Machu Picchu’s Observatory:
the Re-Discovery of Llactapata and
its Sun-Temple
This is a longer English version of the article that was first published
in the Revista Andina (2004, #39), with the title
‘El redescubrimiento de Llactapata, antiguo observatorio de Machu
Picchu’: the article was accompanied by
peer-reviews of the findings by R. Tom Zuidema, Jürgen
Golte, Peter Kaulicke and
Vincent Lee.
[Technical note: Those wishing to
view the report full-frame, should redirect their browser to
http://www.thomson.clara.net/llactapa.html ]
J. McKim
Malville
Department
of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences, University of Colorado
Hugh Thomson
MA
(Cantab), FRGS
Gary Ziegler
FEC, Department
of Anthropology, Colorado College, FRGS
INTRODUCTION
Despite its
relative proximity to Machu Picchu, Llactapata is a site that has been very
little investigated since its first reporting by Hiram Bingham in 1912.
In May 2003 a thorough
survey of the site was made by a research team led by Hugh Thomson and Gary
Ziegler, accompanied by Kim Malville, Professor Emeritus of The University of
Colorado. The expedition was supported and approved by the Royal Geographical
Society of London.
The expedition
made a systematic exploration of the ridge and mountain slope of Llactapata,
which lies on the western side of the Aobamba
drainage facing Machu Picchu.[1]
A primary
objective was to study what may be called ‘Hiram Bingham's Llactapata group’,
which it appeared had not properly been relocated since his initial reporting
of the site in 1912.
Another objective
was to determine whether there were any further as yet unreported sectors of
the site.
A further
objective was to map properly for the first time the full extent of the
extended Llactapata site, with these multiple sectors, and produce detailed
plans of each sector, and interpret the relationship of Llactapata to Machu
Picchu, given recent archaeo-astronomical work there.
Field-work
established that the size and importance of Llactapata has been greatly
underestimated in the past, and that its alignment and relationship to Machu
Picchu is central to any interpretation of the site.
See map.
Chapter Headings:
2 THE INVESTIGATION OF THE SITE
4 SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND INTERPRETATION
Comparison
with the Coricancha
Sector II: Sector III: Sector IV: Sector V:
The first
published account of Llactapata was by Hiram Bingham as part of his article on
Machu Picchu for National Geographic, ‘In the Wonderland of Peru’ (Bingham
1913).
While the
clearance and excavation of Machu Picchu was taking place in 1912, Bingham had
sent various reconnaissance teams into the surrounding area to look for further
Inca sites.
A team led by his
assistant Kenneth Heald attempted to head up the Aobamba valley, but met with ‘almost insuperable
difficulty’, as ‘the jungle was so dense as to be almost impassable. There was no trail and the trees were so
large and the foliage so dense that observations were impossible even after the
trail had been cut.’ Heald’s
team were further discouraged when an arriero was almost bitten by a poisonous snake.
Bingham himself
then attempted to investigate the area and, in his own words, ‘got into the
reaches of the valley about ten days later, and found some interesting
ruins…The end of that day found us on top of a ridge between the valleys of the
Aobamba and the Salcantay.’[2]
Here Bingham
reported a site called ‘Llactapata, the ruins of an Inca castle’:
‘We found
evidence that some Inca chieftain had built his castle here and had included in
the plan ten or a dozen buildings.’
In his later re-writing
of this account for Lost City of the
Incas (1948), Bingham commented that Llactapata ‘may well have been built
by one of Manco’s captains. It was on a strategic spot.’
After mapping and
photographing the site, Bingham pressed on rapidly up the valley to the site of
Palcay which lies at the head of the Aobamba valley. He
had spent just five daylight hours there.
One might think
that Bingham would have both spent more time examining the site, but he was
handicapped in that he had a most unwilling team with him: three arrieros who had been pressed into service by a local
landowner as a service to Bingham and who seem to have caused him considerable
difficulty. His published account spends
far more time lamenting their deficiencies than describing the ruins
themselves. Later in the same journey
they eventually deserted him.
Bingham’s
decision to move on rapidly is also of a piece with his previous actions when
he first saw Machu Picchu, in 1911: again he initially spent just a few hours
at the site before heading on rapidly to his next objective. Only later did he send a team back to clear
the site. A certain impatience was
characteristic of the man.
In this case he
clearly decided that the difficulties of returning to Llactapata for further investigation
were prohibitive, although he seems to have regretted this, commenting:
‘It would be
interesting to excavate for three or four weeks and get sufficient evidence in
the way of shreds and artefacts to show just what connection the people who built
and occupied this mountain stronghold had to the other occupants of the
valley.’ (Bingham 1913)
Unfortunately he
left few published details for anyone who might want to return to the site to
do just that. Both the map published
with the 1913 magazine article and his account are imprecise: ‘the end of that day found us on top of a
ridge between the valleys of the Aobamba and the
Salcantay’ gives little indication of where exactly he was between two long and
densely covered valleys. The same
difficult vegetation that had defeated Bingham’s assistant Heald
still characterizes the area, and without proper compass bearings or
directions, no further expeditions reported on it.
Nor did they have
much inclination to do so. Bingham’s
decidedly half-hearted and incomplete account of it would have given them
little incentive.
The slight nature
of Bingham’s account of Llactapata must be set in its literary context. The same National
Geographic report, ‘In the Wonderland of Peru’, contains the first descriptions
of Machu Picchu itself, of Vitcos and of Bingham’s
discoveries at Espíritu Pampa. Given that any one of these by themselves
would have constituted a major discovery, it is perhaps understandable that he
did not devote as much attention to Llactapata as he might otherwise have done.
For the next
seventy years (1912 – 1982), there were no published accounts of the site. In 1982 David Drew of the Cusichaca
Project, which was coordinated by Ann Kendall, went back to the area, together
with a small reconnaissance team including Hugh Thomson. Ascending directly from Suriray in the Santa
Teresa valley, they crossed over a ridge into the Aobamba
valley and found some sites in the area immediately on the Aobamba
side.
They reported one
sector of buildings (now described as Sector II) that while similar in size to
that indicated by Bingham, and in the same rough area suggested by Bingham’s
vague description, did not match his published plan of the site (Drew
1982). They also reported finding a
higher two-storey building on the ridge above (Sector V; the ‘Overlook
Building’), and 2 small groups of buildings between Sectors I and IV.
Drew commented:
‘At Llactapata,
the fact that none of the four different groups of ruins discovered on
reconnaissance match those found by Bingham would suggest that further remains
are still to be found in the montaña here and that the site is considerably larger than
Bingham first imagined.’ (Drew 1982)
Then in 1985
Johan Reinhard passed over the site of Llactapata while investigating the Inca
trail that leads northwards from Palcay along a ridge
of Mt Salcantay (Reinhard 1990). While
he did not try to investigate the main sectors of Llactapata, he reported
coming across a substantial building on the ridge-line above, at 3,037m /9,960
ft: ‘the ruins of a large structure or
series of structures that have a nice view towards Machu Picchu’. Reinhard mapped the building. He also reported that looting had taken place
at the site: ‘Some digging had been done
here, including one hole dug recently, i.e. possibly within the past year.’
From further
investigation by the recent expedition, this appears to have been part of the
overall Llactapata site and may well have functioned as a qolqa (storehouse) for the
residential / administrative sectors below.
It is described as Sector IV of the overall site.
In 2002, Hugh
Thomson went to consult the unpublished journals of Hiram Bingham, which are
held at the Sterling Memorial Library at Yale University, and the collection of
unpublished photographs held on card index by the Peabody Museum.
He found that
Bingham had left a more detailed record of his investigations at Llactapata
than had ever been published.
Bingham’s
handwritten journal records that on August 1st 1912 he left the hacienda of Huadquiña at 7.30 in the morning and arrived at ‘Surirai’ at 9.00.
The modern hamlet of Suriray lies in the Santa Teresa (Salcantay)
valley, so Bingham had decided to approach the Aobamba
/ Santa Teresa ridge from that side, after Heald’s
difficulties in the Aobamba.
At Suriray he
scribbled hastily in his notebook: ‘men here speak of ruins: Llactapata ruins; Cochapata
- laguna; Mishihuaunca – lugar; Palcai – old pueblo;
Pampacahuana – best ruins of all.’
By 9.30 he had reached
a hut 600 ft above Suriray, noting that ‘quite a little coffee’ was being grown
in the small holdings he passed.
By 12.00, after a
‘hard climb’, he reached a clearing at the top of the ridge and met Marcello Añanca ‘who lives at Llactapata’. (There is still a small holding on the top of
the ridge today, near Sector V). By
12.35, presumably having descended over the ridge, he saw the ruins which ‘lie
at 9100 ft, i.e. 1100 ft higher than MP [Machu Picchu]’.
He remarked on
‘the wonderful view’ and that the snow peak of Salcantay was visible.
The photographic
evidence supplements the details left in his journal (see Thomson 2002 for full
discussion of Bingham’s use of the camera).
Bingham published just one photograph of Llactapata in his original National Geographic article ‘In the
Wonderland of Peru’ (Bingham 1913), and none subsequently. However the Peabody Museum has a full archive
of all the photographs taken by the Yale Expeditions, and these include six
unpublished prints of the Llactapata site:
The first picture
Bingham took (#2850), at 1.00 on August 1912, was of the ‘wonderful view’ he
had mentioned in his journal ‘looking towards Machu Picchu and the Torontoy massif’.
Clearly the unusual sighting of Machu Picchu impressed him more at first
that the actual ruins themselves, as it did for later visitors (Thomson
2001). Bingham had just come from Machu
Picchu and the careful sight-line positioning of his newly cleared discovery on
a distant ridge to the east must have struck him forcibly. Ironically too, given that our interpretation
suggests that Llactapata was closely affiliated to Machu Picchu, Bingham’s last
act before leaving that site on July 30th had been to intercept a group of huaqueros,
treasure-hunters, who had gone there in search of a ‘Greater Machu Picchu’ that
might lie beyond it (cf #2838).
#2852 is of the
view to the south, showing Mt. Salcantay from Bingham’s camp-site. From both these pictures, and the subsequent
ones, #2853 and #2854, it seems that his campsite was on the small pampa that the
present expedition also used, just below the Sector 2 ruins, of which one wall
is visible. However Bingham did not
document or record Sector 2 in any way, and it may well be that in the very
limited time he had available, he was not able to clear it. From the subsequent pictures he took, #2854,
#2855 and #2856, it is clear that the surrounding vegetation was as thick as it
is today. With just three arrieros and a
few hours of daylight remaining, Bingham would not have managed to see much.
Perhaps because
of this, Bingham seems not to have appreciated the architectural features of
the site: his caption to one picture,
#2855, reads baldly: ‘the corner of
another house with Bartolo, one of the Indians who
deserted later.’ Used also to the
granite of Machu Picchu, he did not appreciate the metamorphic rock used at
Llactapata, which cannot be cut as finely as granite but which, as at
Choquequirao, would have been plastered.
It is worth
noting that one reason this region so
close to Machu Picchu has been relatively ignored is that the Inca architecture
does not appear as impressive as that of Machu Picchu and the upper Urubamba
region. Machu Picchu is constructed from a local fine-grained, white granite,
while most Vilcabamba sites to the west were built from a fragile, metamorphic
material that could not be shaped polygonally, or
easily rounded. The result is a rather crude appearing, coursed construction,
consisting of flat slabs and blocks joined with mortar. However, the evidence
shows that walls were coated inside and out with a light-coloured clay hiding
the stonework beneath a smooth attractive coating. This was first mentioned by
Ziegler at the Vilcabamba site, Choquequirao, as a possible reason why this
major Inca complex may not have been given its proper importance by
investigators (Ziegler 2001).
Bingham
determined to press on to Palcay and the other sites
he had been told about below at Suriray.
The next day, August 2nd, he rose at 5.40, noted that the clouds were
rising rapidly from below and that Machu Picchu was in the clouds. At 7.45 the sun burnt off the clouds and he
left camp at 8.05. At 8.45, ‘after
passing through dense jungle’, he reported finding ‘the stone walled ruin of a
single house, about 11 by 15 ft’, which seemed from the hole in its centre to
have been looted.
He then arrived
at the ‘small, apparently shallow lake’ of Cochapata,
about 150 ft long by 75 ft wide, at an altitude of 10,600 ft. At 11,000 ft he noted seeing violets. His big strong white mule fell backwards and
its cargo had to be carried by the porters (Bingham did not record the hostile
porters’ reaction to this additional load).
He spent that night on ‘a grassy slope on the side of the mountain at
about 15,000 ft’, near to a small spring’, before proceeding towards Palcay.
From the above
description, it seems that when Bingham left Llactapata, he travelled back up
to the ridge dividing the Santa Teresa and Aobamba
valleys, and skirted along the ridge on the Santa Teresa valley side (where
there are still areas of bog and thick vegetation) before crossing a high pass
back into a steep-walled valley of the higher Aobamba. Palcay lies at the
head of the Aobamba valley. (Reconnaissance teams from the recent May
2003 expedition retraced part of this route).
Bingham’s field
journal contains several sketch maps of the Llactapata site with some details
he never published: the area in front of
the double recessed doorway he marked as an ‘open plaza facing Machu Picchu’,
and he indicated that there was ‘a sunken alley’ beside it.
Most important of
all, in his journal he recorded compass bearings from the site. These have likewise never been published
before:
‘Machu Picchu
sacred plaza bears 52° degrees.
Machu Picchu Heights
[Mt Machu Picchu] 67°.
Huaina Picchu Heights
[Mt Huaynu Picchu]
45°.’
This information
prompted the initiative to try to re-locate ‘Bingham’s Llactapata’, and
establish clearly how extensive the site was.
See map.
In 2003, Hugh
Thomson returned to Llactapata with Gary Ziegler, with whom he had previously
collaborated on several previous field expeditions, including the first
clearing and site description of Cota Coca (Thomson 2001, Thomson & Ziegler
2002) The expedition arrived in Cusco in late April 2003. The primary work - aerial flights and then investigation by
land - was accomplished during May.
Further investigation into the orientation of some sectors at Llactapata
was carried out in June, at the time of the solstice; further study of the correlating features
between newly reported sites at Llactapata with structures at Machu Picchu and
the Coricancha in Cusco was undertaken during July and August. Gary Ziegler and John Leivers conducted
additional exploration during May of 2004.
In early May, two
separate flights were made over the area, using a Palm IR 250 camera for
thermal infrared remote sensing. This
was only partially successful, in that it was difficult to achieve optimum
conditions. For the thermal imaging data
to register, the difference in temperature between stone and vegetation
requires several hours of sunlight.
However later in the day, cloud cover tends to obscure this area of the
Vilcabamba. Finding a ‘window’ which was
late enough in the day to produce temperature differentials, but early enough
to escape cloud cover, proved difficult.
More traditional
methods of site reconnaissance on the ground proved more effective. The use of thermal imaging techniques in the
Vilcabamba would appear to be problematic.(Ziegler 2004)
The Llactapata
archaeological complex is situated on and below a long ridge that descends
north to the Urubamba Canyon from the region's highest peak, Mt Salcantay; the
complex faces Machu Picchu and the two peaks to either side of that site, Mt
Huayna Picchu and Mt Machu Picchu. The parallel Machu Picchu ridge some five
kilometres to the east is separated from the Llactapata ridge by the Aobamba canyon, whose river carries glacial melt water down
from Mt Salcantay.
The name
Llactapata means ‘high town’ in Quechua:
another Inca site is similarly named at the bottom of the Cusichaca valley, at the start of the so-called ‘Inca
Trail’.
The climate,
vegetation and fauna of Llactapata are similar to that of the Machu Picchu
Sanctuary, receiving more that 75 inches of annual rainfall (Wright-Valencia
2000). The altitude of the zone ranges from 2500 to 3000 metres.
Original cloud
forest covers most of the zone but some areas show evidence of previous
clearing and burning by the owners of small-holdings, resulting in a tangle of
thorny shrubs and bamboo thickets. The forest is home to numerous varieties of
birds and the spectacled bear is in evidence. A few scattered farming plots
have been cleared and recently planted with corn. There is evidence that some of the Inca
structures have at some stage been partially occupied and altered by local
herders. A number of pot holes indicate that looting or treasure hunting has
taken place by huaqueros. This is a common occurrence throughout
the region as almost every site has been visited at sometime by a local herder
or prospector.
Base camp was established
at a clearing at approx 2700m on the spur descending from the ridge towards the
Aobamba. This
was just below Sector 2 of the site. The
camp overlooked the Urubamba canyon, with an impressive view of Machu Picchu
and the ice covered Veronica range beyond. Salcantay lies to the southeast, at
20,000 feet.
Clearing and
exploration of the area began. In doing
this, the expedition were armed with the unpublished Hiram Bingham material
from Yale, with the results of the aerial reconnaissance and with the few known
previous investigations of the area.
At Machu Picchu
the regional mountain base is part of an uplifted Paleozoic
era (250 million years old) intrusive igneous feature classified geologically
as a batholith. These are massive upward travelling
bodies of molten material (magma) that penetrate the upper layers of the
earth’s surface before stopping short of the surface. Here the rock type is
mainly resistant fine-grained, small crystallized, white granite, which proves
excellent for hammering (the pecking method) into finely shaped blocks and
sharply defined angles. (Wright-Valencia 2000. Ziegler 2001)
The geology of
the Llactapata zone differs significantly. Although only a few kilometres
distant, the Llactapata ridge is composed of metamorphosed, compressed
meta-sediments; quartzite, schist and altered shale with some later igneous
activity in the form of isolated intrusive dikes. The present topography has
been eroded by the Urubamba River, and by rain and breakdown from the nearby
peaks, as continuing tectonic forces slowly lift the mountain mass of the
Andes. Glacial processes played a part as well. Numerous faults and subsurface
factures resulting from mountain building pressures are present. As base rock
is exposed by erosion, these fractures offer zones of weakness subject to
ground water penetration and other surface forces that create fragmentation and
disintegration into blocks and eventually into mixed mineral-organic residue
soil. These loose boulders and rocks are the material that supplied the
building stone for Machu Picchu and Llactapata, although because of the
geological differences, the stone differs substantially between the two sites.
SITE DESCRIPTIONS
AND INTERPRETATION
overall map including Machu
Picchu
photograph of Llactapata
hillside showing archaeological zone
The
archaeological zone consists of several interrelated high status building
groups, agricultural areas, isolated structures, lower status urban ruins and a
connecting road network scattered over several square kilometres. The zone has five different Sectors, with the
primary features surveyed and diagrammed on individual site plans. A number of
isolated structures and features are indicated as scattered or assorted ruins
on the general site map. Some site plans are less detailed, indicating that
additional field information is needed.
The area that we
designate as the Llactapata Archaeological Zone
is approximately four kilometres long by two kilometres wide, containing
more than eighty man-made structures and features which we have organized into
five sectors. The central part of the zone lies some 4 1/2 kilometres from
Machu Picchu.
The three central
groups, Sectors I-III, are situated on a direct east-west line along an
easterly running ridge which descends from the Salcantay highlands above. The groups form an area approximately 600
meters long by 160 meters wide, extending
downward from an altitude of 2760
meters to 2600 meters. The two upper groups, Sectors I and III, are 140 metres
apart with Sector I some 30 metres lower in altitude. The lower Sector II is 250 metres distance
down the slope at an altitude ranging from 2630 to 2600 meters. Sectors IV and
the largest sector, V are roughly 1000 metres distant. More features undoubtedly remain to be
located between those sectors now surveyed and identified by the present
investigation.
The relationship of
Sectors I – III
This was
re-located. Accurate identification of
it as the location that Hiram Bingham briefly visited and called Llactapata in
1912 was made by a comparison with his drawing and sketches of the time. The site contains seven well-constructed,
large buildings 45 to 50 feet in length.
All have multiple niches with shaped corner stones and coursed walls, in
a style similar to other high status Vilcabamba sites. Residue of tan coloured clay in several
protected niches indicates that the walls were originally covered with plaster.
All of the
buildings were gabled but only remnants of some remain, as destruction from
roots and tree growth has caused significant damage. Two structures in particular contain badly crumbled internal
dividing walls (1, 2). Some doorways are partly filled in and a crudely made
field stone wall extends out from building 2. These may have been added later
by local herders using the site as a corral.
A double-jamb
entranceway between buildings one and two indicates high status. These are
found in the most important structures at regional Inca sites such as the
Coricancha in Cusco, Vitcos, Ollantaytambo and
Choquequirao (Gasparini & Margolies
1980).
A unique feature
is a 145 feet long sunken corridor with six feet high walls that aligns on
Machu Picchu. The alignment of 65
degrees also points to sunrise over Machu Picchu during the June Solstice.
Two smaller U
shaped structures, masmas, are attached to an outside wall of the
corridor. One is badly crumbled but the
other contains a tall five feet high niche facing outward with the same
alignment as the corridor. U shaped shrines go far back as important ceremonial
features for Andean people. The American anthropologist Michael Moseley
believes that U shaped sanctuaries are the most enduring form of ceremonial
architecture in the Andes with an evolution spanning four millennia (Moseley
1992).
On either side of
the corridor and connected buildings 5 and 6 are large plazas ending in a steep
drop off to the east or front. A badly ruined structure is situated near the
centre of the right side plaza (11). Feature 7 is a sunken enclosure formed by
the long corridor wall and the walls of buildings 6 and 8, which connects to a
walkway behind buildings 8-10.
Two outlying structures
(12-13) are located some 300 feet to the north.
Structure twelve is a double-room house 30 feet long by 22 feet
wide. One deep inside niche is located
in the south wall. The structure was gabled but now badly crumbled. The
remaining walls are approximately six feet high. The probable route of the Inca
road passes nearby. The location suggests that this was an entrance or
administrative point for the main group to the south.
Some 75 feet in
the direction of the main group is a smaller low walled rectangular foundation,
15 feet by 22 feet and three feet high. (13) The lack of breakdown rubble
indicates that this is probably the original height. It is likely that the walls were retainers
for a wood-sided house as described at Corihuayrachina, Cota Coca and other
Vilcabamba sites (Lee 2000, Von Kaupp 2002, Ziegler,
2001, 2002). It could have served as quarters for a resident caretaker or
attendant to the main group. Evidence of local herder activity indicates that
it could have been constructed in recent times.
The Sun Temple in Sector 1
The
re-discovery of the sector Bingham originally described as Llactapata, Sector 1
of a much more extended site, leads to an interpretation of this sector as having
an astronomical function. Sector I consists of a complex set of seven
buildings, passageways, and courtyards, some of which are remarkably similar in
scale and orientation to the Coricancha of Cusco. The Inca road that starts at
the so-called “drawbridge” or “hanging bridge” at Machu Picchu provided an
elaborate ritual entrance to Llactapata. It would have allowed the Inca and his
retinue to visit Llactapata on special occasions to celebrate the rising of the
sun at June solstice and the heliacal rising of the Pleiades some twelve to
fifteen days before solstice.
The site that Bingham had located (Sector I) extends some 90 meters
along the hillside and contains seven buildings, two courtyards, and two
ceremonial corridors. The corridors open to an azimuth of approximately 65.6o
on the north-eastern horizon and provide views of the rising sun on June
solstice, the rising of the Pleiades, and Machu Picchu itself. The longer
corridor, which is 2.5 m wide, 33 m long, has no side doors or side passages,
implying its function as a ceremonial passageway. The precise centre of the
corridor is difficult to establish because of irregular walls, but its length
frames a window of approximately 4o along the horizon. On the 6o
elevated horizon the first gleam of sunrise on June solstice has an azimuth of
64.2o. The Pleiades star cluster covers approximately 1o
on the sky, and in A.D. 1500 it rose close to the centre of the horizon window,
at an azimuth of approximately 66o. On June solstice the Pleiades
was a harbinger of sunrise, appearing on the horizon perhaps fifteen minutes
ahead of the sun.
The short corridor that opens onto the northern courtyard contains a
double jam doorway, characteristic of a high-status or ceremonially important
structure. Since Llactapata was unknown to the Spanish conquerors, the
historical record provides no guidance as to the function of this site, but the
similarities in orientation, design, and scale to the Coricancha are suggestive
of its ritual significance.
Comparison of the Coricancha
with the Sun Temple of Llactapata
The Coricancha of Cusco is the great exemplar of sun temples of the
Inca. It contained seven halls, six of which
opened onto a courtyard, some 35 metres on a side. These buildings were
dedicated to various deities such as the sun, the moon, Venus, the Pleiades,
thunder, and rainbow. The western section of the courtyard consisted of a
continuous façade containing two halls surrounding a passage with a double-jamb
doorway. As the most important sanctuary in the Inca Empire it served as a
model for other temples of the sun throughout the empire. The most important
shrines of the Coricancha appear to have been dedicated to the Sun and the
Moon.
Although the Spanish destroyed much of the Coricancha, early colonial
chroniclers had extensively described its buildings and rituals. Table I
compares features of Sector I with those of the Coricancha. The opening to the
horizon, established by the western end of the corridor and room D, is
approximately 5.6o wide. The rising position of the Pleiades was also close to
the centre of that horizon window, while the June solstice sun rose to the
north. The centre of the courtyard of
the Coricancha may have contained a basin symbolic of water out of which both
the sun and the Pleiades were born. At Llactapata the courtyard contains two U
shaped shrines with niches (features 3 & 4), which face the June solstice
sunrise and the Pleiades. Water symbolism may have been important in both
places. Zuidema (1982) suggests that the spring of Susumarca,
to the northeast of Cusco, may have been the mythological spring (Susurpuquio) out of which an image of the sun appeared to
Pachacuti. A spring and water shrine (Sector II) lies some 250 meters to the
east of the Llactapata sun temple.
Table I
Comparison of Sector I at Llactapata and the
Coricancha
Feature Llactapata Coricancha
Corridor
behind double-jamb 8.5 m x
2.4 m 10m x 1.5
m
doorway
Halls on
either side of corridor 11 m
x 7.3 m 13 m x
8 m
Total N-S
Length 90
m 68
m
Orientation
of corridor 65.6o 66.7o
Elevation
of northeast horizon 6o 5.6o
Courtyard
beyond corridor 30 m
x26.7 m 36 m x
34 m
Niches in
hall south of corridor 18 25
Total
number of halls 7 7
The sun temple at Llactapata is not alone in the Inca realm. The
Coricancha apparently served as a model for other sun temples, such as those as
those at Quito, Pachacamac, Vitcos,
Willka Waman, Huánuco Pampa, and the Island of
the Sun.
The architecture and dramatic landscape of Machu Picchu suggest that it
was a place with considerable depth of meaning and sacred power. Lying at the
entrance to the Vilcabamba, Llactapata adds to the significance of Machu Picchu
by extending the size and complexity of its ritual neighbourhood. The presence
of a structure so similar to the Coricancha at Llactapata rather than at Machu
Picchu raises intriguing questions. The Inca emperor Pachacuti, had substantial
connections with the Coricancha, where he may have been crowned, Machu Picchu,
which he may have built, and the Vilcabamba, which he conquered. The ceremonial
complex of Machu Picchu and Llactapata, interconnected by road and sightlines,
may have been viewed as homologous to Cuzco and its sacred neighbourhood. A further significance of the sun temple at
Llactapata would have been that the June solstice sun rose over Machu Picchu.
Llactapata may also have been important because it provided a horizon
calendar. Of great interest would have been the heliacal rising of the Pleiades
near June 6-9, which may have been the first day of the Incaic year (Zuidema
1982). The jagged horizon visible from Llactapata would have allowed precise tracking
of the sun and determinations of the number of days before the heliacal rising
of the Pleiades and the June solstice.
In contrast to the irregular horizon of Llactapata, the smooth horizon
at Cusco does not provide natural fiducial marks, and
pillars were erected by the Inca to mark the sunrise/sunset positions at
solstices and other significant dates (Rowe 1946; Zuidema 1981, 1982; Bauer and
Dearborn 1995). The chroniclers noted the presence of the Cusco pillars, but
their exact location is now a matter of some controversy among scholars.
The outward extension of the central axes of the corridors in the
Llactapata sun temple first approaches the little-known Intihuatana site in the
Urubamba canyon that was reported and photographed by Bingham in 1911. This
isolated monument is a large carved boulder, with associated platforms, water
channels, fountains and masonry walls.
Beyond the Intihuatana site, though not in precise alignment, there are
a number of structures in Machu Picchu that share the axis defined by the June
solstice sunrise and the December solstice sunset. Johan Reinhard has
identified the beautifully constructed building identified by Bingham as the
Priest’s House near the Principal Temple of Machu Picchu as one such structure.
The small structure, noteworthy for its elegantly carved stonework, contains a
polygonal stone with 32 angles, a stone bench running along the full length of
the rear wall, and 13 niches. With an orientation of 245 degrees, it
faces the sun temple at Llactapata, and the setting of the sun at December
solstice near the snow peak of Pumasillo (Reinhard
2002). A person sitting on the interior bench looks directly into the
Llactapata sun temple. A view of the instant of the first gleam of sunrise on
June solstice could be passed to the interior of the Priest’s house by the
reflection from a gold or silver plate at Llactapata. Behind the Priest’s house
is a high stone, noted by Bingham, containing seven steps leading to a small
platform on its summit providing a view toward the rising sun at June solstice.
In front of the building is another viewing platform some 3-5 metres across,
with a curved wall reminiscent of the Coricancha, which provides views of
Llactapata, Pumasillo, and the setting December sun.
The sight-line between the Priest’s House and the Llactapata Sun Temple
function in diametrically opposite directions for both solstices and mountains,
suggestive of the ritual of darshan in India
in which a devotee makes eye contact with a god who then returns the gaze.
Another possible example of such intent to achieve mutually interactive
sightlines is the house near the summit of Huayna Picchu with three windows
that open to Llactapata
Another
well-known feature on the June solstice sunrise/December solstice sunset axis
is the Torreón of Machu Picchu, which contains a window that duplicates the
view from the Llactapata sun temple by opening to the rising positions of the
June solstice sun and the Pleiades. The Torreón is not visible from Llactapata,
and therefore would not have served as a sighting device for observers at
Llactapata. Similar to the Urubamba Intihuatana stone, it probably functioned
as a huaca. Although elegant in construction, the
Torreón is not sufficiently large to permit ceremonies in its interior, which
is only some three metres across, nor does it contain the multiple halls
associated with the Coricancha sun temple (Gasparini
and Margolies 1980; Hemming 1981).
We do not know whether these interconnected shrines in the Llactapata-
Machu Picchu neighbourhood had a meaning and function similar to those of the ceque system surrounding Cusco. Writing in
1653, the Jesuit scholar Bernabe Cobo
described the system of 41 ceques and
328 huacas that surround the Sun Temple (Cobo 1983) The huacas consisted of natural features such as springs,
unusual rocks, and caves as well as artificial structures such as elaborately
carved rocks, fountains and pools, and temples (Zuidema 1964; Gow 1974; Bauer 1995). Zuidema proposed that the 328 huacas
represented successive days of the sidereal lunar calendar, and that the flow
of time in the Inca world was marked by worship services at consecutive huacas by
different kin groups. In addition to markers of calendrical
time, Zuidema suggested that ceques might have been sight lines to sacred
mountains and astronomical phenomena, as well as geometrical partitions that
organised the sacred landscape. Such an interpretation of ceques may also apply
at Machu Picchu and Llactapata. The sightlines, shrines, and buildings of Machu
Picchu and Llactapata appear to establish an extended ritual neighbourhood of
Machu Picchu, containing geographical, astronomical, and cosmological meaning.
The relationship
of Sectors I – III
This
sector was visited and reported for the first time in 1982 (Drew 1982, Thomson
2001).
The sector
consists of a tightly grouped assortment of carefully constructed large
buildings, walls and smaller structures arranged around a central plaza with
several outlying structures of lesser quality. The group sits upon a flat bench
with a steep, rising embankment behind and a steep downhill slope to the front.
Another levelled, plaza like, area is situated just below (NE) which may have
been a pond or water feature now dry and filled in. The only present water
source identified for the region, a spring, is located just above to the south
of the plaza. Remains of a stone lined channel acequia originating at the spring
is indicated on the site plan. This leads into a nicely made, sunken, stone
lined enclosure (8) resembling one of the fountains or ritual baths at Machu
Picchu or Wiñay Wayna.
The main
buildings (1-7) have shaped corner blocks of quartzite and coursed slabs, with
blocks for the walls. Remains of clay indicate that the structures were
plastered. Roots and trees have crumbled parts of most structures, but some
walls are standing close to the original height. Building 6 has a back wall
height of 14 feet. 1, 2 and 6 had gabled roofs; number 12 may have as well.
This is undetermined for the remainder. Buildings 1-7 had internal niches and
some windows. Minor details are lacking because of surveying demands created by
the unexpected size and extent of the findings.
By contrast,
structures 12-14 are of poorly constructed, mortared fieldstone without niches.
Structure 13 has a low walled open side and a long low window lined with adobe
blocks. Four rocker-shaped grinding
stones for corn were found inside, made of granite. Building 12 appears to have
been modified by an internal enclosure.
It is likely that local farmers or herders used these buildings in later
times. Building 12 could have served as a caretaker residence or entrance
control for the main group as suggested for structure 12, Sector I.
The central
section of the group has multiple passageways that open out to a long filled,
low walled platform/walkway that forms an overlook of Huayna-Machu Picchu and
the Veronica Range beyond. The long axis points to and views the Overlook
Temple (Sector V).
Building 2 has a
window that opens into a short corridor viewing Huayna Picchu. Structure 3 is a
small structure 10 feet by 10 feet with 4 internal niches. The one entranceway
faces 50 degrees toward Huayna Picchu. It size and location suggest that it was
a shrine.
Feature 4 is a
courtyard like area between building 2 and a long sunken enclosure recinto (5) It is closed by a wall at the end
that faces Huayna Picchu. Here an entranceway with an alignment of 50 degrees
opens to the outside platform/walkway.
Structure 9 is a low wall slightly above the
plaza level that measures six feet high on the downhill side. The wall merges
into a raised earth platform, which takes a curious jog to terminate at
structure 10. The wall and mount may have been used as a ritual walkway to
reach a shrine. This feature is a small 10 feet x 10 feet U shaped structure masma with
the open side facing inward to the plaza at 230 degrees.
Building 7 is an
interesting feature. It is an unusual structure 30 feet by 30 feet with
internal niches and a single entranceway facing into the plaza. The back or
Huayna Picchu side lacks windows and has five rectangular niches. The two sides
perpendicular to the entrance have matching long windows. The workmanship is in
the best Vilcabamba style, with shaped corner blocks and carefully fitted,
coursed, wall stones. The location gives immediate access to the bath/fountain
(8) and water system. The building remains an enigma deserving further study.
A steep
escarpment falls off to the northeast. Some 20 metres below is a sizable pampa area with swampy depressions and a profusion
of water plants. This may have been a
pond or developed water feature associated with the group above. It was used by
both Bingham and this recent expedition as a base camp.
A most notable
aspect of this Sector is that the main group is orientated to face Huayna
Picchu at an azimuth of 50 degrees, and the Overlook Temple at 320 degrees.
This creates a sight line to each at a right angle or 90 degrees to each other.
It this is not coincidental, then the placement of the temple and/or Sector II
had to be carefully planned and by design. Alignment on Huayna Picchu and its
Three Windows shrine that looks back on the main Sectors suggests that Huayna
Picchu may have been an important spiritual focus of sector II
(Ziegler-Malville 2003).
Orientation towards Huayna
Picchu: Diagram
Sector II has a
number of unusual features that appear to have had a ceremonial function. The
main group is orientated to face Huayna Picchu at an azimuth of 50 degrees. The
long axis of the group points to the Overlook Temple at 320 degrees similar to
the long axis of Sector I. Near the summit of Huayna Picchu is the House of
Three Windows, a shrine containing a replica stone closely resembling the Llactapata
ridge that focuses attention on and is in alignment (230 degrees) with the
Llactapata sites (Ziegler-Malville 2003).
Three windows shrine on Huayna
Picchu
A ritual
fountain/bath along with a pond suggests that water was an important design
element here as well. The small U shaped shrine (10) faces inward to the plaza
and hillside. Its focus is directed toward the spring and only water source for
area. The American anthropologist Susan Niles describes similar Incas sites as
water shrines or moyas (Niles 1999).
Features at
Sector 2 suggesting water ritual include fountains, a canal leading from the
only current water source in the area, a platform excavated from the hillside,
and the evidence of an artificial lake.
Buildings 1, 2
and 6 could have served as temporary lodging for important parties travelling
on official business, state sponsored pilgrimages or ceremonial processions to
and from Machu Picchu as a sort of high status shrine and tambo with a ceremonial purpose.
Like Wiñay Wayna on the eastern road to Machu Picchu,
the main Llactapata groups are situated several hours travel along the western
approach.
There are
similarities between the two sites. Wiñay Wayna is at
an altitude of 2,600 metres and a distance of eight kilometres from Machu
Picchu. The Sector II group is at 2,700
metres and about the same distance by the original western road. Both are
designed around water features. Reinhard believes that Wiñay Wayna was built as a ritual-stopping place along the road
to Machu Picchu. The similarities with Sector II suggest that it may have in
part served the same function.
Sectors I and II
have certain architectural similarities, in particular the unusual division by
sunken corridors, which suggest they may represent the principal upper and
lower divisions, hanan
and hurin,
of the archaeological zone, in the duality common to Inca urban design and
socio-political administration (Gasparini and Margolies 1980, Hyslop 1990). The
Eastern and Western Sectors at Machu Picchu, separated by the main plaza are
identified as such by Alfredo Valencia and others. (Wright-Valencia 2001)
Sector III The Usnu
Group: Description
The relationship of Sectors I –
III
Located some 100
metres from the uphill side of Sector I and only 30 metres higher in altitude,
this sector is associated with Sector I.
Structure 2 is a
long building with three entranceways facing east into a small plaza. The roof
was probably gabled but considerable breakdown has occurred. No windows are
evident. It measures 90 feet by 20 feet with the back wall 9 1/2 feet high. The
alignment is cardinal north south.
Structures 3 and
4 border the north side of the plaza. 3 is low walled with the slope falling
off to the north and west leaving a higher north-facing wall with an outside
niche. Structure 4 is more interesting. Most wall stone is a shaped white
granite similar to that of Machu Picchu making the architecture unique for the
area. The material must have been imported from either near Machu Picchu, or
some closer isolated granite dike. A single internal niche faces east toward the
one entrance. A passageway leads down through a gateway between structures 3
and 4 to feature 5, the most important structure of the group, which appears to
be a Sacred Platform or Usnu.
The Usnu is a 60 feet
by 40 feet raised, earth filled platform, enclosed by a five feet high
retaining wall. It is connected to building 4 by a 60 feet long low wall. Stone
steps lead onto the platform from the northeast side. The platform is aligned
20 degrees by 110 degrees. and overlooks Sector I below.
Another low wall,
40 feet long, leads off from the northwest corner of building 2 at 330 degrees.
Beyond the wall is a low walled rectangular structure (1) that is similar in
size and placement to outlying structures at other sections. It may have been
built for a caretaker or attendant.
The main
buildings and plaza are aligned with cardinal directions. Johan Reinhard has
written of the importance to the Inca of cardinal directions, equinox
alignments and their unique relationship to sacred mountains at Machu Picchu (Reinhard
2002) Although alignments would somewhat differ, it follows that this may be
true for Llactapata sites as well. The
northwest wall of the plaza, aligned at 335 degrees, is in directional line to
the Overlook temple. However, it was not possible to establish whether the
temple can be seen from the plaza. A similar wall running out at an angle from
a building at Cota Coca creates a sight line to the water shrine Pinchu Unuyoc near Choquequirao.
(Ziegler-Thomson 2002)
An important feature is the large usnu platform. The term has several meanings. Usnu is used to describe a stepped platform upon which the Inca was seated from an early description by Guaman Poma (Poma 1956 [1613]). An usnu has also been described as a place to view sunset with markers on the horizon. (Zuidema 1986). The great usnu of Cusco, Usnu Capac, had a central pillar for astronomical sighting (Moseley 1993). The name appropriately describes raised platforms associated with
