residential structures are exclusively circular in shape in both territories. However, several models of occupation can be identified; for example, there are residential terraces in L011-Quentorani and closed patios at sites L062-Nuñamarca and L043-Ayuncora (Figure 6).

Figure 6.

Maps of L011-Quentorani and L062-Nuñamarca.

RF sites have a wide variety of settlement patterns. Many villages are built on the top of volcanic plateaus, including sites L062-Nuñamarca, L061-Cutimbo, L123-Orochillame, and L060-Kapalla. Although this siting seems more common in the Lupaca area where there are more mesas than on the Bolivian side, the P102-Jachaphasa site is located at the top of a mesa but with only chullpas within it (Kesseli and Pärssinen Reference Kesseli and Pärssinen2005:397). Constructing villages at the top of these plateaus offered very good natural protection because unassailable cliffs protected almost the entire perimeter of the sites. Other villages are built on the top of mountains, with their flanks partly protected by steep slopes or cliffs and then completed by enclosures (such as P045-Calvario Colquencha, L011-Quentorani, and L005-Tanka Tanka). There are also large RF sites located in areas with few natural fortifications. In this case, concentric walls encircle the mountain. This pattern, exemplified by L078-Pucara Juli, is widely documented (de la Vega Reference de la Vega1990; Frye Reference Frye and Stanish1997; Frye and de la Vega Reference Frye, de la Vega, Stanish, Cohen and Aldenderfer2005; Hyslop Reference Hyslop1976; Stanish et al. Reference Stanish, de la Vega, Frye and Aldenderfer1993) and can also be observed at L094-Callaspucara and P073. In some cases, settlement structures are interspersed between the fortified walls, leaving the tops of the hill empty of structures. Although such patterns may reflect population aggregation in times of crisis within fortified villages (Arkush Reference Arkush2017:9; Birch Reference Birch2010:42), the absence of structures on the summit of Pucara Juli, for example, seems to indicate instead a willingness on the part of the builders not to occupy the summit (Frye and de la Vega Reference Frye, de la Vega, Stanish, Cohen and Aldenderfer2005). Some very large sites contain few residential structures, such as L094-Callaspucara, where most of the domestic constructions are located outside the walls. Even its smallest structures, potentially used for storage purposes, are not protected by the defensive system. In this case, we can posit either that there was a later occupation of the outskirts or that the large population of this village proved sufficient to discourage any attacks (Figure 7).

Figure 7.

Maps of L094-Callaspucara showing the structure density. (Color online)

Finally, the number of walls and their organization around a residential village can also vary greatly. Therefore, when the defensive system combines cliffs and walls, the latter tend to have a rectilinear profile and to be built parallel to each other, as at L018-Hilarata or P080-Chiar Jake. For sites located on mesas, the walls often extend only a short distance, being built between the cliffs at the most vulnerable points; yet in some cases concentric walls surround the entire plateau (e.g., L098-Cerro Chaata, L123-Cerro Orochillame, or L097). Villages located at the top of conical reliefs may have as many as 10 concentric walls (e.g., P080-Huancarani).

Characteristics of Nonresidential Fortified Sites

NRF sites may correspond to the sites defined as “pucaras minors or refuges” (Stanish Reference Stanish2003:209; Stanish et al. Reference Stanish, de la Vega, Steadman, Chávez, Frye, Onofre, Seddon and Calisaya1997:57), which provided temporary protection to populations regularly threatened by enemy incursions. As can be expected with such a large database, there is a great diversity of NRF settlements. Some sites have massive fortifications and would be considered “major pucaras,” but they lack residential elements.

This is particularly the case of L092-Cerro Pucará, which does not have any structures large enough to be interpreted as residential spaces (Figure 8). Yet its seven walls make this pucara-type settlement one of the most heavily fortified in our corpus. The layout of the walls and the presence of staggered access points probably reflect sophisticated defensive strategies, devised by the builders to protect the summit where the most vulnerable members would have taken refuge. As observed farther north in the Colla area, the presence of agricultural terraces on the steepest flanks of the mountain may also reflect a defensive strategy that greatly slowed the progress of the attackers (Langlie Reference Langlie2018:2).

Figure 8.

Maps of L092-Cerro-Pucará and L081-Carajuana.

However, not all sites have such defensive features, and a large percentage of the NRF settlements in our corpus are actually very small sites of only a few hectares, surrounded by one or two walls at most. These ones are found most frequently in the Pacajes area where we can observe extensive concentrated areas of NRF sites, extremely close to one another. In several field visits, we noted the irregular height and thickness of some walls. At P070-Cantalloma, a massive wall with a maximum height of 1.5 m protects the southern access; yet to the north of the site, the height of the wall gradually decreases to only 50 cm. The absence of visibly demolished blocks to the north of the site leads us to conclude that the wall was not damaged in this sector. In addition, the site is encircled by a single enclosure that is 5,100 m long, which winds around itself three times (Figure 9). This wall is interrupted only on its western part, where it seems to have been disturbed and partially duplicates itself at the level of the intermediate wall. To our knowledge, this very peculiar shape has never been documented in the altiplano for pucara-type sites (Housse Reference Housse2021:511–513). We identified this “caracol” pattern in nine settlements in our study area (L027, L034, L096, L154, L158, P042, P068, P070, and P079; Figure 9).

Figure 9.

Maps of some “caracols” pucaras.

Initial Interpretations

Our study of pucara-type sites on the altiplano shows the importance and omnipresence of these settlements along the shores of Lake Titicaca, including on the previously little-documented Pacajes territory. There are no significant differences in the types of sites between the Lupaca and Pacajes territories, although the percentages of NR and especially NRF sites are higher in the latter. The same implementation strategies therefore seem to have been applied in these two territories. The settlements adopt two distinctive—a priori defensive—systems. Residential settlements are based mostly on natural fortifications (such as L123-Orochillame or L079-Tanapaca) that are occasionally supplemented by a few large walls (Stanish et al. Reference Stanish, de la Vega, Steadman, Chávez, Frye, Onofre, Seddon and Calisaya1997:134). In the other system, there are “ring pucaras” consisting of long hilltop concentric walls without internal constructions and with walls of lower quality than those of residential settlements (Arkush Reference Arkush2011:151).

Our analysis therefore shows a clear distinction in the choice of these two forms of settlement in pucara-type sites. The residential settlements (RF) of the altiplano are mostly built at the top of topographical prominences, where natural defenses play a key role in their fortification. These positions are naturally defended by cliffs or steep slopes, requiring only few additional anthropic fortifications to complete the defensive system; they seem to have been favored sites for settlements. In contrast, nonresidential settlements (NRD and NRF sites) present a variety of peripheral and limited natural defensive elements. If we consider that these sites really served the role of temporary refuges, why did populations invest so much energy in the construction of these walls for sporadic occupation and limited defensive advantages? Such choices can also be observed in many other archaeological contexts where natural fortifications play a more important role than defensive constructions (Arkush and Stanish Reference Arkush and Stanish2005:7). Keeley and others (Reference Keeley, Fontana and Quick2007:83) go further and consider that artificial fortifications are not always necessary at naturally defended sites and that enclosures at strategic locales may serve no military function.

Our findings led us to reconsider the refuge role of a large majority of the pucara-type sites in the Lupaca and Pacajes territories. The examples of L081-Carajuana, which has 13 walls (Figure 8), L077 with seven walls, or the six walls of L124-Cerro Siquicapa illustrate these points well, with cumulative defensive wall lengths that double, triple, or even quadruple the length of the total perimeter of the site. In L081, the presence within 1 km to the east of L103 (Figure 8) seems to strengthen our argument. It is difficult to find logical defensive reasons to explain the construction of two so-called fortresses so close to each other.

Computer analyses enabled us to determine the visual connections between sites, identifying those that could be observed from another settlement within a precise perimeter; in our case, 20 km. These visual connections are often cited as proof of a defensive network (Arkush Reference Arkush2011) or possibly alliance or cooperation networks for the protection of a territory. Arkush (Reference Arkush2011:173) shows that her cluster model is compatible with the differentiated distribution of ceramic substyles throughout the Collas territory. We did not conduct ceramic studies of the visited sites and so cannot propose such a precise model, but previous analyses point in this direction (Mouquet Reference Mouquet2019; Portugal Loayza Reference Portugal Loayza2011; Zovar Reference Zovar2012). On the basis of Housse's (Reference Housse2021) work in the Lupaca territory, it is possible to observe a slight distinction in the location of the sites and the visual importance of the reliefs on which they are established: the sites with the most visual connections are the RF settlements. Similarly, the calculation of site accessibility zones shows different trends: the RF sites are less accessible than the NRF ones, which are located, on average, at less steep and lower elevations.

Moreover, the settlement pattern can be particularly useful in understanding these NRF and NRD settlements, which are difficult to define. The grouping of several sites near each other, sometimes on several peaks of the same relief and only a few hundred meters apart, can potentially be one of these clues. On the Lupaca altiplano, there is one zone in which pucaras are densely clustered: the sites around L011-Quentorani, where the density reaches nearly 0.5 pucara per km² (Figure 10). These areas of high density have already been identified in other areas of the circum-Titicaca altiplano (Arkush Reference Arkush2011:160) but remain poorly understood. Do they represent an accumulation of several fortresses over time or an intentional multiplication of refuges in densely populated areas for the protection of populations, or are they settlements that do not serve the function of protection? At the level of the Juli sector, Housse's (Reference Housse2021) spatial analysis shows that all the nonresidential pucara-type sites organized around L078-Pucara Juli were inaccessible within an hour's walk from the farmland. This finding challenges the theory that refuges were strategically placed for the protection of populations engaged in agricultural activities, but these sites could still have been used by pastoral populations as shelter in times of crisis. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the possibility that smoke or fire signals were used in wartime within pucaras (Stanish Reference Stanish2003:220), mainly because of the settlement pattern in which sites are linked by important visual connections (Arkush Reference Arkush2011:157–158; Housse Reference Housse2021:462–464). However, to answer these issues, more research is necessary.

Figure 10.

Density and viewshed analysis of the settlements. (Color online)

Conversely, within our study area, some areas stand out for the absence of pucara-type sites. Thus, the vast region corresponding to the Desaguadero Valley has less than 10 sites identified as pucaras on an area of almost 4,000 km² (Figure 10). It differs from the rest of the study area by having less rugged topography and therefore being less conducive to the establishment of defensive/fortified sites. However, it could also have been a buffer zone between the Lupaca populations in the west and the Pacajes inhabitants in the east. This zone is also particularly uncultivated, potentially indicating a low level of occupation. The inability to manage this territory and therefore exploit it could explain why it was a buffer zone in which no group was in a position, politically or geographically, to control it; this seems to be confirmed by the architecture of the chullpas on either side of the Desaguadero Valley (Kesseli and Pärssinen Reference Kesseli and Pärssinen2005; Mouquet Reference Mouquet2019).

Beyond Militaristic Definitions of the Pucara

There was great variability in the construction techniques used and the layout schemes adopted for pucara-type sites on the altiplano around Titicaca. Further research is now needed on the nature and function of these settlements, some of which may have been mistakenly considered as military sites. We hope that this preliminary study will enable the establishment of new frameworks that reflect the multiplicity and complexity of pucara-type sites and will guide how we approach the LIP and its conflictual nature.

This study neither disputes the reality of conflicts and tensions during the LIP nor of the pucara phenomenon. The existence of settlements undoubtedly fortified and occupied by many inhabitants (such as L083-Llaquepa, L062-Nuñamarca, L011-Quentorani, or P095-Pucara Khonkho) shows that there was a real need for people to protect themselves and to gather in vast fortresses. The existence of numerous empty sites on the altiplano could be explained through a diachronic evolution of the settlement model, in which the refuge-type sites (NRD and NRF), both easily accessible and distributed across the altiplano, could correspond to older architectural forms that were intended for the occasional protection of populations. These settlements would then have been gradually abandoned by the population for fewer but larger and better-defended sites (RF), initiating a process of aggregation in the highlands in the face of increasing threats (Arkush Reference Arkush2011:108, Reference Arkush2017:9; Valdez and Valdez Reference Valdez and Valdez2017:8). These new RF settlements, powerfully defended by cliffs and walls, would shelter a population that would be large enough to discourage direct attacks on these villages (Leblanc Reference LeBlanc1999:62–68). The pivotal period in this scheme could correspond to the fourteenth century, as the work of Nielsen (Reference Nielsen2002) and Arkush (Reference Arkush2011) suggests.

A second hypothesis posits a parallel evolution of residential and nonresidential settlements in the area in response to a climate of increasing stress and violence. The multiplication of pucara-type sites in the area could indeed be the consequence of a “snowball effect” in which each community would build more and more defensive structures to maintain a balance of power (Housse Reference Housse2021:517). The construction and organization of the walls could have been conditioned by earlier residential structures. Therefore, we propose that the fortified sites (RF) built during the LIP are the result of a tense political situation, brought about by a significant fragmentation of the Andean populations at that time and therefore increased competition between them (Arkush Reference Arkush, Scherer and Verano2014:211; Bauer and Covey Reference Bauer and Covey2002:851; Earle Reference Earle1987:289; Trigger Reference Trigger, Adams, Geus and Thill1985:99). Birch (Reference Birch2010:38) even considers that in such a stressful climate, fortress building can be a form of competition between groups and not reflect the actual degree of violence.

A third hypothesis to consider is that some settlements never served a military purpose and were not linked to increased conflict. Some of the examples discussed in this work from both the Lupaca and Pacajes territories are difficult to integrate into the model of defensive settlement commonly recognized on the altiplano. In fact, many pucaras never seemed to have a military use, given their nonstrategic construction choices. These sites, like L081 or P070, that are indefensible must therefore be rethought based of new hypotheses, such as their probable link with certain deities. Some ethnohistorical and toponymic clues allow us to propose that certain sites considered to be pucaras never had any other use than that of being places of worship. On the altiplano, as Martínez (Reference Martínez1983) explains, a great number of mountains called pukara were the seats of powerful deities linked to water and potato cultivation. The construction of concentric walls at the top of these mountains, unconsciously or not reproducing the characteristics of the fortresses of the LIP (Martínez Reference Martínez1983, Reference Martínez1989), may have led to confusion, both historically and archaeologically, between two conflicting yet similar functions (Housse Reference Housse2021). Moreover, two of the most important huacas of the Lupaca territory present a compelling pattern in the link between sacred mountains and the pucaras (Cruz and Joffre Reference Cruz and Joffre2020). Indeed, in L081-Carajuana, the largest and most imposing site in our corpus, there seems to have been interest on the part of the ancient inhabitants in building—perhaps over generations—a dozen walls atop one of the major huacas of the Lupacas as proof of their respect and veneration toward this divinity (Housse Reference Housse2021). In contrast, the presence of eight settlements surrounding the Ccapia volcano, another major huaca, allows us to hypothesize the existence of a settlement pattern for rituals in areas such as the Juli or Huantapata plains.

Therefore, far from seeking to protect a space or a population in the event of conflict, these settlements would have assumed different symbolic roles as pilgrimage centers, places of devotion, or, more generally, markers of the appropriation of a territory by a community, which expressed its power and control. The construction of walls extending several kilometers around a mountain (more than 21 km for L081) could therefore convey a strong and intimidating message to the exogenous populations: here was a powerful group, united and organized and supported by powerful huacas. This hypothesis leads to a theoretical framework for the construction of many pucara-type sites. The costly signaling theory (see Quinn Reference Quinn and Prentiss2019:276) seems particularly relevant, where walls can be seen archaeologically as signals to outside communities but may also be used for other purposes, such as defensive. We could envisage, for example, that L078-Pucara Juli and the sites surrounding it constitute a clever blend of the two schemes observable in Juana and Ccapia, with a central site consisting of several long walls that symbolically “dress” the sacred mountain and several smaller sites that surround it, providing symbolic protection (Cruz and Joffre Reference Cruz and Joffre2020:70–71). The whole then constitutes a powerful signal as much for the external populations as for the members of the community.

One fact remains certain when analyzing all the sites discovered in this study: the wide variety of settlements grouped together under the concept of “pucara.” Future research must address this variety of sites to verify the existence of a link between their typological category and functions.