Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics

8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics

1/27

OLL NT Y

THE KHIPU AND EIGHTEENTH-

CENTURY NEO-INCA POLITICS

GALEN BROKAW

University at Buifalo

The Quechua-language dramaOllantayfigures prominently in literary

histories of Latin America, because it is the oldest surviving secular play

written in Quechua. But analysts of the play are at least as likely, if not

more so, to be linguists or anthropologists as literary critics. The

unknown provenance of

th

play poses serious problems for establishing

a literary basis upon which to analyze the work. Thu s, from the mom ent

the first manuscript copy of Ollantay was discovered in the early nine-

teenth century, literary commentators and critics have focused primarily

on whether the play is an essen tially indigenous or Spanish product.

The primary bases for the arguments in this debate are the play's pre-

Hispanic setting on the one hand (Tschudi; Pacheco Zegarra; Yepez

Miranda) and its general adherence to the formal conventions of Spanish

drama on the other (Mitre; Hills). Also from the very beginning, howev-

er, this debate reached an impasse, because there appear to be no defini-

tive answers to the questions that would potentially resolve the issue.

There is no question that the conventions of the play generally coincide

with those of Spanish drama, but there is no corpus of Inca dramas that

would make possible a comparative analysis and provide a basis for


2/27

32 BCom , Vol 58, No. I 2006)

sible forms of hermeneutic or interpretive analysis appears indeterminate

in this case. Even argum ents that attempt to determine a horizon of un der-

standing within the binary parameters of this debate do not provide a

foundation firm or extensive enough to authorize more interpretative

analyses. This critical impasse derives from the premise that the play

must have some sort of essential, abstract, stable or fixed discursive iden-

tity and from the tendency to neglect the implications of transcultural

processes in the colonial period in general and the eighteenth century

more specifically.

Some more recent scholars, such as Jose Maria Arguedas, Martin

Lienhard, Carlos Garcia-Bedoya, and John Beverley, have advocated a

more measured approach that recognizes the transcultural nature of the

work. Lienhard and Beverley, in particular, have moved beyond the nar-

row terms of the hispanista)indigenista debate and engaged in analyses

that read the play as a transcultural product of the eighteenth-century

Andes. Critics such as Lienhard and Beverleyexplicitly or implicitly

avoid the problem of determining in the abstract whether Ollantay is

essentially Spanish or indigenous, because for them these categories have

no relevance outside their social and political realities. This kind of read-

ing of Ollantay is as much a reading of the cultural and political history

of eighteenth-century Cuzco as it is of the play

itself

Lienhard and Beverley explore the possible relationship between ele-

ments of Ollantay^s plot and the socio-politics of eighteenth-century

Cuzco. Given the pre-Hispanic setting of Ollantay, a complementary

approach would conduct a comparative analysis of indigenous cultural

concepts and traditions over time and as they appear in the play. The rel-

ative paucity of detailed ethnographic information on the pre-Hispanic

and colonial periods makes such a project difficult, but there is at least

one element intemal to the play that may be susceptible to this type of

analysis. Specifically, the knotted, colored string device known as the

khipu appears several times, and on two occasions ch aracters in the p lay

perform khipu readings that implicitly revealalbeit to a limited

degree material conve ntions of a khipu semiotics, that is to say conven-

tions of a khipu system of representation. The play presents the story of


3/27

Brokaw 33

Cusi Coyllur is confined to a monastery. After initial success, Ollantay

eventually suffers defeat as a result of a deception by the Inca's general

Rumi Nahui. The Inca Tupac Yupanqui, who had succeeded Pachacutec

by this time, pardons Ollantay and reunites him with Cusi Coyllur and

their daughter Ima Sumac. The two khipu readings in the play involve

military status reports that take place at the beginning and the end of the

rebellion respectively. The first informs the Inca of the rebellion's suc-

cess,

and the second announces Ollantay's defeat.

With a few notable exceptions (Bro therston), the khipu readings in the

play have not attracted the attention of twentieth-century critics. There

may be a tendency to view this element merely as part of

the

representa-

tion of a pre-Hispanic Inca empire, which it certainly is; but the khipu

also has a history that continues throughout the colonial period and into

the twenty-first century. Whether or not Ollantay originated in an earlier

period, the versions to which we have access are most likely products of

the eighteenth century (Mannheim 148-50). The elem ents within the play,

such as the khipu, then, may also be tied in one w ay or another to the tur-

bulent cultural, social, and political context o f eighteenth-century Cuzco.

Before discussing the khipu that appea r in

Ollantay

then, an understand-

ing of this context is necessary.

The negotiation in Ollantay between an indigenous Andean content

and a European discursive formation took place in the context of the

political turbulence of the eighteenth-century Spanish colonial govern-

ment. In The Age of Andean Insu rrection, Steve J. Stem identifies more

than one-hundred uprisings that occurred in the Andes between 1742 and

1782 (34). Many of these rebellions w ere fomented in part by an Inca ren-

aissance that involved a concerted effort among some descendants of ,

indigenous Andean nobles to revive and maintain the political and cul-

tural status of nelite Inca culture. Beginning in the late seventeenth and

throughout most of the eighteenth century, the indigenous aristocracy

developed a renewed interest in their ancient tradition s, as manifested by

the revival of Inca dress that appears in portraits, the o rganization of Inca-

style processions, the fabrication of neo-Inca ceram ic vases, and the pro-

duction of Quechua language dramas (Rowe 22-24; Lienhard 79). Many


4/27

34 BCom,

Vol

58, No. 1 2006)

thereafter, culminating in 1781 with the rebellion led by Tupac Amaru II

(Lienhard 79; Garcia-Bedoya 337 ).

The mainstream Inca renaissance, however, was never motivated by

revolutionary sentiments but rather by the indigenous elite's need to

maintain a level of prestige and distinction within the colonial order.

Throughout the colonial period, the Spaniards had always afforded a priv-

ileged status to the Inca nobility, and this privileged relationship led to a

much higher degree of acculturation than occurred at other levels of

Andean society. By the end of the seventeenth cen tury, highly acculturat-

ed Andean elites had become so Hispanized that they may have run the

risk of losing much of their indigenous cultural and historical identity

altogether and their privileged po litical status along with it. M oreover, the

gradual emergence of an indigenous and m estizo m iddle class would have

posed a serious challenge to the Inca nobility's monopoly on political

privilege. Thus, in large measure, the eighteenth-cen tury Inca renaissance

may have been an attempt to revive cultural practices that would serve as

the basis for maintaining a political class distinction that was eroding as

a result of acculturation and the emergence of new economic class struc-

tures.

One of the inherent obstacles facing the Inca revivalist impulse would

have been the lack of any direct connection to a living, organ ic, elite Inca

culture. Activists interested in reviving an elite indigenous culture had

access to two main sources of information: (1) eighteenth-century indige-

nous communities that retained their traditional practices; and (2) early

colonial chron icles that described Inca culture. In El m ovim iento

nacional inca del siglo XVIII, John H . Row e suggests that eighteenth-

century Andean elites considered surviving Andean traditions as corrupt-

ed (24-28). Whether or not eighteenth-century Inca descendants made a

distinction between corrupt and non-comipt traditions, they certainly

would have distinguished between popular and elite cultural practices.

The social, cultural, and economic disparities between the acculturated

Andean upper-class and the indigenous masses in the eighteenth century

would have induced the neo-Inca revivalists to project the same structure

onto the pre-Hispanic past. A general awareness of eighteenth-century


5/27

Brokaw 35

In the revivalist project, then, the Inca elites relied primarily on early

colonial descriptions of Inca culture, and more specifically on the Inca

Garcilaso de la Veg a s

Com entarios reales

(1609). From the beg inning of

the sixteenth century through the twentieth, in most cases Garcilaso was

the exclusive authority on the Incas. Rowe explains that And res Gonzalez

de Barcia Carballido y Zufiiga s 1723 edition of G arcilaso s Comentarios

reales

circulated w idely in Peru and that the rebel leader Tupac Am aru II

owned a copy. Eighteenth-century indigenous elites such as Tup ac Amaru

II,

who had thoroughly assimilated Spanish culture and religion

(Valcarcel 38), relied heavily on Garcilaso s text for an understanding of

their Inca heritage. In his treatment of pre-Hispanic Andean culture,

Garcilaso includes a description of both the khipu and of an indigenous

theatrical tradition. Most scholars who have argued for the essentially

indigenous nature of Ollantaycite the following passage from the

Comentarios reales:

No les falto habilidad a los amautas, que eran los filosofos,

para componer comedias y tragedias, que en dias y fiestas

solemnes representaban delante de sus Reyes y de los sefiores

que asistian en la corte. Los representantes no eran viles, sino

Incas y gente noble, hijos de curacas y los mismos curacas y

capitanes, hasta maeses de campo, porque los autos de las

tragedias se representaban al propio, cuyos argumentos siem-

pre eran de hechos militares, de triunfos y victorias, de las ha-

zafias y grandezas de los Reyes pasados y de otros heroicos

varon es. Los argumentos de las comedias eran de agricultura,

de hacienda, de cosas caseras y familiares. Los representantes,

luego que se acababa la comedia, se sentaban en sus lugares

conforme a su calidad y oficios. No hacian entrem eses d esh on-

estos,

viles y bajos: todo era de cosas graves y honestas, con

sentencias y donaires permitidos en tal lugar. A los que se

aventajaban en la gracia del representar les daban joy as y favo-

res de mucha estima.

I:

114)


6/27

36 BCom, Vol 58, No. I 2006)

However, Garcilaso's description of Inca culture, of which the cited pas-

sage is an example, must be understood in the context of his personal si-

tuation, his larger project, and the description of similar cultural practices

that appear in other chronicles.

Garcilaso published his work at the age of sixty, having left Peru at the

age of twenty, and, as Gonzalez Echevarria points out, he was a skilled

writer steeped in European humanism (44-45). Although Garcilaso's

Comentarios

exhibits both the historical and

the

allegorical humanist

methodologies identified by Anthony Grafton (23-46), he relies primari-

ly on an historical and philological approach designed to reconstruct Inca

culture and society. Unlike the Greeks and Romans upon whose textual

legacy the European humanists focused their scholarship, however, the

Incas left no alphabetic record. So, Garcilaso could not engage in the

analysis of public records or textual sources as thfe basis for his historio-

graphical project. Furthermore, although he claims to draw from friends

and relatives who had access to regional khipu accounts, he had no direct

access to khipu records. Rather, he directed his philological analysis

toward explicating the errors of contemporary texts that had misrepre-

sented Inca culture as a result of an imperfect know ledge of Quechua; and

he appealed to his own know ledge of the language and his indigenous ori-

gins as a self-authorizing gesture .

The early colonial descriptions of indigenous culture that Garcilaso

criticizes are often very confiicted and ambivalent about the European

terms with which they are forced to describe Amerindian objects and

practices. Garcilaso's text suffers from the same ambivalence that char-

acterizes most colonial discourses, but it is much less self-consciously so

than earlier chronicles. Garcilaso's ambivalence results from a desire

perhaps in large measure unconscious^to suppress difference. This is not

exactly what Homi Bhabha calls colonial mimicry, but it employs many

of the same techniques. Such m imicry, for e xam ple, always creates a cer-

tain slippage that belies the asserted equivalence, and Garcilaso's text is

no exception. First, Garcilaso does not mention any specific drama. If he

we re aware of a work such as

O llantay,

he surely would have mentioned


7/27

Brokaw 37

assertions about the elite and civilized nature of the Andean tradition as

opposed to a more popular, lower-class phenomenon implicitly contrast

with sixteenth and seventeenth-century European dramas, whose actors

constituted a socially stigmatized lower class and who seentremeses often

focused on less than dignified subject m atters. Thus, Garc ilaso 's desc rip-

tion of Inca drama may be only indirectly related to Spanish theater

through an association with a humanist understanding of the more presti-

gious Greek and Roman traditions.

Nevertheless, the fact that the Andean performers were nobles who

retumed to their appropriate places after the performance suggests that

these activities were part of a larger cultural practice of som e kind of rit-

ual performance. With the exception of the Inca Garcilaso, early chroni-

clers who describe indigenous cultural practices do not find any Andean

analogues of European drama, much less mention specific indigenous

dramatic works. Clements Markham claims that Juan de Santa Cruz

Pachacuti Y amqui's Relacion deantig edades (1613) identifies four dif-

ferent types of dram as, three of which Markham describes respectively as

a joyous representation, a farce, and a tragedy {The Incas 147); but the

Relacion itself snot as clear as Markham seems to suggest. This alleged

description and taxonomy of Andean drama appears in the context of the

birth of the sixth Inca's son. According to Santa Cruz Pachacuti's

genealogical history, the sixth Inca, Yabar Uacac Ynga Yupangui, dedi-

cated himself to conquests in his old age. Upon the birth of his son, he

sent out orders to attend a celebration under threat of

war

The text then

explains: Y enton9es haze la fiesta del nacim iento de su hijo del infante

Viracochampa Yncan Yupangui, en donde embentaron representa9iones

de los farfantes Ilamados afiaysaoca, hayachuco y llamallama, hafiamsi,

etc.El qual dicho Ynga le da una buelta alrededor de Cuzco con su gente

de guerra sin dar guerra nin guno (217). A grammatically literal reading

of this passage would understand the Quechua terms to refer to types of

actors or roles in the performance rather than types of drama. Moreover,

it is not clear whether the four terms are synonymous designations or

refer to different types of a larger category. The second and third terms,

listed separately in the edition cited above, appear together in a single


8/27

38 BCom,

Vol

58, No. I 2006)

reprehension and

saoca

or

sauca

meaning burlas o cosa de burlas

(Gonzalez Holguin 29, 324). In general, the ambiguity of the passage in

the

Relacion

supports many different inferences, but the context in which

it appears in this text suggests that embentaron representa9iones refers

to a more impromptu participation in an Andean ritual performance tra-

dition.

Furthermore, there are several chronicles that implicitly undermine

Garcilaso's description of Inca theater and Markham's interpretation of

Pachacuti Yamqui's text, and present an image of a very different per-

formance tradition. In

Suma y narracion de los Incas,

for example, Juan

de Betanzos describes an Inca performance tradition that involves the

participation of Inca nobility in a ritual context (Betanzos 61; Lienhard

68).

Guaman Pom a provides a similar description ad ding details about the

same kind of performances practiced in other regions of the empire (1:

318[320]-327[329]).

would

argue

that these passages from Be tanzos,

Guaman Poma, and Santa Cruz Pachacuti all refer to the same indigenous

practices described by Garcilaso's more Europeanized text. The rituals

themselves appear to consist of song and dance rather than the kind of

staging that takes place in European drama. Betanzos indicates that the

songs were often epic-like narratives (61). Thus, as Lienhard has argued,

there may have been an Andean epic mode that manifested itself in dif-

ferent social contex ts. Even ifaversion of the Ollantay story were enact-

ed in these ritual performances, it would no t have looked or sounded any-

thing like a European drama. Furthermore, the lack of any reference to

specific dra m atic song and dance routines suggests that Andeans did

not conceptualize these activities as manifestations of some stable, fixed

text independent of the performance itself

Garcilaso's colonial discourse of mimicry constitutes one of the pri-

mary strategies in his larger project which involves representing the Inca

empire as a kind of Golden Age that wou ld co m pare favorably to Spanish

standards of civilization (Lienhard 67). The only way to do this in the

early seventeenth century was to make the Incas look as European as pos-

sible.

Leaving aside the question of the degree to which this was a con-


9/27

Brokaw 39

reales then, had a determining infiuence on the way in which neo-Inca

activists (re)constmcted Inca dramas. There are also numerous other

examples in Garcilaso's text of the Hispanization of Inca culture that

would have been equally infiuential. The Comentarios reales wasand

continues to beso immensely popular precisely because it resonates

with European readers in ways that less mediated ethnographic represen-

tations do not. Thus, for the eighteenth-century indigenous elites,

Garcilaso's text provided the basis for reaffirming the waning indigenous

elite/popular hierarchy by redefining it accord ing to the same cultural and

economic differences that characterized Spanish society. In the specific

case of the theatrical tradition, Garcilaso's use of terms referring to the

European dramatic genres comedia and tragedia to describe Inca ritual

performances facilitated this process, because, like Garcilaso, the eigh-

teenth-century Inca descendants were already highly acculturated. The

reviva l of Inca drama based on Garcilaso's description became m erely

a matter of infusing an already familiar European dramatic form with an

indigenous content. Ironically, then, Garcilaso's Hispanicized representa-

tion of Inca culture, including bu t not limited to his description of Andean

dram a, served in many w ays as a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Garcilaso's text also describes the khipu, one of the icons of Inca

achievement and hence another prime candidate for revivalist projects. In

the eighteenth century, many local communities and haciendas still used

khipu, but there was already a wide-spread view that these surviving

devices were a degenerate vestige of a more complex system of repre-

sentation. Most acculturated Inca elites, who were heavily invested in

maintaining their privileged positions in the Spanish social and political

system, would not have found much use for reviving the khipu as a com -

municative medium, but they m ay hav e resurrected it as a symbol o f Inca

ingenuity. Indeed, the use of the khipu in Ollantay implicitly celebrates

this Inca medium by emphasizing its semiotic or representational capaci-

ty. The implicit description of khipu conventions in the play constitutes

one of the few concrete elemen ts that may provide an opening for under-

standing its relationship to eigh teenth-century indigenous culture and pol-

itics.

Furthermore, it may shed light on the history of the khipu in the


10/27

40 BCom,

Vol

58, No. I 2006)

readings take place. In the second scene of the second act, a messenger

arrives with a khipu received and read by the Inca s general. Below, I

include Tschudi s Quechua transcription and the corresponding text from

the first translation published by Jose Sebastian Barranca in 1868:

Ruminahui.

Caicca Ilantta; nan ccahuahuan

Cai umanpi hatascaiia,

Cai rurucunari runam

Tucui paiman huataccafla.

Ynca Pachacutec.

Ymatan ccan ricurccanqui?

Indianer.

Ollantaitas tucui Anti

Runacuna chasquirccancu;

Hinatan huillacurccancu

Ccahuatas ilaitucun panti

O sanitac umallampi.

Rumifiahui

Chaitan quipu huillasunqui. (Tschudi,

Ollantay

87)

RU MI-NAH UI. (Descifra el quipu). He aqui una veirita

que tiene atada la cabeza con una madeja de lana; se han

rebelado tantos hombres como granos de maiz, ves aqui

suspendidos.

PAC HA CU TEC Y tu ^que has visto?

INDIO.Que toda la nacion Anti se ha sublevado con

Ollanta. Me han asegurado que ya se ve su cabeza cefiida

con la borla roja o encamada.

RUMI-NAHUI.Eso tambien dice el Quipu. (Barranca 31)

In Barranca s translation, Rumi-Nahui seems to indicate that the cords

of the khipu are attached to a wooden bar. Although this is uncom mon in

archaeological specimens, there are examples of khipu whose m ain cord


11/27

Brokaw 41

instance of khipu reading in the play also reveals the use of objects insert-

ed into the strings. In the fourth scene of the third act, the high priest

Huillac Um a reads the second khipu messag e:

Huillac-Uma.

Cai Quipupin can quillinsa

Nan Ollanta rupasccafia

Horccosccaiquin qquepariscay

Cai pisi ppunchau ccasita

Ay Mama huafiusccan rini

Munacuc sonccoipacc mini. (Tschudi, Ollantay 100)

HUILLAC-UMA.(Descifra el quipu). jEn este Quipu

hay carbon , que indica que ya Ollanta ha sido quemado.

Estos tres. . . cinco quipus atados dicen que Anti-Suyu ha

sido sometido, y que se encuentra en manos del Inca, esos

t r e s . . .cinco, que todo se ha hecho con rigor. (Barranca 46)

In this case, Huillac-Um a indicates that the khipu contains coal. These

passages suggest that the khipu system of representation employed

objects such as com and coal as conven tional signifiers in addition to the

other known conventions such as color, cord configuration, and knots.

Markham's 1871 English edition of

Ollantay

which in many cases

appears to be more a translation of Barranca's Spanish version than of an

original Quechua text, translates the Quechua in exactly the sam e way. In

1878,

Gavino Pacheco Zegarra translated a different but very similar

Quechua manuscript of the play into French. Pacheco Zegarra argues that

the suggestion that kemels of com and pieces of coal were inserted into

the khipu is the result of a mistranslation by Barranca and Markham (52,

108-09).

Ultimately, there may be no way to determine the original referent of

these passages as conceived by the person who produced them, but the

confiicting translations are a useful point of departure for understanding

the nature and status of the khipu in the eighteenth century. The pertinent


12/27

42 BCom,

Vol

58, No. I 2006)

Ollantay

59-60). Pacheco Zegarra, however, argues that

ruru

actually

means knot

(52).

Neither o f these translations appears in either co lonial

or more modem dictionaries. In his mid sixteenth-century

Lexicon

(1560), Fray Domingo de Santo Tomas defines

ruro

as both pit

[cuesco

defruta] and egg [huevo](349), and G onzalez H olguin's early seven-

teenth-century Vocabulario(1608) renders rwrw as kidn ey [rifiones],

fruit

[fruto de arbol]

or pit

[pepita o hueso de

fr~uta](322). Frank

Salomon explains that some contemporary Quechua dialects also use the

term

ruru

or

lulun

to refer to roundish objects such as eyeballs (personal

communication). A comparison between the Spanish-Quechua and the

Qu echua-Spanish sections of both colonial and modem dictionaries su g-

gests that colonial Quechua speakers from the Cuzco region and many

modem dialects conceive of pits/fhiit and kidneys as essentially the sam e

thing and that this is the base meaning of the term

ruru

or

ruro.

The

pit/fruit conjunction obtains from the fact that different categories and

developmental stages of fruit are conceived as different kinds ofruru as

indicated by an accompanying adjective. This is consistent with the

Quechua conception of life in general as a series of gradient changes

(Salomon 2 32; A llen). Furtherm ore, all the other secondary referents

associated with

rum

have their own base terms. The standard Quechua

term for egg or hue vo, for exam ple, is

runtu.

The use of such terms

in compound words and phrases confirms their bas e or roo t defini-

tions. All compound expressions containing the term

ruru

and

runtu

relate to, or build upon, the base meaning s of friiit and eg g resp ec-

tively. The use of the term

ruru

to refer to eg gs, then, appears to be a

metaphoric extension justified by the shared characteristic of roundness.

It is unlikely that colonial dictionaries documented all ofth metaphoric

possibilities this term may have inspired. Thus, the translations of the

word by both Barranca and Pacheco Zegarra, which imply a metaphoric

extension to include the referents grains of co m and kn ots respe c-

tively, may represent legitimate metaphoric uses ofth term

ruru

current

in the colonial period.

I have found no exp licit evidence to corrobo rate either of these uses o f


13/27

Brokaw 43

neys: single, overhand knots are easily associated visually with pits or

grains of com; the figure-eight knot used to represent a single unit in the

ones position m ay look like a kidney; and a tightly drawn long knot often

creates a crescent-like shape even more visually similar to a kidney. Th ere

also may have been a practical reason for employing

ruru

metaphorical-

ly to designate individual knots on a khipu. The standard Quechua term

for knot was

quipu

or

quipo.

So, in the Quechua metadiscourse dealing

with khipu, there may have been a need to distinguish between the larger

device and individual knots.

The second controversial passage reads as follows: Ca i Quipup in can

quillinsa (Tschudi,

O llantay

100). Barranca and Markham both translate

this to mean essentially In this quipu there is cha rcoal (Barranc a 46;

Markham,

Ollantay

94). While admitting that the term

quillinsa

refers to

carbon o r charcoal, Pacheco Zegarra argues that in this context, it is used

in a kind of metonymy merely to denote the color black (108). The nor-

mal term for bla ck

isyana

but the use of a color metonym y o f this type

is consistent with some contemporary Andean cultural and linguistic

practices (Frank Salomon, personal communication) that may have roots

in earlier periods.

Pacheco Zegarra does not elaborate on the complex issues involved in

the difference between his translation and those of Barranca and

Markham. He does not explain, for example, that the standard mea ning of

ruru

is neither grain of co m nor knot but rather fhiit/pit/kidney ;

and he merely asserts that the term

quillinsa

is used to refer to the color

black. Although both Pacheco Zegarra's and Barranca's translations are

possible, their accuracy depends upon the nature of the khipu depicted in

the play rather than any inherent nature ofth semantic field. Of course,

the play is a representation, and hence does not necessarily refer to any

real khipu practice at all, but the description of how the khipus are deci-

phered implies certain khipu conventions. Ideas about such conventions

must have come from somewhere. In addition to linguistic and philolog-

ical perspectives, an understanding of the status of knowledge about the

khipu in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the history of this

medium leading up to this period provide valuable insights into the khipu


14/27

44 BCom, Vol 58, No. I (2006)

Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, very little was

known about the khipu. Coincidentally, Johann Jakob von Tschudi pub-

lished both the first description of an archaeological khipu in 1846 (Peru

425-27) and the first transcription of an

O llantay

manuscript in 1853.The

description and illustration of Tschudi's khipu from Pachacamac also

appeared in Rivero iand

Tschudi s

ntigUedades

peruanas

in 1851 (104).

However, these texts contained only fairly general observations of a sin-

gle khipu. During the eighteenth and most of the nineteenth century, the

prevailing view, as Pacheco Z ega rra's tex t indicates, was that most of the

extant khipu had either completely deteriorated or been hidden away by

the Indians (51-52). In 1864, Jose Pe rez reinforced this view in an article

claiming that archaeological khipu had a tendency to disintegrate when

handled (56). Unbeknownst to Perez, however, the khipu he describes,

originally published by Alexander Strong in 1827, was fi-audulent; and it

is doubtful that Perez ever even saw or handled it himself Rivero, who

was familiar with at least one authentic archaeological specimen, was

also duped by Strong's fraudulent khipu (Rivero , Quipos ), and in 1882

Markham and other experts authenticated two apparently fraudulent

khipu for the National Museum of Anthropology and Ethnology in

Florence, Italy (Loza, Q uipu s 51). The problem throughout most of the

eighteenth century was that nobody knew exactly what a khipu was sup-

posed to look like, which m ade even the experts susceptible to decep tion.

With the gradual emergence o f Peruvian archaeology in the nine teenth

century (Bonavia and Ravines), authentic archaeological khipu began

appearing in M useums and attracting the interest of academic researchers.

It was only at the beginning of the twentieth century, however, when the

availability of a sufficient num ber of archaeologica l specim ens made pos-

sible an informed understanding of the material nature of the khipu . Prior

to the formation of large museum collections of khipu in Berlin, New

York, and Lima, scholars relied primarily on the written descriptions that

appear in colonial chronicles. Eighteenth-cen tury writers drew their infor-

mation about khipu almost exclusively from the Inca Garcilaso de la

Vega's

Comentarios reales

(1609). Nineteenth-century scholars had

access to a few travel accounts, at least one description of an archaeo log-


15/27

Brokaw 45

nowhere in the chronicles such as Garcilaso's Comentarios or any later

writings does it say that objects such as com , carbon, or anything else for

that matter, are inserted into khipu (110).

This raises an interesting question about the rationale behind the orig-

inal translation. According to Pacheco Zegarra (109-10), Tschudi claims

that there are a variety of objects which m ay be inserted into a khipu: coca

leaves, small sticks, pebbles, and so forth. O ther than archaelog ical spec-

imens, of which there w ere very few at the time, and w ritten descriptions

by colonial chroniclers or other nineteenth-century travelers like Tschudi

hims lf the only source of information available would have been per-

sonal observation of nineteenth-century e thnographic khipu in actual use.

It is quite possible that at least one type of ethno graph ic k hipu in the eigh-

teenth and nineteenth nineteenth centuries contained the kind of objects

ascribed to Tsc hudi's description by Pacheco Z egarra. Ifso,I would argue

that these khipu probably derived from colonial innovations in khipu

practices.

Many scholars assume that beginning in 1583 the Span iards un iversal-

ly condemned the khipu, prohibited their use, and bum ed as m any as they

could find (Loza, Du bon usage 156; Salomon 113). The corollary of

this assumption is that this campaign to destroy the khipu intermpted the

continuity of the medium, resulting in the loss of khipu literacy with its

associated conventions, but there is no evidence to support these asser-

tions.

The Third Lima Council did mandate the buming of khipus in

1583,

but this order applied only to khipu related to ind igenous religious

practices that threatened to undermine Catholic orthodoxy (Tercer con-

cilio limense 191). The order in the Tercer Concilio with regard to the

buming of khipu does not make this distinction explicitly, but the Tercer

cathecismo s instructions that the Indians create khipus in order to facili-

tate the confession of their sins makes it very clear that the Third

Council's order was not a universal condemnation of all khipu {Tercer

cathecismo

482-83).

Most modem claims that the Spaniards bumed large num bers of khipu

rely directly on the Tercer Concilio and/or indirectly on claims made by

other scholars such as Jesus Lara. In La cultura de los Inkas, for exam-


16/27

46 BCom, Vol 58, No. 1 2006)

I have been unable to find any such account in this text. Arriaga does

record an account of the bum ing of idolatrous ob jects, but he does not list

any khipu among them. Lara m ay have misread the term quepa[a kind of

tmmpet] ,

which does appear in Arriaga s list (94). Only a few pages ear-

lier, liowever, Arriaga actually advocates the use of khipu for confession

(89).

As far as I am aware, there is only one recorded instance of a

Spaniard buming a khipu, but it is an isolated case with political rather

than religious motives (Avalos y Figueroa 151). Furthermore, there are

num erous texts that refer to the use of khipu in both religious and secular

interactions between Andeans and Spaniards well into the seventeenth

century (Arriaga 94; Solorzano y Pereyra 1: 53 , 2: 308-09; Vasquez de

Espinoza

2:

758, 807; Perez Bocanegra 111-13). Th us, the

ercero

cathe-

cismo,

A rriaga s text, and several other chronicles from the period reveal

that attempts by religious officials to encourage the adaptation of the

khipu for Spanish religious practices were particularly wide-spread both

before and after the Third Lima Council in 1583. Thus, although the

Spaniards may have bum ed certain types of khipu used in what they iden-

tified as idolatrous practices, there was never any universal condem nation

or prohibition of khipuuse. On the contrary, both th e church and the colo -

nial administration advocated the use of this medium.

The adaptation of

th

khipu for ecclesiastical purposes may have con-

tributed to the production of khipu such as the one that accompanies the

so-called Naples documents (Hyland; Cantu) and the twentieth-century

ethnographic khipu described by modem researchers: the Chipaya khipu

studied by Teresa Gisbert and Jose de Mesa (Gisbert and Mesa 497-506),

the khipu from Rapaz (Ruiz Estrada), and, although not ecclesiastical in

nature, possibly the Taquile khipu discussed by Ravines and Mackey

(Ravines; Avalos de Matos; Mackey). All of tiiese khipu differ rather

markedly from archaeological specimens. Unlike pre-Hispanic archaeo-

logical khipu, twentieth-century ecclesiastical khipu legacies often con-

tain objects attached to their cords. If the corpus of archaeological khipu

is an accurate sample of this medium as used in the pre-Hispanic period,

then the twentieth-century practice of attaching objects to cords would

derive from innovations in khipu practices motivated by new contexts of


17/27

Brokaw 47

Moreover, this ecclesiastical khipu tradition was uniform in neither

extension nor intension. In spite of the general recommendation in the

Tercero cathecismo there was never any organized pan-Andean cam-

paign to adapt the khipu for ecclesiastical use. The legacies of ecclesias-

tical khipu traditions that have survived appear to be the result of indi-

vidual projects whose conventions were idiosyncratic to the communi-

ties,

parishes, or individuals that developed them.

Ecclesiastical khipu practices were contemporary with, but different

from, the more traditional khipu that inspired them. These ecclesiastical

khipu would have been much more accessible to observation by travelers

such as Tschudi than the khipu used in more traditional contexts such as

those whose legacy Frank Salomon has studied in Tupicocha. Tschudi s

description of khipu conventions cited by Pacheco Zegarra, then, may

have derived from his personal observation of ecclesiastical khipu during

his early nineteenth-century travels in Peru. In any case. Barranca and

M arkham s translation of the passages inOllantay implying the insertion

of objects in the cords of the khipu is more consistent with the conven-

tions of these ecclesiastical khipu that can be traced back to the colonial

period than with pre-Hispanic archaeological specimens or even the mod-

em non-ecclesiastical patrimonial khipu from Tupicocha.

Neo-Inca activists in the eighteenth century who may have had an

interest in reviving the khipu for either symbolic or practical purposes

would have been aware o f Garcilaso s general description of this dev ice,

but even more infiuential would have been the observable ethnographic

khipu practices of the eighteenth-century

itself

In general, the accultur-

ated Inca elite did not live in indigenous communities where they might

have been exposed to more traditional khipu. So, like Tschudi, the most

prominent and accessible ethnographic khipu would have been the sur-

viving ecclesiastical khipu practices that the Church had actively pro-

moted throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The conven-

tions of these eighteenth-century ecclesiastical khipu may have already

included the insertion of objects that researchers would notice later in

twentieth-century practices.


18/27

48 BCom, Vol 58, No. I 2006)

some way their reconstruction of what they saw as a lost authentic Inca

tradition. Thus, if there ever were any eighteenth-century performances of

Ollantay, they may very well have employed neo-Inca khipu props con-

taining kemels of com and pieces of charcoal, inspired by similar con-

ventions of ecclesiastical khipu.

There are very few manifestations of what we might call neo-Inca

khipu in the eighteenth century, but as in the case of the

Ollantay

episodes, all of them relate to a kind of letter function. In considering

these neo-Inca khipu, it is important to keep in mind the nature of khipu

literacy. There is a tendency to think of khipu literacy in the sam e way we

think o f alphabetic literacy: as a conventionally hom ogeno us system. Of

course, even alphabetic writing often incorporates non-alphabetic signs

such as Arabic numerals, but I would argue that the khipu was probably

an even m ore heterogenous m edium that may have em ployed different

types of semiotic conventions at different levels of literacy. The khipu

was an ubiquitous device in the pre-Hispanic Ande s, used for recording a

variety of information types at several different social, economic, and

political levels. The most basic level consisted of pastoral khipu used to

keep track o f fiocks. Another, more com plicated literacy involved reco rds

of community obligations and labor tribute. In pre-Hispanic times, the

highest, mo st complex level would have been dedicated to a kind of Inca

historiography (Brokaw). Unlike modem alphabetic literacy, however,

khipu literacy was not conceived as an independent institution in and of

its lf

Each level with its specific content and conventions of representa-

tion w as tied to institutional stm ctures. Th is is no t to say that there w ould

have been nothing in common between the different levels of khipu liter-

acy, but the adaptation of khipu conventions to different types of content

would no t have been as immediately transparent as in the case of a phono-

graphic m edium . It is unlikely, therefore, that any given level of khipu lit-

eracy wou ld have survived for any significant period of time after the dis-

solution of the institutions with which it was associated.

The pre-H ispanic letter-writing use of the khipu that appears in

Ollantay

is no t very w ell documented in colonial so urce s. Such letter-khi-

pus would have been carried bychasquis, the relay runners posted along


19/27

Brokaw 49

before the Spaniards had even leamed the indigenous terms chasqui and

khipu

Miguel de Estete describes messengers mnning from post to post

carrying knotted strings (51). Guaman Poma's

Nueva coronica

also con-

tains a drawing of a messenger carrying a khipu with an alphabetic tag

identifying it as a letter(1:2 02[204]). The link between p re-Hispanic let-

ter-khipus and the

chasqui

system would explain the lack of any more

detailed information about this particular category of khipu, because the

chasqui

system dissolved rapidly after the conquest along with most of

the other high-level Inca administrative institutions. Eighteenth-century

neo-Inca revivalists and rebel organizers, however, may have resurrected

a kind

of chasqui

system as well as the use of khipu as part of their ideo-

logical project.

As the Inca renaissance began feeding into revolutionary movements,

reviving the khipu may have served as both a doubly symbolic gesture

and a strategically astute maneuver. There is some evidence to suggest

that some of the rebellions against the Spaniards that took place in the

second half of the eighteenth century, the most famous of which culmi-

nated in 1780-1781 with the insurgency of Tupac Amam II, may have

employed a kind of khipu in some cases in a symbolic way, and in oth-

ers perhaps as a means of communication.

Fray Matias Borda relates an episode involving the use of a knotted

cord during the rebellion led by Julian Ap asa/Tupac Catari near La Paz in

1781.

Borda's account claims that the Indians no longer used khipus

(217),

but on at least one occasion a m essenge r carried a kno tted rope that

functioned as a kind of letter (209-11 ). The knot in the rope evidentiy held

some kind of symbolic significance related to the carrying out of Tupac

Catari's instmctions to kill all the Spaniards. Borda makes it very clear

that the rebellion produced official paper work in alphabetic script (217-

18), but this use of knotted cords may have been an ideological gesture,

a symbolic incorporation of an organic Andean medium.

William Bennett Stevenson describes another rebellion that took place

in 1792 near Valdivia, Chile, in which a system of colored, knotted cords

was used to communicate among Andean leaders:


20/27

50 BCom,

Vol

58, No. 1 2006)

split, and was found to contain the finger of a Spaniard; that it

was wrapped round with thread, having a fringe at one end

made of red, blue, black, and white worsted; that on the black

were tied by Lepitram, four knots, to intimate that it was the

fourth day after the full moon when the bearer left Paquipulli;

that on the white we re ten kno ts, indicating that ten days after

that date the revolution would take place; that on the red was

to be tied by the person who received it a knot, if he assisted

in the revo lt, but if he reftised, he was to tie a knot on the blue

and red joined together: so that according to the route deter-

mined on by Lepitram he would be able to discover on the

retum of his chasqui, or herald, how many o f his friends w ould

join him; and if any dissented, he would know who it was, by

the place where the knot uniting the two threads was tied. ( 1 :

50-51)

x

Amerique pre-historique, Jean Francois Nad aillac produces a very sim-

ilar version of this account, probably based on Stevenson's text (458). It

is unclear exactly what relationship these Chilean knotted cords might

have had to earlier khipu traditions, but they are not consistent with w hat

is known of archaeological khipu.

All of these military letter-khipu and the use of chasqui-\iks messen-

gers appear to form part of the revolutionary branch of the eighteenth-

century Inca renaissance. There is no question that the Andean rebellions

of this period drew from, and built upon, the neo-Inca revivalist move-

ment, invoking Inca symbols and attempting to revive Inca practices with

the ultimate goal of restoring Inca political sovereignty; but indigenous

leaders of these movements normally had more direct ties to indigenous

comm unities than the urban Inca elite who were the p rimary participants

in the Inca cultural renaissance. Unfortunately, relatively little is known

about the full extent of the Inca revivalist project, and even less about the

specifics of its relationship to rebellions that took place in the sam e pe ri-

od. Nev ertheless, Jose Antonio de Areche's sentence pronounced against

Tupac Amam II and his family clearly indicates that the Spaniards saw a


21/27

Brokaw 51

mem ory of the Incas. He also reemphasizes the official policy that the

Indians should be taught Spanish as a means of acculturation (771-73).

Shortly thereafter, Spain banned Garcilaso de la Vega's Comentarios

reales

in Peru, and ordered that all extant copies in the viceroyalty be con-

fiscated (Valcarcel 1971, 3: 267-68).

Ollantay

may have been one of the provocations for Areche's prohibi-

tion of indigenous dramas in 1781. Bruce Mannheim has dated the ver-

sion of

Ollantay

copied in the Sahuaraura manuscript to sometime

between 1690 and 1780 (148-50). It has become commonplace to assert

that Antonio Valdez, whose manuscript was the first to come to light,

organized presentations of Ollantay for Jose Gabriel Condorcanqui,

known as Tupac Amaru II. If this is tme, these representations would

probably have taken place prior to the rebellion itself Lienhard has

described this scenario as a legend (78nl7), because critics have perpet-

uated these claims without citing any source. The legen d originates

with Clements Markham who states that Antonio Valdez was a good

friend of Tupac Amaru II, and insinuates that he transc ribed the play from

the oral tradition in order to present it for the rebel leade r Markham 106;

Ollantay6;Incas 145, 148). Markham implies that he obtained this infor-

mation in 1853 from Dr. Pablo Justiniani, an elderly priest from Lares

who w as a friend of Antonio Valdez, who remem bered the Tupac Amaru

rebellion, and who made a copy of Ollantay from Valdez's original man-

uscript. Although there is no other evidence that corroborates the link

between

Ollantay

and Tupac Amaru II, it is consistent with the kinds of

cultural practices involved in the Inca renaissance and their relationship

to revolutionary sentiments.

The fact that Areche does not include the khipu in his prohibition order

suggests that this medium was not a very prominent part of Inca revival-

ism, neither in its strictly cultural nor in its revolutionary strands. The

lack of any more extensive documentary record of eighteenth-century

khipu would appear to confirm this conclusion. Nevertheless, the inci-

dents recorded by Borda, Stevenson, and Nadaillac indicate that knotted

cords at the very least played a symbolic role in the rebellions that took

place near La Paz in 1781 and later in Valdivia in 1792. These practices


22/27

52 BCom, Vol 58, No. 1 (2006)

the relationship between them makes it impossible to provide a more

complete description of khipu use in eighteenth-century insurgencies,

their relationship to ethnographic khipu practices, or their function in

indigenous ideological projects. Furthermore, the lack of any records

relating to the production and perfomiance of Ollantay in the eighteenth

century prevent any more definitive elaboration ofitsrole in that con text.

Nevertheless, if Markham is correct about Valdez's staging of

Ollantay

performances and his relationship with Tupac Amaru, then it may be no

coincidence that records of military letter-khipu only appear after 1780.

This admittedly circumstantial evidence has highly suggestive implica-

tions for the role played by

Ollantay

and its khipu in the late eighteenth-

century neo-Inca rebellions. As explained above, the two relevant scenes

in the play involve chasqui delivering military letter-khipu that commu-

nicate the status of Ollantay's insurgency. Thus, the inspiration for resur-

recting this medium in its letter function as part of an eighteen th-cen-

tury ideological project and military strategy may have come from the

military khipu-letters that appear in

Ollantay.

Rebel leaders may have

adopted this medium to serye multiple purposes as a powerful symbol of

the Inca past, an ideological altemative to the hegemony of European lit-

eracy, and a strategically advantageous medium of secret communication.

With regard to the implicit sem iotics of the kh ipu inscribed in the play,

there is no definitive way to reconcile the philological argument corrob-

orating Pacheco Zegarra's translation/interpretation, which is consistent

with m ost archaeological kh ipu, and the ethnographic argum ent support-

ing Barranca and Markham's version, which reflects the kind of ecclesi-

astical khipu practices identified in the twentieth century but originating

in the colonial period. This indeterminacy of

th

Quechua text, however,

may constitute the most significant evidence of all for understanding

Ollantay s

khipu a s well as the play itself In m any respects, the eigh -

teenth century is a transitional period that on the one hand inherited many

indigenous traditions as part of'a pre-Hispanic legacy whose vitality con-

tinues through the present, and on the other hand fed into the independ-

ence movement of the nineteenth century with its new ideological

alliances and tensions between Creoles, mestizos, indigenous elites, and


23/27

Brokaw 53

between semiotic and material practices takes place. The indeterminacy

of the Qu echua meta-discourse on the khipu inOllantay then also dram-

atizes this mediation between the continuity of a pre-Hispanic tradition

and socio-political particularities of eighteenth-century transcultural

processes.

WORKS CITED

Allen , Catherine. Body and Soul inQuechuaThouglA.

Journal of

Latin merican

Lore

8.2 (1982):

179-96.

Areche,

3osi

Anton io de. Sentencia pronunciada

en

el Cuzco por el visitador Jose Antonio

e

Areche

contra Jos6 Gabriel Tupac Amaro, su muger, hijos, y d e m ^ reos principales de la subleva-

ci6n, 15-V-1781. 1781.

La rebeiion de Tupac Am aru,

Volumen

11

Ed. Carlos Daniel

Valcircel. Vol. 2. Lima: Comisibn Nacional del Sesquicentenario de la Independencia del

Peni, 1971. 765-73.

Arguedas, Jos6 Maria. El Ollantay: lo aut6ctono y lo occidental en el es tilo de los dramas colon ia-

les quechuas.

Letras Peruanas: Revista deHumanidades

2.8 (1952): 1, 114-16, 139-40.

Arriaga, Joseph de.E xtirpacidn de la idolatria del P iru.Lima: Cerdnimo de Contreras, 1621.

Avalos de Malos, Rosalia Los 'quipus' de Taquile: aclaracidn obligada.

Boietin de Lima

11.62

(1989): 5.

Avalos y Figueroa, Diego de.

Primera parte de la Misceldnea Austral de don Diego Davalos y

Figueroa enVariasColoquias,IntercoiutoreaDelia y Cilena, con la Defensa de D amas d iri-

gida al excellentissimo don

Luis

de Velasco, C avallero de la Oden [sic] d e Santiago, Visorey,

y C apitan general de los Reynos del Piru, Chile, y Tierrafirme.

Lima, 1602.

Barranca, Jos6 S eb as ti^ , ed . and trans.Ollanta: Dram a quechua espanolen tres actos. 1868. Lima:

Ediciones de la Biblioteca Universitaria, 1963.

Betanzos, Juan de.

Suma y narracion de los Incas.

1557. Ed. Maria del Carmen Martin Rubio.

Madrid: Ediciones Atlas, 1987

Beveriey, John.Subalternity and Representation: rgumentsin Cultural Theory.Durham: Duke UP,

1999.

Bhabha, Hom i K. Of Mimicry and Man: The Am bivalence of Colonial Discourse. TheLocation of

Culture.

London: Routledge, 1994. 85-92.


24/27

54 BCom,

Vol

58, No. 1 (2006)

Brokaw, Galen. The Poetics of Khipu Historiography: Guam an Pom a de Ayala's Nueva coronica

and the Relacion de los quipucamayos. Latin American Research Review38.3 (2003 ): 111-

47 .

Brotherston, Gordon. The Royal Drama Apu Ollantay, Between Inca Ideology and the Spanish

'Golden A ge. ' Com parative Criticism 8 (1986): 189-212.

Calvo Perez, Julio. An îsis de la obra andnima quechuaOllantay. Ollantay: edicidn critica de la

obra andnima quechua. Ed. Julio Calvo P6rez. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Regionales

Andinos BartolomS de las Casas, 1998. 9-189.

Cantii, Francesca. Guaman Poma y Bias Valera: Tradicion andina e historia colonial. Rome:

Instituto Italo-Latinoamericano, 20 01.

Estete, Miguel. Noticia del Peru (El descubrimiento y la conquista del Peru), [c. 1534-1535].

Coleccion de libros y docum entos referentes a la historia del P eru.

Vol. 8. Second series.

Lima: Imprenta y Libreria Sanmarti, 1924. 3-7 1.

Garcia-Bedoya, Carlos. Teatro quechua colonial, barroco andino y renacimiento inca.

Actas del I

Encuentro Internacional de Peruanistas.

Lima: Universidad de Lim a, 1996. 325-38.

Garc ilaso de la Vega, el Inca.C omentarios reales. 160 9.2 vols. Caraca s: Biblioteca Ayacucho, 1985.

Gisbert, Teresa, and Jos6 de Mesa. Los chipayas. Anuario de E studios Americanos 3(1966): 479-

506.

Gonzêz Echevarria, Roberto.M yth and Archive: A Theory of Latin American Narrative. Durham:

Duke UP, 1998.

Gonzêz Holguin, Diego. Vocab ulario de la lengua general de todo el Peru llamad a lengu a

Qquichua o del Inca. 1608. Lima: U niversidad Nacional Ma yor de San Marcos, 1989.

Grafton, Anthony.Defenders of the

Text:

The Traditions of Scholarship in an Age of Science, 1450-

1800.Cam bridge: Harvard U P, 1991.

Guaman Pom a de Ayala, Felipe.Nueva coronica y buen gobiemo. 1615. 3 vols. Ed. John V. Mu rra,

Ro lenaA dom o and Jorge L. Urioste. Madrid: Historia 16 1987.

Hills,

Elijah Clarence. The Quechua Drama, Ollantay. Romanic Review 5.2 (1914): 127-76.

Hyland, Sabine. Woven Words: The Royal Khipu of Bias Valera. Narrative Threads: Accounting

and Recounting in Andean Khipu.Ed. Jeffrey Quilter and Gary Urton. Austin: U of Texas P,

2002.

151-70.

Lara, Jesus.La cultura de los Incas. 2vols. La Paz: Editorial Los Amigos del Libro, 1967.

.Poesia Quechua.Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Econdm ica, 1947.

Lienhard, M artin. La 6pica incaica en tres textos coloniales (Juan de Betan zos, Titu Cus i Yupanqui,

el

Ollantay). Lexis

9.1 (1985): 61-85.


25/27

Brokaw 55

Mackey, Carol. Los quipus de Taquile: respuesta a Rogger Ravines.

Boietin de Lima

11.62 (1989):

4-5.

Mannheim, Bruce.

The Language of the Inka since the European Invasion.

Austin: U of Texas P,

1991.

Markham, Clements R.

Th e Incas of Peru.

London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1911.

.

Markham in Peru.

1862. Ed. Peter Blanchard. Austin: U of Texas P, 1991.

.Ollantay: An Ancient Ynca Dram a. London: TrObnerA Co, 1871.

Mitre, Bartolomd.

Ollantay. Estudio sobre el drama quechua.

Buenos Aires: Imprenta y Libreria de

Mayo, 1881.

Nadaillac, Jean Francois.

Pre-historic America.

1884. Trans. N. D 'Anve rs. Ed. W. H. Dall. New

York: G. P. Putnam , 1893.

Pacheco Zegarra, Gavino.

Tresor de la lang ue des Incas.

omo

I :

OllantaX:

drame en vers quechuas

du temp des Incas.

Trans. Ga vino P acheco Zegarra. Paris: Maisonneuve, 1878.

P6rez Bocanegra, Juan.

Ritual formulario e institucion de curas para administrar a los naturales.

Lima: Geronymo de Contreras, 1631.

P6rez,

iosi.

Notice sur les qquipos des anciens Piruvie ns.

Actes de la Sociite d'Ethnographie

Americaine etOrientale

4 (1864): 54-57.

Ravines, Rogger. De Ravines a Mac key: una replica. Boietin de Lima11.62 (1989): 5-6.

. iLo s quipus de Taquile?

Boietin de Lima

10.59 (1988): 3-4.

Rivero y Ustariz, Ma riano Eduardo de. Quip os. Coleccidn de memorias cientificas agricolas e

industrials. Vol 2. Brusse ls: Imp renta de H. Goem aere, 1857. 76-84.

, and Johann Jakob von Tschudi.

Antigiiedades peruanas. 2

vols. Vienna: Imprenta Imperial de

laCortedelEstado , 1851.

Row e, John H. El movimiento nacional inca del siglo XVIII.

Revista universitaria

(Cuzco) 43

(1954):

17-47.

Ruiz Estrada, Arturo.

Los quipus de Rapa2.

1981. Huacho, Peru: Universidad Nacional Jos^ Faustino

SAnchez Carridn, 1982.

Salomon, Frank. The Cord Keepers: Khipus and Cultural Life in a Peruvian Village. Durham: Duke

UP,

2004.

Santa Cruz Pachacuti, Juan de.

Relacidn de antiguedades deste reino del Peni. Antigiiedades del

Peni.

1613. Ed. Henrique Urbano and Ana Sanchez. Madrid: Historia 16, 1992.

Santo TomSs, Domingo de.

Lexicon, o vocabulario de la lengua general del Peru.

1560. Lima:

Instituto de Historia, 1951.

SoI6rzano y P ereyra, Juan de.

PoU tica indiana.

1629-1639. 5 vols. Biblioteca de Autores Espafioles,


26/27

56

BCom, Vol 58, No. 1 (2006)

Stevenson, W[illiam] B[ennet]. Historical and Descriptive Narrative of wentyYears Residence in

South America. 3 vols. London: Longman, Orm e, Brown and Green, 1829.

Strong, Alexander. A prospectus of the Quipola, or an Explanation of the Quipoes, now open for

Public Opinion.London: J Phair, 1827.

ercero

cathecismoy exposicion de la doctrina Christiana, por sermones . 1585. Corpus Hispanonim

de Pace, 26.2: 333-778. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1985.

ercerConcilio Limense. 1583. ercerConcilio Limensey la acultwacion de los indigenas sudame-

ricanos. Ed. Francesco Leonardo Lisi. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, 1990. 103-

227.

Tschudi, Johann Jakob von.

Ollantay. Die Kechua Sprache.

Vienna: Kaiserlich-KOnigliehen Hof-

und Staatsdruckerei, 1853.

. Peru: Esbozo s de viajes realizados entre 1838 y 1842. 1846. Lima: Pontificia Universidad

Cat61ica del Peni,

2003.

Valc^ cel, Daniel.La rebelion de upacAmaru. Lima: Editorial Universo, 1970.

. La rebelion de upacAmaru. 4 vols. Lima: Comisidn Nacional del Sesquicentenario de la

Independencia del Peru, 1971.

Vasquez de Espinoza, Antonio. Compendio y descripcion de las Indias occidentales. 1630. 2 vols.

Ed. Balbino Velasco Bayon. Madrid: Historia 16, 1992.

Yepez Miranda, Alfredo. La incanidad del 'Oila ntay .' Revista del Instituto Americano delArte 7.2

(1958): 157-70.


27/27

Documents

Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics