The Inca State and Local Ritual Landscapes

The Inca State and Local Ritual Landscapes

Oxford Handbooks Online The Inca State and Local Ritual Landscapes Zachary James Chase The Oxford Handbook of the Incas Edited by Sonia Alconini and Alan Covey Print Publication Date: Jun 2018 Subject: History, History of the Americas Online Publication Date: Apr 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190219352.013.9

Abstract and Keywords Ritual landscapes were integral to Inca imperial expansion, both as a medium for and as a product of the interaction between the Inca state and regional and local polities. The incorporation of peoples and lands into the Inca Empire entailed complex dealings with local and regional huacas, together with the co-optation and modification of local elite lineages, corporate origins, and histories. Late Horizon ritual landscapes were thus emergent phenomena, constructed over time through processes of negotiation and reconfiguration between the Inca and other peoples. I refer to these negotiated landscapes as “local-imperial,” and explore these interactive processes through archaeological and ethnohistorical data from Cuzco, Pachacamac, Huamachuco, and Huarochirí. Inasmuch as local-imperial ritual landscapes were composite entities described in this article, viewing these different forms of evidence together clarifies our image of the Inca expansion as the work of physical, social, and symbolic-semiotic mastery. Keywords: Inca expansion, ritual landscapes, local-imperial landscapes, huacas, Pachacamac, Huamachuco, Huarochirí

Introduction: Local and Local-Imperial Landscapes, Archaeology and Ethnohistory RITUAL

landscapes were central to the expansion of Tahuantinsuyu, both as a medium for

and as a product of the interaction between the Inca state and regional and local polities. In these Late Horizon struggles, ancestry and kinship were the source and currency of political legitimacy, collective identities, territorial rights, and social standing. The Incas and their Andean contemporaries demonstrated legitimate descent through the curation, Page 1 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use. Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 11 April 2018

The Inca State and Local Ritual Landscapes display, and consultation of portable, mummified ancestors (mallquis), and through active ritual relationships with material ancestors in the physical landscape (huacas). In both cases, these ancestors were generally associated with their descendants’ places of origin (pacarinas) and other locations and territories gained through these ancestors’ foundational, mythical deeds. Thus, the incorporation of peoples and their lands into Tahuantinsuyu and attendant Inca practices of population resettlement entailed complex dealings with local and regional huacas, as well as the co-optation and modification of local elite lineages, corporate origins, and histories (Bauer and Covey 2002; D’Altroy 2001, 2005; Rowe 1946; Silverblatt 1988). Tolerance of local, pre-Inca religion was a hallmark of Inca expansion. In fact, imperial Inca attitudes and practices exceeded mere tolerance. Through give-and-take interactions between the Incas and other peoples, local huacas were adopted, their cults magnified and extended (see, in this volume, Eeckhout and López-Hurtado, Chapter 2.5; Yaeger and López Bejarano, Chapter 5.4). Thus “religion as statecraft” (p. 520) (Morris and Von Hagen 2011:44–46) was also statecraft as religion. In their imperial expansion “[t]he Incas themselves proclaimed that they were driven by a divine mandate to spread the religion of” their deities (D’Altroy 2002:221). In this way, “construction of ritual landscape” and “Inca expansion” may be taken as roughly synonymous; that is, whether conquered militarily or incorporated through alliance or affinity, local territories were transfigured into practical manifestations of the ritual landscape that was Tahuantinsuyu. In view of the multiple and various treatments of landscape in recent scholarship, it will be useful to frame Inca and local ritual landscapes within Quechua terminology. For example, the Quechua word pacha expressed both time and space (González Holguín 1989 [1608]:268). Similarly, though the Quechua word llacta is commonly taken as “the simple equivalent of ‘town’ or ‘village,’ ” Frank Salomon (1991:23) explains that llacta consisted of “the union of a localized huaca . . . with its territory and with the group of people whom the huaca favored.” Historical etiology was integral to these unions, legitimized as they were by the feats of huacas and other ancestors in traditional, narrative pasts. Drawing on these concepts, I refer to late pre-Hispanic Andean landscapes as composites of human groups, ancestor-huacas, ceremonial centers, and territories, all reproduced and legitimized in narrative pasts and other ritual performances. Inca expansion, even its most locally disruptive manifestations like population resettlement, did not sever the union of ritual geography and group origins, but rather rendered local geographies and collective pasts mutable—a dynamic which bears on recovering and reconstructing “the local” during the Late Horizon. Two of the most important implications of this malleability have to do with the reliability of the historical landscapes reconstructed from documentary sources, and the meaning of “local” in the protean context of the Late Horizon, wherein locality was central to collective existence and simultaneously always in play.

Page 2 of 26


The Inca State and Local Ritual Landscapes Concerning the historical reliability of the information drawn from Spanish historical documents for reconstructing local, late pre-Hispanic landscapes (and bracketing debate over the historical or structural nature of the documents’ content1), critiques of the texts’ imperial Inca bias were sounded early and often (MacCormack 1991:80–118; e.g. Rowe 1946:185–187, 193–198;). The revisionism inherent to the geographic situation, collective self-identification, and histories of local groups in the Late Horizon complicates matters further. Though ethnohistory based on both Cuzco-centered and provincial documents had a far greater influence than did archaeology over nearly a century of research into the Inca past (Covey 2008b; D’Altroy 1987; Morris 2007), the extent to which Inca expansion altered and produced local cult and ritual landscapes is becoming increasingly clear to scholars through a critical mass of recent archaeological investigations in Cuzco and abroad (e.g., Arkush 2011; Bauer 1991, 1998, 2001; Bauer and Stanish 2001; Burger et al. 2007; Covey 2006a, 2008a, 2008b; D’Altroy 1992, 2005 (p. 521) ; D’Altroy, Hastorf, et al. 2002; Kosiba 2015a, 2015b; Malpass 1993; Malpass and Alconini 2010; Morris and Thompson 1985; Shimada 2015). Clearly, over the last few decades, “Inca archaeology has begun to grow into its full potential . . . and is now in a position to stand independently from the documentary record” (Covey 2008a:810). However, rather than dispense entirely with colonial documents, I propose that this archaeological independence presents opportunities to gain a greater understanding of Inca and Andean culture by allowing critical re-evaluations of the forms and meanings of the texts’ contents beyond attempts to determine their truth or falsity (Bauer and Covey 2002:846– 847). Gary Urton’s landmark ethnohistorical study (1990), which revealed the early colonial production of a singularly important Inca landscape site, is a powerful reminder that archaeology is not a unique fount of new data, and that we can critically reassess established facts and models in light of new information from both ethnohistory and archaeology (Astuhuamán 2008; Bauer and Smit 2015; Chase 2015; Covey 2006a, 2006b, 2015; Eeckhout 2008; Kosiba 2012; Makowski 2015; Salomon 1986; Topic 1998; van de Guchte 1999). This is particularly important to the study of Andean landscapes as I have defined them —as the union of people, narratives, space, and material expressions. The second issue is how to define “local ritual landscapes” in the context of Inca expansion in which these landscapes and their “histories” were the stakes and media of conflict and negotiation between Incas and others (cf. Moseley 2001; Murra 1980 [1956]; Ramírez 2005; Silverblatt 1988). Briefly, in addition to the basic spatial or scalar delimitation implied by the term, “local” also carries a sense of the antecedent: “Local ritual landscapes” are not only those of particular geographical boundaries, but also previous to Inca arrival, before a given group identified with Tahuantinsuyu. More to the point, “local” can correspond to a time prior to resettlement by the Inca into a new locale. This required working out relations with new neighboring peoples, restructured kin relations (including those with huacas), and new collective pasts. In these cases, archaeology penetrates the prehistoric barrier, providing purchase on layered pasts.

Page 3 of 26


The Inca State and Local Ritual Landscapes Late Horizon ritual landscapes were emergent phenomena, constructed over time through processes of negotiation and reconfiguration between the Inca and other peoples at various stages of and different dispositions toward incorporation into Tahuantinsuyu. Because production of local ritual landscapes persisted in some form throughout Inca rule, I refer to these negotiated landscapes as “local-imperial.” Ritual landscapes throughout Tahuantinsuyu consisted of a great and ever-shifting combination of elements that were geographically local and pre-Inca, and those introduced or imposed by the Inca state, united through the invention of tradition. The utility of the “local-imperial” concept and designation will be more evident in the discussions of the Chinchaysuyu ritual landscapes of Catequil, Pachacamac, and Huarochirí, but is first visible in the Inca heartland. The consolidation and organization of Cuzco turned local ritual landscapes into the imperial ritual landscape center, making Cuzco an example par excellence of the production of “local-imperial” ritual landscapes.

Page 4 of 26



Local and Local-Imperial Landscapes in Cuzco (p. 522)

Some of the earliest written accounts of the Inca journey to and settling of Cuzco (Betanzos 1996 [1551–1558]:7–16; Sarmiento 2007 [1572]:56–73) tell of the creation of Inca ritual landscapes through ostensibly sequential historical events; that is, specific geographical landscape nodes gained their importance as places where noteworthy occurrences took place in the Inca ancestors’ progression from their pacarina toward their destiny in Cuzco. Some of these places became huacas by supplanting or fusing with preexisting huacas. Transformations of other huacas were made to correspond to extant or new boundary markers. Thus were local ritual landscapes appropriated and transformed in the Incas’ foundational narratives. Later Inca kings were said to have expanded and consolidated their rule through successful battles, extensive programs of urban organization and construction, marriages, and other alliances (Betanzos 1996 [1551–1558]:19–91; Sarmiento 2007 [1572]:98–124). The cumulative results of over three decades of archaeological research in the Inca heartland (Bauer 1992, 1998, 2001, 2004; Bauer and Covey 2002; Covey 2006a, 2006b; 2008a, 2008b, 2015; Kosiba 2012, 2015a, 2015b; see also Covey, Chapter 1.3) demonstrate that Inca consolidation of the Cuzco Valley was a process that lasted centuries, instead of the quick succession of events in the written accounts and studies drawing from them (e.g., Rowe 1944). Still, the long transformation of Cuzco’s ritual landscape from local to imperial was surely more immediate and commanding when rendered in recent, event-based narratives that would be relevant and relatable to all those they were intended to impact. Steve Kosiba’s research at Huanacauri (Kosiba, 2015b) indicates that, as opposed to being one of the earliest places of importance in the Inca ritual landscape, it was constructed and used primarily during the Inca imperial phase. Here we see an example of the malleability of the physical landscape and the past that was central to Late Horizon expansion. Kosiba’s work on the process of “becoming Inca” among the people of extant Cuzco-area polities (2010, 2015a, 2015b) demonstrates that ritual landscapes, Incas, and non-Incas (as categorically different types of peoples) were recursively brought into being. The Inca and other areal elite together altered preexisting sites and features of decidedly local ritual importance (like tombs and ancestor shrines), transforming them into places of imperial power and significance, thereby creating local-imperial landscapes and subjects. Further, as the imperial Inca displaced the significance of pre-Inca local, localized, and historical places, and distributed new places of power and meaning among lavish, monumental Inca architecture and landscape-feature huacas, non-Incas’ new social and political status was naturalized through their experience of these new ritual landscapes (see also Acuto and Leibowicz, Chapter 4.1). The establishment of Tahuantinsuyu involved an ongoing process of appropriating local ritual landscapes and transforming them into local-imperial ritual landscapes, processes characterized by great variation, improvisation, and adaptability in the use of (p. 523) Page 5 of 26


The Inca State and Local Ritual Landscapes force and persuasion. The constitution of imperial and local ritual landscapes operated in recursive cycles of transmission and feedback that can be traced through the movement of goods, peoples (including ancestor-huacas), settlements, and even aesthetics and ideologies.

Local and Local-Imperial Landscapes in the Provinces The phenomena of local and local-imperial ritual landscapes has recently been strikingly illustrated by César Astuhuamán (2008), based on his archaeological and ethnohistorical investigations of Inca interactions with three prominent late pre-Hispanic huacas: Catequil, Pachacamac, and Pariacaca (Figure 5.3.1). It is surely no accident that these three huacas—and the Inca—also appear together in an early seventeenth-century narrative, which is in effect a portrait of the production of ritual landscape during the Late Horizon. Astuhuamán’s research shows how local ritual landscapes were appropriated, reconfigured, and incorporated into Inca expansion, resulting in turn in new local ritual landscapes (“other” Pariacacas, Catequils, and Pachacamacs, as Astuhuamán refers to them). The remainder of this chapter focuses on in-depth explorations of Inca appropriation, reconstruction, and incorporation of local ritual landscapes, specifically those associated with Pachacamac, Catequil, and Pariacaca.2 These activities were so effective in creating local-imperial landscapes that they produced durable ideologies of locality that came to obscure imperial Inca influence. “Conversion” in the religious sense, whereby introduced changes are internalized and personalized, may be the most apt term for these results (see Chase 2016; Kosiba 2012). This effect also provides opportunities to re-examine disciplinary approaches to the late pre-Hispanic past.

Pachacamac and the Lurín Valley For decades, general scholarly consensus held that coastal oracle-huaca Pachacamac and his cult had a centuries-deep history and pan-Andean influence, and the basis of this interpretation was nearly entirely ethnohistorical . For instance, Garcilaso de la Vega (1966 [1609]:379–385) wrote that the great oracle was brought into the Inca Empire when the Inca realized that they too worshipped Pachacamac, and were thereby related to the people of Pachacamac. Thus, “[t]hey should be friends and brothers,” and as such, the coastal people should reciprocate Inca worship of Pachacamac with adoration of the (p. 524) (p. 525) Inca sun god Inti. The result was that the site was left intact, save for the addition of an Inti temple and acllahuasi to the extant multi-temple complex (382–383).

Page 6 of 26


The Inca State and Local Ritual Landscapes More recently, data from extensive archaeological excavation at Pachacamac (Eeckhout 2008; Eeckhout and López-Hurtado, Chapter 2.5; Makowski 2015; Segura and Shimada 2010) indicate that much of the site’s monumentality, layout, and size should be attributed to Inca intervention, vestiges of which are identifiable also in the broader Lurín Valley. Click to view larger Likewise, Pachacamac’s Figure 5.3.1 César Astuhuamán’s (2008) map Andes-wide renown and indicating the origin points and distribution of the oracular cults of Pachacamac, Pariacaca, and influence were less preCatequil, based on archaeological and Inca phenomena than the ethnohistorical research. Each of these cults was based on a prominent wak’a and was spread during product of the expansion and as part of Late Horizon Inca expansion, of Tahuantinsuyu, though indicating Inca influence on local ritual landscapes. there is little doubt that Source: Adapted from Astuhuamán (2008:115, Figure Pachacamac was 3) previously home to an Ychsma huaca that was the center of pilgrimage on local and regional scales (Eeckhout 2008:168–170). In this context, the Inca overhauled the Lurín Valley’s local ritual landscape, and imported highlands communities to Pachacamac’s vicinity in order to serve his cult. Furthermore, the Incas’ introduction or imposition of Pachacamac’s cult altered the ritual landscapes of other locales, from Peru’s north coast, to Ica, Apurimac, and Cuzco (Figure 5.3.1) (Astuhuamán 2008; cf. Rostworowski de Díez Canseco 2002b [1992]:47–54). In his narration of the Inca at Pachacamac, Garcilaso (1966 [1609]:380) extols the shrine’s splendors in times prior to what would come to be known as the Late Horizon. These new archaeological insights allow us to re-evaluate this reported grandeur— ostensibly “unique in the whole of Peru”—as evidence of the enduring hegemony of the Inca vision and alteration of local ritual landscapes; that is, by the time of Garcilaso’s early seventeenth-century writings, Inca innovations were regarded as original history. Indeed, this has continued to be the case until very recently. Inca reconstruction of the Lurín’s ritual landscape also included resettling the Caringa from highlands Huarochirí into the foothills east of Pachacamac (Chase 2015; Makowski 2002). The mitmacona settlement was positioned so the highlanders could guard entrance to the lower valley and protect the llama flocks offered to Pachacamac by the Inca (Rostworowski de Díez Canseco 2002b [1999]:181–183). These data alone show the Page 7 of 26


The Inca State and Local Ritual Landscapes byzantine complexity of local-imperial landscapes in the Late Horizon. But Krzysztof Makowski’s archaeological investigations reveal a landscape-feature huaca within the settlement (now called Pueblo Viejo-Pucará). The same generation of Caringa that had been resettled to Pueblo Viejo-Pucará by imperial mandate recognized and feted this rock outcrop—a landscape-feature huaca, usually associated with autochthony. On the one hand, this finding is not so unusual. As mentioned earlier, huacas were required in the constitution of llacta, as ethnohistorical sources amply attest (Arriaga 1968 [1621]:117– 118; Duviols 2003; San Pedro 1992 [1560]; Taylor 1999). On the other hand, the huaca raises a slew of questions: Was this huaca recognized as a manifestation of the highlands huaca Pariacaca, the coastal Pachacamac, or their son (see Chase 2015:86–87)? Alternatively, was it a completely new “invention of tradition”? Most germane to the discussion here is whether this huaca was Inca or local, and therefore, part of an imperial or a local landscape. The mootness of the questions is exactly the point, considering that the case exemplifies both a local and an imperial ritual landscape.

Page 8 of 26



Huamachuco: Catequil/Cati Quillay in Ethnohistory and Archaeology (p. 526)

The destruction of the northern highlands huaca Catequil by an angered Sapa Inca (probably Atahualpa) is one of the best known and explicit examples of Inca alteration of local ritual landscapes during Tahuantinsuyu’s expansion. Accounts of Catequil’s fate, the result of an unfavorable prognostication by the oracle-huaca, and descriptions of the earlier adoption and spread of his cult under Inca auspices are found in numerous Spanish colonial sources. John and Theresa Topic’s decades-long research in Northern Peru and Ecuador (Topic 1992, 1998, 2008; Topic et al. 2002) has provided a far more expansive and rich picture of the late pre-Hispanic ritual landscapes of Catequil. Their pioneering investigations bring archaeology to the Catequil mythology and ethnohistory, resulting in an illuminating illustration of the ways in which alteration of local origin stories and local ritual landscapes were part and parcel of Inca expansion. In the 1560 report on the Primeros Agustinos de Huamachuco, Catequil is described as a highlands thunder and lightning huaca, “the most feared and honored in all Peru; worshipped and reverenced from Quito to Cuzco” (San Pedro 1992 [1560]:18). The mythical and ritual geography associated with Catequil and the origins of the inhabitants of the Inca province of Huamachuco are worth noting for their resonances with Inca and Checa (Huarochirí; see later discussion) ritual and mythical landscapes.3 The mythology from Inca and early Spanish colonial times held that Huamachuco was first inhabited by the agriculturalist Guachemines, whom Catequil killed and drove from the territory. Catequil subsequently repopulated the land with people dug out of the earth, becoming their “founding ancestor” (Topic et al. 2002:311). This pacarina defined the southernmost border of the Inca province, implying northward-moving settlement of the province (cf. the Inca, Tambo Toco, and Cuzco). The conquered inhabitants were still represented in the landscape: “places named after the Guachemines are located on descents down into the hot yungas and chaupiyungas lands on the north and the east” (Topic et al. 2002:308; cf. the Yuncas in the Checa narratives from Huarochirí). Ritual worship of Catequil was said to take place in a town dedicated to this purpose. It was directed toward the cliffy mountaintop of present-day San José de Porcón, in the center of the province. While some sources claim the mountain housed a man-shaped stone, others identified the mountain and cliffs themselves as Catequil. Archaeologists have identified Cerro Icchal with Catequil (both as the huaca’s seat and as the huaca himself), several sites that could correspond to the “town,” and the site of Namanchugo (p. 527) (in the hills below and facing Cerro Icchal) as Catequil’s principal temple. The research results illustrate how a local ritual landscape could, with Inca involvement, partake of native historical significance while also accruing new symbolism as a metonym of Tahuantinsuyu.

Page 9 of 26


The Inca State and Local Ritual Landscapes Evidence of ritual landscape activities atop Cerro Icchal include architectural remains judged “likely to represent structures used repeatedly but temporarily by pilgrims to the mountain top,” along with Late Intermediate period and Late Horizon ceramics (Topic et al. 2002:314). At Namanchugo, John and Theresa Topic discovered an elaborate 10square-meter ashlar and cut stone structure used from late pre-Hispanic through early Spanish colonial times that was interpreted as Catequil’s sanctuary. The sanctuary was built atop an intentionally destroyed structure dating to the Middle Horizon. The stratigraphy suggests that the later sanctuary was built shortly after the abandonment of the earlier structure. Topic et al. (2002:311) affirm Catequil’s pre-Inca existence based on the Middle Horizon structure associated with food production and serving activities (2002:317, 313–319, 323, 328), along with the ethnohistorical accounts and regional toponyms.4 Catequil’s late pre-Hispanic sanctuary features restricted access and visibility of the structure’s interior; stone-lined receptacles and channels received libations and served as an instrument of Catequil’s oracular pronouncements. River-rolled stones the size of sling stones (thus associated with water and the “lightning sling” of Catequil and other highland huacas) paved the patios and were also found in the stone receptacles. Evidence of the ritual production and consumption of food and beverages at the site includes fragments of Inca and Chimú-Inca serving vessels. The feasts or offerings were surely underwritten by the produce from Catequil’s agricultural lands now under Inca administration , and by the “many of Inca lineage brought from Cuzco to Huamachuco at the time the Inca conquered the area” (San Pedro 1992 [1560]:24).5 In addition to these imports, treasured mullu shell (Spondylus princeps) harvested from the Ecuadorian coast was also found as part of several offerings at Namanchugo. These archaeological data indicate limited Inca intervention of an ongoing nature at Catequil’s sanctuary itself (Topic et al. 2002:330). However, regarding the mid-sixteenthcentury traditional origins of Huamachuco’s population, John Topic’s research (1992, 1998) shows that “the very close correspondence between the creation myth and the boundaries of the Incaic province of Huamachuco [noted earlier] may only date to the Late Horizon” (Topic et al. 2002:308), indicating Inca influence, if not wholesale Late Horizon reshaping of Huamachuco’s mythical and ritual landscape.6 Furthermore, as with Pachacamac, the Inca appropriation of Catequil also included spreading the huaca’s (p. 528) cult, specifically toward the north into Ecuador under the auspices of the last sovereign Inca, Huayna Capac (see Figure 5.3.1) (Topic et al. 2002:319–332). Also similar to Pachacamac under the Inca, Catequil’s sons often articulated the expansion of the huaca’s cult into new areas (Castro de Trelles 1992:21, 25). In reflection of Catequil as the conquering warrior of Huamachuco origin mythology, and Inca conquest of Huamachuco and beyond, Catequil’s Ecuadorian outposts included redoubts (pucaras) and mitmacona who “arrived [to the new locales] originally as warriors” (Topic et al. 2002 :331).

Page 10 of 26


The Inca State and Local Ritual Landscapes Taken collectively, the data from Huamachuco indicate Inca acceptance of and grafting on to prior Catequil worship and the construction of new local landscapes of origin and “historical” ethnic identity in Huamachuco. They also show Inca production of new localimperial ritual landscapes through the adoption and expansion of Catequil’s cult beyond Huamachuco.

Page 11 of 26



Highlands Huarochiri Comparable to Huamachuco, the central Peruvian highlands region of Huarochirí presents an ethnographically rich and encompassing account of an Andean landscape by way of its unique Quechua document, which is the only Andean book about indigenous religion and mythology written in an indigenous language during the Spanish colonial period. The “Huarochirí manuscript” was composed in the early seventeenth century under the eye of parish priest Francisco de Avila. Its narrators and principal protagonists were of the waranqa Checa—one of Huarochirí’s groups of “thousands,” reflecting Inca decimal-organization (Dávila Brizeño 1965 [1586]). The manuscript’s contents have frequently been viewed as expressions of chronologically deep, pan-Andean practices and beliefs, and have also been employed in the interpretation of archaeological and historical data from outside of Huarochirí (Chase 2015). Readers of the Huarochirí manuscript are presented with the multifarious makings of ritual landscapes in the manuscript’s mytho-historical narratives of the lives and deeds of local, regional, and pan-regional huacas. Hence, the manuscript’s descriptions of indigenous rituals relay the reproduction of these landscapes in pre-Hispanic and colonial eras. The manuscript reveals a living, relational landscape comprising a congeries of active associations, including those of kinship and other alliances, the past and the present, physical and cultural resources. The manuscript’s huacas were simultaneously objects and landscape features, the active beings who created the physical terrain, and founding ancestors whose deeds originated and ratified different peoples’ territorial and resource claims. As with Cuzco’s ceque system (Bauer, Chapter 5.1), ritual performance affected and sustained this historical, social, and political organization. Huarochirí’s apical huaca was Pariacaca, identified with a snowcap east of Huarochirí, and born as “five eggs that became five falcons that became five men, the founders of” Huarochirí’s five primary lineages (Salomon 1991:6). The geophysical and sociopolitical landscapes of Huarochirí were generated in his bellicose and conjugal conquests of primordial huacas. The Checa narrators and their forebears had a special ancestral relationship with Pariacaca’s son, Tutayquiri, who had led the Checa conquest (p. 529)

of their ceremonial center, Llacsatambo (Figures 5.3.2 and 5.3.3). The hilltop llacta was seized from its original inhabitants (Yuncas, synonymous with low, warm valleys; cf. Huamachuco’s guachemines), as Tutayquiri drove them down toward the Pacific coast. Immediately following the victory, the ancestral Checa performed their origin dance at Llacsatambo, thus registering the site as their new pacarina (Salomon and Urioste 1991: 120). The conquest was also celebrated annually in a pilgrimage whose westward thrust and eastward return respectively began and ended at Llacsatambo. The ritual was said to commemorate Tutayquiri’s path in conquering this territory with and for the Checa ancestors (Salomon and Urioste 1991:79–81).

Page 12 of 26


The Inca State and Local Ritual Landscapes For the most part, the manuscript’s narrators considered Inca dealings with Huarochirí’s ritual landscapes to be late adjuncts to a long existing order. For example, at the Inca’s request, one Huarochirí huaca, Maca Uisa, led Inca armies to victory. Inca fear of the huaca’s might, the narrators assert, led them not only to endorse but to augment and formalize cultic feting of Maca Uisa at Llacsatambo, underwriting 30 retainers (Taylor 1999:230–231). The narrators are also at pains to establish Pariacaca’s pre-Inca existence and authority.7 However, in another narrative set at Llacsatambo, the recently arrived huaca Llocllay Huancupa—sent by his father Pachacamac to protect this llacta of Pariacaca’s children—was made to identify himself by “another huaca, Cati Quillay, an emissary of the Inca” (Salomon and Urioste 1991:101–102).8 Though the story presents a remarkably concentrated expression of Late Horizon processes of local-imperial ritual landscape transformation, the Inca role in forging this important new coastal-highlands alliance is represented in the narrative as happenstance. Given what we now know of Inca involvement with Catequil and the extent of Inca investment in and responsibility for Pachacamac, it should be plain that the Inca were behind the entire process of uniting the Checa and Pachacamac. However, such was the cogency, the “conversion” of local-imperial ritual landscapes, that despite Inca machinations, Checa tradition held that Llocllay revealed himself to a local woman. After the huaca’s ratification (via “Inca emissary”), the Checa themselves built Llocllay’s shrine. Later, when Llocllay abandoned the Checa, they won him back by redoubling their ritual devotion. They delivered to Pachacamac guinea pigs, textiles, llamas, and maize beer from the highlands. The narrators explicitly mention Inca ratification of the llama offerings, and that the maize “belong[ed] to the Inca from the common granaries” (Salomon and Urioste 1991:103). Even more notable, the Checa narrators say that they built an usnu for Llocllay (Salomon and Urioste 1991:101–103; Taylor 1999:250– 251; but see Ramón 2017); that is, the highlands Checa built a structure that was the very signature of vicarious Inca presence in the provinces (Meddens et al. 2014) to preserve their alliance with a (p. 530) coastal huaca. This act and its verbal recollection demonstrate the depth and extent of Inca influence in these landscapes of ritual alliance.

Page 13 of 26


The Inca State and Local Ritual Landscapes What is local and what is imperial Inca in these rituals and ritual landscape? As with the Caringa’s huaca in the lower Lurín, this question does not lend itself to simple (p. 531) answers. Yet this is exactly the power of combining archaeology and ethnohistory: in parallax they provide valuable insights into the mechanisms of the Click to view larger encounters between the Figure 5.3.2 Map of the central axis of the expansive Inca and local production of the Huarochirí manuscript, indicating some of the major sites discussed in this chapter. polities. Huarochirí’s ritual landscapes were more than reconstructed; they were converted. And many of these conversions have endured beyond the life of Tahuantinsuyu.

Click to view larger Figure 5.3.3 Plan map of the architectural center of the Checa ceremonial center (llacta) of Llacsatambo. Narratives in the manuscript are referenced from Llacsatambo, explicitly in some cases. The “Inca sector” represents the most obvious concentration of standing Late Horizon architecture and architectural features. To date, six test units have been excavated at Llacsatambo.

Page 14 of 26



Archaeology in the Huarochirí Manuscript’s Geographic Core In addition to being used as a surrogate primary historical source on the pre-Hispanic Andean past, the Huarochirí manuscript’s contents have also been treated as post hoc reflections of centuries of local historical events and processes (see Chase 2015:77–78). However, recent archaeological research at Llacsatambo and its surrounding area (Chase et al. 2011) suggests that, like Pachacamac, an appreciable Inca influence on Huarochirí ritual landscapes was internalized and passed on, even as explicit (p. 532)

recognition of this influence was unrecognized or muted by the manuscript’s narrators, as in the case immediately preceding (see also Salomon and Urioste 1991:94, 96–103, 111–116). The broad temporal sequencing of events in the manuscript’s narratives (i.e., pre-Inca, Inca, and Spanish colonial periods) provided a framework for Click to view larger ethnohistorians and Figure 5.3.4 Examples of the Inca/Late Horizon archaeologists to architectural features at Llacsatambo. reconstruct Huarochirí’s Photograph by author. prehistory and to interpret areal history and the manuscript’s central archaeological sites: previous to the Inca advent, autochthonous Yuncas occupied Huarochirí’s high mountain terrain until they were driven out by highlander incursions led by Pariacaca, Tutayquiri, and Checa ancestors (Bueno 1992; Coello 2000; Feltham 2005; Rostworowski de Díez Canseco 2002a [1978], 2002b [1978]). Ethnohistorians placed the beginnings of these invasions as early as 900–1000 CE and had them continuing through the late fifteenth century. After five to six centuries of settlement, the expanding Inca Empire arrived and availed itself of Huarochirí’s huacas. But in the ethnohistory, the minimal Inca modification of local ritual landscapes was only by way of augmenting cultic activity for extant huacas, out of respect and fear, as discussed earlier (Espinoza Soriano 1992). In 2010, the Proyecto Arqueológico Huarochirí–Lurín Alto (PAHLA) was initiated with intensive archaeological fieldwork and analysis in the central area that the manuscript narrators called home. Most relevant to the themes of this chapter are the results of excavations and the radiocarbon dates obtained from two of the sites. Based on architectural survey and research from adjacent areas, eight test excavations were distributed between the hilltop site of Llacsatambo and a series of Inca collcas a few hundred meters southeast of Llacsatambo (Figure 5.3.2). The distribution strategy was to sample spaces associated with unmistakable Inca architectural styles (i.e., in the Inca Page 15 of 26


The Inca State and Local Ritual Landscapes storehouses and Llacsatambo’s supposed “Inca sector”; see Figures 5.3.3 and 5.3.4), as well as (p. 533) spaces associated with structures of more regional architectural style, in hopes of gaining chronological resolution on areal activities and site occupation. Excavations have not revealed evidence of a series of occupations at Llacsatambo previous to Inca arrival, as the Checa narrators claimed, nor occupation dating back to the late Middle Horizon, as ethnohistorical interpretations have asserted. Instead, the stratigraphy was comparable in all the Click to view larger excavation units, including Figure 5.3.5 Examples of Inca fineware fragments recovered from excavations and surface collection at the Inca collcas, indicating Llacsatambo. a single, relatively brief Photograph by author. and late occupation and use of Llacsatambo. Inca fineware (Figure 5.3.5) was recovered from the lower levels of five of the six Llacsatambo units. The remaining unit on the plaza at Llacsatambo’s apex was too shallow to expect discernment of a distributional pattern within the little soil matrix deposited above bedrock. To date, four reliable radiocarbon dates have been obtained from carbon samples excavated from secure contexts. All have been calibrated to two sigma errors. The dates from the lowest cultural levels in the excavations in the Llacsatambo structure with double-jamb windows and niches (Figure 5.3.4) fall between 1448 and 1623 CE. Those obtained from the lowest level of cultural activity in the Inca storehouses are 1455–1518 CE.

By

(p. 534)

comparison, the dates from the lowest levels of cultural activity in two

domestic or work structures at Llacsatambo are 1318–1428 CE, and 1403–1448 CE. They lacked features or forms that clearly identified them as Inca-influenced. In all cases the carbon samples were obtained from below occupation levels and in contexts likely comprising architectural fill randomly gathered to prepare level building and living surfaces. They were atop the declining and rocky surface of the hills upon which Llacsatambo and the collcas were constructed.9

Page 16 of 26


The Inca State and Local Ritual Landscapes Further evidence of Inca appropriation and reconstruction of the local landscape in Huarochirí includes a very wellpreserved section of Inca road (Figure 5.3.6) located between Llacsatambo and the llacta of their counterparts in the manuscript (Conchasica of Click to view larger the Concha; see Figure Figure 5.3.6 Section of the Inca road between 5.3.2), and the Cerro San Conchasica and Llacsatambo. Cristobal site (3 hectares) Photograph by author. located almost exactly equidistant between Llacsatambo and Conchasica. Excavations of a rustic step platform at the hill’s apex yielded a copper figurine of a (p. 535) hand holding what appears to be an egg, and a white andesite, egg-shaped stone (Chase 2015). They are reminiscent of the andesite “stone ancestors” also recently excavated from the foundation of a high-altitude Inca stone platform in Ayacucho. This platform is one of a category “closely associated with the notion of boundary or liminal space” (Meddens et al. 2010:177), which resonates with the location of San Cristobal’s platform in Huarochirí. The archaeological data attest to Inca incorporation and reconstruction of these central ritual landscapes in Huarochirí. It is also significant that, despite apparent intentions to elide or negate it, Inca influence in the area and its history emerges indirectly in the traditional narratives’ rhetoric and contents, testifying of the conversion of Huarochirí’s local ritual landscape into one that was local-imperial. Huarochirí thus resonates notably with the other case studies discussed, speaking to the characteristics of Inca expansion, as well as to our efforts to research and reconstruct this phenomenon. Inasmuch as Andean landscapes were composite entities, viewing these different forms of evidence together clarifies our image of the local-imperial ritual landscapes of Tahuantinsuyu as the triumph of physical, social, and symbolic-semiotic mastery.

Bibliography Arkush, Elizabeth N. 2001. Hillforts of the Ancient Andes: Colla Warfare, Society, and Landscape. Tallahassee: University Press of Florida. Arriaga, Pablo José de. 1968 [1621]. The Extirpation of Idolatry in Peru. Translated and edited by L. Clark Keating. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.

Page 17 of 26


The Inca State and Local Ritual Landscapes Astuhuamán Gonzáles, César W. 2008. “Los otros Pariacaca: Oráculos, montañas, y parentelas sagradas.” In Adivinación y Oráculos en el Mundo Andino Antiguo, edited by Marco Curatola Petrocchi and Mariusz S. Ziółkowski, 97–119. Lima: Fondo Editorial, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú/Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos. Bauer, Brian. 1991. “Pacarictambo and the Mythical Origins of the Inca.” Latin American Antiquity 2(1): 7–26. Bauer, Brian. 1998. The Sacred Landscape of the Inca: The Cuzco Ceque System. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bauer, Brian. 2001. Las antiguas tradiciones alfareras de la región del Cuzco. Cuzco: Editorial Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas. Bauer, Brian. 2004. Ancient Cuzco: Heartland of the Inca. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bauer, Brian, and R. Alan Covey. 2002. “Processes of State Formation in the Inca Heartland (Cuzco, Peru).” American Anthropologist 104(3): 846–864. Bauer, Brian, and Douglas Smit. 2015. “Separating the Wheat from the Chaff: Inca Myths, Inca Legends, and the Archaeological Evidence for State Development.” In The Inca Empire: A Multidisciplinary Approach, edited by Izumi Shimada, 67–80. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bauer, Brian, and Charles Stanish. 2001. Ritual and Pilgrimage in the Ancient Andes: The Islands of the Sun and the Moon. Austin: University of Texas Press. Betanzos, Juan de. 1996 [1551–1557]. Narrative of the Incas. Edited and translated by Roland Hamilton and Dana Buchanan. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bueno Mendoza, A. 1992. Arqueología de Huarochirí. In Huarochirí: Ocho mil años de Historia, Vol. I, 13–66. Lima: Municipalidad de Santa Eulalia de Acopaya. (p. 536)

Burger, Richard L., Craig Morris, Ramiro Matos Mendieta, Joanne Pillsbury, and Jeffrey Quilter. 2007. Variations in the Expression of Inca Power. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Castro de Trelles, Lucila (ed). 1992 [1560]. Relación de la religión y ritos del Perú hecha por los Padres Agustinos. Lima: Fondo Editorial, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Chase, Zachary J. 2015. “What Is a Wak’a? When Is a Wak’a?” In The Archaeology of Wak’as: Explorations of the Sacred in the Pre-Columbian Andes, edited by Tamara L. Bray, 75–126. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Chase, Zachary J. 2016. Pacha y Presentación: La conversión colonial de Huarochirí prehistórica. Boletín de Arqueología PUCP 21: 13–37.

Page 18 of 26


The Inca State and Local Ritual Landscapes Chase, Zachary J., Abraham MagnoImbertis Herrera, and Enrique Paredes Sánchez Luis. 2011. Informe técnico: Proyecto arqueológico Huarochirí–Lurín Alto. Archived at the Ministry of Culture, Lima, Peru. Cobo, Bernabé. 1990 [1653]. Inca Religion and Customs. Edited and translated by Roland Hamilton. Austin: University of Texas Press. Coello Rodríguez, Antonio. 2000. “El Camino Inca en el Distrito de San Damián (Provincia de Huarochirí) Perú.” In Caminos Precolombinos: Las Vías, los Ingenieros y los Viajeros, edited by Leonor Herrera y Marianne Cardale de Schrimpff, 167–193. Bogotá: Instituto Colombiano de Antropología e Historia. Covey, R. Alan. 2006a. How the Incas Built Their Heartland: State Formation and the Innovation of Imperial Strategies in the Sacred Valley, Peru. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Covey, R. Alan. 2006b. “Chronology, Succession, and Sovereignty: The Politics of Inca Historiography and Its Modern Interpretation.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 48(1): 169–199. Covey, R. Alan. 2008a. “The Inca Empire.” In The Handbook of South American Archaeology, edited by Helaine Silvermann and William H. Isbell, 809–830. New York: Springer. Covey, R. Alan. 2008b. “Multiregional Perspectives on the Archaeology of the Andes during the Late Intermediate Period (ca. A.D. 1000–1400).” Journal of Archaeological Research 16: 287–338. Covey, R. Alan. 2015. “Inca Imperial Intentions and Archaeological Realities in the Peruvian Highlands.” In The Inca Empire: A Multidisciplinary Approach, edited by I. Shimada, 83–95. Austin: University of Texas Press. D’Altroy, Terence. 1987. “Transitions in Power: Centralization of Wanka Political Organization under Inca Rule.” Ethnohistory 34(1): 78–102. D’Altroy, Terence. 1992. Provincial Power in the Inca Empire. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. D’Altroy, Terence. 2001. “Politics, Resources, and Blood in the Inca Empire.” In Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History, edited by Susan Alcock, Terence D’Altroy, Kathleen Morrison, and Carla Sinopoli, 201–226. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. D’Altroy, Terence. 2002. The Incas. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Page 19 of 26


The Inca State and Local Ritual Landscapes D’Altroy, Terence. 2005. “Remaking the Social Landscape: Colonization in the Inca Empire.” In The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters, edited by Gil J. Stein, 263–295. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. D’Altroy, Terence, Christine Hastorf, et al. 2002. Empire and Domestic Economy. New York: Springer. (p. 537)

Dávila Brizeño, Diego. 1965 [1586]. “Descripción y relación de la provincia de los Yauyos.” In Relaciones geográficas de Indias, Vol. 1, edited by Marcos Jiménez de la Espada, 155–165. Madrid: Ediciones Atlas. Duviols, Pierre. 2003. Procesos y visitas de idolatría, Cajatambo siglo XVII. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos and Fondo Editorial, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Eeckhout, Peter. 2008. “El santuario del Oráculo de Pachacamac y los peregrinajes a larga escala en los Andes prehispánicos.” In Adivinación y Oráculos en el Mundo Andino Antiguo, edited by Marco Curatola Petrocchi and Mariusz Ziółkowski, 161–180. Lima: Fondo Editorial, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú/Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos. Espinoza Soriano, Waldemar. 1992. “Huarochirí y el Estado Inca.” In Huarochirí, Ocho Mil Años de Historia, Vol. I, 117–194. Lima: Santa Eulalia de Acopaya. Feltham, Jane. 2005. “Yungas and Yauyos: The Interface between Archaeology and Ethnohistory as Seen from the Lurín Valley.” In Wars and Conflicts in Prehispanic Mesoamerica and the Andes, edited by Peter Eeckhout and Geneviéve Le Fort, 128–145. BAR International Series 1385. Oxford: BAR. Garcilaso de la Vega, El Inca. 1966 [1609]. Royal Commentaries of the Incas and General History of Peru. Translated by Harold V. Livermore. Austin: University of Texas Press. González Holguín, Diego. 1989 [1608]. Vocabulario de la lengva general de todo el Perv llamada lengua Quichua o del Inca. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Gose, Peter. 1996. “The Past Is a Lower Moiety: Diarchy, History, and Divine Kingship in the Inca Empire.” History and Anthropology 9(4): 383–414. Hernández Príncipe, Rodrigo. 2003 [1621]. “Visita de Rodrigo Hernández Príncipe a Ocros (1621).” In Procesos y Visitas de Idolatría, Cajatambo siglo XVII, edited by Pierre Duviols, 731–746. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos/Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Kosiba, Steven B. 2010. Becoming Inca: The Transformation of Political Place and Practice during Inca State Formation (Cusco, Peru). PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.

Page 20 of 26


The Inca State and Local Ritual Landscapes Kosiba, Steven B. 2012. “Emplacing Value, Cultivating Order: Places of Conversion and Practices of Subordination throughout Early Inca State Formation (Cusco, Perú).” In Constructions of Value in the Ancient World, edited by Gary Urton and John Papadopoulos, 97–127. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California. Kosiba, Steven B. 2015a. “Of Blood and Soil: Tombs, Wak’as, and the Naturalization of Social Difference in the Inca Heartland.” In The Archaeology of Wak’as: Explorations of the Sacred in the Pre-Columbian Andes, edited by Tamara L. Bray, 167–212. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Kosiba, Steven B. 2015b. “Tracing the Inca Past: Ritual Movement and Social Memory in the Inca Imperial Capital. Navigating the Inca Landscape: Roads and Ritual Routes in Ancient Cuzco.” In Tribus: Jarbuch des Linden-Museums special edition: Perspectives on the Inca, edited by Monica Barnes, Inés de Castro, Javier Flores Espinoza, Doris Kurella, and Karoline Noack, 178–205. Stuttgart, Germany. MacCormack, Sabine. 1991. Religion in the Andes: Vision and Imagination in Early Colonial Peru. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Makowski, Krzysztof. 2002. “Arquitectura, estilo e identidad en el horizonte tardío: el sitio de Pueblo Viejo-Pucará, Valle de Lurín.” Boletín de Arqueología PUCP 6: 137–170. (p. 538)

Makowski, Krzysztof. 2009. “Prefacio.” In La Revisita de Sisicaya, 1588: Huarochirí Veinte Años antes de Dioses y Hombres, edited by Frank Salomon, Jane Feltham, and Sue Grosboll, 9–14. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Makowski, Krzysztof. 2015. “Pachacamac—Old Wak’a or Inca Syncretic Deity? Imperial Transformation of the Sacred Landscape in the Lower Ychsma (Lurín) Valley.” In The Archaeology of Wak’as: Explorations of the Sacred in the Pre-Columbian Andes, edited by Tamara L. Bray, 127–166. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Makowski, Krzysztof, and Milena Vega Centeno. 2004. “Estilos regionales en la costa central en el horizonte tardío. Una aproximación desde el Valle del Lurín.” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Études Andines 33(3): 681–714. Makowski, Krzysztof, María Fe Córdova, Patricia Habetler, and Manuel Lizárraga. 2005. “La plaza y la fiesta: Reflexiones acerca de la función de los patios en la arquitectura pública prehispánica de los Períodos Tardíos.” Boletín de Arqueología PUCP 9: 297–333. Malpass, Michael A. 1993. Provincial Inca: Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Assessment of the Impact of the Inca State. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. Malpass, Michael A. and Sonia Alconini (eds.). 2010. Distant Provinces in the Inca Empire: Toward a Deeper Understanding of Inca Imperialism. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. Page 21 of 26


The Inca State and Local Ritual Landscapes McEwan, Colin, and Maarten van de Guchte. 1992. “Ancestral Time and Sacred Space in Inca State Ritual.” In The Ancient Americas: Art from Sacred Landscapes, edited by Richard F. Townsend, 359–371. Chicago: The Art Institute of Chicago. Meddens, Frank, Colin McEwan, and Cirilio Vivanco Pomacanchari. 2010. “Inca ‘Stone Ancestors’ in Context at a High-Altitude Usnu Platform.” Latin American Antiquity 21(2): 173–194. Meddens, Frank, Katie Willis, Colin McEwan, and Nicholas Branch (eds.). Inca Sacred Space: Landscape, Site and Symbol in the Andes. London: Archetype Publications. Menzel, Dorothy. 1960. “Archaism and Revival on the South Coast of Peru.” In Men and Cultures: Selected Papers of the Fifth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, edited by Anthony F. C. Wallace, 596–600. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Morris, Craig. 2007. “Andean Ethnohistory and the Agenda for Inca Archaeology.” In Variations in the Expression of Inca Power, edited by Richard L. Burger, Craig Morris, Ramiro Matos Mendieta, Joanne Pillsbury, and Jeffrey Quilter, 1–10. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Morris, Craig, and Donald E. Thomson. 1985. Huánuco Pampa: An Inca City and Its Hinterland. London: Thames & Hudson. Morris, Craig, and Adriana Von Hagen. 2011. The Incas: Lords of the Four Quarters. New York: Thames & Hudson. Moseley, Michael Edward. 2001. The Incas and Their Ancestors: The Archaeology of Peru. New York: Thames & Hudson. Murra, John V. 1980. The Economic Organization of the Inca State. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Patterson, Thomas C. 1985. “Pachacamac: An Andean Oracle under Inca Rule.” In Recent Studies in Andean Prehistory and Protohistory, edited by D. Peter Kvietok and Daniel H. Sandweiss, 159–176. Ithaca, NY: Latin American Studies Program, Cornell University. Ramírez, Susan Elizabeth. 2005. To Feed and Be Fed: The Cosmological Bases of Authority and Identity in the Andes. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. (p. 539)

Ramón, Gabriel. 2017. Shaping Precolonial Concepts in the Andes: The Ushnu for Llocllayhuancupa (Huarochirí, Lima). Latin American Antiquity 28(2): 288–307. Rostworowski de Díez Canseco, María. 1999. History of the Inca Realm, translated by Harry B. Iceland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Page 22 of 26


The Inca State and Local Ritual Landscapes Rostworowski de Díez Canseco, María. 2002a [1978]. “Señoríos Indígenas de Lima y Canta.” In Pachacamac: Obras Completas II, edited by Maria Rostworowski, 193–373. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Rostworowski de Díez Canseco, María. 2002b [1999]. “Estudio introductorio al informe de Rodrigo Cantos de Andrade. In Pachacamac: Obras Completas II, edited by Maria Rostworowski, 173–187. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Rowe, John H. 1944. An Introduction to the Archaeology of Cuzco. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum. Rowe, John H. 1945. “Absolute Chronology in the Andean Area.” American Antiquity 10(3): 265–284. Rowe, John H. 1946. “Inca Culture at the Time of the Spanish conquest.” In Handbook of South American Indians II, edited by Julian Steward, 183–330. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology. Rowe, John H. 1967. “What Kind of City Was Inca Cuzco?” Ñawpa Pacha 5: 59–76. Salomon, Frank. 1986. Native Lords of Quito in the Age of the Incas: The Political Economy of North-Andean Chiefdoms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Salomon, Frank. 1991. “Introductory Essay: The Huarochirí Manuscript.” In The Huarochirí Manuscript: A Testament of Ancient and Colonial Andean Religion, translated and edited by Frank Salomon and George L. Urioste, 1–38. Austin: University of Texas Press. Salomon, Frank, and George L. Urioste (eds. and trans.). 1991. The Huarochirí Manuscript: A Testament of Ancient and Colonial Andean Religion. Austin: University of Texas Press. San Pedro, Fray Juan de. 1992 [1560]. La Persecución del demonio: Crónica de los primeros Agostinos en el Norte del Perú. Melaga, Spain, and Mexico City: Centro Andino y Mesoamericano de Estudios Interdisciplinarios. Sarmiento de Gamboa, Pedro. 2007 [1572]. History of the Incas. Translated and edited by Brian Bauer. Austin: University of Texas Press. Segura Llanos, Rafael, and Izumi Shimada. 2010. “The Wari Footprint on the Central Coast: A View from Cajamarquilla and Pachacamac.” In Beyond Wari Walls: Regional Perspectives on Middle Horizon Peru, edited by Justin Jennings, 113–135. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Shimada, Izumi (ed.). 2015. The Inca Empire: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Page 23 of 26


The Inca State and Local Ritual Landscapes Silverblatt, Irene. 1988. “Imperial Dilemmas, the Politics of Kinship, and Inca Reconstructions of History.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 30(1): 83–102. Taylor, Gerald. 1999. Ritos y tradiciones de Huarochirí. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos. Topic, John R. 1992. “Las Huacas de Huamachuco: Precisiones en torno a una Imagen Indígena de un Paisaje Andino.” In La Persecución del demonio: Crónica de los primeros Agustinos en el Norte del Perú (1560), by Fray Juan de San Pedro, 41–99. Malaga, Spain/ Mexico City: Algazara/Centro Andino y Mesoamericano de Estudios Interdisciplinarios. Topic, John R. 1998. “Ethnogenesis in Huamachuco.” Andean Past 5: 109–127. Topic, John R. 2008. “El Santuario de Catequil: Estructura y agencia: Hacia una comprensión de los oráculos Andinos.” In Adivinación y oráculos en el mundo Andino antiguo, edited by Marco Curatola Petrocchi and Mariusz S. Ziółkowski, 71–95. Lima: Fondo Editorial, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. (p. 540)

Topic, John, and Theresa Lange Topic. 1993. “A Summary of the Inca Occupation of Huamachuco.” In Provincial Inca: Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Assessment of the Impact of the Inca State, edited by Michael Malpass, 17–43. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. Topic, John R., Theresa Lange Topic, and Alfredo Melly. 2002. “Catequil: The Archaeology, Ethnohistory and Ethnography of a Major Provincial Huaca.” In Andean Archaeology I: Variations in Sociopolitical Organization, edited by William H. Isbell and Helaine Silverman, 303–336. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press. Uhle, Max. 2003 [1903]. Pachacamac: Informe de la expedición Peruana William Pepper de 1896. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Urton, Gary. 1990. The History of a Myth: Pacarictambo and the Origin of the Incas. Austin: University of Texas Press. van de Guchte, Maarten. 1999. “The Inca Cognition of Landscape: Archaeology, Ethnohistory, and the Aesthetic of Alterity.” In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Wendy Ashmore and A. Bernard Knapp, 149–168. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Zuidema, R. Tom. 1964. The Ceque System of Cuzco: The Social Organization of the Capital of the Inca. Leiden: Brill. Zuidema, R. Tom. 1985. “The Lion in the City: Royal Symbols of Transition in Cuzco.” In Animal Myths and Metaphors in South America, edited by Gary Urton, 183–250. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Page 24 of 26



Notes: (1) For this debate as it pertains to landscape, see Rowe (1945, 1967); Zuidema (1964, 1985); Gose (1996). (2) See also Bauer and Stanish (2001) for comparable Inca transformation of the Islands of the Sun and Moon in Lake Titicaca. (3) These details are drawn from San Pedro (1992 [1560]), Castro de Trelles (1992), Topic (1992, 1998, 2007), and Topic et al. (2002). Other colonial Spanish texts also mention Catequil worship in the Inca province of Conchucos, southeast of Huamachuco (Topic et al. 2002:313), and in Cajamarca (Topic 1998:113–114). (4) Material from Namanchugo and other related sites dates to the fourth and fifth centuries CE (John Topic, personal communication). (5) The translation is mine. “[Y] asi del Cuzco truxo munchos del linage del Ynga a Guamachuco, que eran del Cuzco quando conquistó a Guamachuco.” (6) To my knowledge, there is no archaeological evidence of a unified Guachemines population conquered by highlands invaders in Huamachuco’s highlands in pre-Inca times (see Topic 1992, 1998). (7) Thus they tell of Pariacaca before the Inca’s birth convoking all the people of Tawantinsuyu (i.e., “retaining” the Inca name for their empire), a claim repeated in the same chapter (Taylor 1999:222–225). (8) Cati Quillay seems to be the a Quechua version of Catequil (Topic et al. 2002:306–307; cf. Salomon and Urioste 1991:101n469). (9) The distinct split (i.e., at 1448 CE) between the former and latter sets of dates must be noted as probably indicating pre-Inca and Inca-era occupations of Llacsatambo. The squaring of these dates with the stratigraphy and stratigraphic location of the ceramics of Inca decoration is ongoing. The primary point here is that these dates militate against the centuries-long occupation of Llacsatambo as expressed in the ethnohistory.

Zachary James Chase

Zachary J. Chase Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University.

Page 25 of 26



Page 26 of 26


The Inca State and Local Ritual Landscapes

Recommend Documents