Separating Invention from Possible Inherited Traditions
in the Chronicle of Montesinos

by Juha Hiltunen, Docent for Native American Studies, University of Oulu, Finland

Email Juha Hiltunen

Text (preliminary draft only -- absolutely no quotation)
Copyright © 2003 Juha Hiltunen. All rights reserved

The chronicle of Fernando de Montesinos, Memorias Antiguas y Historiales del Perú (1642-4), has until recently largely been neglected by Andean scholars due to its claims that the ancient Peruvians kept written records, and its claims that a very long list of pre-Incaic kings descended from Ophir, the great-grandson of Noah. Modern research, however, supported by archaeology (in the Cuzco region), has brought forth interesting data, suggesting that particular ethnohistorical records in this chronicle have considerable historical value. It is truly challenging work, and requires a multidisciplinary approach, to distinguish such useful historical information from the much larger mass of inventive, fabulous and manipulated data. The dynastic lists recorded in Montesinos’s chronicle can be correlated with current prehistoric periodization in the Andes with promising results. In this new way of looking into the Andean past, we can consider that Middle-Horizon and Late Intermediate Period Wari kings may have been included in this unique written source, the only one available to us from its time.
Since the publication of my book, Ancient Kings of Peru. The Reliability of the Chronicle of Fernando de Montesinos (1999), a growing discussion around this topic has arisen. I am very pleased since this was one of the main goals of my study. Several scholars have started to examine the chronicles of Montesinos and his possible documentary sources more seriously and carefully. There has also been criticism of certain ideas and details which I presented in my thesis. This is normal and to be expected. I will be the first to accept new well-grounded ideas which could enlighten the life and times of Fernando de Montesinos, his sources, and show how the ethnohistoric record in his chronicle can be better correlated with the Andean past. I am particularly grateful to Sabine Hyland (Profesor at St. Norbert College de Pere, Wisconsin) for her thorough research into primary sources such as Blas Valera, Anello Oliva, and Montesinos during these years.1 She has offered constructive critique, and highlighted certain controversial issues in my thesis. Part of this paper is dedicated to this discussion. I will also present my most current view of the Andean ethnohistoric past – based on the latest available data - as it can be perceived through Montesinos’s chronicle. For this view, the Chokepukio archaeological site is crucial. According to research of Gordon McEwan and myself, Chokepukio may well have been the seat of the last pre-Incaic dynasty of Montesinos’s chronicle and the origin place of the Incas. Before entering into these issues, I will treat briefly a couple of recent hypotheses which have been built up around Montesinos’s dynastic history.
Montesinos and the Kings of Tiwanaku
Two scholars, Jan Szeminski (1995) and Carlos Ponce Sanginés (1999), have recently presented an idea that the kings recorded in Montesinos’s chronicle could better be linked with the Tiwanaku culture and with the region of Altiplano than with that of Peru.2
The first part of Szeminski’s article deals with documentary references to rulers of the Collas / Collasuyo, what became the southern quadrant of the Inca empire. Such references are found in the cronicles of Cieza de León, Joseph de Acosta, Gutierrez de Santa Clara, Guaman Poma de Ayala, and Anello Oliva.3 In treating the Montesinian kings, he uses only the first parts of the list, i.e. rulers which are commonly known as "Piruas" and "Amautas". The later part (one which I consider more important ethnohistorically) – the so-called kings of Tampu-Tocco – is curiously ignored in his presentation. Altogether the records of 65 kings are summarized in table form, with a special emphasis on references to conquests and territories within the royal realm. [Thus Szeminski drew a general view of the extent of this ancient empire.] Most references above were recorded in the very first part of Montesinos’s dynastic narrative, with special deeds attributed particularly to the first three rulers of the list. In reading this part of the text, one can easily notice an obvious interpolation from some traditional Inca narrative.4 The ancient realm which is pictured in this way corresponds roughly to the area of a bygone Megalithic Tiawanaku empire. According to Szeminski, Tiwanaku controlled the Wari realm too. It is easier to draw such a picture if one ignores the Tampu-Tocco phase and dynasty.5
Another scholar favoring the Tiwanaku hypothesis is the famous Bolivian archaeologist Carlos Ponce Sanginés, with an extensive career and publication record in the field.6 Although his ideas may appear somewhat nationalistic, they curiously correspond to the previous hypotheses which also linked Montesinos’s narrative particularly with Tiwanaku archaeology.7 There is an interesting parallel in Ponce Sanginés’s reasoning with the ideas of Szeminski. Here also the dynasty of Tampu-Tocco was omitted. But in this case Sanginés omits also the first 16 kings from the "Pirua" list. He is here imitating a very curious work by Eduardo de Habich, who also built up a chronology for Montesinos’s kings. In Habich’s presentation, the first 16 kings were located at Cuzco, the next 49 at Tiahuanaco (the dynasty of the Collas), and the remaining 28 at Tampu-Tocco.8
The number of kings used by Ponce Sanginés is thus 49, corresponding the "Amauta" part of the narrative.9 These 49 kings were distributed along the major archaeological periods of Tiwanaku, starting from 150 BC and ending at AD 1172. Ponce Sanginés used Montesinos’s regnal records as a basis to calculate the average length of reign, and accepted 28 years as this mean figure.10 This gave him an ethnohistorical dynastic framework extending from 170 BC to AD 1187.
Ponce Sanginés has also done semantic-lexical analyses of the names of rulers, and "translated" them into Aymara. Thus Titu Yupanqui became T’itu Amtata and Yuhuar Huquiz became Wila Jupi Jaya.11 This part is interesting, but it has little value other than to create a rather artificial basis for his Tiwanaku hypothesis. Ponce Sanginés has also considered Inca dynastic propaganda – a topic central in my thesis also. Such propaganda was probably the major reason why so few pre-Inca dynastic records survived to posterity.
Both Szeminski and Ponce Sanginés have used rather a ["Procustrean"] method to build up a chronological framework for kings in Montesinos’s narrative. Modern archaeology does not support the idea that these kings can be localized at Tiwanaku, still less so the narrative text of Montesinos’s chronicle. In reading that portion of the narrative which describes events in the turbulent final years of the Amauta empire and the following histories at Tampu Tocco, one can much more easily imagine that these events may have occurred somewhere in southern Peru.
Montesinos and the rulers of Quito?
I now shift to another corner of the Central Andean ethnohistoric realm, to respond to critiques to which I referred earlier, in particular a note from Sergio Barraza, a Peruvian archaeologist from the Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru, in Lima. He has written an article, in which he attempts to identify the source for the dynasties of Fernando de Montesinos. He concludes that the author of the manuscript consulted by Montesinos was a "mestizo" from Quito – basing this conclusion on an oral tradition conserved among descendants of the Incas who were living in Quito in the second half of the 16th century. According to him, the names of the monarchs in Montesinos are derived from historical descendants of the Inca Huayna Capac, from the names of "caciques" and from place names.12
According to Barraza, the following names were derived from descendants of the Inca Huayna Capac: Tupac Amaru Amauta (Tupac Amaru), Sayri Tupac (son of Inca Manco), Illa Tupac (captain of Inca Manco), Paullo Atauchi Capac (Paullo Inca), Auqui Quitu Atauchi (Titu Atauchi), and Quispe Titu (Titu Cusi Yupanqui).
The following were derived from ’caciques’: Cuyo Manco (Guzmango of Cajamarca) and Morasco (Morco, an Inca mitma in Panzaleo, close to Quito).
The names which he claims were derived from toponymy are Huanacauri Pirua (Huanacauri), Huillcanota Amauta (Vilcanota), Huanacauri, Huillca Huaman (Vilcashuaman), and Toco Cosque (Cosque, a town in the Amazonian region of Quijos).
Sergio Barraza assumes that the names were preserved in the north only through oral tradition, and that the "mestizo informant from / in Quito" probably built up this narrative dynastic record on that basis, while some alterations of form may have been a product of poor transmission between speakers of Quechua and speakers of local languages.13
Before entering into a discussion of Sergio Barraza’s ideas, I will give here what Sabine Hyland has said and written on this topic. She has noted a special source referred to by Montesinos in Book I of his Memorias, "un libro manuscrito que…trata del Piru y sus emperadores", which he had purchased in Lima. Montesinos does not provide the name of the author of this manuscript, but informs us that the writer was a long-time resident of Quito, and for this history made use of the Bishop of Quito’s investigation of the Indians in his diocese. A little later on Montesinos adds that the author states that the native historians used a special type of quipu to encode the "events and deeds of the Peruvian kings"; that use of these quipus was centered in Quito; and that many of these quipus had been sent to Garcilaso, who, however, had lied about them..14
Sabine Hyland regards the so-called Ms. Universitaria of Montesinos’s narrative as the most authorative source. I will return later to a discussion of the relative authority of the two major manuscripts of Montesinos, the Ms. Merced and the Ms. Universitaria. In reading the Ms Merced, we find slightly different information. Montesinos writes: Ya me es forzoso referir otra noticia de la antigüedad de este nombre Perú, que hallé en un libro manuscrito, comprélo en una almoneda en la ciudad de Lima, y le guardo con estimacíon y cuidado. Trata del Perú y de sus emperadores, y comunicando en Quito con un sujeto curioso sus materias, me certificó ser el que lo compuso un hombre verbosisimo de aquella ciudad mui antiguo en ella y avido de las verbales noticias, que el Santo Obispo D.F.Luis Lopez le daba y del exámen que el mismo senor obispo de los idios hacia.15 Here Montesinos is only referring to notes of the name of Peru which he got from the book, without any emphasis on the information of its kings. We cannot even be certain whether "Peru y de sus emperadores" referred to ancient pre-Inca rulers or only to the canonic account of the Inca emperors.16
The Ms Merced continues: En comprobacion de este trae algunas curiosidades de que e valgo en este libro. Sea una de ellas: que uno de los reyes Peruanos que poblaron la ciudad de Cuzco se llamó Pirua. Pacarimanco, segun una de las aclamaciones con que sus vasallos le in[v]ocan, habiendo sido su propio nombre Tupa aianuchumanco como se verá adelante cuando de él tratamos.
And at the end of this chapter: Este sin duda puede decirse motivo principalísimo para que no solo en el Darien, sino en Méjico y sus provincias el nombre Perú se extendiese tanto. Mas por que de ello no tuvo noticia Garcilaso Inga, ni de los quipos que los Amautas ó historiadores indios usaban, y su diferencia para su tradicion y noticia de los Reyes Peruanos pues para ello fúe necesario remitirle algunos cuya inteligencia se quedó en ellos mismos, formó la falsa relacion que daré ahora. De estos quipos que usaron en lugar de letras que perdieron, hubo gran número en el Peru y con especialidad en Quito. 17 Here we have an important notice: in Quito particularly the quipu archives were better preserved than elsewhere in "Peru". And that distinctive traditions existed, which provided alternative versions of the Peruvian past.
I am inclined to think that we can assume even more, that there were records of those ancient kings here and there in scattered fragmentary quipu archives throughout the Central Andes from Quito to the Titicaca area, which Blas Valera, Anello Oliva, Fernando de Montesinos, and some anonyous Jesuits exploited. These kinds of sources were probably also available to the author of "Peru y sus emperadores" and to Bishop Luis Lopez at Quito, as also in some other places. Therefore this mysterious auction-book from Lima may possibly not have been the sole source for Montesinos's kings, but one among several.18
There are a number of other problems with the idea that the Montesinos king list had its origins exclusively in the Quito area. First some comments on Sergio Barraza’s ideas. He uses a very few names chosen from the list of almost one hundred rulers as the basis for his argument. Even the examples he chose do not show significant resemblances, as in the strained hypothsis that Auqui Quitu Atauchi reflects the late Titu Atauchi, son of Huayna Capac. He refers to such toponymies as Huillcanota and Huanacauri, which are locatives in southern Peru, so why use these examples in the Quito context?
The king list which we have in Montesinos’s chronicle contains a significant percentage of names composed of three parts. By contrast, common Inca names found in the chronicles are normally composed of two parts. There is one late source, however, which contains some tripartite names as in the Montesinos account. This is Sahuaraura Inca’s chronicle Monarquía Peruana, which lists numbers of descendants of various Incas. There are names like Auqui Tampo Tocto, Apu Hiqqui Yupanqui, Huayna Auqui Yupanqui and Thupa Auqui Ataurimachi.19
Barraza has also given examples of two "caciques" who he claims may have lent their names to the chronicler. The first is Cuismanco (or Guzmanco Capac) from whose name he supposes Montesinos’s Cuyo Manco may have been derived. Again, why use a name from a curaca of Cajamarca in the Quito context? One other name does come from the Quito region. According to Barraza, the name of king Morasco is derived from Morco, an Inca mitmac in Panzaleo, near Quito.
I now turn to data which explains more thoroughly why I consider this Quito-centric hypothesis to be a very unlikely explanation. The Inca occupation of Quito and Ecuador was historically a very short one. Its final conquest occurred only around 1520, after a long and bloody war to subjugate the Caranqui, and barely a dozen years before the Spanish arrival. According to the chronology used by Burr Brundage, Inca Huayna Capac started the Quito campaign around 1511 and never returned to Cuzco.20 He died in Ecuador, most likely either in 1527 or in 1528.21 During this time there arose many intrigues among the elites of Cuzco, since emperor Huayna Capac kept his court permanently in the northern territories, either in Tomebamba (which was even called ’New Cuzco’) or in Quito.22 We may assume, therefore, that in this northern capital of the Inca empire in these years there were accumulated considerable state archives of quipus. These would have become more isolated during the turbulent years of Inca Civil War after the death of Huayna Capac.
Frank Salomon has studied the Inca overlordship and its aftermath in Ecuador from an ethnohistorical perspective. According to him, the short Inca occupation left few traces in toponymy and even fewer in names of local curacas and caciques. Inca names, along with adoption of the Quechua language, gained more ground only during the Colonial period.23 From this we can deduce that if the names were derived from local Quito nobility, they certainly should not show much resemblance to Quechua. My analyses of the names in Montesinos’s king list indicate that there was indeed a strong influence from Quechua and also from Aymara instead.24 The only alternative we should consider in this case is to seek resemblances with local languages and toponyms predating the Incas.
There are few traces left of pre-Inca or pre-Quechua languages in Ecuador. Most are toponyms, which, however, are abundant. Apparently the most important languages were: Pasto, Kara, Kito/Panzaleo and Puruha. In reading through available material on this topic, I could find almost nothing in these names which would correlate with the names in Montesinos’s king list. These languages, in fact, differ very much from Quechua and Aymara.25 Perhaps the closest example was "Morasquina" (compare Barraza’s "Morco"), a place name in the Kara region.26
Another argument against an origin of the Montesinos tradition in the Quito area comes from existing local traditions which have a distinctive ethnohistorical framework and appearance (including names of nobility). The most famous, though a very controversial one, is the so-called Cara-Shyri dynastic tradition, which is firmly located in and around Quito. It has been handed down to posterity through a Jesuit chronicler Juan de Velasco (1789). His great work on the history of Quito has been criticized by much the same arguments as has Montesinos: that these are invented, fabulous histories and king lists without corroboration from other sources. There is still another important parallel with Montesinos. Velasco is referring to authorative documentary sources and to a particularly important earlier informant who had close access to much of this historical information which Velasco used. This informant was Fray Marcos de Niza, who was among the first conquistadors to enter Peru in 1532. He seems to have been in Ecuador during Benalcazar’s Quito campaign of 1534, during which time he might have collected the historical material referred to by Velasco. Recently Michael Nallino has paid attention to this poorly known Fray Marcos de Niza in a scholarly paper presented at New Mexico Highland University (2000). He presents plausible ideas, which give much more credibility both to Fray Marcos de Niza himself and to his later copyist, Abbot Velasco. Writes Nallino: "It was probably during this period, from August to December 1534, between the end of hostilities and his final departure from Peru, that Fray Marcos collected the material he used to write the ‘History of the conquest of Quito’, reported by Velasco. For the section on Benalcazar’s campaign, he must have taken testimony from participants. During Alvarado’s campaign and the conclusion of the conquest, on the other hand, he would have been an eyewitness himself."27
In Juan de Velasco’s account there are frequent references to a royal pre-Inca lineage referred to as Duchicelas, which was centered in the province of Puruha. In this source there is also a genealogical continuum of Duchicelas extending many generations until Colonial times.28 Disputes concerning the existence of Duchicelas even in Colonial times have prevailed in scholarly circles. There are independent sources, however, which can confirm that in the region of Riobamba (which, according to Velasco’s testimony, is linked with the ancient Duchicelas), several prominent persons, including caciques and a noble family by the name Duchicela, survived and left some records in Colonial documents.29 This could have been the case. At least toponymies in the region confirm that names of this kind were native to Puruha, even to Quito. Examples include Duchicela, Aucancela, Bacacela, and Mayancela. 30
A tradition of ancient pre-Inca rulers in the Quito region exists even today in the minds of patriotic scholars of Ecuador. Archaeological evidence has been sought for many generations with results which to some provide support, while to others they only offer negative evidence.31
Considering all these facts, I find the hypothesis that Montesinos's Book II derives from a source in Quito to be based on very weak evidence.

Ms. Merced vs. Ms.Universitaria
Sabine Hyland has recently pointed out, contrary to the claim which I presented in Ancient Kings of Peru (1999), that there is substantial evidence for a strong presumption that the so-called Ms. Universitaria of Montesinos’s Memorias Antiguas… is actually older and therefore must be considered a more authorative source than the Ms. Merced. Writes Hyland:
"In fact, textual evidence reveals that the Universitaria ms. is probably the older of the two manuscripts. The earliest manuscript of Montesinos’s work is the Madrid ms., which is inscribed with the date 1642. This text, housed in the Biblioteca Nacional in Madrid, contains only Books Three and Four of Montesinos’s entire work, which the manuscript refers to repeatedly as ‘Las meorias antiguas y nuebas del Piru’. The Universitaria ms. dates to 1644 and consists of Books One, Two and Three of Montesinos’s work, which in this manuscript bears the slightly altered title, ‘Memorias antiguas historiales y politicas del Piru’. The Merced ms. (no date) was housed in the Real Academia de Historia until early in the 20th century, when it disappeared. However, before its disappearance the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg, who was unaware of the existence of the Universitaria ms., translated a handwritten copy of Books One and Two of the Merced ms. in 1860. This copy is in Yale University’s Sterling Library and is known as the Yale ms. Later that decade, working in ignorance of Bourbourg’s transcription, Vicente Fidel López published an edition of Books One and Two of the Merced ms. in the Revista de Buenos Aires (1869-1871). Bourbourg’s and Fidel López’s transcriptions of the text are very similar to each other. In the few areas in which they differ, Bourbourg’s text matches that of the Universitaria, suggesting that Bourbourg’s manuscript may be the more accurate of the two. Hiltunen proposes that the Merced ms. and the Madrid ms. are the same; that is, that Fidel Lopez’s Books One and Two are the two books missing from the Madrid ms., and that therefore the Merced ms. dates to 1642. Following Vasquez’s arguments, Hiltunen further suggests that the Merced ms. contains fewer pre-Inca kings (90 instead of 93) than does the Universitaria ms. because Montesinos invented and added extra rulers to the latter manuscript for reasons that are unclear.
However, the examination of the texts does not bear out Hiltunen’s proposition that the Merced ms. represents the missing first two books of the Madrid ms. For one thing, the titles of the works do not match……The fact that the Merced ms. is not the first half of the Madrid ms. is further indicated by a reference in Book Four of the Madrid ms. In the Madrid manuscript, under the entry for the year 1597, Montesinos describes the unhealthfulness of the silver mines of Ayaso, a matter which he claims to have discussed already in ‘el libro primero, capitulo 14’. Yet if one examines Book One, chapter 14, one finds no mention whatsoever of the Ayaso mines; instead, the chapter discusses the wood from Peru that may have been sent to King Salomon. When One compares Book Three of the Madrid ms. with Book Three of the Universitaria ms., one discovers that Montesinos altered the order and subject matter of the chapters; presumably, he did so as well between writing Book One of the Madrid ms. and Book One of the Merced ms. Furthermore, according to Bourbourg’s essay on Montesinos’s works (Bourbourg 1860, Noticia bibliográfica), the Merced ms. consisted of only Book One, Book Two and Book Four up to the year 1546. Book Three, which is part of the Madrid ms., was not part of the Merced manuscript that the Abbé and Fidel López saw; additionally, Book Four in the Madrid ms. ends in the year 1642, not 1546."32
I have cited Sabine Hyland here quite extensively, because her research has clarified many obscurities in paths of transmission which occur with related manuscripts and their slightly differing contents. In addition to statements given above, she has also pointed to certain differences and curiosities which occur in Books One, Two and Three of the Universitaria ms.
Writes Hyland:
"The orthography of Book Two in the Universitaria ms. retains curiosities in the Spanish portions also. There is a frequent use of ‘tt’, occuring in both of the two scribal hands found in Book Two. ‘Inttento’, "ratto’, ‘ttercero’, and ‘genttes’ are just a few examples of words spelled with a double ‘t’ in the book’s orthography. Interestingly, this ‘tt’ does not seem to appear in Books One and Three of the Universitaria ms., even when the same scribe has been used as in Book Two. There are also ‘mistakes’ in the Spanish grammar of Book Two, again in both scribal hands….
Likewise, these ‘errors’ in grammar are not found elsewhere in Montesinos’s writings, even when the same scribes have been used. These ‘mistakes’, highly uncharacteristic of Montesinos’s other writings, suggest that Montesinos’s scribes in Spain may have been copying much of this book very closely from another source – the anonymous history ‘del Piru y sus emperadores’. These ‘errors’ also share the noteworthy characteristic that they are typical of native Quechua speakers when speaking or writing in Spanish (see, for example, Mannheim 1991, 129), indicating at least the possibility that the author of Montesinos’s anonymous source may have been a native Andean….
The likelihood that Book Two in the Universitaria ms. was copied largely from Montesinos’s anonymous source is demonstrated also by the relative lack of citations in the book. Books One and Three, which are Montesinos’s own compositions, are filled with numerous citations on each page." 33
In the closing part of her article, Hyland emphasizes further the distinction between Mss. Merced and Universitaria as follows:
"It is worth noting that Book Two of the older Universitaria ms. also has a very different tone than Book Two of the Merced ms. Although the Merced ms. lacks the names of the last three kings, it is actually a much longer narrative. In the Merced ms., Montesinos has added explanatory details and phrases throughout, often describing the emotions and motivations of the characters in the story…
One effect of Montesinos’s substantial additions to the Merced ms. is to make the narrative more elaborate and pleasing to European sensibilities."34
Hyland is currently preparing a critical edition of Montesinos’s entire work. It will include Book Three, which has never been published. In a paper and forthcoming article related to this third book, Hyland provides interesting insights to Montesinos’s way of writing history. Between Book Two and Book Three (which appears to be more closely Montesinos’s own writing), there exists also a clear distinction in how Inca rulers were described. While they were described as valiant, wise, prudent and able to rule according to natural law in Book Two, the picture painted of them is very negative in Book Three.35
Hyland has posed also an important question, why Montesinos chose to include such a long native history of Book Two in his Memorias historiales (although there is extra attention paid to Inca rule). It seems to have served his main thesis that Peru was the Biblical land of Ophir, the source of King Solomon’s mines. The long list of Peruvian kings could therefore be stretched many centuries before Christ to make a chronological continuum from the times of Ophir (Noah’s descendant) until the Conquest. All of Book One is dedicated to this theory, which Book three maintains as well.36
I am happy to accept these results of Sabine Hyland’s research as worth while, reasonable and interesting. If the Ms. Universitaria appears to be older than the Ms. Merced, this does not much affect my major hypotheses. Only in lexical comparisons would some marked changes be required (I will come to this subject next) and in interpretations of Montesinos’s manner of writing history. Hyland’s research has in fact given even more credibility to Montesinos’s account, by bringing forth more evidence that the content of his Book Two comes from another, older source. Therefore, what was written in Book Two seems to have been preserved for us probably with less alteration by Montesinos’s pen.

The King List and Linguistics
Linguistic and lexical analyses are almost always rather hazardous tasks, especially in contexts of poorly known languages. In Appendix 8b of my book I made a lexical comparison of the names in Montesinos’s list of kings. It is made-up of two parts: A. Analysis of the names from the ms. originals, and B. Analysis of the names in the forms which they were altered by modern scholars (e.g. Markham, 1920). In this analysis I tried to discover any relative dominance of Quechua or Aymara languages in the elements used in the names of Montesinos’s list, and to consider whether there is any markedly different pattern of language origins between the names of the three distinctive dynasties. I emphasized the original forms of the names, although some of them were obviously corrupt, others possibly archaic, etc. This analysis convinced me that Quechua and Aymara are clearly the dominant languages in the list, while there seems to exist also some remains of possible Puquina affiliation. According to the traditional scholarly division of this king list into three parts, I compared lexical samples in tables to get an idea how apparent or possible Quechua, Aymara and Puquina elements were distributed among the distinct dynastic parts. The proportions of words were given by percentages. The results of this lexical comparison are as follows: the dynasty of Tampu-Tocco has a significantly higher percentage of words (45%) which indicate a ‘blending’ (loanwords from one language to the other) of Quechua and Aymara. The presence of pure Aymara is well marked here too. Pure Quechua seems to have the highest percentage in the group labeled as "Amautas". The group of "Piruas" by contrast seems to contain elements of all three languages.37
Sabine Hyland has questioned my methods of linguistic analysis. She writes: "For the allegedly Quechua names, for example, he provides ‘corrections’ based presumably on standard Cuzco Quechua and then tries to match these ‘corrected’ terms to the dictionaries of Santo Tomás and González Holguin. While Santo Tomas’ and Gonzalez Holguin’s dictionaries are important sources of colonial Quechua, they are far from exhaustive. Hiltunen’s technique overlooks the dialectical variations that existed in 16th and 17th century Quechua; the original orthographies may denote Quechua words that are missed by Hiltunen’s method, rather than Aymara or even Puquina terms. Incidently, although Puquina is part of Hiltunen’s analysis of the three ‘dynasties’, in Appendix 8b, he writes ‘the presence of Puquina (in the king list) remains a possible but experimental hypothesis’ (Hiltunen, 1999, 390)."38
I used the separate list with ’corrected’ orthography because the common forms of the names, as they appear in literature since the publication of Marcos Jimenez de la Espada’s edition (1882), and analyses of Markham and Means (1920), which is based on their idea that the principal language of the list was Quechua. Since other kinds of evidence also points to a possibility that Quechua may have been the language of the Wari people, I wanted in this way to test also that idea. For if that idea is valid, then a majority of the names should have meaning in Quechua, and we may consider whether some of the alterations of form created by those who believed the language was Quechua might in fact be getting us closer to the original forms.
I have intentionally avoided using a term "linguistic analysis". Instead, I have used the term "lexical comparison", because I have been very well aware of my lack of special knowledge in the linguistic arena. What I did was a simple comparison of words as they occur in standard early dictionaries, set them in table form and made some calculations. I did not try analyzing words linguistically, my "analysis" consists only in doing calculations. The only reason why I made this comparison was to test the working hypothesis of a three-fold division of Montesinos’s king list also by linguistic data. Being fully aware of the insufficient data for any truly linguistic analysis, the results I expected were also modest, merely some suggestive tendencies.39
What Hyland says above is mostly true, but in reading carefully my thesis one can find that this was only an experimental comparative test in getting more clues for possible dynastic division. I recall here (as I did in my book) professional linguists to make analyses by using e.g. data, which Hyland referred to above. This kind of analysis will be more productive when it can be done again after the critical edition of Montesinos’s work is available.
Hyland has pointed also to another problem in my interpretation, i.e. my over-reliance upon the Ms. Merced and its version of names. She writes: "Although Hiltunen provides some of the names from the Universitaria ms. in his linguistic analysis of the king list, he ignores the variations in spelling in the Universitaria ms. Presumably he does so because he believes that the Universitaria ms., as a later redaction, is less authorative and farther from Montesinos’s original sources…
Moreover, in his study of terms in the king-list, Hiltunen ignores the native names of the queens which are often provided in the text. His analysis would have benefitted as well from considering other Quechua terms in the text. Book Two boasts over three hundred Quechua words and phrases. Many of these are written within an orthography that, while unusual, contains consistent patterns. So, for example, there is a definite indication of aspiration (eg. ’Pirua’ is usually written ’Phirua’) as well as the lenition of certain velars (eg. ’iskay’ is written as ’isa ay’, ’ocllo’ as ’ocollo’, ’aclla’ as ’alla’). Analyzing the features of the text’s Quechua may yield clues to the geographical source of this history."40
I used mostly names taken from Ms. Merced in my lexical comparison because, as Hyland correctly noticed, I believed this is older than Ms. Universitaria. Still, the forms of names in the Ms. Universitaria do not differ so much from those in the Ms. Merced, that they would radically change the results of the kind of analysis I did. It still served its primary purpose: to give only tendencies in distribution. In regard to avoidance of the names of queens, there are good reasos for this. First, there are very few of them. Second, all occur in part of the narrative, which treats the history of Inca dynasty proper or, as I have suggested, those parts in the beginning of Montesinos’s account, where he apparently interpolated events from the Inca tradition.
Hyland has concluded the critique given above as follows: "Understanding the nature of Montesinos’s manuscripts and their relationship to each other calls into question Hiltunen’s linguistic analysis of the king’s names, a crucial component of his argument. The correspondence he sees between his glottochronology of the Andes and his study of the king’s names is vital evidence for his theory that the ‘Amauta’ dynasty represents the kings of Wari. Yet in determining his king list, he fails to consider all of the variations of the names in the Universitaria ms.; he does not explain his rationale for ‘correcting’ the 17th century orthography; he does not account for possible dialectical variations, which might pinpoint the geographical source of the words; he relies solely on Santo Tomás and González Holguin as sources of colonial Quechua; and his findings of Puquina elements are very speculative. Without his lexical analysis of the king list, it is not at all clear that there is any break between the so-called ‘Pirua’ and ‘Amauta’ dynasties, as Hiltunen’s historical reconstruction presumes. Certainly the text itself trats these rulers as part of the same line of kings."41
Well, much of this criticism could be avoided in a careful reading of my text. Other points I have explained largely above. And, of course, some of this criticism is also deserved. In regarding to dynastic division and what comes from it, is a topic of next major chapter.
Were there three distinct dynasties?
The "artifical" division of Montesinos’s king list into three parts (Piruas, Amautas, and Tampu-Toccans) is based on an idea originally presented by Vicente Fidel Lopez (1871). He noticed, that the title "Pirua" occurs only in the group of the first seventeen rulers, while another title, "Amauta", is almost completely restricted to the middle part of the list. He assumed a dynastic break between the 17th and 18th ruler also by textual reference, where the successor of the 17th king is labelled only as an heir, and not as a "son", unlike most of the preceding cases.42 The dynastic division between the "Amautas" and "Tampu-Toccans" is however clearer.
My hypothesis is that there was a dramatic shift of the seat of dynastic power from Cuzco to Tampu-Tocco. Genealogically these dynasties were the same, but politically quite different.
I have used this division throughout as a working hypothesis to test whether any such break can be verified by existing data. Some scholars have held the view that Montesinos probably built up his extensive list by collecting various traditions together and stringing them end-to-end one after the other. The Danish chronicler Saxo Gramaticus probaly did this in his great history of ancient kings, which led me to seek traces that Montesinos may have done the same.
The dynastic division between the "Amautas proper" and the "Tampu-Toccans" did not cause much problems. The case with the proposed division between the "Piruas" and the "Amautas" was completely different. Therefore, in the conclusion of my book I presented several alternatives for a possible historical setting of the "Piruas". Sabine Hyland, has properly pointed to these problems. She writes as follows:
"The original manuscripts make no indication whatsoever of separate ‘Pirua’ and ‘Amauta’ dynasties. In fact, the break between the alleged ‘Pirua’ and ‘Amauta’ lines occurs mid-sentence: ‘no se dize dél (Paullu hicar Pirua) cossa de importancia, mas de que fue su muerte muy sentida de sus vasallos, dexo por su heredero a lloquete sagamauta, dicese que fue muy sauio y reyno 50 anos…’ (Book Two, ch.10, Universitaria ms.). The text itself in no way suggests that Lloquete is initiating a new dynasty."43
I agree that there cannot be an assumption of a dynastic break on this basis. Since I did the research for my thesis, new ideas have emerged and additional data has appeared which I can set forth here. The problem of the "Pirua" part of the dynasty remains essentially the same, but there are some more plausible explanations to be presented now. I offer here several alternatives, which I hope can stimulate future research on this topic.
1. The scenario that the "Pirua" were dynastic predecessors of the Hurin-Cuzco Incas I now consider the weakest argument.
2. The "Pirua" dynasty might have been rivals of the Amautas at Ayacucho (ca. 400-600 AD), but there are very few clues.
3. Could the "Pirua" have been a migrant dynasty from Tiawanaku settling at Ayacucho around AD 400-500? Again, this is almost a pure guess.
4. What about mytho-historical chieftains (the Huarpa) at Ayacucho? This is possible.
5. They could be mostly legendary kings, preserved in tradition, but historically nonexistent. This is possible
I will concentrate on the last two arguments more closely here. At the outset I want to emphasize that I follow here the dynastic narrative as it is presented to us in Montesinos’s chronicle. It presents the long list as a single dynasty. Historically it can be divided in two, with the break occurring where I hypothesize a move to Tampu Tocco. At its beginning, however, a number of reigns were most likely not historically real. In a pattern known world-wide in antiquity, long primary lists of kings or chieftains include legendary parts in the beginning. Sacred numbers were used (e.g. 10), names of the gods were interpolated etc. If these were kings or chieftains belonging to the Wari tradition, which I strongly suggest, it is highly probable, just as with the Inca, that their dynastic propaganda similarly used invented names. We cannot positively ascertain, however, how many of these "Piruas" may have been invented rather than historically real. My guess is at least five at the beginning. For such earliest artificial "kings", Montesinos might have interpolated data from Inca tradition. Their regnal spans seem also highly exaggerated. 44
As for the division between the "Pirua-Amautas" and the "Tampu-Toccans", I found some additional distinctions in structural names of the king list. Most of the kings in Montesinos’s list have tri-partite names (e.g. Ayar Tacco Capac). Their distribution between the "Piruas" and "Amautas" is equal, 55% of each, but "Tampu-Tocco" contains markedly less: 29%.45 This, of course, confirms the possibility discussed above, that there was no dynastic break between the "Piruas" and "Amautas". The Tampu-Tocco distinction by contrast is secure, important and interesting, a topic which I will deal with at the close of this article.
Archaeological research has recently provided chronologies of the Wari Empire have been extended to AD 1000 and beyond. Especially in the southern part of the Wari realm, centered at such sites as Pikillacta and Cerro Baul, Wari rule seems to have flourished longer than had previously been thought.46 This accords even better with the idea that after the collapse of the Wari capital itself at Ayacucho (around AD 850), the state survived regionally in southern Peru much longer.47 In the Ayacucho region also, new data suggests an earlier development of complex societies and centralized government. This data has been provided by Juan B. Leoni in excavations at Nawinpukyo site for instance. This Huarpa ceremonial center seems to have developed as a prominent settlement during the late part of Early Intermediate Period, and continued to develop a sizable Wari center until Epoch 1 of the Middle Horizon.48
Use of astronomical phenomena as evidence
My approach attempting to link astronomical phenomena with historical events described in Montesinos’s chronicle, has also awakened some discussion. Sometimes, when historical narratives contain well documented and contextually credible descriptions of eclipses, comets etc. this can be a very useful method to synchronize oral traditions within an absolute chronology. In Montesinos’s chronicle several such references exist, but these are poorly documented and in any case contextually dubious. Nevertheless, I considered it worth-while to examine which kinds of correspondences one can find by using this additional approach. There are fortunately good manuals to be used in checking occurrences of eclipses, comets, even supernovaes in extensive historical perspective.49 I first tested this idea with Inca historical records, finding that references to extraordinary astronomical phenomena shortly before the arrival of the Spaniards can be correlated quite well even though these cases may, at least partly, be later interpolations intended to impute a prognosticated drama to these events.50 Montesinos gives also one such reference for Inca times, which may be a relevant one. According to him, during the reign of Capac Yupanqui two remarkable comets appeared in the sky. In fact, two significant ones were seen in the year 1337, which quite likely covers the period of this reign.51
I focused these attempts at linkage on those events which in Montesinos’s narrative occurred at the fall of Amauta empire. Historically, the times at the beginning of the collapse of Wari empire which archaeologists had dated around AD 800-50 appeared as a logical chronological setting to search for occurrences of these phenomena. This was especially interesting because the chronology of Tampu-Tocco rule seems to indicate important events near these times. In the year 837 there were three supernovas and one comet (Halley). In the year 828 there was a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn (of a rare kind which occurs only once in around 139 years) occurred seems to have been important.52
Lloyd Anderson (1999) has also paid attention to astronomical references in my thesis. He has emphasized the importance of the year 837, when Halley’s comet was an extraordinary phenomenon, relatively close to the Earth, ’not something any of us have ever seen in our lifetimes’ (Kronk 1999). He also refers to the next year, 838 when another dramatic comet was seen. Therefore these times were truly unusual in astronomical sense.53
Sabine Hyland criticizes my approach this way: "Hiltunen’s time-line is based on the correspondence between the decline of Wari in the early 9th century, a clustering of actual comets and other astronomical events at this time, and Montesinos’s description of comets in the reign of Huaman Tacco Amauta, the penultimate king of the ‘Amauta’ line. While this is suggestive, Hiltunen does not consider how other comets described in the text may correspond to the actual appearance of comets during his proposed timeline. The text tells us that during the reign of Manco Capac Yupanqui, the sixth Peruvian ruler, two comets in the form of a serpent and lion were visible in the heavens. Two other comets, one of the color of bood and shaped like a lance, the other round like a shield, appeared in the West during the reign of Inca Capac Yupanqui. Presumably, if these references to comets record the actual appearance of these phenomena, and are not simply literary metaphors to describe a cataclysmic time, then, correspondences should be available for these other four comets recorded in the text; unfortunately, however, Hiltunen does not provide this."54
Not quite so. In fact, I have taken into account all these cases in my book. Hyland perhaps failed to notice the case of Inca Capac yupanqui, because I treated it very briefly in another place than in the general context of these phenomena. The case of the sixth king, Manco Capac Yupanqui, is interesting. Again, in an other context I wrote about it. There are four Manco Capac’s in Montesinos’s king list (2nd , 6th, 61th and 77th ruler). Manco Capac Yupanqui is Manco Capac II. The name Manco Capac did bear an extraordinary halo of respect in the minds of ancient Peruvians, as did also Pachacuti. Such a names (legendary, mythohistorical characters) tend to multiply in dynastic traditions around the world. It is also a commonplace to mix their real and legendary deeds and reigns. The first five kings in Montesinos’s narrative are clearly contaminated with interpolated events from Inca tradition. Since this part of the tradition may probably belong to legendary ahistorical rulers created by Wari dynastic propaganda, I have suggested that certain events linked with this early Manco Capac actually belonged to later period in this tradition. This early Manco Capac may also have been a legendary person. What is written about this Manco Capac II shows interesting parallels with what is written about Manco Capac (III). Both were rulers of significance. The era of Manco Capac II was one of extensive road- and bridgebuilding, religious reforms, relative peace and prosperity. During the later part of his reign two fearsome comets appeared in the sky and two notable eclipses of the sun occurred. Shortly aferwards a plague and a five-year drought devasted the realm. The rivers from Tumbez to Arica dried up and large areas were depopulated. On this occasion Manco Capac, already a decrepit old man, died, having reigned twenty years. Of the later Manco Capac III it is written that during his time the power of the Amautas was at its height. 25 years is recorded for his reign.55
The reign of Manco Capac III (or II) precedes by three successions the reign of Huaman Tacco Amauta (during whose times I argue the comet of AD 837 was recorded). Manco Capac III could thus have lived around AD 800. One total eclipse of the sun occurred in Peru in the year 800 and another in 823. Comets were seen in 813-5, 817, 821 and 823. Climatological records can also confirm that at these times the climate became dry and droughts were likely.56

Archaeology, the Tampu-Tocco dynasty, and the emergence of the Incas
The following treatment of archaeology and the dynasty of Tampu-Tocco is based on research by Gordon McEwan (Wagner College, New York) and the author. A more detailed description will be published next year with the title ’Knowing the Inca Past’ in the volume Archaeology of the Incas and other Ancient Civilizations of the Andes.57
The names and sites of Tampu-Tocco, Pacariqtambu, and Tampu have often been interchangeable in Andean research and chronicles.58 Recent excavations carried out by Gordon McEwan and his colleagues Arminda Gibaja and Melissa Chatfield (2002, 2000, 1995) in the Lucre-Basin of the Valley of Cuzco have suggested interesting new possibilities for locating the site of Tampu-Tocco. It now appears that the site of Chokepukio is a likely candidate, at least much more promising than any of the alternatives presented previously.59

According to Montesinos, after an epic battle at the Vilcanota-pass, in which the last emperor of the Amautas proper, Titu Yupanqui Pachacuti VI, was killed, the empire collapsed. Provinces rose in rebellion and invaders poured into its southern parts. A few members of the elite were able to escape to a place called Tampu-Tocco, and there a very young heir of the last emperor was installed as a king. During the first reigns of this new dynasty, all around Tampu Tocco was in turmoil, until a king called Tupac Cauri came to rule. He and his successors were able to gain ground and establish a regional hegemony for a while. Eventually, however, the reign of the Tampu Tocco kings came to an end and their rule collapsed.60
After another interval of warfare and confusion, a hero of the next historical act appeared on the scene. His name was Inca Roca and his equally courageous and influental mother, Mama Siuacu, was a descendant of the last ruler in Tampu Tocco. By using the continuing prestige of the previous dynasty as a political springboard, the mother and son together re-created foundations of the ancien regime, and eventually foundations of a new one, which came to be known as the empire of the Incas. The account in the narrative explicitly states that the idea of statecraft was inherited by the Incas from their dynastic predecessors.61
We can calculate the approximate absolute chronology of these events by examining the king lists given by Montesinos. The number of kings in the Tampu Tocco dynasty is given as 26-28 (a disparity between the Mss). Extensive cross-cultural comparative data (Hiltunen 1993, 1999) can show that dynasties of 13 to 35 successions generally have average regnal spans of 16.5 years average span. This allows for the duration of Tampu Tocco rule a period of 429-462 years (using either 26 or 28 as a number of kings), or using the middle value as a basis for calculation, 445 years.62
For any further calculations a chronological fixed point is needed. I have chosen the beginnings of Inca Roca’s reign as such a point. He started the Hanan-Cuzco dynasty, he has been labeled as the first true Inca, and there have been allegations of his usurpation of rule. Besides, according to Montesinos’s narrative, he was first of the Incas. I have constructed the most likely regnal spans for Inca Roca, Yuhuar Huacac and Inca Viracocha (Hiltunen 1981, 1993, 1999), with the exception that I am presently inclined to accept Montesinos’s figure of 45 years for Viracocha’s rule, which according to the generally accepted termination date of his reign (1438 AD) will put his accession around AD 1393. Most sources agree that Yuhuar Huacac’s reign was relatively short, whereas Inca Roca’s quite long. Therefore I have calculated 15-20 years for Yuhuar Huacac and 25-30 years for Inca Roca. The result puts the dynastic beginnings of the Hanan-Cuzcos (Late Inca Kings) around 1350 AD.
The beginnings of Inca Roca’s rule and the end of the previous Tampu Tocco dynasty were not much earlier according to Montesinos’s narrative. An interregnum of about one hundred years prevailed, maintains Montesinos. My study (1999) has indicated that Montesinos’s chronology has in several individual cases doubled the lengths of time periods. This was also noticed by Markham & Means (1920). The written 100 years therefore might reflect a doubled 50. It is also significant that about this same time, 1245-1310, climatological studies indicate that the Central Andes suffered a severe drought (Kolata 1993). No doubt this was a major factor in political changes and migrations of people. The end of Tampu Tocco rule most likely occurred at that time (around AD 1250-1300). Its beginnings can therefore be calculated at around AD 805-855 (approximately 445 years earlier), which accords well with archaeological dating of theWari collapse.63
My lexical comparison of the names in Montesinos’s king list showed that names of rulers in the dynasty of Tampu Tocco contain a significantly higher percentage of words reflecting a blending of Quechua and Aymara, more than do the names of their predecessors. The presence of pure Aymara is well marked also. Moreover, structural analysis of the names indicated, that among them bi-partite naming was more common than among their predecessors and tri-partite names markedly infrequent. The section of the king list for Tampu Tocco has also the highest percentage of names which do not occur among the two other test groups (Piruas and Amautas), especially the names Cauri, Huari, Toco, Condor and Mayta.64
According to Montesinos’s narrative, the most vigorous king and conqueror among the Tampu-Toccan’s was Tupac Cauri, who was also hailed as Pachacuti VII. His name indicates an Aymara origin. By contrast, the name of his successor, Arantial, appears foreign (to Quechua). Among his successors are four kings having an apellative Roca in their names (common among the Incas). Guinaldo Vasquez (1930) has called Tupac Cauri and his successors a "dynasty of conquerors". In the light of our data, they presumably represented a new Aymara-speaking dynasty, which usurped or replaced the previous rulers at Tampu Tocco/Chokepukio. The rulers of the replaced dynasty were most likely the last kings of the Wari polity or at least its southern sphere.65
In the king list of Montesinos Tupac Cauri Pachacuti VII was the 14th or 16th king in Tampu Tocco (i.e. 15th as an average for reference). His accession therefore could be placed at around AD 1102 (15 x 16.5 = 247 + AD 855). In summary then, we interpret the Montesinos narrative to indicate that three significant regime changes occurred at Tampu Tocco during the centuries preceding the accession of Inca Roca. The first of these occurred around 855 AD with the establishment of Tampu Tocco dynasty. The second occurred around 1102 AD when Tupac Cauri usurped the throne. The third occurred around 1300 AD with the end of the Tampu Tocco dynasty and an assumption of power by Pinagua-Muyna (rivals of the Incas). Interestingly, archaeological data has revealed that profound changes occurred at Chokepukio at these same times.
The manuscript of Montesinos suggests that some migration occurred north toward Cuzco from the Tiwanaku area after the collapse of the Amauta empire. It is possible that later a new lineage moved north from the Titicaca Basin and usurped power by inserting itself into the Tampu Tocco dynasty with the accession of king Tupac Cauri. At Chokepukio we find that there is an influx of new elites, presumably rulers, who can be radiocarbon dated to around 1000-1100 AD. These people brought with them elements of foreign ceramic styles, new burial architecture (chullpas) and possibly the remains of their royal ancestors which were buried in the niched walls of newly constructed temples. Monumental architecture continued to be constructed through at least two major building phases until around 1400-1450 AD at which time we begin to see imperial Inca buildings and artifacts appear on the site. It seems from our analysis of the site and its artifacts that the group at Chokepukio eventually joined with their immediate neighbors at the northwestern end of the Cuzco Valley to become one of the two moiety divisions (Hanan-Hurin) of the royal Inca line (Chatfield 1998, McEwan, Gibaja and Chatfield 1995, McEwan, Chatfield and Gibaja 2002). If this is true, then the Incas (or at least a large and important part of them) did in fact come from Lake Titicaca to the south just as the legend suggests and not from the traditional origin place of Pacariqtambo. It also may turn out to be the case, as suggested, that Tampu Tocco is Chokepukio. The word "Tocco" in the placename] Tampu Tocco refers to caves in Quechua, but in Aymara it can refer to niches. When the Incas said that they came out of Tampu Tocco they may have referred to the fact that their ancestors from whom they sprang were physically in the walls of the temples of Tampu Tocco (Chokepukio).
In sum, the results of the excavation project indicate that the site of Chokepukio reached its greatest florescence during the Late Intermediate Period and just prior to the rise of the Incas. Immediately following the Wari collapse, a constellation of new cultural features appeared. These features include new ceramic influences, new architectural forms and new elite burial pattern. Some of these features seem to point to southern influence emanating from the Titicaca basin. Many of the burials found in the niched halls appear to be secondary indicating that the bodies of these ancestors had been curated for some period at a different location from their final resting place. DNA studies show that some of these people were biologically related to Aymara people of Bolivia. All of these data taken together seem to indicate the intrusion of a foreign group perhaps coming from the Titicaca basin. Without causing a wholesale culture change, this group may have usurped the local leadership, bringing with them their own ancestors’ remains and installing them in the new temples that were built.
A number of competing polities existed in the Cuzco region before the emergence of the imperial Incas. Early sources refer frequently to such groups as the Ayarmacas, Pinaguas, and Muynas among others. The Incas were rivals of these other polities: diplomatic at best and warring at worst. The Pinagua-Muyna polity seems to have been the most powerful in the region before the reign of Inca Viracocha.
We think that our data identify Chokepukio as the seat of the ethnohistorical Pinagua-Muyna polity. This site controlled access to the strategic Lucre Basin and passage to the south. As stated above, archaeological data and radiocarbon dates indicate two Late Intermediate Period building phases at Chokepukio: the first around 1000-1100 AD and the second, which begins more or less around 1300 AD. According to Montesinos’s narrative and our chronological framework, the Tampu Tocco dynasty came to an end around 1300 AD. Therefore a new ruling group must have taken over – those who started the second building phase. We suppose that they were the Pinagua-Muynas, but not much can be said about their origins.
R.T. Zuidema (1962) has presented a model in which the relationship between the Hanan-Cuzcos and Hurin-Cuzcos was as that of conquerors to conquered. He bases this argument on Gutierrez de Santa Clara (1595-1603) whose text states that a new city Hanan Cuzco was built over old Cuzco by the conquering Incas and that the king of old Cuzco was pursued and killed by the Inca ruler. Zuidema concluded that the Hanan-Cuzcos were the real Incas and the conquerors of the town, and the Hurin-Cuzcos were classed as pre-Inca populations. We have also adopted this idea, which seems to provide a very plausible scenario for how the Incas started their rule and whence they presumably entered onto the scene.
The traditional number of reigns in the Hurin-Cuzco line is five, but if the ancestral founder, Manco Capac, is considered as a mythical character (as many scholars believe), there were possibly four actual rulers.66 If the emergence of Inca Roca and the Hanan-Cuzcos occurred around 1350 AD, then the Hurin-Cuzcos were in place shortly before 1300 AD. The power of the Pinagua-Muyna polity was emphasized in several early sources, and it could even have gained an overlordship for a time in the Cuzco region. We suggest that this hegemony extended over the Hurin-Cuzcos also. The fall of Tampu Tocco and early conquest of Cuzco by the Pinagua-Muynas may have been two events very close in time.
According to Montesinos, Inca Roca’s family ties led to Tampu Tocco via his mother, Mama Siuaco, who may have been a daughter of the last ruler of the Tampu Tocco line. Let us suppose that this queen really existed. Her husband could have belonged to the new Pinagua-Muyna lineage, which, by this political marriage act, tried to secure its status in the region. Possibly she with her son Roca wanted to overthrow the Muyna rule and restore their ancient line and power base. We suggest that Inca Roca and the followers of his cause allied themselves with the Hurin-Cuzcos, who thereafter gained independence from Pinagua-Muyna. Roca, the vigorous new ruler, established a new dynasty at Cuzco and adopted the title Inca, which may have meant ‘Lord’ in some local language.
Although reduced in power, the Pinagua-Muynas apparently maintained independence until the reign of Inca Viracocha, who, at the beginning of his rule successfully attacked them and perhaps placed the first territorial Inca governor in his place. In the closing years of Inca Viracocha, the Muynas rebelled as well as the Chancas in the west. Only through heroic acts of a new ruler Cusi Yupanqui, later known as Pachacuti, were the opponents one after another eventually subjugated. One of the hardest blows of revenge was aimed at Pinagua-Muyna. Pachacuti had their principal site completely destroyed. This could have occurred around 1450 AD. Chokepukio shows evidence of being burned at this time.
Pachacuti found it necessary to completely reform many basic institutions and policies of the Inca state. One fundamental problem was the stabilization of relations between the Hurin- and Hanan-Cuzcos. The "conquered" Hurin-Cuzcos apparently had opposed the overlordship of the Hanan-Cuzcos since the beginning of Inca Roca’s reign. As told by Cieza de León, the most dramatic incident in this respect was the assassination of Inca Yuhuar Huacac by the Cuntisuyo faction in Cuzco who belonged to the Hurin-Cuzcos. One of Pachacuti’s first acts was to grant the Hurin-Cuzcos full acknowledgement as Incas. Thenceforth their lineages were linked with the Hanan-Cuzcos by artificial genealogical ties. Inca history was then written anew: an unbroken lineage extended from the mythic founder through the Hurin and Hanan lines. As a living visible testimony, Pachacuti ordered mummy bundles to be made of ancestral Hurin-lineage "Incas".
Inca Roca apparently had dreamed of restoring his ancestors’ rule. According to Montesinos, at the beginning of his reign he commanded that a meeting of amautas and quipucamayocs (record keepers) be held so that they would teach him about the deeds of his ancestors, what provinces were subject to the ancient kings, and the character of their inhabitants. He also inquired what fortresses they had, what manner of fighting, which provinces had been loyal to the crown and which had not.67
Inca Roca, according to some sources also founded the Yachayhuasi at Cuzco. Montesinos tells us that a similar school was already founded at Tampu Tocco by Tupac Cauri Pachacuti VII. It is reasonable to assume that Inca Roca founded his school as an imitation of this older institution, which once existed in Tampu Tocco. Founding of such a school at a turning point of dynastic rule almost certainly did not occur by chance. If our idea of Tupac Cauri and his dynasty as Aymara-descent usurpers is correct, the founding of the school by him fits fairly well into the picture. We also know that one of the first acts of Inca Pachacuti as a new emperor was a full-scale restoration and enlargement of the Yachayhuasi in Cuzco. Without any doubt one of the most important functions of these schools was indoctrination and proper presentation of Inca history as the Incas wanted it to be told. Historical usurpers and usurping dynasties must always keep careful vigilance over how their ideas may better be spread and accepted once they have violently appeared on the scene. Of this Tupac Cauri it is also told that he commanded that, under pain of death, any use of letters and writing by commoners was henceforth forbidden. Instead, quipus were adopted as the only legal device for sophisticated communication.68 This act is logically consistent with the founding of Yachayhuasi and this king’s position as a usurper and as the founder of a new dynasty.
It is likely that Inca Roca wanted to keep records and preserve the intellectual heritage of his ancestors. There were possibly old amautas alive who were acting as teachers in his new school. Presumably the title of the sage – amauta – was then adopted to honor the ancient kings of wisdom.
It is possible that at least part of the records of this ancient kingship were memorized and kept "on file" (by means of quipus) during the succeeding reigns. But all that changed after the great rebellion and overall destruction of Pinagua-Muyna and accession of Inca Pachacuti.
The hatred that the Incas expressed toward the Pinagua-Muynas appears somewhat exaggerated. There seems to have been some ambivalent frustration in their ultimate acts which led to total destruction of the political center of their rivals. The rule of the Pinagua-Muynas as an independent polity probably lasted about one hundred years (AD 1300-1400). By the time of its final destruction by Inca Pachacuti, some 150 years had elapsed since Chokepukio was dominated by ancestors of Roca and the "true" Incas.
Inca Pachacuti had a very complicated politico-historical problem to resolve. He had to create a canonical history that would satisfy the needs of both major political factions: the Hanan- and the Hurin-Cuzcos. That history had to function well as a vehicle of imperialistic propaganda. The principal challenge was how to spin a good story of Inca origin in which traditions of Hurin and Hanan lineages were merged. Hanan-Cuzcos, the Incas proper (with their Aymara-Puquina descent), linked themselves to the Lake Titicaca region, while Hurin-Cuzcos had their origin myths associated with Pacariqtambo. The clever mythographer-amautas of the Yachayhuasi apparently solved the problem by merging the stories into a hybrid tradition in which the creation occurred in Titicaca and the Inca emergence at Pacariqtambu.
Another probem was the ancient dynastic heritage itself. Should the deeds of ancient kings be included in Inca history? In the official doctrine and origin myth the Incas were the first and rightful rulers on earth who created all institutions and taught these to barbarian tribes all around. Inclusion of earlier kings and their deeds would considerably diminish the credibility and justification of Inca conquests. This could also cause more jealousy from the Hurin faction if the ancient dynastic ties that belonged to the Hanan-Cuzco tradition were emphasized. Besides, the site of this tradition was contaminated for more than a hundred years by the hated foreign intruders and arch-enemies of the Incas, the Pinagua-Muynas. It would be politically hazardous to keep any connection with this site: the Incas were obliged to emphasize the origin seat of Hurin tradition instead – Pacariqtambo. However, there could have been still another reason for this historical amnesia. Inca Pachacuti was a usurper, and as many usurpers in history, he seems to have had a megalomaniac need to express justification of his rule. He adopted the title Pachacuti, which signifies ‘cataclysm’, ‘upheveal’ or ‘reformer of the world’. This was probably his only public concession to the ancient tradition, since he certainly was aware that this title was used by former kings of significance. Consequently, in the new propagandistic view of Inca history, he took credit for himself as much as possible. In his newly-written Inca history much of the ancient traditions were deleted. Therefore, Inca histories as we know them, are mostly based on Inca official perceptions of their past. This dynastic propaganda was indeed effective, as we can see when we try to find traces of pre-Inca traditions in the Andes.
Current status of research
During the past decade Andean research has been in a state of ’fermentation’. Multidimensional approaches now prevail, and a kind of paradigatic revolution is currently taking place. During previous decades, structural-functionalist research dominated Andean studies. Recently, however, many new ideas have come to light and old ideas are being challenged. In this process many of the structural-functionalist concepts are being questioned, and the historicist strategy, which prevailed in Andean studies half a century ago, is being considered again. New and more open perspectives in archaeology and ethnohistory are being adopted, especially the latter, which rely on a global body of evidence to demonstrate that ancient oral traditions contain much useful historical information. In the Andes, much ethnohistorical folklore and tradition has been preserved only orally or was conserved on quipus to ultimately be recorded in Spanish chronicles and colonial documents. The structural-functionalist use of this material has been somewhat confusing because the structuralist interpretation denies its historicity or disguises it as mythology. Structuralist-functionalist research has contributed enormously to Andean studies in a number of ways but has suffered from the limitations of diachrony.69
Another reason for the ongoing paradigm change may be the influence of research results and models from Mesoamerican studies on the Andean context. Mesoamerican ethnohistoric research has always been ahead of the Andeanists, a fact which is simply related to the quantity and nature of basic research source material. There is much more surviving written material in colonial documents, ethnographies, and notably pre-Columbian documents and texts in Mesoamerica than in the Andes. Since Mesoamerican research has drawn ahead of what has been possible in the Andean area in terms of reconstructing cultural history, it has highlighted the need to pursue more multiform research strategies in the field of Andean studies. In the course of this process broad new approaches to ethnohistory and the exploitation of mythohistorical narratives have been taken. Ethnohistorical sources have been used for many years in Andean studies but it is only recently that data has been brought to light through auxiliary disciplines that allow us to corroborate and revise ancient sources with promising new results.70

Catherine Julien has recently set forth certain interesting new interpretations of Inca history from the ethnohistorical perspective. She has made an analysis of the content of all principal chronicles of Inca history, and concludes that their content reflects to a great extent the historical tradition of the Incas in the way that they themselves wanted to narrate and express it. This interpretation contradicts the structuralist viewpoint, which has emphasized the nature of historical narratives in the chronicles as largely having been influenced by European concepts and propaganda. According to this structuralist thinking, the native Andean peoples did not have a concept and idea of history in the European sense.71
The Inca dynastic structure has also been a topic of much dispute. During the last decades with the rise of structuralist thinking, the dualist or triadist models have gained ground, and almost completely replaced the traditional unilineal structures. Presently, however, a growing number of scholars have turned anew toward the latter, historicist viewpoint. As Julien has pointed out, the older structuralist models markedly contradict the traditional ideas which overwhelmingly predominate in the written records comprising ethnohistorical documens and chronicles. As a matter of fact, the theory of the dualist structure of the Inca dynasty is based on only a single primary source, the chronicle of José de Acosta. Acosta used information from Polo de Ondegardo in a very peculiar way in his dynastic reconstruction. In reading Polo’s records carefully it is evident that his idea of Inca dynastic structure more or less corresponds to the unilinear descent system of the chronicles. The triad model used by Martti Pärssinen fits even less with traditional records presented in the chronicles.72
In spite of surprisingly effective Inca dynastic propaganda, their predecessors’ cultural world, ethnohistorical records, and physical appearance are increasingly known to us through modern multidisciplinary research. This world reveals unquestionably that a great majority of the inventive ideas which the Incas proudly attributed to themselves were in fact products of their predecessors.
Recently a growing number of scholars have accepted the idea that a principal source of statecraft used by the Incas was the legacy of the Wari and Tiwanaku civilizations. In this article we have set forth evidence to indicate that the ancient site of Chokepukio probably had a key role in transmitting this heritage to the Incas. Most interestingly, at this site the two sources of this politico-cultural heritage met. After a long period of occupation by the Wari empire, it was later occupied by peoples from the Titicaca basin who brought with them infuences from Tiwanaku.
Diachronic penetration of the Andean ethnohistorical past is a complicated matter. One has to deal with a number of historical turning points at which the information was seriously distorted. Thse consist of major politico-historical phases, each with a distinct ideological interest in filtering and manipulating the historical information. The latest of these phases was the Colonial Spanish world and particularly the period when the major chronicles, our primary sources, were written. Antedating this phase was the imperial period of the Incas and of course there were others before these.73 NOTES
1. Sabine Hyland is currently preparing a critical edition of Montesinos’s Memorias Antiguas y Historiales del Perú. This will be the first scholarly edition of the entire three-volume work, an enormous contribution to the field.
2. I was not aware of these studies at the time of publication of my book (1999). Quite soon afterwards, however, Carlos Ponce Sanginés, took contact by e-mail and delivered his book to me. I got information of Jan Szeminski’s study only through reference in Martti Pärssinen’s article (2001a).
3. As a matter of fact, a major part of Szeminski’s article is concentrated around the works of Cieza de León and Guaman Poma de Ayala. He treats the testimony of Montesinos only in his last few pages.
4. Hiltunen 1999:202-3. Compare also, Markham 1920.
5. I will treat this idea further in the closing part of this article. The crucial point of my hypothesis is a distinctive border area at Vilcanota pass, which can be identified clearly from Montesinos’s narrative.
6. About the Tiwanaku-kings and the Montesinos narrative, see Ponce Sanginés 1999. His most current book on Tiwanaku archaeology, is a handsome volume published in 2002.
7. Hiltunen 1999:60-3, 240-2.
8. Ponce Sanginés 1999:32, 65-6. Compare Habich 1974.
9. I received information from William Isbell in 1996 that Ponce Sanginés was then preparing a chronological framework for some fifty kings, which he is distributing among various archaeological periods in Tiwanaku. I didn’t know then (nor probably did Isbell) that these kings were taken from the chronicle of Montesinos. See, Hiltunen 1999:234, n.100.
10. I have presented a quantative analysis of statistical historical data, how figures like these could twist chronologies enormously. The dynastic averages range usually between 15 and 18 years (See appendices in Hiltunen 1999). In using this with Ponce Sanginés’ chronology, one could reach between 474 and 622 years’ disparity.
11. Ponce Sanginés 1999:65-77. I have used a similar analysis of the names also, which has provoked some criticism too. I turn to this discussion later in the text.
12. Sergio Barraza sent his information to me via consultation with Lloyd Anderson (e-mail communication December 8 and 10, 2002). He mentioned, that this article will be published in the next year. Sergio Barraza holds that both the content and origin of the native mss. were in the Quito area. Sabine Hyland intead has argued the possibility that a native writer from Quito has been an author of a book consulted by Montesinos for his ancient history.
13. Sergio Barraza (personal communication via e-mail, December 10, 2002).
14. Part of this information is from a draft copy sent to me by Sabine Hyland (2001). It is titled ’The Horned Beast and the Fall of the Incas: Fernando de Montesinos’s unpublished Book III of the Memorias historiales’. See also, Hyland 2001. Montesinos (Ms Univ., lib.I, cap.4, 1644).
15. Montesinos (lib.I,cap.4) 1869:351.
16. Montesinos uses regularly the term/title ‘rey’ (king) of the ancient kings of Peru, never using a term ‘emperador’ (emperor) instead. Consult Montesinos 1882:passim.
17. Montesinos (lib. I, cap. 4) 1869:351
18. The Anonymous Jesuit (probably Blas Valera) lists among his sources a certain licentiate Alvarez from Huanuco with a work entitled: De Titulis regni peruani (ca. 1585-90) 1879:143; Hiltunen 1999:187. There was also Genealogia de Manco Capac consulted by Anello Oliva (Hiltunen 1999:194). All these could have contained information about these ancient rulers.
19. Sahuaraura Inca (1850) 2002. See also, Hiltunen 1999:302, 311. Sergio Barraza mentioned also that the name Toco Cosque may have been taken from a town Cosque, situated in the region of Quijos (in Amazonia to the east of Quito). I consider this as a very unlikely explanation, reasoning merely from its periferal location (even though the "mestizo" informant may have been visited the site in 1578-9, as Barraza has mentioned). Should Montesinos or any other chronicler want to invent imaginary names for a made-up dynasty of antiquity, there were plenty of records of dinstinct kind of Quechua names to be used basis of mixing. Just in picking one "Titu" from here, another "Yupanqui" from there, and add perhaps "Atauchi" from another place.
20. Brundage 1985:318. According to Susan A. Niles, Huayna Capac devoted at least twelve years to the Quito wars (1999:104).
21. Pärssinen 1992:201; Hiltunen 1993:195; Niles 1999:120.
22. Brundage 1985:239-66, 1985b:60-70; Davies 1995:72-82. Consult also, Niles 1999. Her book is completely dedicated to the reign of Inca Huayna Capac.
23. Salomon 1978, 1986.
24. Hiltunen 1999:391-5.
25. Buchwald 1921; Jijon y Caamano 1927; Paz y Mino 1940, 1941, 1942.
26. Paz Y Mino 1941:36.
27. Nallino 2002. See, Velasco 1946. Compare criticism of Velasco, e.g. Jijon y Caamano 1918 or Ayala Mora 1988. Montesinos also confirms that Fray Marcos de Niza spent about four months in Peru (" F. Marcos de Niza estuvo en el Perú tres ó cuatro meses"), Montesinos 1869:529.
28. Velasco (1789:Tomo II, lib.I) 1946, Vol.II, 17-36.
29. Nallino 2002:19-20. Nallino is specifically referring here to Costales, Alfredo & Piedad: La Real Familia Duchicela; (Valencia: Edym, 1992).
30. Jijon y Caamano 1927:220.
31. For pro, read e.g. Jaramillo Alvarado 1958; Salvador Lara 1974; Haro Alevar 1978; Reino 1988. For very critical, read. e.g. Ayala Mora 1988. Espinoza Soriano has taken a somewhat neutral stance, e.g. 1988, 1988b. For archaeological research in Imbabura (region related to these histories), see e.g. Bedoya Maruri 1990.
32. Hyland 2001.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. This information was given to me by Hyland (personal communication, with draft paper of the subject in 2002). This will be published in Colonial Latin American Historical Review.
36. Ibid.
37. Hiltunen 1999:390-5. As a matter of fact Markham and others mainly used forms of names which were already ‚corrected’ in Jimenez de la Espada’s edition of Montesinos’s Book II (1882). Vicente Fidel López instead used original ms. forms of the names in his edition (1869-70).
38. Hyland 2001.
39. Hiltunen 1999:309-11.
40. Hyland 2001.
41. Ibid. Hyland emphasizes here that ’linguistic analysis is a crucial component in my argument’ to get evidence for my theory of ’Amautas’ as Wari kings. This is not true, since I chose a multidisciplinary approach which exploits all kinds of available data in testing this idea and hypothesis. The relative value of lexical comparison for my argument, was marginal, as I stated above.
42. Hiltunen 1999:59. See also, Fidel Lopez 1871.
43. Hyland 2001.
44. Hiltunen 1999:328, 347-50. For formulas of legendary dynasties, see Hiltunen 1999:371-2.
45. Hiltunen 1999:388-90.
46. McEwan 1996; Williams 2001; Isbell 2001.
47. Hiltunen 1999:249-50.
48. Juan B. Leoni: ’From Huarpa Ceremonial Center to Huari Town: New Evidences from the Site of Nawinpuyko (Ayacucho, Peru). A paper presented at the 21st NE Andean Conference, Nov. 2-3, 2002, in the University of Pittsburgh. Compare also, e.g. Isbell 2001.
49. Hiltunen 1999:271-4. For historical occurrence of comets one should consult Yeomans (1991) for instance. When I finished my book, an even better source, Gary W. Kronk’s Cometography (1999) was not yet available to me. The classical source for eclipses is Th. Ritter Oppolzer’s Canon der Finsternisse; (Wien: Aus der Kaiserlich- Königlichen Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1887). And one can find David Clark H. & Richard F. Stephenson’s The Historical Supernovae; (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1977), useful also.
50. In the year 1524 a total eclipse of sun was visible in Ecuador and in the years 1523, 1529, 1531, 1532, and 1533 comets were possible seen (Hiltunen, ibid.).
51. Montesinos (1644: lib.II, cap.xx) 1882:113; Hiltunen 1999:327.
52. Hiltunen 1999:272-4.
53. Anderson 1999.
54. Hyland 2001.
55. About comets and Inca Capac Yupanqui, see Hiltunen 1999:327. About the said Manco Capac’s, consult Montesinos (1644:lib.II, caps.vii-viii; xiii) 1882:46-9, 77-8; Hiltunen 1999:306-7.
56. Hiltunen 1999:307.
57. Hiltunen & McEwan (nd.).
58. An interesting reference can be found in Guaman Poma’s chronicle for instance. In pictures 79 and 264 in association with Pacaritambu also Tambotoco is written beside (1584-1615:79, 264) 1980:62, 238. Lloyd Anderson gave me this clue (personal communication, 2003).
59. According to Hiram Bingham Tampu-Tocco was in Machu Picchu, whereas Luis Pardo suggested the site of Maucallacta (in Paruro) as a more likely place. See, Bingham (1922) and Pardo (1946, 1957).
60. Montesinos (1644:lib.II, caps.xiv-xv) 1882:79-90.
61. Consult, Montesinos (1644:lib.II, caps. xvi-xix) 1882:91-111.
62. Compare e.g. appendices in Hiltunen (1999).
63. Hiltunen 1999:312-18.
64. Ibid., 310-1, 388-9.
65. Compare, Montesinos (1644:lib.II, caps.xiv-xv) 1882:84-90.
66. In this new scenario I have excluded my earlier hypothesis of the Hurin lineage’s ties to ’Piruas’, adopting [insteaad] the idea that they were a separate lineage in the Cuzco region.
67. Montesinos (1644:lib.II, cap.xvii) 1882:101.
68. Montesinos (1644:lib.II, cap.xv) 1882: 86.
69. Hiltunen 2002; Hiltunen & McEwan (nd.).
70. Ibid.
71. Julien 2000; Hiltunen 2002; Hiltunen & McEwan (nd.).
72. Julien (2000:1-21) and Hiltunen (2002) have both noticed this peculiar relationship between Acosta and Polo de Ondegardo, who led the structuralists in thinking of the Inca dynasty using dualist models. Compare Pärssinen 1992.
73. Hiltunen & McEwan (nd.)

REFERENCES
A few sources are listed here which have not been cited above. These may be helpful for those who want to read more about the subject.
Acosta, José de: The Natural and oral History of the Indies. Reprinted from the English edition of Edward Grimston, 1604. Vols. 1-2 (1588-90); (London: Hakluyt Society, 1880).
Albarracin-Jordan, Juan V.: The Archaeology of Tiwanaku. The Myths, History, and Science of an Ancient Andean Civilization; (La Paz: Impresión P.A.P., 1999).
Anderson, Lloyd: ’The Ancient Peruvian King Lists’. A draft copy; (Washington D.C.: Ecological Linguistics, 1999).

Anonima, Jesuita: ’Relacion de las costumbres antiguas de los naturales del Pirú´, En Tres Relaciones de Antigüedades Peruanas (ca. 1585-90); (Madrid: Imprenta y fundicion de M.Tello, 1879).

Ayala Mora, Enrique (ed.): Nueva Historia del Ecuador. Vol. 2: Epoca Aborigen II; (Quito: Editorial Grijalbo Ecuatoriana Ltda, 1988).
Bauer, Brian S.: The Development of the Inca State; (Austin: Universioty of Texas Press, 1992).
Bingham, Hiram: Inca Land. Explorations in the Highlands of Peru; (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1922).
Brundage, Burr C.: Empire of the Inca (1963); (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press,1985).
Brundage, Burr C.: Lords of Cuzco (1967); (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1985b).
Cabello de Balboa, Miguel: Miscelánea antártica: una historia del Perú antiguo (1586); (Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, 1951).
Cerron-Palomino, Rodolfo: Lingüística Aimara; (Lima: Biblioteca de la Tradición Oral Andina 21, 2000).
Bedoya Maruri, Angel Nicador: Recientes Investigaciones Arqueologicas en la Provincia de Imbabura. Edicion efectuada bajo los auspicios de la Seccion Nacional del I.P.G.H. – Ecuador, 1990.
Buchwald, Otto von: ’La Lengua de la Antigua Provincia de Imbabura’, Boletin de la Academia Nacional de Historia. Vol.III, Nums. 7 y 8; (Quito, 1921), 177-91.
Cieza de León, Pedro de: Crónica del Perú. Segunda parte. Segunda edición corregida (1550-3); (Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 1986).
Betanzos, Juan: Narrative of the Incas. Transl. and ed. by Roland Hamilton and Dana Buchanan from the Palma de Mallorca ms. (1551-7); (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1996).
Davies, Nigel: The Incas; (Niwot-Colorado: University Press of Colorado, 1995).
Duviols, Pierre: ’La dinastia de los Incas: Monarquía o diarquía? Argumentos heurísticos a favor de una tesis estructuralista’, Journal de la Société des Américanistes 64; (Paris) 67-83.
Espinoza Soriano, Waldemar: ’El habitat de etnia Pinagua, siglos XV y XVI’, Revista del Museo Nacional, Tomo XL; (Lima, 1974), 157-220.
Espinoza Soriano, Waldemar: ’Los Cayambes y Caranques: Siglos XV-XVI El Testimonio de la Etnohistoria’. Tomos I-III, Coleccion Curinón; (Otavalo-Ecuador: Instituto Otavaleno de Antropologia, 1988).
Espinoza Soriano, Waldemar: Etnohistoria Ecuatoriana, Estudios y Documentos; (Quito: Ediciones Abya-yala, 1988b).
Fidel Lopez, Vicente: Les Races Aryennes du Pérou; (Paris: A La Libraire A. Franck, 1871).
Garcilaso de la Vega, Inca: Royal Commentaries of the Incas, and General History of Peru. Transl. by Harold V. Livermore, part I (1609); (Austin and London: University of Texas Press, 1966).
Guaman Poma de Ayala: El primer nueva corónica y buen gobierno. Ed. by J.V. Murra, R. Adorno y J.L. Urioste. Tomos I-III (1584-1615); (México: Siglo Veintiuno, 1980).
Gutierrez de Santa Clara, Pedro: Quinquenarios o Historia de las guerras civiles dél Perú (1544-1548) y otros sucesos de las Indias (ca. 1595-1603); (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles, Tomos CLXV-CLXVI, 1963).
Habich, Eduardo de: Los Libros de la Biblia Peruana; (Lima: Ediciones Eduardo de Habich, 1974).
Haro Alevar, Silvio Luis: Puruha, Nacion Guerra; (Quito: Editora Nacional, 1978).
Hiltunen, Juha J.: ’Inkahallitsijoiden historiallinen kronologia’, Historiallinen Aikakauskirja 3 (Helsinki, 1981), 219-233.
Hiltunen, Juha J.: Pyhitetyt valheet: Hallitsija, propaganda ja kronologia Mesoamerikassa. M.A. Thesis; (The University of Helsinki, 1993).
Hiltunen, Juha J.: Ancient Kings of Peru. The reliability of the Chronicle of Fernando de Montesinos (Helsinki: SHS, Bibliotheca Historica 45, 1999).
Hiltunen, Juha J.: ’The Chimu State and Its Culture’, Gold Crown and the Feather Mantle. Three Millennia of Pre-Columbian Peru; (Tampere-Finland: Tampere Art Museum publication 94, 2001).
Hiltunen, Juha J.: ’Strukturalistis-funktionalistisen diakronian problematiikka Andien alueen muinaistutkimuksessa´, Suomen Antropologi 1 (Helsinki, 2002), 19-28.
Hiltunen, Juha J. and McEwan, Gordon F.: ’Knowing the Inca Past’. Forthcoming in Archaeology of the Incas and other Ancient Civilizations of the Andes. Ed. by Helaine Silverman. In series Blackwell Studies in Global Archaeology.
Hyland, Sabine: ’Montesinos y los reyes de Wari’, In Huari y Tiwanaku: Modelos vs. Evidencias, Primera Parte. Ed. by Peter Kaulicke and William H. Isbell; (Lima: Boletín de Arqueologia PUCP, 2001), 641-48.
Hyland, Sabine: ’Montesinos and the Kings of Wari’. A draft copy, 2001.
Hyland, Sabine: ’Woven Words: The Royal Khipus of Blas Valera’, In Narrative Threads: Accounting and Recounting in Andean Khipus. Ed. by Jeffrey Quilter and Gary Urton; (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002), 151-170.
In Press. Hyland, Sabine: Incas, Gods and Quipus: The Life and Work of Padre Blas Valera SJ. To appear in the series, History, Languages and Cultures of the Spanish and Portuguese Worlds directed by Sabine MacCormack. University of Michigan Press.
In Press. Hyland, Sabine: ’Biblical Prophesy and the Conquest of Peru: Fernando de Montesinos’s Memorias Historiales. Colonial Latin Aerican Historical Review.
Ibarra Grasso, Dick: ’La historia ’oficial’ del Imperio Incaico’, Khana, Ano VI, Vol.II, No.31-32; (La Paz, 1958), 5-25.
Ibarra Grasso, Dick: La verdadera historia de los Incas; (La Paz: Editorial ’Los Aigos del Libro’, 1969).
Imbelloni, José: ’La Capaccuna de Montesinos, Despues de cien anos de discusiones e hipotesis (1840-1940)’, Anales del Instituto de Etnografia Americana, Tomo II (Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, 1941).
Imbelloni, José: Pachakuti IX (El Incario Crítico); (Buenos Aires: Editorial Humanior, 1946).
Isbell, William H.: ’Huari: An Imperial Capital’, Gold Crown and the Feather Mantle. Three Millenia of Pre-Columbian Peru; (Tampere-Finland: Tampere Art Museum publication 94, 2001).
Isbell, William H. and McEwan, Gordon F. (eds.): Huari Adminstrative Structure. Prehistoric Monumental Architecture and State Government; (Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1991).
Isbell, William H.: Mummies and Mortuary Monuments. A Postprocessual Prehistory of Central Andean Social Organization; (Washington.D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1997).
Jaramillo Alvarado, Pio: La Nacion Quitena; (Quito: Editorial Casa de la Cultura Ecuatoriana, 1958).
Jijon y Caamano, J.: ’Examen crítico de la veracidad de la Historia del Reino de Quito del P. Juan de Velasco, de la Compania de Jesús, Boletin de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Estudios Históricos Americanos; (Quito, 1918), 33-63.
Jijon y Caamano, J.: Puruha. Vol. I. Edicion separada de los numeros 6, 12 y 14 del Boletin de la Academia Nacional de Historia; (Quito: Tipografia y Encuadernacion Salesianas, 1927).
Jimenez de la Espada, Marcos (ed.): Relaciones Geograficas de Indias – Peru. Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles. Tomos I-IV (ca. 1570-90); (Madrid: Real Academia Espanola, Ediciones Atlas, 1965).
Julien, Catherine: Reading Inca History; (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2000).
Keatinge, Richard W. (ed.): Peruvian Prehistory. An Overview of pre-Inca and Inca society; (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).
Kolata, Alan L.: The Tiwanaku. Portrait of an Andean Civilization; (Cambridge MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1993).
Kronk, Gary W.: Cometography. A Catalog of Comets. Vol. 1: Ancient – 1799; (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
Markham, Clements R.: ’Introduction’ in Montesinos (1644); (London: Hakluyt Society, 1920).
McEwan, Gordon F.: The Middle Horizon in the Valley of Cuzco, Peru. The Impact of the Wari Occupation of the Lucre Basin; (Oxford: BAR International Series 372, 1987).
McEwan, Gordon F.: ’Pikillaqta: Occupation Wari en el Cusco’, Revista de Informacion Cultural, Vol. 1., no.1; (Instituto de Investigaciones Arqueologicas Marcavalle, Cuzco, Peru, 1994), 17-20.
McEwan, Gordon F.: ’Archaeological Investigations at Pikillacta, a Wari Site in Peru’, Journal of Field Archaeology 23; (1996)169-86.
McEwan, Gordon F.: ’The Function of Niched Walls in Wari Architecture’, Latin American Antiquity. Vol. 9., no.1; (1998), 68-86.
McEwan, Gordon F. and Gibaja, Arminda and Chatfield, Melissa: ’Archaeology of the Chokepukio Site: An Investigation of the Origin of the Inca Civilization in the Valley of Cuzco, Peru’, Tawantinsuyu 1, (1995).
McEwan, Gordon F., Melissa Chatfield, and Arminda Gibaja: ’Excavations at the Chokepukio Site in the Valley of Cuzco: A Summary Report of the Second and Third Field Seasons (1995 and 1996)’, Tawantinsuyu. Vol. 5, no.1; (2000).
McEwan, Gordon F., Melissa Chatfield, and Arminda Gibaja: ’The Archaeology of Inca Origins: Some Results of the Selz Foundation Excavations at Chokepukio, Cuzco, Peru’, in Andean Archaeology, ed. by W. Isbell and H. Silverman; (New York: Plenum Publishing, 2002).
Means, Philip A.: ’Introduction’ in Montesinos (1644); (London: Hakluyt Society, 1920).
Montesinos, Fernando de: Ophir de Espana. Memorias Antiguas Historiales y Politicas del Perú. Mss. in the library of University of Seville (1644).
Montesinos, Fernando de: ’Memorias Antiguas Historiales y Politicas del Peru´, La primera edición castellana y la transcripcion fué brindada por Vicente Fidel López, Revista de Buenos Aires, 79 (Noviembre de 1869 a XXII, 1870).
Montesinos, Fernando de: Memorias Antiguas Historiales y politicas del Perú. Cuidada por D. Marcos Jiménez de la Espada (1644); (Madrid: Imprenta de Miguel Ginesta, 1882).
Montesinos, Fernando de: Memorias Antiguas Historiales y Politicas del Peru. Transl. and ed. by Philip A. Means (1644); (London: Hakluyt Society, second series, No. XLVIII, 1920).
Mosely, Michael E. And Cordy-Collins, Alana (eds.): The Northern Dynasties. Kingship and Statecraft in Chimor; (Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1990).
Murúa, Martin de: Historia del origen y genealogia real de los reyes Incas del Perú (Ms Loyola). Ed. by Constantino Bayle (ca. 1590-1609); (Madrid: Biblioteca ’Missionalia Hispanica’, Vol II, 1946).
Nallino, Michel: ’Fray Marcos Niza: In Pursuit of Franciscan Utopia in Americas’. Paper presented at the ’Contemporary Vantage on the Coronado Expedition through Documents and Artifacts’, Conference held from April 14 to April 18, 2000, in New Mexico Highlands University, Las Vegas, New Mexico, and Plains Baptists Assembly, Floydada, Texas; (Updated on 12/22/2002 http://perso.club-internet.fr/mnallino/Utopia/).
Niles, Susan A.: The Shape of Inca History; (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1999).
Oliva, Anello: Historia del reino y Provincias del Perú…(1631); (Lima: Imprenta y libreria de S. Pedro, 1895).
Oseley, Michael E.: The Incas and Their Ancestors. The Archaeology of Peru; (London and New York: Thames and Hudson, 1992).
Pardo, Luis A.: ’La Metropoli de Pacaritampu’, Revista de la Seccion Arqueologia de la Universidad Nacional del Cuzco, No.2; (Cuzco, 1946), 3-46.
Pardo, Luis A.: Historia y Arqueologia del Cuzco, Tomos I-II; (Cuzco, 1957).
Paz y Mino, Luis T.: ’La Lengua Pasto’, ’Lenguas Indigenas del Ecuador, Boletin de la Academia Nacional de Historia. Vol. XX, No.56; (Quito, 1940), 161-78.
Paz y Mino, Luis T.; ’La Lengua Kára’, ’Lenguas Indigenas del Ecuador´, Boletin de la Academia Nacional de Historia. Vol.XXI, No.57; (Quito, 1941), 28-52.
Paz y Mino, Luis T.; ’La Kito o Panzaleo’, ’Lenguas Indigenas del Ecuador’, Boletin de la Acadeia Nacional de Historia. Vol. XXI, No.57; (Quito, 1941), 146-170.
Paz y Mino, Luis T.: ’La Lengua Puruguay’, ’Lenguas Indigenas del Ecuador’, Boletin de la Acadeia Nacional de Historia. Vol. XXII. No.59; (Quito, 1942), 42-74.
Polo de Ondegardo, Juan: ’Relación del linaje de los Incas y como extendieron ellos sus conquistas’, Colección de libros y documentos referentes a la historia del Perú, serie I, Tomo IV (1571); (Lima, 1917).
Ponce Sanginés, Carlos: Los Jefes de Estado de Tiwanaku; (La Paz: Producciones Cima, 1999).
Ponce Sanginés, Carlos: Tiwanaku y su Fascinante Desarrollo Cultural; (La Paz: Producciones Cima, 2002).
Pärssinen, Martti: Tawantinsuyu. The Inca State and Its Political Organization (Helsinki: SHS, Studia Historica 43,1992).
Pärssinen, Martti: ’The Incas’, in Gold Crown and the Feather Mantle. Three Millennia of Pre-Columbian Peru; (Tampere-Finland: Tampere Art Museum publication 94, 2001).
Pärssinen, Martti: ’The Inca Khipus’, in Gold Crown and the Feather Mantle. Three Millennia of Pre-Columbian Peru; (Tampere-Finland: Tampere Art Museum publication 94, 2001).
Pärssinen, Martti: ’Andien muinaistutkimuksen monitieteinen metodiikka historian, antropologian, etnologian ja arkeologian välimaastossa. Vastine Juha J. Hiltusen artikkeliin’, Suomen Antropolgi 1; (2002) 29-41.
Reino, Pedro A: Los Panzaleos. Una vision historico-lingüistica; (Ambato-Ecuador: Ediciones Universidad y Sociedad, 1988).
Rostworowski de Diez Caseco, María: History of the Inca Realm. Transl. by Harry B. Iceland (1988); (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
Rowe, John H.: ’Absolute Chronology in the Andean Area’, American Antiquity, Vol.10, No.3 (1945), 265-84.
Sahuaraura Inca, Justo D: Recuerdos de la Monarquía Peruana o Bosquejo de la Historia de los Incas (1850); (La Paz: Producciones Cima, 2002).
Salomon, Frank L.: Ethnic Lords of Quito in the Age of the Incas: the Political Economy of North-Andean Chiefdoms. Ph.D. Diss (Cornell University: University Microfilms International, 1978).
Salomon, Frank L.: ’Names and Peoples in Incaic Quito: Retrieving Undocumented Historic Processes Through Anthroponymy and Statistics, American Anthropologist. Vol. 88; (1986), 387-99).
Salvador Lara, Jorge: El Padre Juan de Velasco, Historiador del Reino de Quito; (Quito: Instituto Panamericano de Geografia e Historia, 1974).
Sarmiento de Gaboa, Pedro: Historia de los Incas. Ed. by Angel Rosenblat. Segunda edición (1572); (Buenos Aires: Emecé Editores, S.A., 1942).
Schaedel, Richard P.: ’Formation of the Inca State’, El Hombre y la Cultura Andina, III Congreso Peruano, 31 de Enero -–5 de Febrero 1977. Actas y Trabajos. Tomo I; (Lima: Ramiro Matos M., 1978).
Soria Lens, Luis: ’Origen, Lugar de Origen de los Aymaras y su probable expansion de las tres Americas, Dinastias Aymaras’, Khana (nos. 3-4); (La Paz, 1954) 33-52.
Sullivan, William: The Secret of the Incas. Myth, Astronomy, and the War Against Time; (New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1996).
Szeminski, Jan: ’Los Reyes de Thiya Wanaku en las tradiciones orales del siglo XVI y XVII’, Estudios Latinoamericanos 16; (1995), 11-72.
Torero, Alfredo: El Quechua y la Historia Social Andina; (Lima: Universidad Ricardo Palma, 1974).
Urton, Gary: The History of a Myth. Pacariqtambo and the Origin of the Inkas (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1990).
Vazques, Guinaldo M.: ’En derredor de las ’Memorias Historiales’’, Memoias Antiguas Historiales y Politicas del Perú. Cronica anotadas y concordadas con las Cronicas de Indias por Horacio H. Urteaga; (Lima: Libreria e Imprenta Gil, S.A., 1930).
Velasco, Juan de: Historia del Reino de Quito en la America Meridional. Toos I-III (1789); (Quito: Empresa Editora ’El Comercio’, 1946).
Williams, Patrick Ryan: ’Cerro Baúl: A Wari Center on the Tiwanaku Frontier’, Latin American Antiquity , Vol. 12. No.1; (2001), 67-83.
Yeomans, Donald K.: Comets. A Chronological History of Observation, Science, Myth, and Folklore; (New York: Wiley Science Editions, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1991).
Zuidema, R. Tom: The Ceque System of Cuzco, The social organization of the capital of the Inca (1962); (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1964).