Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 1680e1689

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas

Ground truthing of remotely identified fortifications on the Central Coast of Perú

Margaret Brown Vega a, *, Nathan Craig a, Gerbert Asencios Lindo b
a
Pennsylvania State University, Department of Anthropology, 409 Carpenter Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA
b
Avenida San Borja Sur 1070, Dpto 407, San Borja, Lima, Peru

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Remote imagery, including freely available satellite images viewed in Google EarthÒ and historic aerial
Received 21 December 2010 photographs, was used to identify anomalies in a 25,000 km2 macroregion encompassing 13 river valleys
Received in revised form along the Peruvian coast. These anomalies, located atop hills and mountains, were hypothesized pre-
18 February 2011
hispanic fortifications. A sample of remotely identified anomalies was ground truthed in the Huaura and
Accepted 26 February 2011
Fortaleza Valleys on the Central Coast of Perú. 140 positive anomalies were documented and assessed
using a simple defensibility index. Our results significantly increase the number of fortifications iden-
Keywords:
tified in both valleys. We demonstrate the efficacy of this method for locating fortifications in a very large
Remote sensing
Ground truthing
region to facilitate the systematic documentation of these durable indicators of warfare.
Fortifications Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Macroregion
Google EarthÒ

1. Introduction Wars may be widespread, or highly localized. Thus, fortifications may

Episodes of warfare form key points in the plotlines of history.
A number of large regional syntheses of archaeological data for
North America (Lambert, 2002; LeBlanc, 1999, 2003; Milner, 1999),
Mesoamerica (Brown and Stanton, 2003; Hassig, 1992; Webster,
2000), the South-central Andes (Arkush, 2005, 2006, 2008), the
Pacific (Allen, 1996; Field, 2008; Field and Lape, 2010) and Europe
(Carman and Harding, 1999; Keeley, 1996; Parkinson and Duffy,
2007) demonstrate that ancient warfare was widespread and
until recently understudied. This paper presents initial results from
a new large regional study of fortified architecture that is aimed at
understanding ancient warfare. We focus on two previously
surveyed valleys and demonstrate that the material remains of
ancient warfare were under represented. The methods we employ
provide an inexpensive and efficient means to remedy this
situation.
1.1. Description of research project
Fortifications are a relatively durable indicator of past conflict
(Field and Lape, 2010: 214; LeBlanc,1999: 56). Some scholars consider
fortified architecture among the largest and most costly constructions
built by pre-industrial groups (e.g. Keeley, 1996: 55). These structures
form a good starting point from which to examine ancient warfare.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 814 865 2509; fax: þ1 814 863 1474.
E-mail address: mybvega@psu.edu (M. Brown Vega).
be constructed in the context of local, regional, or global processes.
Given that the extent of war may vary spatially, investigating patterns
of fortifications to examine warfare at varying scales benefits from
studies of large expanses of territory, either regions or macroregions
(Kowalewski, 2004: 88; Zhang et al., 2007).
To enable analysis and comparison, macroregional studies
require systematic data collection and the compilation of very large
datasets into a single database. Project Awqa Pacha (Quechua for
“Times of War”) is a multi-year research program to systematically
locate and document fortifications along the central and north
coasts of Perú. Awqa Pacha is synthesizing existing datasets, and
contributing new data, to permit analysis of fortification patterns at
multiple scales. This case study focuses on a stretch of the Peruvian
coast that incorporates 13 valleys. The macroregion we define is
bounded by the Virú Valley in the north, the Chillón Valley in the
south, the coastline to the west, and the 2500 m contour line to the
east (Fig. 1). The study encompasses an area of roughly 25,458 km2.
Pedestrian surveys have been carried out in nine of the 13
valleys that comprise the macroregion (Table 1). Data from these
surveys is variable in terms of the field methods used, the reporting
of results, and access to the reports. Brown Vega’s recent synthesis
(Brown Vega, 2010: Tables 9.2 and 9.3) of published and unpub-
lished data for 11 of the 13 valleys, from Virú to Huaura, indicated
there were 73 fortifications attributed to the Early Horizon, and 75
attributed to the Late Intermediate Period (see next paragraph).
Fortifications pertaining to other time periods were not enumer-
ated. This synthesis highlighted the lack of basic regional data for

0305-4403/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jas.2011.02.035
 M. Brown Vega et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 1680e1689 1681

1983: 215, 1988: 357). Based on existing knowledge, the first clear
evidence for the construction of fortification in the Central Andes
appears in the EH. Warfare and the rise of state-level societies appear
to characterize the EIP. Expansionist imperial polities may emerge in
the MH, possibly causing turmoil upon their collapse (LIP). War is
seen again when two empires, Chimú and Inka, emerge in the LH, the
latter ultimately conquering the former.
Conflict during these periods is evidenced by iconographic
representations (EH, MH), weaponry (EH, LIP, LH), massacres and
sacrifices (EIP, LIP), and ethnohistoric accounts (LH). Yet, systematic
studies of fortifications, particularly over large regions of the Andes,
are in their infancy. Still lacking are large datasets of the principal
evidence for conflict, fortifications, with which to test models of
warfare during these various periods. A few recent studies show
the potential for assessing regional patterns of prehispanic warfare
by examining fortified architecture in multiple valleys (Arkush,
2005, 2006, 2008; Brown Vega, 2010; Chamussy, 2009). Aerial
photography in particular has proven effective for remotely iden-
tifying highland hilltop fortifications (pukaras) prior to field survey
(Arkush, 2005: 202e206).
Surveying in mountainous or steep terrain, where fortifications
would be located, can be challenging (Parcak, 2009: 126). We discuss
methods and results applied to a remote sensing survey of two
valleys, Huaura and Fortaleza, and subsequent ground truthing of
a sample of anomalies located in such terrain. The results contribute
new data to our macroregional database.

1.2. The case study: Huaura and Fortaleza valleys

The Huaura and Fortaleza Valleys are located in the southern

portion of what Awqa Pacha calls the Peruvian coastal macroregion
(Fig. 2). These two valleys were chosen to assess our methods
because recent full-coverage surveys have been conducted in both
Fig. 1. Map of the survey area. The inland boundary is at 2500 m.a.s.l. drainages (Nelson and Ruiz Rubio, 2005; Perales Munguía, 2007).
Comparison of our findings to full-coverage survey results would
help evaluate the efficacy of remote survey followed up by ground
a number of valleys, underscored the issue of data inaccessibility truthing.
for other valleys that had been surveyed, and identified differential The areas surveyed in these valleys, below 2500 m.a.s.l., pertain
reporting of fort attributes that would be important for regional primarily to the chala (0e500 m.a.s.l.) and yunga (500e2300 m.a.s.l.)
comparison. Macroregional studies require consistency in sampling ecological zones (Pulgar Vidal, 1996: 19, 26). The chala, or temperate,
density and attribute numeration. humid coastal desert, is usually covered by a year-round fog cap. This
Perú, part of the Central Andes, has yielded evidence of ancient
warfare for a number of time periods. In the Andes, warfare is known
for the Early Horizon (EH, ca. 900e200 B.C.), the Early Intermediate
Period (EIP, ca. 200 B.C.eA.D. 600), the Middle Horizon (MH, ca. A.D.
600e1000), the Late Intermediate Period (LIP, ca. A.D. 1000e1450),
and the Late Horizon (LH, ca. A.D. 1450e1532). The Peruvian coast is
an ideal place to examine warfare because it has long been at the
heart of theoretical debates regarding coercive processes in the
development of complexity (Carneiro, 1970, 1988: 508e509; Wilson,

Table 1
Previous pedestrian surveys conducted within the Virú-Chillón coastal
macroregion.

Valley Study
Virú (Willey, 1953)
Nepeña (Daggett, 1984; Proulx, 1973, 1968)
Santa (Wilson, 1988, 1990)
Casma (Wilson, 1995)
Culebras (Przadka and Giersz, 2003)
Fortaleza (Perales Munguía, 2007)
Pativilca (Perales Munguía, 2006)
Huaura (Nelson and Ruiz Rubio, 2005) Fig. 2. Detail of Huaura and Fortaleza Valleys. Basemap is Shuttle Radar Topography
Chillón (Silva Sifuentes, 1996) Mission (SRTM) with 90 m horizontal spatial resolution (Jarvis et al., 2008) available at
(http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org).
1682 M. Brown Vega et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 1680e1689

gives way to the dry and warm yunga zone. There is little to no rain in
these areas. The primary source of water derives from the rivers
whose headwaters are in the snow-capped peaks of the Andes. Both
the Huaura and Fortaleza rivers have water year round, although the
Fortaleza River nearly dries up in the austral winter. The Huaura
Valley has approximately 37,360 ha of irrigable land (Alva et al.,
1976: 34, Table 35). The Fortaleza Valley has far less irrigable land.
Estimates usually include it with the neighboring Pativilca and Supe
valleys. Together these latter three valleys have a combined total of
24,260 ha of irrigable land (Alva et al., 1976: 34, Table 35); the For-
taleza Valley has probably about a third of this total (8086 ha). The
differences in size, steepness, and accessibility between the Huaura
and Fortaleza valleys provide a potential to compare the survey
strategy in two contexts.

2. Methods

Remote sensing imagery was used to aid in the identification of

fortifications in the 13-valley survey region. Schematically, our
methods involve an ongoing iterative process of: initially identi-
fying anomalies by means of remote sensing, field checking of those
remote anomalies, identification of new field anomalies during
remote anomaly visits, re-consideration of visited remote anoma-
lies, followed by further checking of remote anomalies. All positive
anomalies are characterized during field visits. The initial phase of
remote anomaly identification has been completed for the entire
13-valley macroregional study area. The full iterative process just
described has been implemented in the Huaura and Fortaleza
valleys.
Remote sensing imagery can afford “direct discovery” (Kvamme,
2006: 32e33) of anomalies that represent site locations. This
potential can enable relatively rapid and systematic survey over
extensive areas in which full pedestrian survey may be difficult or
too time-consuming (Craig and Chagnon, 2006: 56; Hritz, 2010;
Fig. 3. Hatched areas have medium spatial resolution (15 m) coverage in Google
Thomas et al., 2008: 22; Ur, 2003). Thus, remote imagery can be EarthÔ. Anomalies were not identified in these areas using Google EarthÔ.
well suited for operationalizing macroregional research. To imple-
ment this technique, the area to be surveyed remotely must be
covered by imagery of sufficient spatial resolution to identify macroregional study area, Google EarthÒ provides access to satel-
targets of interest. lite imagery with sufficient spatial resolution to detect fortified
In Perú, fortified architecture is generally made of stone, often stone architecture (Table 2).
spans entire hilltops, and is large and robust. These fortified walls Imagery covering hilltop areas was carefully examined for the
are typically more than a meter thick. Even when collapsed, line- presence of anomalies that likely represent sites with concentric
aments of rubble from walls are several meters thick. Fortified sites walls, or features that appeared to be concentric. Hilltops are
are generally composed of multiple concentric rings that encircle located primarily on the valley edges, but elevated areas or hills in
summits. While other types of defenses may have been built in the the valley bottoms were also surveyed remotely. Because the focus
past, we focus on these well-known large stone fortifications. Two of survey was on elevated areas, visual inspection of the imagery
kinds of remote imagery were used to prospect for fortifications: involved the following of ridgelines rather than the use of linear
free satellite imagery viewed in Google EarthÒ, and freely accessible transects. Anomalies that likely represented walled features
historic air photos. Both kinds of data are discussed below. formed the minimum unit of identification in the survey area
(Fig. 4). These walled units were marked using the Google EarthÒ
2.1. Remote Imagery “Add Placemark” feature.
Anomalies identified remotely via Google EarthÒ were termed
Google EarthÒ, which allows the public to view satellite imagery, “Google Earth Anomalies”. These point features were coded as high,
was used in the first phase of remote prospecting (see Ur, 2006 for
a detailed explanation of Google EarthÒ). This freely available Table 2
computer application has proven useful for visualization and Comparison of the spatial resolution of remote imagery displayed in Google Earth
collaboration (Conroy et al., 2008; Myers, 2010: 7e8; Ur, 2006: 36). for the survey area, and its source.

Some recent studies demonstrate that Google EarthÒ is also useful Company Satellite Res. Type
for guiding and designing research in very large regions (Contreras GeoEyeÒa GeoEye-1 0.5 m Fine
and Brodie, 2010; Thomas et al., 2008). IKONOS 1.0 m Fine
For the coast of Perú, Google EarthÒ provides coverage of either DigitalGlobeÒb Quickbird 0.5 m Fine
medium (15 m) or fine (1 m) spatial resolution. Roughly 72% TerraMetricsÒc Landsat 7 15.0 m Medium
(18,323 of 25,458 km2) of the survey area has fine spatial resolution a
http://www.geoeye.com/CorpSite/products/imagery-sources/Comparison.aspx.
coverage (Fig. 3). The remaining 28% of the area is covered by b
http://www.digitalglobe.com/index.php/48/Products?product_id¼2.
c
medium spatial resolution imagery. Thus, for most of the http://www.truearth.com/support/faqs_content_google.htm.
 M. Brown Vega et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 1680e1689
Fig. 4. Shows a GeoEyeÓ satellite image of an anomaly in the Huaura Valley. This same
image is displayed in Google Earth. Here we use a grayscale version of the original
GeoEyeÓ source image. The upper figure illustrates the anomaly with no annotations.
The lower figure shows GPS data superimposed on the satellite image. The lower figure
Location A illustrates where a major defensive wall meets with a ridgeline next to an
outcrop of dark rock. Location A is visible in the upper figure, and is also plotted in
Fig. 5. The lower figure Location B illustrates where this same defensive wall crosses
over another outcrop of dark rock. Location B is visible on the un-annotated upper
figure, and is also plotted in Fig. 5. The lower figure Location C illustrates the position
of a baffled entry, one DI criterion, in the large defensive wall. This entry is not visible
in upper figure or in Fig. 5 (plotted as Location C). The baffled entry was identified
during ground truthing. The lower figure Location D illustrates the spot from where
the photograph comprising Fig. 5 was taken. Note that in the upper and lower figures
there are hundreds of additional lineaments that correspond to architectural elements
that are not annotated or mapped by GPS.
1683
medium, or low probability of being fortified architectural units.
Regardless of the level of confidence, all anomalies were treated as
requiring ground truth verification or rejection.
After the initial phase of remote prospecting by means of Google
EarthÒ, aerial photographs housed at the Servicio Aerofotográfico
Nacional (SAN) in Lima, Perú were reviewed for part of the survey area.
Reviewed aerial photographs were limited to medium and large-scale
aerial photographs (Lillesand and Kiefer, 2000: 197), ranging from
1:6000 to 1:20,000. For the Huaura Valley, SAN series 1008 from 1945
(scale 1:10,000) was examined. For the Fortaleza Valley, series 170-69-
A7 (from 1969, scale 1:17,000) and series 6513-3-1-72-A1 (from 1972,
scale 1:20,000) of the Fortaleza and adjacent Pativilca Valleys were
viewed.
Photographs were divided into quadrants, and locations of
anomalies were assigned by quadrant of the photo. The index for each
air photo series reviewed was photographed. Photographs of the
indices were stitched together, and the stitched image was roughly
georeferenced to make location of anomalies from the photos
possible in Google EarthÒ. This proved to be very coarse, and only
general locations were marked in Google EarthÒ where additional
anomalies had been noted in the air photos. These additional targets
for field checking were termed “Aerial Photograph Anomalies”.
Throughout the fieldwork phase of the survey the examination
of Google EarthÒ to search for new anomalies was ongoing. Over
time the identification of new Google EarthÒ Anomalies improved,
in part because more fortifications were viewed in the field as
existing anomalies were confirmed. The iterative process of
anomaly identification, field verification or rejection, and anomaly
re-evaluation is an extremely useful calibration that greatly
improves visual interpretation of remotely sensed data.
Beyond looking for concentric or perimeter walls, other features
running along ridges were recognized during remote prospecting.
Dark areas of rock were looked at more closely to determine if the
feature was rubble from collapsed walls. When examining the
satellite imagery, the field of view was expanded to include ridges or
hilltops located close to visible areas of extensive terracing because
many fortified areas seem to be associated with terraces (see Fig. 4).
During field checks, additional anomalies were identified by
looking at hilltops adjacent to the site being visited, or were seen
from the road or valley bottom. People living in the area also
mentioned hilltop sites they had seen. Although these locales were
not identified as anomalies using remote data, they were incor-
porated into the database as Field Anomalies. Field Anomalies were
also ground truthed.
2.2. Ground truthing
The use of remote sensing in archaeology to prospect for sites is
ideally a two-pronged approach that entails image interpretation
followed by ground truthing, or in-field verification of anomalies
(McCoy and Ladefoged, 2009: 270). Remotely sensed anomalies in
the Huaura and Fortaleza valleys were evaluated by targeted field
survey. Field survey began in the Huaura Valley first, and then
proceeded to the Fortaleza Valley.
Anomalies marked in Google EarthÒ as Placemarks were exported
as a keyhole markup language (.kml) file. This file was converted to
a Garmin MapsourceÒ GPS waypoint file (.gdb), and uploaded to
a Garmin eTrexÒ Global Positioning System (GPS) which was used to
navigate to the anomaly. Each anomaly visited was determined to be
a positive or negative identification (ID) by the presence of ancient
material remains. An ID may be positive in terms of having cultural
remains, but may not be defensive in nature. Rather than assuming
that all positive IDs were fortified features, they were assessed in light
of criteria established prior to initiating the survey (Keeley et al.,
2007; Topic and Topic, 1987). All anomalies met one basic criterion:
1684 M. Brown Vega et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 1680e1689
Fig. 5. Shows an annotated oblique photograph of one of the slopes depicted in Fig. 4.
Locations AeC correspond to Locations AeC in Fig. 4 lower.
location in a naturally defensible location (on a hilltop) (Figs. 4 and 5).
The Defensibility Index (DI) was developed and used to assess
human-made constructions or attributes that enhanced these natu-
rally defensible locations. The presence or absence of perimeter walls,
moats or ditches, bastions, parapets, baffled-entries, and slingstones
was documented. It is important to note that these small, specific
architectural and surface details are not detectable in imagery viewed
in Google EarthÒ (see Fig. 4 lower, Location C). They must be identified
on the ground. At each anomaly, these attributes were quickly viewed
and a point was tallied for the presence of each. Thus each positive
anomaly was rated on a scale of 0e6 for presence of defensive
features. This rating is the DI.
GPS and photographic data were collected at all visited anom-
alies. GPS data of architecture and surface attributes were collected
using a 10 cm accuracy TrimbleÒ ProXRT L1/L2 receiver with
a Zephyr antenna and OmnistarÒ real-time differential correction.
Mapping focused on major architectural features that were acces-
sible (see Fig. 4 lower). Some in-field digitizing was done for wall
sections that were located in extremely dangerous to access loca-
tions (cliff faces or steep scree) but could be drawn by in-field
observations. In some instances, too much rubble made wall defi-
nition difficult on the ground. When viewed remotely, some large
features (in this case, walls) are clearer and easier to define
(Parssinen et al., 2009: 1087). Selected satellite images and air
photos permitted additional mapping of some architectural
features that were not documented in the field.
Photographs of temporally diagnostic artifacts, like pottery, were
taken at all locales visited. Project members photographed surface
collections while carrying a consumer grade GPS, either a Garmin
eTrexÒ or a Garmin Forerunner 405CXÒ. Both of these receivers have
3e6 m accuracy. Photos were geotagged with GPS track logs using
GeosetterÓ, a free software tool that embeds geographic data in
image files (http://www.geosetter.de/en/). Field observations,
subsequent analysis of the photographs of these surface assem-
blages, and characteristics such as architectural building style,
permitted a tentative temporal characterization of each locale.
3. Results for two valleys: Huaura and Fortaleza
3.1. Comparison of Google Earth and air photos
The Huaura and Fortaleza Valley case study illustrates some
distinct advantages to using Google EarthÒ over aerial photography.
The major difference between the two image sets is that the aerial
photographs do not cover as much area as Google EarthÒ. Prior
aerial surveys focused on agricultural zones (i.e. the floodplains and
lower terraces of the major river valleys) or areas of interest for
construction or development. These image collections often have
incomplete coverage of the mountains that border the valleys.
Minor river valleys, dry washes, and intervalley areas were often
not covered. These marginal areas may appear in series that are
1:50,000 or 1:100,000. However, these scales are too small to
permit visual prospecting of fortifications without enlarging the
photos (which requires purchase) or using high-powered
magnification.
The quality of fine spatial resolution (1 m) imagery viewed in
Google EarthÒ was also better than some aerial photographs. The
1969 and 1972 aerial photographs for the Fortaleza Valley were
often overexposed. This made detection of sites difficult. In the
aerial photographs, cloud cover, a common occurrence on the fog-
covered coast, also obscured many mountaintop areas. Satellite
detectors repeatedly cover the entire earth, and thus a single
location is imaged many times. This fact improves the probability of
capturing a given location free of occlusion from clouds or other
atmospheric moisture. Google EarthÒ provides views of historical
imagery, and there is often more than one scene available for an
area. One scene may have cloud cover over a specific area, while
other images may not.
Another difference involves the degree of processing. If
purchased, aerial photographs require scanning and georeferencing
to obtain the coordinates of an Aerial Anomaly. Alternatively, Aerial
Anomaly locations can be transferred to a map to provide a coarse
estimate of their coordinates. We did not purchase photos for the
purposes of prospecting; we relied on digital photographs of series
indices that were roughly georeferenced. In contrast, anomalies
marked in Google Earth are linked to geographic coordinates at the
time of creation. Coordinates, as well as any attributes linked to the
placemark, can be easily exported for use with GPS and geographic
information systems (GIS). This greatly facilitates navigating to an
anomaly.
Access is another key variable to consider. A major advantage of
using Google EarthÒ is the ability to continue to peruse imagery
when convenient. The limiting factor is access to an internet
connection, and how much time one wants to spend prospecting
remotely. Although air photographs exist for a number of areas,
access can be highly variable. Unless purchased, air photos must be
studied where they are housed. For the macroregion we sought to
cover, purchasing numerous complete aerial series was not
economically feasible. Immediately prior to fieldwork, Brown Vega
spent 2 weeks at SAN to examine air photos of the survey area. On
the other hand, she spent 9 months perusing Google EarthÒ before
even departing for fieldwork, and remote prospecting using Google
EarthÔ continued throughout the field verification stage of the
project, because the data are easy to access (Parcak, 2009: 43).
4. Results of remote sensing and ground truthing
1798 km2 were remotely surveyed for the Huaura Valley, and
1284 km2 were remotely surveyed for the Fortaleza Valley.
Combined these two valleys have 231 anomalies; 158 were visited
in the field.
The total number of combined remotely identified anomalies in
the Huaura Valley is 81. 73 of these were identified using Google
EarthÒ. 41 anomalies were identified in aerial photographs (1945
series), but only 8 of these had not already been identified in Google
EarthÒ. An additional 36 anomalies were Field Anomalies. The total
number of anomalies in the Huaura Valley database is 117. 68%, or
80 anomalies, were ground truthed (Table 3). Of these, 82.5% were
positive IDs, while 17.5% were negative IDs.
 M. Brown Vega et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 1680e1689 1685

Table 3
Positive and negative IDs by detection method for the Huaura Valley. Remaining
unchecked anomalies are included. Anomalies identified in air photos were addi-
tional ones. We do not include ones that had already been identified in Google
EarthÔ, which totaled 34.

Huaura Google Earth Aerial Photo Field Total

Anomalies Anomalies Anomalies
Total anomalies 73 8 36 117

Positive 42 7 17 66
Negative 9 0 5 14
Unchecked 22 1 14 37
Ground truthed 51 7 22 80

In contrast to the Huaura Valley, for the Fortaleza Valley no

additional anomalies were identified in the historic aerial photo-
Fig. 6. Comparison of positive and negative anomalies by method of detection for the
graphs that were not already identified initially in Google EarthÒ. two valleys.
Only 6 anomalies were identified in the Fortaleza Valley using
aerial photographs. One fort was viewed in the 1969 series, and 5
additional ones were viewed in the 1972 series. category 0 anomalies are in close proximity to other anomalies
The total number of remotely identified anomalies for the For- associated with fortifications or weaponry (Figs. 7 and 8).
taleza Valley is 92, all identified using Google EarthÒ. An additional
22 were identified in the field. Out of 114 total anomalies, 68%, or 78
anomalies, were ground truthed (Table 4). Of these, 95% were
4.2. Grouping and temporal assignment
positive IDs, and 5% were negative IDs.
To assess the reliability of the remote imagery for location of
A single fort complex may encompass multiple anomalies. Thus,
fortified sites, one can look at only those anomalies that were iden-
a certain level of grouping of positive anomalies is appropriate.
tified remotely (Fig. 6). For Huaura, 82% of remotely identified
Some anomalies lie along the same ridge, with easy access between
anomalies were positive, versus 77% of anomalies identified in the
them. Such anomalies were grouped together in the interest of
field. For Fortaleza, 92% of remotely identified anomalies were
a more conservative enumeration of total forts per valley. Based on
positive, while 100% of anomalies identified in the field were positive.
a preliminary assessment of fortified attributes and the propinquity
From a remote sensing perspective, false positives can be
of some positive anomalies, we have tentatively identified 35
defined as anomalies that, when ground truthed, were not sites.
fortified sites or defensive architectural complexes in the Huaura
False negatives can be defined as failure to identify a positive
Valley. Using the same method for grouping, we have tentatively
anomaly remotely. Field anomalies can be thought of as a measure
identified 47 fortified sites or defensive architectural complexes for
of false negatives. The second valley surveyed (Fortaleza) had lower
the Fortaleza Valley. Based on revisions in our grouping, the total
numbers of false positives for both remotely identified and field
number of forts reflected by this sample may change. Bear in mind,
identified anomalies. 31% of the total anomalies in the Huaura
these numbers reflect a 68% sample (158 of 231) of the total
Valley, those identified in the field, can be thought of as false
number of anomalies for these two valleys. As our research
negatives. For the Fortaleza Valley, only 19% of the total anomalies
continues the number of fortified sites in these two valleys will no
were false negatives.
doubt increase.
As mentioned above, field observations, temporally diagnostic
4.1. Defensibility Index (DI)
surface assemblages, and architectural styles permitted a tentative
determination of when forts were built and in use. This determi-
No positive anomaly met all 6 of the defensive criteria described
nation might be complicated by diagnostic subsurface features that
above that comprise the DI (Table 5). 85% of all positive anomalies
were not visible. Nevertheless, we have identified multicomponent
had at least one defensive attribute. 11 of the positive anomalies
sites based on surface characteristics. According to our tentative
(7.9%) did not have fortified attributes. However, we reiterate that
temporal assignations, 34 of the Huaura Valley fortifications are
all positive anomalies met the basic criterion of being located on
associated with EH materials, 12 are associated with MH materials,
naturally defensible locations. While these sites are in a defensive
and 21 are associated with LIP materials. For the Fortaleza Valley, 39
location, no fortifications or weaponry were detected. Of the 21
are associated with EH materials, 5 with EIP materials, 19 with MH
anomalies (15%) that have a defensive index of 0, 10 are associated
materials, 16 with LIP materials, and 12 with LH materials. 2 forti-
with larger fortified complexes. Thus, roughly half (48%) of the
fications cannot be tentatively assigned to a time period (Table 7).

Table 4 Table 5
Positive and negative IDs by detection method for the Fortaleza Valley. Remaining Table showing number of positive anomalies for each DI category. Each category is
unchecked anomalies are included. based on the presence of 6 possible defensive features, resulting in a DI between
0 (none of the features are present) and 6 (all of the features are present). The
Fortaleza Google Earth Field Total features are: perimeter walls, moats or ditches, bastions, parapets, baffled-entries,
Anomalies Anomalies and slingstones.
Total anomalies 92 22 114
Valley 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total positives
Positive 61 13 74
Huaura 11 7 25 16 5 2 0 66
Negative 4 0 4
Fortaleza 10 16 31 16 1 0 0 74
Unchecked 26 9 28
Ground truthed 66 13 78 Total by index 21 23 56 32 6 2 0 140
1686 M. Brown Vega et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 1680e1689

Fig. 7. Positive anomalies for the Huaura Valley illustrating their DI.

5. Discussion
5.1. Comparison to full-coverage surveys
As mentioned above, prior full-coverage surveys have been
carried out for both valleys (Nelson and Ruiz Rubio, 2005; Perales
Munguía, 2007). Four fortifications were identified in the report
for the Huaura Valley (Nelson and Ruiz Rubio, 2005: 11). A more
recent attempt to enumerate the number of known fortifications in
the Huaura Valley indicated there were 6 (Brown Vega, 2010:
Figs. 9.2 and 9.3). The results of our remote sensing aided survey
increase this number fivefold.
The report for the Fortaleza Valley does not indicate the function
of any of the sites reported (i.e. fortification, administrative, civic-
ceremonial, residential, etc). This fact renders it extremely difficult
to glean the number of fortified sites that were documented by the
survey. A digital copy of the report for this survey was searched for
terms that relate to defensive architecture. The common words or
phrases indicative of defensive function that we searched are shown
in Table 6 along with the results of each of these search terms; many
of the expected words related to defensive function were not found
in the report. Based on the search results, we can gather that 5
fortified sites were documented in this full-coverage survey.
The one fortification that was recorded in the above-mentioned
survey that we did not ground truth was the well-known Fortress of
Paramonga (PV38-7) (Espinoza Soriano, 1974; Giesecke, 1939;
Kosok, 1965: 217e218; Langlois, 1938). Paramonga is a local tourist
attraction, and we know this site from prior visits. Our results, when
compared to the number of prior reported forts, increase the
number of fortifications for the Fortaleza Valley ninefold.

5.2. Implications by time period

Prior to initiating this research, in 11 of the 13 valleys surveyed,

slightly more than 70 fortifications were known for the EH and LIP.
Based on our tentative grouping of positive anomalies, there are at
least 35 fortified sites in the Huaura Valley, and 47 in the Fortaleza
Valley. The addition of the Fortress of Paramonga mentioned above
brings the number in Fortaleza to 48. Thus, the number of hilltop
fortified sites in these two valleys alone exceeds the prior reported
number from 11 valleys.

Table 6
Results of search for defensive terms (in Spanish with their English translations) in
report for Fortaleza Valley (Perales Munguía, 2007). Common terms used to connote
defense were searched for in a digital copy of the report using Adobe AcrobatÓ.

Term Occurrence Comment

Canto rodado (river cobble*) 9 Refers to construction material,
not slingstones
Perimétrico (adj. perimeter) 4 Mentioned for 3 sites (PV38-11,
PV38-22, PV38-364)
Fortaleza 2 Mentioned for 2 sites (PV38-7,
(fortress, not the valley) PV38-11)
Concéntrico/a (concentric) 1 Mentioned for 1 site (PV38-243)
Muralla (large wall) 0
Defensivo/a (defensive) 0
Bastion/atalaya (bastion/lookout) 0
Parapeto (parapet) 0
Zanja (ditch) 0
Waraka/huaraca/honda 0
(sling)
Fortificado/a (fortified) 0
Fortificación (fortification) 0
Fig. 8. Positive anomalies for the Fortaleza Valley illustrating their DI.
 M. Brown Vega et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 1680e1689
The highest number of fortifications now known in the Huaura
and Fortaleza valleys pertains to the EH (Table 7). EH warfare has
received much attention in the north coast, particularly in the
Casma to the Santa Valleys, where fortification construction has
long been recognized for this period (Daggett, 1984; Proulx, 1973,
1985; Topic and Topic, 1978, 1987; Willey, 1953; Wilson, 1988,
1995). Data from the Virú valley were used to suggest the preva-
lence of internecine warfare during this period (Carneiro, 1970).
Some suggest that this militarization coincided with resistance
against influences or an outright invasion emanating from highland
polities (Burger, 2008: 699; Pozorski, 1987). Other scholars have
argued that the concentration of fortifications between the Casma
and Santa Valleys represents endemic intervalley warfare (Wilson,
1988: 357, 1995: 189). Our results from Huaura and Fortaleza reveal
that the construction and use of fortifications during the EH is
potentially far more extensive than was previously documented.
These three models for the first appearance of warfare in the
sequence will need to be reevaluated in light of these new data.
The first empires may appear in the Andes during the MH (Isbell,
2008). The MH in the Huaura and Fortaleza valleys is not yet well
studied. However, in a recent publication on the Huaura Valley that
referenced a systematic comprehensive siteless survey the authors
assert in six instances within the paper that MH sites lack the
“classic hallmarks of defensive architecture” or that a lack of
defensive posturing in part defines MH settlement patterns within
the valley (Nelson et al., 2010: 173, 176, 178, 179, 182, 183). Our
discovery of 12 fortifications in the Huaura Valley that have MH
components (Table 7), some of which are quite large (see Figs. 4
and 5), suggests settlement patterns have been mischaracterized
for this period in this valley. The number of MH fortifications in the
Fortaleza Valley is even higher. These results demonstrate the need
to reconsider conflict and the adoption of a defensive posture
during the MH in both valleys.
The LIP in other parts of the Andes has long been characterized as
a period of warring regional polities (Arkush, 2006; Parsons et al.,
2000; Wernke, 2006: 191e193). Only one LIP fortification, Acaray,
has been excavated in the Huaura Valley (Brown Vega, 2008, 2009).
Based on data reported in this paper (Table 7), it is now clear that
Acaray is not an isolated fort. The number of forts with LIP
components is slightly higher in Huaura than in Fortaleza, yet
conflict during this time in both valleys may be underrecognized.
Given the expansion of the Chimú Empire southward into the
central coast valleys during the LIP, conflict related to imperialism
must be considered as well as intervalley or intravalley warfare.
Fortifications with LH components may be related to Inka
imperial strategies, or resistance to Inka territorial expansion
(Alconini, 2004; Covey, 2008: 819e821). Comparing the number of
possible LH fortifications between these two valleys suggests
differential imperial control, or different imperial and local strate-
gies employed, as they were annexed into the Inka Empire (Table 7).
For all time periods more intensive future work, including
subsurface sampling, will help refine the tentative chronological
characterizations made thus far. We do not claim that the occu-
pations or nature of use of these sites are concretely established.
Table 7
Tentative temporal assignment of grouped positive anomalies by associated
materials.
Period Huaura Fortaleza
EH, ca. 900e200 B.C. 34 39
EIP, ca. 200 B.C.eA.D. 500 0 5
MH, ca. A.D. 500e1000 12 19
LIP, ca. A.D. 1000e1470 21 16
LH, ca. A.D. 1470e1532 1 12
Not determined 0 2
1687
We suspect that there is considerable variation in the fortifications
that remains to be explored further. Nevertheless, our results call
attention to new evidence for conflict that has not yet been
recognized.
5.3. Implications for the macroregion
The implications for the continued study of the large coastal
macroregion we defined are significant. The reiterative process of
interpretation leads to improvement over time in the identification
of both remote and field anomalies. We expect comparable or
improved results from future work. Given the total number of
anomalies identified for all 13 valleys (n ¼ 682), there is the
potential to transform the current understanding of defensive sites
and warfare through time, as well as settlement patterns more
generally. For the Huaura Valley we had an 82.5% success rate of
positively identifying fortifications. For the Fortaleza Valley, the
success rate was 95%. Using a conservative 82% success rate for
identifying positive anomalies, there could be 559 total positive
anomalies in the 13-valley macroregion. Subtracting the 140 posi-
tive ones we have already identified, there could be over 400 more
positive anomalies once all anomalies are ground truthed. We are
currently cross-checking our remotely identified anomalies with
fortifications reported by other investigators for other valleys.
Nonetheless it seems apparent that there are many more fortifi-
cations in the macroregion than originally anticipated.
6. Conclusion
With respect to prospecting for fortifications in a large macro-
region, this case study demonstrates the feasibility, in terms of time
and cost-efficiency, of using fine spatial resolution imagery that is
freely available for viewing in Google EarthÒ. It was possible to
identify more anomalies using satellite imagery in Google EarthÒ
compared to lower elevation historic aerial photographs. In the
Fortaleza Valley very few anomalies were identified in the aerial
photographs at all. This is due to incomplete coverage and large-
scale imagery that would require enlargement to detect forts. In
general, the ease of accessibility of Google EarthÒ over physical
aerial photographs is a great advantage. Additionally, the use of
remote imagery enabled Awqa Pacha to cover areas not typically
included in pedestrian surveys, such as minor river affluents, dry
washes that branch off of major river valleys, and intervalley areas.
These areas are difficult to reach, even by vehicle, and might not
otherwise be documented without prior knowledge of the possi-
bility for discovering a site.
Aerial photography and satellite remote sensing have roots in
military reconnaissance and surveillance. From their very inception
and throughout their development, these imaging technologies were
used to identify and quantify military installations in hostile and
difficult to access locations (Babington Smith, 1957; Clarke and Cloud,
2000: 198e199; Cloud and Clarke, 1999: 38, 43; Hilderbrandt, 1908:
139, 285). By employing satellite imagery to study archaeological
fortifications in difficult to access locations, we are simply applying
modern remotely sensed imagery to the reconnaissance of ancient
military installations. On historical and empirical grounds, remotely
sensed imagery holds great promise for direct discovery and
systematic survey of fortified architecture not only in Perú but in
other world regions where ancient stone fortifications were built.
We must point out, however, that anomalies were also identified
in the field. This indicates that remote imagery alone will not identify
all fortifications in a given area. Moreover, establishing conclusively
that a remote anomaly is actually fortified requires ground truth
confirmation. Our research demonstrates that freely available
satellite imagery in Google EarthÒ is most effectively used in
1688 M. Brown Vega et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 1680e1689
archaeological research when coupled with field survey (Parcak,
2009: 51). We do not claim to have found all of the hilltop fortifi-
cations that are located in the Huaura and Fortaleza valleys. Our
results, however, demonstrate that pedestrian survey targeting
hilltops and rough terrain can identify fortifications where they
exist. The fact that we identified hilltop fortifications that were
missed in two recent prior full-coverage pedestrian surveys (Nelson
and Ruiz Rubio, 2005; Perales Munguía, 2007) suggests that hilltop,
mountaintop, or otherwise marginal areas in rough terrain may not
be systematically included when designing and executing surveys.
War clearly represents one of the focal points in any historical
sequence. As we argued at the outset, studies from around the
globe are demonstrating that warfare is often widespread yet
frequently understudied. Fortifications are a critical but under
represented type of site that has major implications for under-
standing ancient culture history and process. Remote sensing and
targeted ground truthing of hilltop anomalies is one effective
means to fill in empirical gaps and enlarge the sample of hilltop
fortifications.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by a National Science Foundation
Minority Postdoctoral Research Fellowship awarded to Brown Vega
(SBE Award #0905910), and an imagery grant from the GeoEyeÒ
Foundation. Research infrastructure was provided by The Penn-
sylvania State University and Proyecto Ch’amak Pacha. We thank
OmnistarÒ for their real-time correction service, which we used in
the field. We thank Mark Aldenderfer in particular for research
support (especially the generous use of his trusty truck “Blanca
Nieves”). We also extend our gratitude to Albino Pilco Quispe and
Hernan Guillermo Gamarra for their assistance in the field. We also
wish to thank Mercedes Verástegui Xesspe for support and inspi-
ration. Research was carried out with permission from the Minis-
terio de Cultura de Perú (Resolution No. 0004-2010-VMPCIC-MC).
We appreciate feedback from George Milner and David Webster, as
well as two anonymous reviewers.
References
Alconini, S., 2004. The Southeastern Inka frontier against the Chiriguanos: structure
and dynamics of the Inka imperial borderlands. Latin American Antiquity 15 (4),
389e418.
Allen, M.W., 1996. Pathways to economic power in Maori Chiefdoms: ecology and
warfare in prehistoric Hawke’s Bay. In: Isaac, B.L. (Ed.), Research on Economic
Anthropology. JAI Press Inc., Greenwich, CT, pp. 171e225.
Alva, C.A., van Alphen, J.G., de la Torre, A., Manrique, L., 1976. Problemas de Drenaje
y Salinidad en la Costa Peruana. International Institute for Land Reclamation
and Improvement/ILRI, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Arkush, E.N., 2005. Colla fortified sites: warfare and regional power in the late
prehispanic Titicaca Basin, Perú. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
Arkush, E.N., 2006. Collapse, conflict, conquest: the transformation of warfare in the
late prehispanic Andean highlands. In: Arkush, E.N., Allen, M.W. (Eds.), The
Archaeology of Warfare: Prehistories of Raiding and Conquest. University Press
of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 286e335.
Arkush, E.N., 2008. War, chronology, and causality in the Titicaca Basin. Latin
American Antiquity 19 (4), 339e373.
Babington Smith, C., 1957. Air Spy: The Story of Photo Intelligence in World War II.
Ballantine Books, New York.
Brown, M.K., Stanton, T.W., 2003. Ancient Mesoamerican Warfare. Altamira Press,
Walnut Creek.
Brown Vega, M., 2008. War and social life in prehispanic Perú: ritual, defense, and
communities at the Fortress of Acaray, Huaura Valley. PhD dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Urbana-Champaign.
Brown Vega, M., 2009. Conflict in the early horizon and late intermediate period:
new dates from the fortress of Acaray, Huaura valley, Perú. Current Anthro-
pology 50 (2), 255e266.
Brown Vega, M., 2010. Regional patterns of fortification and single forts: evaluating
the articulation of regional sociopolitical dynamics with localized phenomena.
In: Cutright, R., Hurtado Lopez, E., Martin, A. (Eds.), Comparative Perspectives
on the Archaeology of Coastal South America. Center for Comparative Archae-
ology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, pp. 169e189. Fondo Editorial,
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima; Ministerio de Cultura del
Ecuador, Quito.
Burger, R.L., 2008. Chavín de Huántar and its sphere of influence. In: Silverman, H.,
Isbell, W. (Eds.), Handbook of South American Archaeology. Springer, New York,
pp. 681e703.
Carman, J., Harding, A., 1999. Ancient Warfare: Archaeological Perspectives. Sutton
Publishing, Pheonix Mill.
Carneiro, R.L., 1970. A theory of the origin of the state. Science 169, 733e738.
Carneiro, R.L., 1988. The circumscription theory e challenge and response.
American Behavioral Scientist 31 (4), 497e511.
Chamussy, V., 2009. Les Débuts de la Guerre Institutionnalisée dans l’Aire Andine
Centrale: Versla Formation de l’État, du Formatif à la Période Intermédiaire
Ancienne. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Clarke, K.C., Cloud, G., 2000. On the origins of analytical cartography. Cartography
and Geographic Information Science 27, 195e204.
Cloud, J.G., Clarke, K.C., 1999. Through a Shutter Darkly: the tangled relationships
between civilian, military, and intelligence remote sensing in the early U.S.
space program. In: Reppy, J. (Ed.), Secrecy and Knowledge Production. Cornell
University Peace Studies Program, Ithaca.
Conroy, G.C., Anemone, R.L., Van Regenmorter, J., Addison, A., 2008. Google Earth,
GIS, and the great divide: a new and simple method for sharing paleontological
data. Journal of Human Evolution 55, 751e755.
Contreras, D.A., Brodie, N., 2010. The utility of publicly-available satellite imagery
for investigating looting of archaeological sites in Jordon. Journal of Field
Archaeology 35 (1), 101e114.
Covey, R.A., 2008. The Inca empire. In: Silverman, H., Isbell, W.H. (Eds.), Handbook
of South American Archaeology. Springer, New York, pp. 809e830.
Craig, N., Chagnon, N., 2006. Locational analysis of Yanomamö Gardens and villages
observed in satellite imagery. In: Sellet, F., Greaves, R., Yu, P.-L. (Eds.), Archaeology and
Ethnoarchaeology of Mobility. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, pp. 44e74.
Daggett, R.E., 1984. The early horizon occupation of the Nepeña Valley, North
Central Coast of Perú. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University
of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst.
Espinoza Soriano, W., 1974. El Templo Solar de Paramonga y los Acuarios de
Pachacamac: Dos Incognitas Despejadas. Boletín del Instituto Frances de Estu-
dios Andinos III (3), 1e22.
Field, J.S., 2008. Explaining fortifications in Indo-Pacific prehistory. Archaeology in
Oceania 43, 1e10.
Field, J.S., Lape, P.V., 2010. Paleoclimates and the emergence of fortifications in the
tropical Pacific Islands. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29, 113e124.
Giesecke, A., 1939. Las Ruinas de Paramonga. Boletín de la Sociedad Geográfica de
Lima, Lima 56 (2), 116e123.
Hassig, R., 1992. War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Hilderbrandt, A., 1908. Airships Past and Present, Together with Chapters on the Use
of Balloons in Connection with Meteorology, Photography and the Carrier
Pigeon A. Constable & Co. Ltd., London.
Hritz, C., 2010. Tracing settlement patterns and channel systems in Southern
Mesopotamia using remote sensing. Journal of Field Archaeology 35 (2),
184e203.
Isbell, W.H., 2008. Wari and Tiwanaku: international identities in the Central
Andean middle horizon. In: Silverman, H., Isbell, W.H. (Eds.), Handbook of
South American Archaeology. Springer, New York, pp. 731e759.
Jarvis, A., Reuter, H.I., Nelson, A., Guevara, E., 2008. Hole-filled SRTM for the Globe
Version 4. Available from the CGIAR-CSI SRTM 90m Database. http://srtm.csi.
cgiar.org.
Keeley, L.H., 1996. War Before Civilization. Oxford University Press, New York.
Keeley, L.H., Fontana, M., Quick, R., 2007. Baffles and bastions: the universal features
of fortifications. Journal of Archaeological Research 15, 55e95.
Kosok, P., 1965. Life, Land and Water in Ancient Perú. Long Island University Press,
Brooklyn, NY.
Kowalewski, S.A., 2004. The new past: from region to macroregion. Social Evolution
and History 3 (1), 81e105.
Kvamme, K., 2006. There and back again: revisiting archaeological locational
modeling. In: Mehrer, M.W., Wescott, K.L. (Eds.), GIS and Archaeological Site
Location Modeling. Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 3e40.
Lambert, P.M., 2002. The archaeology of war: a North American perspective. Journal
of Archaeological Research 10 (3), 207e241.
Langlois, L., 1938. Las Ruinas de Paramonga [2ème partie]. Revista del Museo
Nacional, 281e307.
LeBlanc, S.A., 1999. Prehistoric Warfare in the American Southwest. University of
Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
LeBlanc, S.A., 2003. Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage. St.
Martin’s Press, New York.
Lillesand, T., Kiefer, R., 2000. Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation, fourth ed.
John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey.
McCoy, M.D., Ladefoged, T.N., 2009. New developments in the use of spatial tech-
nology in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 17, 263e295.
Milner, G.R., 1999. Warfare in prehistoric and early historic Eastern North America.
Journal of Archaeological Research 7 (2), 105e151.
Myers, A., 2010. Fieldwork in the age of digital reproduction: a review of the
potentials and limitations of Google Earth for archaeologists. SAA Archaeolog-
ical Record 10 (4), 7e11.
 M. Brown Vega et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 1680e1689
Nelson, K., Ruiz Rubio, A., 2005. Proyecto de Investigación Arqueológica: Valle de
Huaura, Perú. Informe Final 2004. Instituto Nacional de Cultura, Perú, Lima.
Nelson, K., Craig, N., Perales, M., 2010. Piecing together the middle: the middle
horizon in the Norte Chico. In: Jennings, J.D. (Ed.), Beyond Wari Walls.
University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Parcak, S.H., 2009. Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology. Routledge, London.
Parkinson, W.A., Duffy, P.R., 2007. Fortifications and enclosures in European prehis-
tory: a cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Archaeological Research 15, 97e141.
Parsons, J.R., Hastings, C.M., Matos Mendieta, R., 2000. Prehispanic Settlement
Patterns in the Upper Mantaro and Tarma Drainages, Junín, Perú. 2 vols..
Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Parssinen, M., Schaan, D., Ranzi, A., 2009. Pre-Columbian geometric earthworks in
the Upper Purús: a complex society in Western Amazonia. Antiquity 83 (325),
1084e1095.
Perales Munguía, M., 2006. Proyecto de Investigación: Reconocimiento Arqueoló-
gico en el Valle Bajo de Pativilca, Lima - Perú. Informe Final. Instituto Nacional
de Cultura, Perú, Lima.
Perales Munguía, M., 2007. Proyecto de Investigación: Reconocimiento Arqueoló-
gico en el Valle Bajo de Fortaleza, Lima e Perú. Informe Final. Instituto Nacional
de Cultura, Perú, Lima.
Pozorski, S., 1987. Theocracy vs. Militarism: the significance of the Casma Valley in
understanding early state formation. In: Haas, J., Pozorski, S., Pozorski, T. (Eds.),
The Origins and Development of the Andean State. Cambridge University Press,
New York, pp. 15e30.
Proulx, D.A., 1968. An Archaeological Survey of the Nepeña Valley, Perú. Research
Report #2. Department of Anthropology, University of Massachussetts,
Amherst.
Proulx, D.A., 1973. Archaeological Investigations in the Nepeña Valley, Perú.
Research Report #13. Department of Anthropology, University of Massachu-
setts, Amherst.
Proulx, D.A., 1985. An Analysis of the Early Cultural Sequence in the Nepeña Valley,
Perú. Research Report #25. Department of Anthropology, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Przadka, P., Giersz, M., 2003. Sitios Arqueológicos de la Zona del Valle de Culebras,
Vol.1 Valle Bajo. Sociedad Polaca de Estudios Latinoamericanos, Varsovia.
Pulgar Vidal, J., 1996. Geografía del Perú: Las Ocho Regiones Naturales, 10th ed.
PEISA, Lima, Perú.
1689
Silva Sifuentes, J.E., 1996. Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Chillón River Valley,
Perú. PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology. University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor.
Thomas, D.C., Kidd, F.J., Nikolovski, S., Zipfel, C., 2008. The archaeological sites of
Afghanistan in Google Earth. AARGnews: The Newsletter of the Aerial
Archaeology Research Group 37, 22e30.
Topic, J.R., Topic, T.L., 1978. Prehistoric fortification systems of Northern Perú.
Current Anthropology 19, 618e619.
Topic, J.R., Topic, T.L., 1987. The archaeological investigation of Andean Militarism:
some cautionary observations. In: Haas, J., Pozorski, T., Pozorski, S. (Eds.), The
Origins and Development of the Andean State. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 47e55.
Ur, J., 2003. CORONA satellite photography and ancient road networks: a northern
Mesopotamian case study. Antiquity 77 (295), 102e115.
Ur, J., 2006. Google Earth and archaeology. SAA Archaeological Record 6 (3), 35e38.
Webster, D., 2000. The not so peaceful civilization: a review of Maya War. Journal of
World Prehistory 14 (1), 65e119.
Wernke, S.A., 2006. The politics of community and Inka Statecraft in the Colca
Valley, Perú. Latin American Antiquity 17 (2), 177e208.
Willey, G.R., 1953. Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Virú Valley, Perú. Bureau of
American Ethnology, Washington, D.C. Bulletin No. 155.
Wilson, D.J., 1983. The origins and development of complex prehispanic society in
the lower Santa Valley, Perú: implications for theories of state origins. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 2, 209e276.
Wilson, D.J., 1988. Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in the Lower Santa Valley, Perú:
A Regional Perspective on the Origins and Development of Complex North
Coast Society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Wilson, D.J., 1990. Full-Coverage Survey in the Lower Santa Valley: Implications
for Regional Settlement Pattern Studies on the Peruvian Coast. In: Fish, S.,
Kowalewski, S. (Eds.), The Archaeology of Regions: The Case for Full-Coverage
Regional Survey. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., pp.
117e145.
Wilson, D.J., 1995. Prehispanic settlement patterns in the Casma Valley, North Coast
of Perú: preliminary results to date. Journal of the Steward Anthropological
Society 23 (1e2), 189e227.
Zhang, D.D., Zhang, J., Lee, H.F., He, Y.-q., 2007. Climate change and war frequency
in Eastern China over the Last Millennium. Human Ecology 35 (4), 403e414.