AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 146:361372 (2011)

Skeletal Evidence for Inca Warfare from the Cuzco

Region of Peru
Valerie A. Andrushko1* and Elva C. Torres2
1
2

Department of Anthropology, Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, CT 06515

Gabinete de Antropologa Fsica, Instituto Nacional de Cultura, Cusco Peru
KEY WORDS

trauma; bioarchaeology; conict; skeletal injury; imperialism

ABSTRACT
This article addresses the bioarchaeological evidence for Inca warfare through an analysis of 454
adult skeletons from 11 sites in the Inca capital region of
Cuzco, Peru. These 11 sites span almost 1000 years (AD
6001532), which allows for a comparison of the evidence
for warfare before the Inca came to power (Middle Horizon AD 6001000), during the time of Inca ascendency
in the Late Intermediate Period (AD 10001400), and after the Inca came to power and expanded throughout
the Cuzco region and beyond (Inca Imperial Period, AD
14001532). The results indicate that 100 of 454 adults
(22.0%) showed evidence of cranial trauma. Of these, 23
individuals had major cranial injuries suggestive of warfare, consisting of large, complete, and/or perimortem
fractures. There was scant evidence for major injuries

during the Middle Horizon (2.8%, 1/36) and Late Intermediate Period (2.5%, 5/199), suggesting that warfare
was not prevalent in the Cuzco region before and during
the Inca rise to power. Only in the Inca Imperial Period
was there a signicant rise in major injuries suggestive
of warfare (7.8%, 17/219). Despite the signicant
increase in Inca times, the evidence for major cranial
injuries was only sporadically distributed at Cuzco periphery sites and was entirely absent at Cuzco core sites.
These ndings suggest that while the Inca used warfare
as a mechanism for expansion in the Cuzco region, it
was only one part of a complex expansion strategy that
included economic, political, and ideological means to
gain and maintain control. Am J Phys Anthropol
146:361372, 2011. V 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

The Inca Empire (AD 14001532) reached unparalleled heights in South America, establishing the largest
empire in the New World by conquering an area that
encompasses modern-day Peru and parts of Ecuador,
Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina. The heart of the empire
lay in the Cuzco region of Peru, where the Inca rose to
power and established their capital in the early part of
the 15th century. Researchers have long sought to determine how the Inca achieved such remarkable success,
rst by defeating their competitors in the Cuzco region
and then by conquering throughout the Andes in a short
period of time (Rowe, 1946; Bauer, 1992; Moseley, 2001;
DAltroy, 2001, 2002; Covey, 2006; McEwan, 2006a,b).
Much of our understanding about Inca imperial success has been gleaned from the Spanish chronicles, a collection of transcribed accounts of Inca oral history and
customs, as well as eyewitness accounts during and after
conquest, written by conquistadors, explorers, priests,
and appointees of the Spanish government in the 16th
and 17th centuries (Rowe, 1946; Julien, 2000; Pease,
2008). Within these documents, Inca success in empire
building is attributed, in varying degrees, to their use of
warfare (Urteaga, 1919; Guaman Poma de Ayala, 1936
[1615]; Bram, 1941; Rowe, 1946:274282; Hemming,
1970; Murra, 1986; Cobo, 1990 [1653]; Betanzos, 1996
[1557]; Sarmiento de Gamboa, 2007 [1572]). According to
certain chronicles, warfare predominated for hundreds of
years in the Cuzco region of Peru. These chronicles
describe the time before the Inca rose to power as a period of constant warfare and chaos among neighboring
polities in the Cuzco region (Rowe, 1946:203; Jimenez de
la Espada, 1965 [1881]; Bauer, 1992:3; Sarmiento de
Gamboa, 2007 [1572]:99). Inca emergence as a dominant
polity is often linked in the chronicles to a single event,
the Chanca War, in which the Inca successfully defended

Cuzco from their Chanca enemies in the early part of

the 15th century (Cobo, 1979 [1653]; Santa Cruz Pachacuti Yamqui Salcamaygua, 1993 [1613]; Betanzos, 1996
[1557]; Sarmiento de Gamboa, 2007 [1572]). Following
the Chanca War, the narratives tell a story of intense
and sustained warfare as the Inca conquered new groups
and put down rebellions throughout their century-long
reign (Guaman Poma de Ayala, 1936 [1615]; Cobo, 1990
[1653]; Betanzos, 1996 [1557]; Sarmiento de Gamboa,
2007 [1572]).
Although these chronicles provide a wealth of information on Inca warfare, there remains considerable doubt
about whether such narratives can be taken literally,
particularly regarding events occurring in the distant
past that Inca informants recounted to the Spanish
chroniclers as part of their oral history (Bauer, 1992:6;
Morris, 1998; Rostworowski, 1999:ix), Indeed, there is
doubt as to whether the great Chanca War even happened (Duviols, 1980; Rostworowski, 1999:22; Julien,
2000:5). This uncertainty is part of an overall skepticism
of Spanish accounts, which are often suspected of

C 2011
V

WILEY-LISS, INC.

Grant sponsors: National Science Foundation; Wenner-Gren

Foundation for Anthropological Research; Connecticut State University System.
*Correspondence to: Valerie Andrushko, SCSU Department of
Anthropology, 501 Crescent Street, New Haven CT 06515.
E-mail: andrushkov1@southernct.edu
Received 16 January 2011; accepted 12 May 2011
DOI 10.1002/ajpa.21574
Published online 30 September 2011 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com).

362

V.A. ANDRUSHKO AND E.C. TORRES

inaccuracy, bias, mistranslations, misinterpretation of

the Andean worldview, and conation of history and
myth (Urton, 1990; Morris, 1998; McEwan, 2006a:8;
MacCormack, 2008; Bauer et al., 2010:22). Such uncertainty has led some scholars to argue against a literal
interpretation of the chronicles (e.g., Zuidema, 1982;
Urton, 1990; Morris, 1998).
The question remains: which, if any, of the Spanish
chronicles accurately describe the extent of Inca warfare
in the Cuzco region? In some chronicles, such as Sarmiento (2007 [1572]), Inca warfare is described as the
primary means for the Inca to gain and maintain control. However, some Spanish chroniclers may have overstated the importance of warfare as a mechanism of imperial development and expansion to justify the Spanish
conquest by portraying the Inca as war-mongering
tyrants (Morris, 1998:304; Bauer and Decoster, 2007:15;
MacCormack, 2008:36; Pease, 2008:14). In contrast,
other chronicles present a more moderate depiction in
which the Inca used warfare along with alliance building
and political persuasion (de las Casas, 1892 [1561]; Cieza
de Leon, 1985 [1553]).
To help clarify this issue, we can turn to a line of evidence independent of the written documentsthe osteological analysis of people who lived in the Cuzco region
during the rise and expansion of the Inca Empire. Such
an analysis can reveal frequencies of injuries due to warfare-related conict and show how these frequencies
may have changed with the advent of Inca imperialism.
This study thus addresses the role of warfare in Inca
imperial formation and expansion through the analysis
of 454 prehistoric skeletons (AD 6001532) from the
Cuzco region of Peru. Cuzco is an important location to
investigate Inca warfare since Cuzco was the capital of
the Inca Empire and the area in which the Inca ethnic
group originated (Rowe, 1944, 1946, 1967). Since cranial
trauma provides the most direct skeletal evidence of
warfare and violent conict (Walker, 1989, 2001; Lovell,
1997; Judd, 2002; Lessa and Mendonca de Souza,
2004:377; Torres-Rouff and Costa Junqueira, 2006:63;
Steadman, 2008:53), it is the focus of this study. Analysis
of cranial trauma has been used successfully to reveal
prehistoric patterns of warfare and violence in other
areas of the Andes (Verano, 2001a,b, 2003; Kellner, 2002;
Murphy, 2004, 2009; Torres-Rouff and Costa Junqueira,
2006; Tung, 2007; Torres-Rouff, 2008), yet this study is
the rst comprehensive analysis of Inca warfare to be
completed in the Cuzco region.

INCA WEAPONS AND SKELETAL

CONSEQUENCES
According to eyewitness accounts, Inca soldiers primarily used heavy hand-held weapons; two of the
favored weapons were a specialized double-edged club
made of palmwood, and a stone or bronze star-headed
mace with wooden handle (Rowe, 1946:276; Cobo, 1990
[1653]:218; Cieza de Leon, 1998 [1555]). Projectile weapons, including bows, slings, javelins, and spear throwers,
were used in conjunction with the blunt-force weapons
(Rowe, 1957; Hemming, 1970:107; Pizarro, 1978 [1571];
Dransart, 1988:65; Hyslop, 1990:147; Himmerich y Valencia, 1998; DAltroy, 2002:227). Cutting weapons such
as battle axes, tumi knives, and blades were also
included in the arsenal (Rowe, 1946:276). The Inca did
not have steel weapons, guns, or horses to ride during
battlealthough these military elements were used
American Journal of Physical Anthropology

against them during the Spanish conquest (Salas, 1950;

Hemming, 1970; Guilmartin, 1991; Seed, 2005; Murphy
et al., 2010).
In 2005, skeletal evidence of Inca warfare was discovered in burials from Puruchuco-Huaquerones, Peru
(Murphy et al., 2010). Some of these individuals were
apparent casualties of the 1536 siege of Lima which featured Inca warriors ghting against Spanish and native
allies. Thirty-four individuals from two cemeteries
within Puruchuco-Huaquerones displayed perimortem
injuries to the cranium (17.5% at 57AS03, 21/120; 9.4%
at Huaquerones, 13/138) (Murphy et al., 2010:641; Murphy et al., 2011). The majority of these injuriescharacterized by large fractured surfaces with radiating and
concentric fracture linesresulted from blunt force
impact consistent with Inca weapons like maces and
clubs (Murphy et al., 2010:645). A minority of injuries,
seen in ve individuals (1.9%, 5/258), appear to have
resulted from Spanish weapons like rearms and steeledged weapons. The two types of injuries differed in size,
shape, and margin beveling, allowing researchers to distinguish injuries likely resulting from Inca weaponry
(Murphy et al., 2010:641).
Based on the evidence from Puruchuco-Huaquerones,
and the types of known Inca weapons, we can posit criteria for distinguishing injuries suggestive of Inca warfare
from other types of trauma. Major cranial injuries
resulting from Inca weapons would be expected to show
one or more of the following characteristics due to bluntforce and sharp-force trauma: large cranial fractures
across one or multiple cranial elements, deep cranial
fractures from compression forces that collapse the ectocranial surface and diploe, complete fractures with discontinuity of both the inner and outer cranial vault,
radiating and concentric fracture lines due to forceful
impact, and cutmarks (Courville and Abbott, 1942; Berryman and Haun, 1996; Gerszten et al., 1998:1149; Boylston, 2000; Novak, 2000; Verano, 2001a:181; Walker and
Steckel, 2002; Steadman, 2008:52; Murphy et al.,
2010:639). Major cranial injuries may have perimortem
characteristics, indicating that the injury was lethal, or
they may show a biological healing response, indicating
that the individual survived the trauma. While other
explanations besides warfare are possible for these major
injuries, they are less likely, since accidents and stghts rarely produced catastrophic injuries nor did
instances of ritualized combat in which the interactions
were intentionally nonlethal (Walker, 1989, 1997; Smith,
2003; Tung, 2007). Furthermore, in the Inca Empire
there was a proscription against violence outside the
context of warfarethe transgression of which was
severely punished (Rowe, 1946:271).
Minor injuries could have also resulted from Inca warfare but they are more difcult to interpret because of
their overlap with other causes (Lambert, 1994; Walker,
1997, 2001; Tung, 2007:945). For example, a glancing
blow from a weapon may result in broken nasal bones,
but such an injury can also result from st-wielding
assaults, domestic abuse, ritualized conicts, or accidents (Walker, 1997). Similarly, shallow depressed cranial fractures may occur from warfare or they may occur
from one-on-one ghts, accidental falls, and ritualized
conicts (Walker, 1989; Lambert, 1994). These minor
injuries are important to document for the information
they provide on cultural practices of violence but their
presence alone cannot be used to indicate warfare
(Walker, 1989; Wilkinson and Van Wagenen, 1993;

SKELETAL EVIDENCE FOR INCA WARFARE

363

TABLE 1. Skeletal sample by region

Region
Central Cuzco

Southeast of Cuzco City

Northwest of Cuzco City

Far South of Cuzco

Total Individuals

Site
Kusicancha
Sacsahuaman
Qotakalli
Qhataqasapatallacta
Subtotal
Choquepukio
Cotocotuyoc
Aqnapampa
Subtotal
Akawillay
Colmay
Machu Picchu
Subtotal
Kanamarca

Distance (km)
from center
of Cuzco city

Time period

0.2
0.4
4.5
10

Late Intermediate PeriodInca Imperial Period

Inca Imperial Period
Middle HorizonInca Imperial Period
Inca Imperial Period

30
46
110

Middle HorizonInca Imperial Period

Middle HorizonLate Intermediate Period
Late Intermediate PeriodInca Imperial Period

25
35
80

Middle Horizon
Inca Imperial Period
Inca Imperial Period

147.5

Inca Imperial Period

Sample
size
17
36
195
20
268
68
33
11
112
5
54
2
61
13
454

Lambert, 1994; Smith, 2003; Torres-Rouff and Costa

Junqueira, 2006; Tung, 2007).
Admittedly, by using major cranial injuries only to test
hypotheses of warfare, one runs the risk of underestimating the full expression of warfare in the archaeological record. However, the benet of this conservative
approach is that it aims to avoid the articial ination of
warfare that could occur if minor cranial injuriespossibly resulting from ritual conicts, domestic abuse, or
stghtswere included. This conservative approach is
particularly appropriate for studying the Andean region,
where ritual battles akin to modern-day tinkus were
known to occur (Tung, 2003, 2007; Arkush and Stanish,
2005:13). Precisely because we want to separate, as
much as is possible, the occurrences of warfare from
other contexts of violence such as ritual conict, it is
necessary to examine major and minor cranial trauma
separately.

The second hypothesis focuses on the role of warfare in

the expansion of the Inca Empire during the subsequent
Inca Imperial Period (AD 14001532). By the end of the
LIP, the Inca had emerged as the dominant regional polity and were established in the immediate capital area;
during the Inca Imperial Period, the Inca expanded their
empire by conquering groups living throughout the Cuzco
region and beyond. Again, it is unclear how much of this
expansion depended on warfare. If warfare played a signicant role in the expansion of the Inca Empire in the
Cuzco region, evidence for major cranial injuries should
increase signicantly in the Inca Imperial Period compared to the LIP (if trauma rates in the LIP were low) or
stay elevated in the Inca Imperial Period (if trauma rates
in the LIP were high). Geographically, the evidence for
warfare would be expected mainly in the Cuzco periphery
sites outside of the capital where the Inca military were
conquering new territories.

HYPOTHESES REGARDING INCA WARFARE

IN THE CUZCO REGION

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Materials

Two hypotheses may be made regarding the role of

warfare in Inca imperial development and expansion in
Cuzco. The rst hypothesis focuses on the role of warfare
in the rise of the Inca during the Late Intermediate Period (AD 10001400). This was a period of regional competition in Cuzco, in which factionalized polities vied for
control in the power vacuum left by the collapse of the
Wari Empire (Bauer and Covey, 2002; DAltroy, 2002;
McEwan et al., 2002). However, it is unclear how much of
this competition manifested in warfarea question that
can be directly addressed through the skeletal evidence.
If warfare were the primary means for the emerging Inca
to gain power, we would expect a substantial increase in
major cranial injuries compared to the earlier time period
(Middle Horizon, AD 6001000). The evidence for warfare
would likely be centered in Cuzco city, where the Inca
were establishing their capital, but could also have
extended beyond the immediate core into the Cuzco periphery where other polities vied for power. These polities
included the Pinagua, centered at the monumental site of
Choquepukio 30 km southeast of Cuzco; the nearby
Mohina of the Lucre Basin; and the Ayarmaca, who controlled territory to the north of Cuzco (Espinoza Soriano,
1974; Bauer and Covey, 2002; Mc-Ewan et al., 2002:292;
Hiltunen and Mc-Ewan, 2004:246).

To address the question of the role of warfare in the

rise and expansion of the Inca Empire, 454 individuals
were analyzed from 11 sites in the Cuzco region of Peru
(Table 1). Burials from the Middle Horizon (AD 600
1000) provided a baseline for warfare estimates in the
Cuzco region prior to the rise of the Inca Empire (Table
2). The individuals from the Late Intermediate Period
(LIP, AD 10001400) and the Inca Imperial Period
(14001532) presented the means to investigate warfare
with the rise and expansion, respectively, of the Inca
Empire (Table 2). Certain sites spanned more than one
time period while others were occupied during one time
period only. For all sites, individuals were classied by
time period using radiocarbon dates, stratigraphy, architectural association, and material culture.
The sites in the Cuzco sample were used for a variety
of political, religious, and domestic reasons although
they do not appear to be battleeld sites based on demographic, archaeological, and ethnohistoric information
(Andrushko, 2007). (Sacsahuaman was the battleeld
site of Manco Incas rebellion against the Spanish
[Bauer, 2004:100], but the Sacsahuaman burials in this
sample date to before the Spanish conquest.) The sites
were located throughout the department of Cuzco at a
distance of 0.2147.5 km from the center of Cuzco city
American Journal of Physical Anthropology

364

V.A. ANDRUSHKO AND E.C. TORRES

TABLE 2. Skeletal sample by time period
Time Period

Middle Horizon (AD 6001000)

Late Intermediate Period (AD 10001400)

Inca Imperial Period (AD 14001532)

Site

Location

Sample size

Qotakalli
Akawillay
Choquepukio
Cotocotuyoc
Subtotal
Kusicancha
Qotakalli
Choquepukio
Cotocotuyoc
Aqnapampa
Subtotal
Kusicancha
Sacsahuaman
Qotakalli
Qhataqasapatallacta
Choquepukio
Colmay
Machu Picchu
Aqnapampa
Kanamarca
Subtotal

Cuzco
Xaquixaguana Plain
Lucre Basin
Huaro Valley

3
5
2
26
36
1
181
5
7
5
199
16
36
11
20
61
54
2
6
13
219
454

Total Individuals

(see Fig. 1; see Andrushko, 2007; Belisle, 2008 for

detailed site descriptions). Geographically, the sites clustered loosely into three groups (with one outlier, Kanamarca): 1) in and immediately around Cuzco cityQotakalli, Sacsahuaman, Kusicancha, and Qhataqasapatallacta; 2) southeast of Cuzco city in the Lucre Basin,
Huaro Valley, and Quiquijana ValleyChoquepukio,
Cotocotuyoc, and Aqnapampa; and 3) northwest of Cuzco
city in the Anta plain and the Urubamba ValleyAkawillay, Colmay, and Machu Picchu (see Fig. 1).
The preservation of skeletal remains at most sites was
excellent, with complete crania preserved and minimal
effects of diagenesis. The preservation and completeness
of the cranial elements were therefore favorable for documenting cranial trauma throughout the Cuzco region.
The only exceptions were the periphery sites of Aqnapampa and Machu Picchu, where diagenetic factors led
to some fragmentation of the cranial elements and some
exfoliation of the ectocranial surfaces. Fortunately, this
postmortem damage was not excessive enough to hinder
the collection of data.
While this sample is ideal in many ways for investigating Inca warfare in Cuzco, with a wide range of time
periods and geographic locations represented and generally excellent preservation, it does contain two challenging aspects. First, the Middle Horizon sample is smaller
than the later samples; as such, the Middle Horizon
results should be considered as preliminary ndings.
Second, 65 individuals within the sample have trepanations, the surgical removal of a portion of the cranium
often performed to relieve pressure due to cranial
trauma (Andrushko and Verano, 2008). Because trepanation excises a piece of the cranial vault, it may also
remove evidence of the associated traumatic injury (MacCurdy, 1923:237). However, trepanations are unlikely to
obscure completely the large, catastrophic injuries
related to warfare, which are often seen adjacent to the
trepanation margin (Andrushko and Verano, 2008:9).

Methods
From the 11 Cuzco sites, 454 burials were examined
for data on age, sex, and trauma, following the standAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology

Cuzco
Cuzco
Lucre Basin
Huaro Valley
Quiquijana Valley
Cuzco
Cuzco
Cuzco
Cuzco
Lucre Basin
Anta
Urubamba
Quiquijana Valley
Espinar

ards of Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994) and White (1992,

2000). For age and sex determination, the entire skeleton of each individual was examined to maximize
accuracy by including the pelvis and other diagnostic
elements. For trauma data, the entire skeleton was
examined but only the cranial trauma results were
included in the present analysis. To be included in the
trauma study, at least half of the cranium had to be
present. Post-cranial injuries, which most commonly
result from accidents (Larsen, 1997; Neves et al., 1999;
Domett and Tayles, 2006; Torres-Rouff and Costa
Junqueira, 2006:67; Owens, 2007:475), showed no statistical correlation to the cranial injuries and were therefore not included in the present analysis. (The ulnar
parry fracture, a post-cranial injury often related to
violence, was absent in the Cuzco sample.)
The sample size of 454 individuals differs from that
presented in Andrushko (2007) because subadult individuals younger than 15 years were not included in the
present study. Subadults were excluded to facilitate
comparison with Andean bioarchaeological studies such
as Tung (2007) and Murphy et al. (2010), in which
trauma frequencies were given as adult frequencies
(number of affected individuals aged 15 years and older
divided by total individuals aged 15 years and older)
(see also Milner et al., 1991; Steadman, 2008; Jurmain
et al., 2009).
Cranial trauma was categorized into two types of
injuriesmajor injuries and minor injuries. Major injuries were distinguished by one or more of the following
criteria: large size ([4 cm in length/diameter), deep
fractures ([0.5 cm) with compression of the ectocranial
surface and diploe, complete discontinuity of the inner
and outer vault surfaces, radiating and concentric fracture lines, and perimortem cutmarks. In contrast,
minor injuries were identied by small size, shallow
depth, and lack of complete discontinuity of the fracture. While the major injury category included both
perimortem injuries with no healing and antemortem
injuries with healing, the minor injury category
included only antemortem injuries with healing. Perimortem fractures were differentiated from antemortem
fractures and postmortem damage using characteristics

365

SKELETAL EVIDENCE FOR INCA WARFARE

Fig. 1. Map of Cuzco sites analyzed for cranial trauma.

such as lack of a biological healing response, irregular

fracture edges, homogenous color for the fractured and
unfractured surfaces, peeling, hinging, and sharp radiating fracture lines (White, 1992; Ubelaker and Adams,
1995; Sauer, 1998; Ortner, 2008: 57; Murphy et al.,
2010:639).
The frequency of each type of traumatic injury was
tabulated, analyzed for patterns based on age, sex,
wound location, time period, and geographic region, and
compared using the Fishers exact statistic (when df 5
1) and chi-square statistic (when df [1). For wound location, the categories from Tungs (2007) trauma analysis
were used. For statistical analysis of geographical
region, the sites in Cuzco city were combined into a
core group and compared to a periphery group comprising sites outside of Cuzco city.

RESULTS
Major and minor cranial fractures were observed in
100 of 454 adults examined (22.0% of sample) (Table 3).
Among these 100 individuals, 32 had more than one cranial injury, for 152 injuries. Major and minor cranial
fractures were found in individuals from all three time
periods: three individuals in the Middle Horizon (8.3%,
3/36), 47 in the Late Intermediate Period (23.6%, 47/
199), and 50 in the Inca Imperial Period (22.8%, 50/219).

Major cranial injuries

Twenty-three individuals (5.1%, 23/454) had major
injuries suggestive of warfare (Table 4). Of these, 14 had
perimortem injuries (3.1% of total sample, 14/454) and
American Journal of Physical Anthropology

366

V.A. ANDRUSHKO AND E.C. TORRES

TABLE 3. Summary of all cranial trauma frequencies (minor and major injuries combined) among males and females in the Cuzco
sample by time period

Time period

Males affected/
males observed

Females affected/
females observed

Indeterminate
sex affected/
indeterminate
sex observed

Middle Horizon
Late Intermediate Period
Inca Imperial Period
Total

3/16
30/77
22/80
55/173

18.8%
39%
27.5%
31.8%

0/16
8/62
24/118
32/196

0%
12.9%
20.3%
16.3%

0/4
9/60
4/21
13/85

Total

0
15%
19.0%
15.3%

3/36 (8.3%)
47/199 (23.6)
50/219 (22.8%)
100/454 (22.0%)

TABLE 4. Trauma details for individuals with major cranial injuries

Site and
burial #

Age

Sex

Time period

Cranial trauma
Perimortem linear fractures (2) on posterior parietals along
with scalping and deeshing cutmarks (trophy head)
Perimortem complete linear fracture accompanied by a
radiating fracture line on posterior left parietal; Perimortem
cutmarks (6) on mid-frontal near bregma
Healed depressed linear cranial fracture that abuts the margin
of one healed trepanation; healed complete fracture abuts
margin of second trepanation
Healed deep cranial fracture (6.8 mm in depth) on lateral
frontal
Healed large linear fracture on frontal
Healed complete fracture extending from lateral margin of
healed trepanation on frontal
Perimortem large complete fracture on left parietal
Perimortem large complete fracture adjacent to trepanation on
mid-frontal
Perimortem radiating fracture line extending from perimortem
trepanation on posterior right parietal
Healed complete rectangular fracture on mid-frontal with
compression to superior left orbit
Perimortem scrapemarks/cutmarks (3) on anterior right
parietal; most medial scrapemark perforates the endocranial
surface
Perimortem cutmarks (6) clustered on left parietal and left
frontal
Perimortem massive fractures to cranial vault, face, and
mandible with radiating fracture lines
Perimortem massive fractures to cranial vault and face with
radiating and concentric fracture lines
Perimortem massive fractures to cranial vault, face, and
mandible with radiating and concentric fracture lines
Perimortem fracture to frontal above left orbit with radiating
fracture line
Healed large complete fracture to right maxilla with nonunion
of fractured surfaces
Perimortem large complete fracture adjacent to perimortem
trepanation on left parietal and frontal
Healed large complete fracture to right and left nasals and
right and left maxillae with nonunion of fractured surfaces
Healed complete fracture to right maxilla and right nasal with
destruction of right nasal aperture margin and healed
fracture lines
Perimortem large complete fracture adjacent to trepanation on
posterior left parietal
Healed large complete fracture with healed fracture line on left
temporal and left parietal
Perimortem radiating fracture line adjacent to perimortem
trepanation on left parietal

CC 48

2645 years

MH

CC 60

1718 years

LIP

CC 61

461 years

LIP

QT 28-4

2645 years

LIP

QT 38-4
QT 44-2

461 years
36461 years

M
M

LIP
LIP

CH 25
CH 84

1825 years
2645 years

I
M

Inca
Inca

CH 85

1617 years

Inca

CH 101

3645 years

Inca

CH 104

2645 years

Inca

CH 145

3645 years

Inca

CH 178

2635 years

Inca

CH 181

2645 years

Inca

CH 201

2635 years

Inca

CH 214

2645 years

Inca

CM 3231

2645 years

Inca

CM 3233

1825 years

Inca

CM 3240

461 years

Inca

CM 3251

2645 years

Inca

CM 3269

1825 years

Inca

CM 3272

2645 years

Inca

KN 8

461 years

Inca

CC, Cotocotuyoc; CH, Choquepukio; QT, Qotakalli; CM, Colmay; KN, Kanamarca.

nine individuals had healed injuries (2.0% of total sample, 9/454). Within this group, there were 16 males, 5
females, and 2 individuals of indeterminate sex. Males
were overrepresented in the major injury group (76.2%,
American Journal of Physical Anthropology

16/21)
given
exact,
major

compared to the rest of the sample that could be

a sex determination (45.1%, 157/348) (Fishers
P 5 0.006). Six individuals had more than one
cranial injury, for 36 major cranial injuries. In

SKELETAL EVIDENCE FOR INCA WARFARE

Fig. 2. Perimortem major cranial trauma with fragmentation and radiating/concentric fracture lines (CH 201). [Color gure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at
wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

Fig. 3. Perimortem major cranial trauma resulting in a

missing section of bone above the left orbit and radiating fracture lines (CH 214). [Color gure can be viewed in the online
issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

terms of wound location, 15 were found on the anterior

section of the cranium (41.7%), four on the posterior
(11.1%), six right lateral (16.7%), nine left lateral (25%),
and two on the superior section (5.6%). Below is a
description of the injuries by time period.

Middle Horizon. One Middle Horizon individual (1/36,

2.8%) had major injuries consisting of two perimortem
linear fractures located on the posterior parietals. The
individual CC 48, an adult male, also had hundreds of
perimortem cutmarks around the face and cranial vault
due to scalping and deeshing. This isolated cranium
has been interpreted as a Wari trophy head (see
Andrushko, 2011 for detailed description).

367

Fig. 4. Close-up of major cranial trauma with signature

perimortem characteristics of peeling, hinging, irregular fracture edges, and fracture lines with no biological healing
response (CH 178). [Color gure can be viewed in the online
issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

Late Intermediate Period (LIP). Five LIP individuals

had major cranial injuries (2.5%, 5/199). One of these
individuals had perimortem injuries: a 1718-year-old
male (CC 60) with a large linear fracture accompanied
by a radiating fracture line on the posterior left parietal.
This individual also had six perimortem cutmarks found
on the midfrontal near bregma. The other four individuals had injuries that showed long-term healing. Two of
these individuals had injuries adjacent to trepanations,
in which the trepanation procedure removed part of the
fractured surface.
Inca Imperial Period. Seventeen individuals (7.8%, 17/
219) had major cranial injuries in the Inca Imperial
Period. All of the injuries were large, with the smallest
ones averaging 5 cm in length and the largest ones spanning over 15 cm across multiple bones of the cranial
vault. Twelve of these individuals had perimortem injuries (5.4% of Inca sample, 12/219), while ve individuals
had healed major injuries. Within the group of individuals with perimortem trauma, the most striking were a
group of four individuals from Choquepukio with multiple massive perimortem fractures to the cranial vault
and face (Figs. 24). Five individuals had trepanations
located adjacent to the site of trauma (see Fig. 5).
Temporal and geographic patterns. The frequency of
major cranial trauma was 2.8% in the Middle Horizon
(1/36 individuals) and decreased slightly to 2.5% in the
Late Intermediate Period (5/199). The frequency then
rose to 7.8% in the Inca Imperial Period (17/219), a statistically signicant increase (Fishers exact, p 5 0.026).
Individuals with major cranial trauma were absent at
six sites and clustered at two others. No individuals with
major cranial trauma were found at the core sites of
Qhataqasapatallacta, Kusicancha, and Sacsahuaman
and the periphery sites of Akawillay, Aqnapampa, and
Machu Picchu. In contrast, the most individuals with
major cranial trauma were found at the Inca occupations
of Choquepukio (10/61, 16.4%) and Colmay (6/54, 11.1%).
Together, these two sites yielded 69.6% (16/23) of all
individuals with major cranial trauma.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology

368

V.A. ANDRUSHKO AND E.C. TORRES

Throughout the time periods, major cranial trauma

was seen in higher frequencies at the periphery sites
than at the core sites (Table 5). In fact, for two time periods (Middle Horizon and Inca Imperial Period), major
cranial trauma was absent at the core sites. Although
the higher frequency of major cranial injuries in the periphery region was not statistically signicant for the
Middle Horizon or LIP (Fishers exact, p 5 1.000 and
p 5 0.59, respectively), it was statistically signicant for
the Inca Imperial Period (Fishers exact, p 5 0.000).

Minor cranial injuries

Along with the 23 individuals with major cranial
trauma, 77 other individuals had minor healed cranial
injuries (17.0%, 77/454) (see Fig. 6). Temporally, there
were 2 individuals with minor cranial injuries in the
Middle Horizon (5.6%, 2/36), 42 individuals in the LIP
(21.1%, 42/199), and 33 individuals in the Inca Imperial
Period (15.1%, 33/219; Table 5). Males made up the majority of the individuals with minor cranial trauma in
the Middle Horizon (100%, 2/2) and LIP (75.8%, 25/33).
In contrast, in the Inca Imperial Period females made up
the majority of individuals with minor cranial trauma
(61.3%, 19/31), a statistically signicant change (Fishers
exact, p 5 0.005). Trepanations were seen in 21 individuals with minor cranial trauma.

Fig. 5. Perimortem cranial fracture located adjacent to perimortem rectangular trepanation; fracture is evident as an
unhealed fracture line radiating from the anterior margin of the
trepanation above the squamosal suture (KN 8). [Color gure
can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wiley
onlinelibrary.com.]

Twenty-one individuals had more than one minor cranial injury, for 106 minor injuries. There were 87 healed
depressed cranial fractures, 12 healed nasal fractures,
and 7 healed non-nasal facial fractures. The healed
depressed cranial fractures were small on average but
varied in size (mean area 5 1.93 cm2, S.D. 5 2.21). Variation was also seen in wound location across the cranial
vault: 28 on the anterior section (32.2%), 32 posterior
(36.8%), 11 right lateral (12.6%), 11 left lateral (12.6%),
and 5 on the superior section (5.7%). Finally, variation
was also seen in injury shape for the depressed cranial
fractures: 57 circular (65.5%), 29 oval (33.3%), and one
irregular (1.2%).

DISCUSSION
The results of this study indicate that major cranial
injuries suggestive of warfare were rare during the Late
Intermediate Period (2.5%, 5/199) and increased signicantly in the Inca Imperial Period (7.8%, 17/219). Despite the signicant increase in Inca times, the evidence
for injuries suggestive of warfare was only sporadically
distributed at Cuzco periphery sites and was entirely
absent at Cuzco core sites. These results have distinct
implications for how the Inca built their empire in the
capital region.
To fully assess the role of warfare in the rise and
expansion of the Inca Empire, it is important to rst
examineas a baselinethe evidence for warfare in
Cuzco prior to these time periods in the Middle Horizon

Fig. 6. Minor cranial trauma in the form of a small circular

healed depressed cranial fracture (CM 3253). [Color gure can
be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonline
library.com.]

TABLE 5. Cranial trauma frequencies by time period and location

Middle Horizon
Late Intermediate
Period
Inca Imperial Period
Total

Major Injuries by Individual

Minor Injuries by Individual

Core

Core

0/3
(0%)
3/182
(1.6%)
0/83
(0%)
3/268
(1.1%)

Peri phery
1/33
(3%)
2/17
(11.8%)
17/136
(12.5%)
20/186
(10.6%)

American Journal of Physical Anthropology

Total
1/36
(2.8%)
5/199
(2.5%)
17/219
(7.8%)
23/454
(5.1%)

0/3
(0%)
40/182
(22.0%)
6/83
(7.2%)
46/268
(17.2%)

Periphery
2/33
(6.1%)
2/17
(11.8%)
27/136
(19.9%)
31/186
(16.7%)

Total
2/36
(5.6%)
42/199
(21.1%)
33/219
(15.1%)
77/454
(17.0%)

Total Injuries by Individual

Core
0/3
(0%)
43/182
(23.6%)
6/83
(7.2%)
49/268
(18.3%)

Periphery
3/33
(9.1%)
4/17
(23.5%)
44/136
(32.4%)
51/186
(27.4%)

Total
3/36
(8.3%)
47/199
(23.6%)
50/219
(22.8%)
100/454
(22.0%)

SKELETAL EVIDENCE FOR INCA WARFARE

(AD 6001000). The study results show a near absence
of major cranial injuries suggestive of warfare during
this time (1/36, 2.8%). The one cranium suggestive of
warfare was highly ritualized in the form of a Wari trophy head from Cotocotuyoc in the Huaro Valley east of
Cuzco (Andrushko, 2011), the rst of its kind found in
the Cuzco region and only second found outside the Wari
capital region of Ayacucho (Tung, 2003:262; 2008). While
tentative due to a small sample size, these results show
little warfare activity during the period when the Wari
Empire occupied the Cuzco region.

Violence in the LIP

In the subsequent Late Intermediate Period (AD
10001400), the political milieu changed substantially
following Wari collapse but the low frequency of major
cranial trauma did not (2.5%, 5/199). These results
suggest that warfare was not instrumental as factionalized polities competed for control in the power vacuum of Wari imperial collapse. The only injuries suggestive of warfare in the LIP are seen at one core site
(three individuals from Qotakalli in Cuzco) and one periphery site (two individuals from Cotocotuyoc in the
Huaro Valley).
Together, the low frequency of major cranial injuries
in the LIP and lack of change from the Middle Horizon
do not support our rst study hypothesisthat warfare
played a signicant role in the rise of the Inca Empire.
The view that the Inca did not rely on warfare during
their rise to power is supported by other archaeological
ndings from the region. Bauer (1992:145) found little
evidence for LIP warfare in the Paruro region south of
Cuzco and concluded that . . .there are currently no
clear archaeological data supporting the chronicles
depiction of regional warfare occurring in the Cuzco Valley or immediately to the south. . . These archaeological
data instead suggest a gradual political and economic
centralization of Inca power in the Cuzco core (Bauer,
1992; Bauer and Covey, 2002; Covey, 2003, 2006).
Although major cranial injuries suggestive of warfare
were scarce in the LIP, minor cranial injuries reached
their highest frequency during this time period (21.1%)
and were seen most often in males (75.8%, 25/33). Minor
cranial injuries seen in males at pre-Columbian Andean
sites are sometimes attributed to ritualized, structuralized combat akin to modern tinkus (Tung, 2003, 2007;
Arkush and Stanish, 2005:13). These minor injuries in
the LIP may have resulted from ritualized violent
encounters that helped the Inca establish dominance
over their political adversariesritualized violence being
a less costly way for the burgeoning polity to show their
might without sustaining major loss of life through warfare. The overall frequency of cranial trauma in the LIP
(23.6%) is the highest seen in all three time periods
(compared to 8.3% in the Middle Horizon and 22.8% in
the Inca Imperial Period), suggesting that violence in
various formssmall-scale raids, skirmishes, and ritual
conictsescalated during the time period when no single polity had established authority over the region.

Warfare in the Inca imperial period

During the Inca Imperial Period (AD 14001532),
when the empire was establishing their capital in Cuzco
city and expanding out of the immediate core area, the
frequency of major cranial injuries increased signi-

369

cantly to 7.8% (17/219). All of these injuries occurred at

periphery sites (17/136, 12.5%), suggesting that warfare
predominated outside of the immediate capital area, possibly from imperial efforts to conquer new groups and
quell rebellions of previously subjugated groups. In contrast, major cranial injuries were absent from the Cuzco
core sites (0/83), which suggests warfare was not
required within the tightly controlled political and religious center where the Inca rst established their domain (Rowe, 1946:229; 1967:62; Hyslop, 1990:63; La
Lone, 1994:33).
The signicant increase in major cranial injuries during the Inca Imperial Period in the periphery sites supports our second hypothesisthat warfare played a signicant role in Inca imperial expansion. However, upon
closer examination, we can see what may be described
as a patchwork pattern, in which injuries suggestive of
warfare appeared at some sites and were absent at
others. Of the ve Inca periphery sites examined, two
have demonstrable evidence of major cranial injuries
(Choquepukio, 10/61, 16.4%; Colmay, 6/54, 11.1%), one
shows one case only (Kanamarca, 1/13, 7.7%), and two
show no evidence for major cranial injuries (Aqnapampa,
0/6; Machu Picchu, 0/2). While the Machu Picchu sample
in this study is very small, a much larger study of skeletal remains from Machu Picchu conrms the absence of
major cranial trauma at that site (Verano, 2003:98). Certainly, as with any sample, further evidence might be
present at Cuzco sites that have yet to be excavated.
Additionally, some individuals who died on the battleeld may not have been returned to their home communities and thus could be disproportionately excluded from
the Cuzco burial sample. These points must be considered when interpreting the cranial trauma data,
although the presence of individuals with perimortem
injuries in this sample suggests that at least some individuals with lethal cranial trauma were buried in community cemeteries. Keeping these caveats in mind, the
preliminary results from this study show only a sporadic
distribution of Cuzco periphery sites with injuries suggestive of warfare.
When compared to the varying accounts of warfare
described in the Spanish chronicles, the Cuzco results
more closely match the moderate chronicles depictions
in which the Inca tempered their military might with
nonviolent methods of expansion (e.g., de las Casas,
1892 [1561]; Cieza de Leon, 1985 [1553]), as opposed to
those Spanish chronicles which describe intense and
sustained warfare throughout the rise and expansion of
the empire (e.g., Sarmiento de Gamboa, 2007 [1572]).
The study did not contain any sites with a high percentage of warfare victims to match the more extreme
descriptions of Inca warfare, for example, The battle
turned out in such a way that large numbers of [the
enemys] soldiers died and not one entered into combat
without dying (Betanzos, 1996 [1557]:30). As a result,
study ndings are best explained by models that attribute Inca success in the capital region more to political
alliances, bloodless takeovers, and ideological control
tactics than warfare (Rowe, 1982; Schreiber, 1987,
1992:62; DAltroy, 1992; Bauer, 1996; Demarrais et al.,
1996; DAltroy, 2001). While it appears that the Inca
used warfare as a mechanism for expansion, it was
likely only as one part of a complex and nuanced
expansion strategy that allowed the Inca to successfully build an empire of unparalleled heights in the
pre-Columbian New World.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology

370

V.A. ANDRUSHKO AND E.C. TORRES

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

In this study, 454 prehispanic adults from 11 sites in the
Inca capital region of Cuzco were examined for major cranial trauma suggestive of warfare. Twenty-three individuals were found with major cranial injuries based on size,
completeness, and lethality. The frequency of major cranial
injuries was low in the Middle Horizon (2.8%) and the
Late Intermediate Period (2.5%) and increased signicantly in the Inca Imperial Period (7.8%). During the Inca
Imperial Period, major cranial injuries were seen exclusively at sites outside of the immediate core area. Despite
the signicant increase in Inca times, the evidence for
injuries suggestive of warfare was seen sporadically at periphery sites and does not match the descriptions of
intense, sustained warfare from some Spanish chronicles.
Seventy-seven other individuals had cranial injuries
that were small and nonlethal. Some of these injuries
possibly ensued from structured, ritualized battles like
the tinkus witnessed ethnographically in the modern
Andes. Minor cranial trauma peaked in the Late Intermediate Period, which could reect ritualized conicts
occurring during the time of political upheaval between
Wari collapse and Inca ascendency.
The ultimate implication of the present study is that
Inca imperialism in the Cuzco region may have been less
warfare-dependent than some Spanish chronicles imply.
Rather, Inca expansion was likely successful because it
incorporated a range of strategies using militaristic, economic, political, and ideological means (Schreiber, 1987,
1992:62; Bauer, 1992:14; DAltroy, 1992). For example,
the Inca used diplomacy to entreat local groups with
gifts and offers of protection, the acceptance of which
required those groups to submit to Inca domination,
while the Inca army waited nearby as a threat of the
consequence of noncompliance (Rowe, 1946:281). Such
exible tactics, covering a continuum from military force
to subtler methods of control using alliances and ideological persuasion, translated to unparalleled success for
the Inca in building the largest empire in the pre-Columbian New World (Rowe, 1982).
This study shows how skeletal analysis can contribute
to our understanding of the process of Inca imperial
expansion, and how it can be used both to complement
and correct our knowledge from the Spanish chronicles.
While the Spanish chronicles provide important information on many aspects of Inca imperialism, they also
must be examined with a critical eye for possible inaccuracies or biases. The independence of skeletal data
from written accounts is one of its many strengths, and
skeletal studies should remain an important tool for
researchers to identify and amend some of these inconsistencies in the ethnohistoric record.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
VA would like to thank Melissa Murphy and Tifny Tung
for many stimulating conversations on the topic of trauma
analysis in the prehistoric Andes, Choquepukio directors
Arminda Gibaja and Gordon McEwan, and the Bernard
Selz Foundation, whose funding has made possible all excavations and artifact analyses at Choquepukio. The authors
gratefully acknowledge the AJPA editors and anonymous
reviewers for their extremely insightful comments. Additional thanks to Katharina Schreiber, Viviana Bellifemine,
Veronique Belisle, Melissa Chateld, Christina TorresRouff, and Bethany Turner. Deborah Andrushko provided
American Journal of Physical Anthropology

much-appreciated editorial assistance while Chris Milan is

gratefully acknowledged for help in the gure production.

LITERATURE CITED
Andrushko VA. 2007. The bioarchaeology of Inca imperialism in
the heartland: an analysis of prehistoric burials from the
Cuzco region of Peru. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Andrushko VA. 2011. How the Wari fashioned trophy heads for
display: a distinctive modied cranium from Cuzco, Peru, and
comparison to trophies from the capital region. In: Bonogofsky
M, editor. The bioarchaeology of the human head. Gainesville:
University Press of Florida. p 262285.
Andrushko VA, Verano JW. 2008. Trepanation in the Cuzco
region of Peru: a view into an ancient Andean practice. Am J
Phys Anthropol 137:413.
Arkush E, Stanish C. 2005. Interpreting conict in the ancient
Andes. Curr Anthropol 46:328.
Bauer BS. 1992. The development of the Inca state. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Bauer BS. 1996. Legitimization of the state in Inca myth and
ritual. Am Anthropol 98:327337.
Bauer BS. 2004. Ancient Cuzco: heartland of the Inca. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Bauer BS, Covey RA. 2002. Processes of state formation in the
Inca heartland (Cuzco. Peru). Am Anthropol 104:846864.
Bauer BS, Decoster J-J. 2007. Introduction: Pedro Sarmiento de
Gamboa and the history of the Incas. In: Bauer BS, Smith V,
editors. The history of the Incas. Austin: University of Texas
Press. p 134.
Bauer BS, Kellett LC, Araoz Silva M. 2010. The Chanka:
archaeological research in Andahuaylas (Apurimac), Peru.
Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.
Belisle V. 2008. Continuity at the village level in Middle Horizon Cusco. 73rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology. Vancouver.
Berryman HE, Haun SJ. 1996. Applying forensic techniques to
interpret cranial fracture patterns in an archaeological specimen. Int J Osteoarchaeol 6:29.
Betanzos JD. 1996 [1557]. Narrative of the Incas. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Boylston A. 2000. Evidence for weapon-related trauma in British archaeological samples. In: Cox M, Mays S, editors.
Human osteology in archaeology and forensic science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p 357380.
Bram J. 1941. An analysis of Inca militarism. New York: Monographs of the American Ethnological Society 4. J.J. Augustin.
Buikstra JE, Ubelaker DH, editors. 1994. Standards for data
collection from human skeletal remains. Fayetteville: Arkansas Archeological Survey.
Cieza de Leon P. 1985 [1553]. Cronica del Peru, segunda parte.
Lima: Ponticia Universidad Catolica del Peru.
Cieza de Leon P. 1998 [1555]. The discovery and conquest of
Peru: chronicles of the New World encounter. Durham: Duke
University Press.
Cobo B. 1979 [1653]. History of the Inca empire. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Cobo B. 1990 [1653]. Inca religion and customs. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Courville CB, Abbott KH. 1942. Cranial injuries of the preColumbian Incas, with comments on their mechanism, effects
and lethality. Bull Los Angel Neuro Soc 7:107130.
Covey RA. 2003. A processual study of Inca state formation. J
Anthropol Archaeol 22:333357.
Covey RA. 2006. How the Incas built their heartland: state formation and the innovation of imperial strategies in the Sacred
Valley, Peru. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
DAltroy TN. 1992. Provincial power in the Inka empire. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
DAltroy TN. 2001. Politics, resources, and blood in the Inka
empire. In: Alcock SE, DAltroy TN, Morrison KD, and
Sinopoli CM, editors. Empires: perspectives from archaeology

SKELETAL EVIDENCE FOR INCA WARFARE

and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p 201
226.
DAltroy TN. 2002. The Incas. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
de las Casas B. 1892 [1561]. De las antiguas gentes del Peru.
Madrid: Tipograa de Manuel G. Hernandez.
Demarrais E, Castillo LJ, Earle T. 1996. Ideology, materialization, and power strategies. Curr Anthropol 37:1531.
Domett KM, Tayles N. 2006. Adult fracture patterns in prehistoric Thailand: a biocultural interpretation. Int J Osteoarchaeol 16:185199.
Dransart P. 1988. Women and ritual conict in Inka society. In:
Macdonald S, Holden P, Ardener S, editors. Images of women
in peace and war: cross-cultural and historical perspectives.
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. p 6277.
Duviols P. 1980. La guerra entre el Cuzco y los Chanka: historia
o mito? Rev Univ Complut 28:363371.
Espinoza Soriano W. 1974. El habitat de la etnia Pinagua, siglos
XV y XVI. Rev Mus Nac 40:157220.
Gerszten PC, Gerszten E, Allison MJ. 1998. Diseases of the
skull in Pre-Columbian South American mummies. Neurosurgery 42:11451152.
Guaman Poma de Ayala F. 1936 [1615]. Nueva coronica y buen
gobierno. Paris: Travaux et Memoires de lInstitut dEthnologie, Universite de Paris, XXIII.
Guilmartin JF. 1991. The cutting edge: an analysis of the Spanish invasion and overthrow of the Inca empire,15321539. In:
Andrien KJ, Adorno R, editors. Transatlantic encounters:
Europeans and Andeans in the Sixteenth century. Berkeley:
University of California. p 4069.
Hemming J. 1970. The conquest of the Incas. London: Macmillan.
Hiltunen JJ, McEwan GF. 2004. Knowing the Inca past. In: Silverman H, editor. Andean archaeology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. p 237254.
Himmerich y Valencia R. 1998. The 1536 siege of Cuzco: an
analysis of Inca and Spanish warfare. Coln Latin Am Hist
Rev 7:387418.
Hyslop J. 1990. Inca settlement planning. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Jimenez de la Espada M. 1965 [1881]. Relaciones geogracas de
indias: Peru, Vol. I. Madrid: Ediciones Atlas.
Judd MA. 2002. Ancient injury recidivism: an example from the
Kerma period of ancient Nubia. Int J Osteoarchaeol 12:89
106.
Julien CJ. 2000. Reading Inca history. Iowa City: University of
Iowa Press.
Jurmain R, Bartelink EJ, Leventhal A, Bellifemine V, Nechayev
I, Atwood M, DiGuiseppe D. 2009. Paleoepidemiological patterns of interpersonal aggression in a prehistoric central
California population from CA-Ala-329. Am J Phys Anthropol
139:462473.
Kellner CM. 2002. Coping with environmental and social challenges in prehistoric Peru: bioarchaeological analyses of Nasca
populations. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
La Lone D. 1994. An Andean world-system: production transformations under the Inca empire. In: Brumel E, editor. The
economic anthropology of the state. Lanham, MD: University
Press of America. p 1742.
Lambert PM. 1994. War and peace on the western front: a study
of violent conict and its correlates in prehistoric huntergatherer societies of coastal Southern California. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara.
Larsen CS. 1997. Bioarchaeology: interpreting behavior from
the human skeleton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lessa A, Mendonca de Souza S. 2004. Violence in the Atacama
desert during the Tiwanaku period: social tension? Int J
Osteoarchaeol 14:374388.
Lovell NC. 1997. Trauma analysis in paleopathology. Yearb
Phys Anthropol 40:139170.
MacCormack S. 2008. Classical traditions in the Andes. In:
Pillsbury J, editor. Guide to documentary sources for Andean
studies, 15301990, Vol.I. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. p 2364.

371

McEwan GF. 2006a. The Incas: new perspectives. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
McEwan GF. 2006b. Inca state origins: collapse and regeneration in the southern Peruvian Andes. In: Schwartz GM, Nichols JJ, editors. After collapse: the regeneration of complex
societies. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. p 8598.
McEwan GF, Chateld M, Gibaja A. 2002. The archaeology of
Inca origins. In: Isbell WH, and Silverman H, editors. Andean
archaeology I: variations in sociopolitical organization. New
York: Kluwer Academic. p 287301.
Milner GR, Anderson E, Smith VG. 1991. Warfare in late prehistoric west-central Illinois. Am Antiq 56:581603.
Morris C. 1998. Inka strategies of incorporation and governance. In: Marcus J, Feinman GM, editors. Archaic states.
Santa Fe: School of American Research. p 293309.
Moseley ME. 2001. The Incas and their ancestors. London:
Thames and Hudson.
Murphy MS. 2004. From bare bones to mummied: understanding health and disease in an Inca community. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Murphy MS. 2009. Violent confrontation and Spanish conquest
at Puruchuco-Huaquerones, Peru. 49th Meeting of the Institute of Andean Studies. Berkeley.
Murphy MS, Gaither C, Goycochea E, Verano JW, Cock G. 2010.
Violence and weapon-related trauma at Puruchuco-Huaquerones. Peru. Am J Phys Anthropol 142:636649.
Murphy MS, Goycochea E, Cock G. 2011. Persistence, resistance, and accommodation at Puruchuco-Huaquerones, Peru.
In: Liebmann M, Murphy MS, editors. Rethinking the archaeology of resistance to Spanish colonialism in the Americas.
Santa Fe: SAR Press. p 5776.
Murra JV. 1986. The expansion of the Inka state: armies, war,
and rebellions. In: Murra JV, Wachtel N, Revel J, editors. Anthropological history of Andean polities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p 4958.
Neves WA, Barros AM, Costa Junqueira MA. 1999. Incidence
and distribution of postcranial fractures in the prehistoric
population of San Pedro de Atacama, northern Chile. Am J
Phys Anthropol 109:253258.
Novak SA. 2000. Battle-related trauma. In: Fiorato V, Boylston
A, Knusel C, editors. Blood red roses: the archaeology of a
mass grave from the battle of Towton AD 1461. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. p 90102.
Ortner D. 2008. Differential diagnosis of skeletal injuries. In:
Kimmerle EH, Baraybar JP, editors. Skeletal trauma: identication of injuries resulting from human rights abuse and
armed conict. Boca Raton: CRC Press. p 2186.
Owens LS. 2007. Craniofacial trauma in the prehispanic Canary
Islands. Int J Osteoarchaeol 16:465478.
Pease F. 2008. Chronicles of the Andes in the Sixteenth and
Seventeenth centuries. In: Pillsbury J, editor. Guide to documentary sources for Andean studies 15301900, Vol.I. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. p 1122.
Pizarro P. 1978 [1571]. Relacion del descubrimiento y conquista
de los reinos del Peru. Lima: Ponticia Universidad Catolica
del Peru.
Rostworowski M. 1999. History of the Inca realm. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rowe JH. 1944. An introduction to the archaeology of Cuzco.
Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and
Ethnology 27.
Rowe JH. 1946. Inca culture at the time of the Spanish conquest. In: Steward JH, editor. Handbook of South American
Indians, Vol. 2. The Andean civilizations, Bulletin of the Bureau of American Ethnology Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian
Institution Press. p 183330.
Rowe JH. 1957. The Incas under Spanish colonial institutions.
Hisp Am Hist Rev 37:155168.
Rowe JH. 1967. What kind of a settlement was Inca Cuzco?
awpa Pacha 5:5976.
N
Rowe JH. 1982. Inca policies and institutions relating to the
cultural unication of the empire. In: Collier GA, Rosaldo RI,
Wirth JD, editors. The Inca and Aztec states, 14001800:

American Journal of Physical Anthropology

372

V.A. ANDRUSHKO AND E.C. TORRES

anthropology and history. New York: Academic Press. p 93

118.
Salas AM. 1950. Las armas de la conquista. Buenos Aires:
Emece Editores.
Santa Cruz Pachacuti Yamqui Salcamaygua Jd. 1993 [1613].
Relacion de antiguedades deste reyno del Piru . Cusco: Insti tudes Andines; Centro de Estudios Regionales
tut Francais dE
Andinos Bartolome de Las Casas, Vol.74.
Sarmiento de Gamboa P. 2007 [1572]. History of the Incas. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Sauer NJ. 1998. The timing of injuries and manner of death:
distinguishing among antemortem, perimortem and postmortem trauma. In: Reichs K, editor. Forensic osteology: advances
in the identication of human remains. Springeld, IL:
Charles C. Thomas. p 321332.
Schreiber K. 1987. Conquest and consolidation: a comparison of
the Wari and Inka occupations of a highland Peruvian valley.
Am Antiq 52:266284.
Schreiber K. 1992. Wari imperialism in Middle Horizon Peru.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Seed P. 2005. Conquest of the Americas 15001650. In: Parker
G, editor. The Cambridge history of warfare. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. p 131147.
Smith MO. 2003. Beyond palisades: the nature and frequency of
late prehistoric deliberate violent trauma in the Chickamunga
reservoir of east Tennessee. Am J Phys Anthropol 121:303318.
Steadman DW. 2008. Warfare related trauma at Orendorf, a
middle Mississippian site in west-central Illinois. Am J Phys
Anthropol 136:5165.
Torres-Rouff C. 2008. The inuence of Tiwanaku on life in the
Chilean Atacama: mortuary and bodily perspectives. Am
Anthropol 110:325337.
Torres-Rouff C, Costa Junqueira MA. 2006. Interpersonal violence
in prehistoric San Pedro de Atacama. Chile: behavioral implications of environmental stress. Am J Phys Anthropol 130:6070.
Tung T. 2003. A bioarchaeological perspective on Wari imperialism in the Andes of Peru: a view from heartland and hinterland skeletal populations. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill.
Tung T. 2007. Trauma and violence in the Wari empire of the
Peruvian Andes: warfare, raids, and ritual ghts. Am J Phys
Anthropol 133:941956.

American Journal of Physical Anthropology

Tung T. 2008. Dismembering bodies for display: a bioarchaeological study of trophy heads from the Wari site of Conchopata.
Peru. Am J Phys Anthropol 136:294308.
Ubelaker DH, Adams BJ. 1995. Differentiation of perimortem
and postmortem trauma. J Forensic Sci 40:509512.
Urteaga HH. 1919-20. El ejercito incaico. Bol Soc Geogr Lima
3536:283331.
Urton G. 1990. The history of myth: Pacariqtambo and the origin of the Incas. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Verano JW. 2001a. The physical evidence of human sacrice in
ancient Peru. In: Benson EP, Cook AG, editors. Ritual sacrice in ancient Peru. Austin: University of Texas Press. p 165
184.
Verano JW. 2001b. War and death in the Moche world: osteological evidence and visual discourse. In: Pillsbury J, editor.
Moche art and archaeology in ancient Peru. New Haven: Yale
University Press. p 111126.
Verano JW. 2003. Human skeletal remains from Machu Picchu.
In: Burger RL, Salazar LC, editors. The 1912 Yale Peruvian
Scientic Expedition collections from Machu Picchu: human
and animal remains. New Haven: Yale University Publications in Anthropology. p 65117.
Walker PL. 1989. Cranial injuries as evidence of violence in prehistoric southern California. Am J Phys Anthropol 80:313
323.
Walker PL. 1997. Wife beating, boxing, and broken noses: skeletal evidence for the cultural patterning of violence. In: Martin
DL, Frayer DW, editors. Troubled times: violence and warfare
in the past. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach. p 145179.
Walker PL. 2001. A bioarchaeological perspective on the history
of violence. Annu Rev Anthropol 30:573596.
Walker PL, Steckel RH. 2002. A Western Hemisphere perspective on the history of violence. Fourteenth European Meeting
of the Paleopathology Association. Coimbra, Portugal.
White TD. 1992. Prehistoric cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR2346. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
White TD. 2000. Human osteology. Orlando: Academic Press.
Wilkinson RG, Van Wagenen KM. 1993. Violence against
women: prehistoric skeletal evidence from Michigan. MidCont
J Archaeol 18:190216.
Zuidema RT. 1982. Myth and history in ancient Peru. In: Rossi
EI, editor. The logic of culture: advances in structural theory
and methods. South Hadley, MA: J. F. Bergin. p 150175.