brokaw, ollantay the khipu and neo-inca politics
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
1/27
OLL NT Y
THE KHIPU AND EIGHTEENTH-
CENTURY NEO-INCA POLITICS
GALEN BROKAW
University at Buifalo
The Quechua-language dramaOllantayfigures prominently in literary
histories of Latin America, because it is the oldest surviving secular play
written in Quechua. But analysts of the play are at least as likely, if not
more so, to be linguists or anthropologists as literary critics. The
unknown provenance of
th
play poses serious problems for establishing
a literary basis upon which to analyze the work. Thu s, from the mom ent
the first manuscript copy of Ollantay was discovered in the early nine-
teenth century, literary commentators and critics have focused primarily
on whether the play is an essen tially indigenous or Spanish product.
The primary bases for the arguments in this debate are the play's pre-
Hispanic setting on the one hand (Tschudi; Pacheco Zegarra; Yepez
Miranda) and its general adherence to the formal conventions of Spanish
drama on the other (Mitre; Hills). Also from the very beginning, howev-
er, this debate reached an impasse, because there appear to be no defini-
tive answers to the questions that would potentially resolve the issue.
There is no question that the conventions of the play generally coincide
with those of Spanish drama, but there is no corpus of Inca dramas that
would make possible a comparative analysis and provide a basis for
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
2/27
32 BCom , Vol 58, No. I 2006)
sible forms of hermeneutic or interpretive analysis appears indeterminate
in this case. Even argum ents that attempt to determine a horizon of un der-
standing within the binary parameters of this debate do not provide a
foundation firm or extensive enough to authorize more interpretative
analyses. This critical impasse derives from the premise that the play
must have some sort of essential, abstract, stable or fixed discursive iden-
tity and from the tendency to neglect the implications of transcultural
processes in the colonial period in general and the eighteenth century
more specifically.
Some more recent scholars, such as Jose Maria Arguedas, Martin
Lienhard, Carlos Garcia-Bedoya, and John Beverley, have advocated a
more measured approach that recognizes the transcultural nature of the
work. Lienhard and Beverley, in particular, have moved beyond the nar-
row terms of the hispanista)indigenista debate and engaged in analyses
that read the play as a transcultural product of the eighteenth-century
Andes. Critics such as Lienhard and Beverleyexplicitly or implicitly
avoid the problem of determining in the abstract whether Ollantay is
essentially Spanish or indigenous, because for them these categories have
no relevance outside their social and political realities. This kind of read-
ing of Ollantay is as much a reading of the cultural and political history
of eighteenth-century Cuzco as it is of the play
itself
Lienhard and Beverley explore the possible relationship between ele-
ments of Ollantay^s plot and the socio-politics of eighteenth-century
Cuzco. Given the pre-Hispanic setting of Ollantay, a complementary
approach would conduct a comparative analysis of indigenous cultural
concepts and traditions over time and as they appear in the play. The rel-
ative paucity of detailed ethnographic information on the pre-Hispanic
and colonial periods makes such a project difficult, but there is at least
one element intemal to the play that may be susceptible to this type of
analysis. Specifically, the knotted, colored string device known as the
khipu appears several times, and on two occasions ch aracters in the p lay
perform khipu readings that implicitly revealalbeit to a limited
degree material conve ntions of a khipu semiotics, that is to say conven-
tions of a khipu system of representation. The play presents the story of
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
3/27
Brokaw 33
Cusi Coyllur is confined to a monastery. After initial success, Ollantay
eventually suffers defeat as a result of a deception by the Inca's general
Rumi Nahui. The Inca Tupac Yupanqui, who had succeeded Pachacutec
by this time, pardons Ollantay and reunites him with Cusi Coyllur and
their daughter Ima Sumac. The two khipu readings in the play involve
military status reports that take place at the beginning and the end of the
rebellion respectively. The first informs the Inca of the rebellion's suc-
cess,
and the second announces Ollantay's defeat.
With a few notable exceptions (Bro therston), the khipu readings in the
play have not attracted the attention of twentieth-century critics. There
may be a tendency to view this element merely as part of
the
representa-
tion of a pre-Hispanic Inca empire, which it certainly is; but the khipu
also has a history that continues throughout the colonial period and into
the twenty-first century. Whether or not Ollantay originated in an earlier
period, the versions to which we have access are most likely products of
the eighteenth century (Mannheim 148-50). The elem ents within the play,
such as the khipu, then, may also be tied in one w ay or another to the tur-
bulent cultural, social, and political context o f eighteenth-century Cuzco.
Before discussing the khipu that appea r in
Ollantay
then, an understand-
ing of this context is necessary.
The negotiation in Ollantay between an indigenous Andean content
and a European discursive formation took place in the context of the
political turbulence of the eighteenth-century Spanish colonial govern-
ment. In The Age of Andean Insu rrection, Steve J. Stem identifies more
than one-hundred uprisings that occurred in the Andes between 1742 and
1782 (34). Many of these rebellions w ere fomented in part by an Inca ren-
aissance that involved a concerted effort among some descendants of ,
indigenous Andean nobles to revive and maintain the political and cul-
tural status of nelite Inca culture. Beginning in the late seventeenth and
throughout most of the eighteenth century, the indigenous aristocracy
developed a renewed interest in their ancient tradition s, as manifested by
the revival of Inca dress that appears in portraits, the o rganization of Inca-
style processions, the fabrication of neo-Inca ceram ic vases, and the pro-
duction of Quechua language dramas (Rowe 22-24; Lienhard 79). Many
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
4/27
34 BCom,
Vol
58, No. 1 2006)
thereafter, culminating in 1781 with the rebellion led by Tupac Amaru II
(Lienhard 79; Garcia-Bedoya 337 ).
The mainstream Inca renaissance, however, was never motivated by
revolutionary sentiments but rather by the indigenous elite's need to
maintain a level of prestige and distinction within the colonial order.
Throughout the colonial period, the Spaniards had always afforded a priv-
ileged status to the Inca nobility, and this privileged relationship led to a
much higher degree of acculturation than occurred at other levels of
Andean society. By the end of the seventeenth cen tury, highly acculturat-
ed Andean elites had become so Hispanized that they may have run the
risk of losing much of their indigenous cultural and historical identity
altogether and their privileged po litical status along with it. M oreover, the
gradual emergence of an indigenous and m estizo m iddle class would have
posed a serious challenge to the Inca nobility's monopoly on political
privilege. Thus, in large measure, the eighteenth-cen tury Inca renaissance
may have been an attempt to revive cultural practices that would serve as
the basis for maintaining a political class distinction that was eroding as
a result of acculturation and the emergence of new economic class struc-
tures.
One of the inherent obstacles facing the Inca revivalist impulse would
have been the lack of any direct connection to a living, organ ic, elite Inca
culture. Activists interested in reviving an elite indigenous culture had
access to two main sources of information: (1) eighteenth-century indige-
nous communities that retained their traditional practices; and (2) early
colonial chron icles that described Inca culture. In El m ovim iento
nacional inca del siglo XVIII, John H . Row e suggests that eighteenth-
century Andean elites considered surviving Andean traditions as corrupt-
ed (24-28). Whether or not eighteenth-century Inca descendants made a
distinction between corrupt and non-comipt traditions, they certainly
would have distinguished between popular and elite cultural practices.
The social, cultural, and economic disparities between the acculturated
Andean upper-class and the indigenous masses in the eighteenth century
would have induced the neo-Inca revivalists to project the same structure
onto the pre-Hispanic past. A general awareness of eighteenth-century
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
5/27
Brokaw 35
In the revivalist project, then, the Inca elites relied primarily on early
colonial descriptions of Inca culture, and more specifically on the Inca
Garcilaso de la Veg a s
Com entarios reales
(1609). From the beg inning of
the sixteenth century through the twentieth, in most cases Garcilaso was
the exclusive authority on the Incas. Rowe explains that And res Gonzalez
de Barcia Carballido y Zufiiga s 1723 edition of G arcilaso s Comentarios
reales
circulated w idely in Peru and that the rebel leader Tupac Am aru II
owned a copy. Eighteenth-century indigenous elites such as Tup ac Amaru
II,
who had thoroughly assimilated Spanish culture and religion
(Valcarcel 38), relied heavily on Garcilaso s text for an understanding of
their Inca heritage. In his treatment of pre-Hispanic Andean culture,
Garcilaso includes a description of both the khipu and of an indigenous
theatrical tradition. Most scholars who have argued for the essentially
indigenous nature of Ollantaycite the following passage from the
Comentarios reales:
No les falto habilidad a los amautas, que eran los filosofos,
para componer comedias y tragedias, que en dias y fiestas
solemnes representaban delante de sus Reyes y de los sefiores
que asistian en la corte. Los representantes no eran viles, sino
Incas y gente noble, hijos de curacas y los mismos curacas y
capitanes, hasta maeses de campo, porque los autos de las
tragedias se representaban al propio, cuyos argumentos siem-
pre eran de hechos militares, de triunfos y victorias, de las ha-
zafias y grandezas de los Reyes pasados y de otros heroicos
varon es. Los argumentos de las comedias eran de agricultura,
de hacienda, de cosas caseras y familiares. Los representantes,
luego que se acababa la comedia, se sentaban en sus lugares
conforme a su calidad y oficios. No hacian entrem eses d esh on-
estos,
viles y bajos: todo era de cosas graves y honestas, con
sentencias y donaires permitidos en tal lugar. A los que se
aventajaban en la gracia del representar les daban joy as y favo-
res de mucha estima.
I:
114)
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
6/27
36 BCom, Vol 58, No. I 2006)
However, Garcilaso's description of Inca culture, of which the cited pas-
sage is an example, must be understood in the context of his personal si-
tuation, his larger project, and the description of similar cultural practices
that appear in other chronicles.
Garcilaso published his work at the age of sixty, having left Peru at the
age of twenty, and, as Gonzalez Echevarria points out, he was a skilled
writer steeped in European humanism (44-45). Although Garcilaso's
Comentarios
exhibits both the historical and
the
allegorical humanist
methodologies identified by Anthony Grafton (23-46), he relies primari-
ly on an historical and philological approach designed to reconstruct Inca
culture and society. Unlike the Greeks and Romans upon whose textual
legacy the European humanists focused their scholarship, however, the
Incas left no alphabetic record. So, Garcilaso could not engage in the
analysis of public records or textual sources as thfe basis for his historio-
graphical project. Furthermore, although he claims to draw from friends
and relatives who had access to regional khipu accounts, he had no direct
access to khipu records. Rather, he directed his philological analysis
toward explicating the errors of contemporary texts that had misrepre-
sented Inca culture as a result of an imperfect know ledge of Quechua; and
he appealed to his own know ledge of the language and his indigenous ori-
gins as a self-authorizing gesture .
The early colonial descriptions of indigenous culture that Garcilaso
criticizes are often very confiicted and ambivalent about the European
terms with which they are forced to describe Amerindian objects and
practices. Garcilaso's text suffers from the same ambivalence that char-
acterizes most colonial discourses, but it is much less self-consciously so
than earlier chronicles. Garcilaso's ambivalence results from a desire
perhaps in large measure unconscious^to suppress difference. This is not
exactly what Homi Bhabha calls colonial mimicry, but it employs many
of the same techniques. Such m imicry, for e xam ple, always creates a cer-
tain slippage that belies the asserted equivalence, and Garcilaso's text is
no exception. First, Garcilaso does not mention any specific drama. If he
we re aware of a work such as
O llantay,
he surely would have mentioned
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
7/27
Brokaw 37
assertions about the elite and civilized nature of the Andean tradition as
opposed to a more popular, lower-class phenomenon implicitly contrast
with sixteenth and seventeenth-century European dramas, whose actors
constituted a socially stigmatized lower class and who seentremeses often
focused on less than dignified subject m atters. Thus, Garc ilaso 's desc rip-
tion of Inca drama may be only indirectly related to Spanish theater
through an association with a humanist understanding of the more presti-
gious Greek and Roman traditions.
Nevertheless, the fact that the Andean performers were nobles who
retumed to their appropriate places after the performance suggests that
these activities were part of a larger cultural practice of som e kind of rit-
ual performance. With the exception of the Inca Garcilaso, early chroni-
clers who describe indigenous cultural practices do not find any Andean
analogues of European drama, much less mention specific indigenous
dramatic works. Clements Markham claims that Juan de Santa Cruz
Pachacuti Y amqui's Relacion deantig edades (1613) identifies four dif-
ferent types of dram as, three of which Markham describes respectively as
a joyous representation, a farce, and a tragedy {The Incas 147); but the
Relacion itself snot as clear as Markham seems to suggest. This alleged
description and taxonomy of Andean drama appears in the context of the
birth of the sixth Inca's son. According to Santa Cruz Pachacuti's
genealogical history, the sixth Inca, Yabar Uacac Ynga Yupangui, dedi-
cated himself to conquests in his old age. Upon the birth of his son, he
sent out orders to attend a celebration under threat of
war
The text then
explains: Y enton9es haze la fiesta del nacim iento de su hijo del infante
Viracochampa Yncan Yupangui, en donde embentaron representa9iones
de los farfantes Ilamados afiaysaoca, hayachuco y llamallama, hafiamsi,
etc.El qual dicho Ynga le da una buelta alrededor de Cuzco con su gente
de guerra sin dar guerra nin guno (217). A grammatically literal reading
of this passage would understand the Quechua terms to refer to types of
actors or roles in the performance rather than types of drama. Moreover,
it is not clear whether the four terms are synonymous designations or
refer to different types of a larger category. The second and third terms,
listed separately in the edition cited above, appear together in a single
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
8/27
38 BCom,
Vol
58, No. I 2006)
reprehension and
saoca
or
sauca
meaning burlas o cosa de burlas
(Gonzalez Holguin 29, 324). In general, the ambiguity of the passage in
the
Relacion
supports many different inferences, but the context in which
it appears in this text suggests that embentaron representa9iones refers
to a more impromptu participation in an Andean ritual performance tra-
dition.
Furthermore, there are several chronicles that implicitly undermine
Garcilaso's description of Inca theater and Markham's interpretation of
Pachacuti Yamqui's text, and present an image of a very different per-
formance tradition. In
Suma y narracion de los Incas,
for example, Juan
de Betanzos describes an Inca performance tradition that involves the
participation of Inca nobility in a ritual context (Betanzos 61; Lienhard
68).
Guaman Pom a provides a similar description ad ding details about the
same kind of performances practiced in other regions of the empire (1:
318[320]-327[329]).
would
argue
that these passages from Be tanzos,
Guaman Poma, and Santa Cruz Pachacuti all refer to the same indigenous
practices described by Garcilaso's more Europeanized text. The rituals
themselves appear to consist of song and dance rather than the kind of
staging that takes place in European drama. Betanzos indicates that the
songs were often epic-like narratives (61). Thus, as Lienhard has argued,
there may have been an Andean epic mode that manifested itself in dif-
ferent social contex ts. Even ifaversion of the Ollantay story were enact-
ed in these ritual performances, it would no t have looked or sounded any-
thing like a European drama. Furthermore, the lack of any reference to
specific dra m atic song and dance routines suggests that Andeans did
not conceptualize these activities as manifestations of some stable, fixed
text independent of the performance itself
Garcilaso's colonial discourse of mimicry constitutes one of the pri-
mary strategies in his larger project which involves representing the Inca
empire as a kind of Golden Age that wou ld co m pare favorably to Spanish
standards of civilization (Lienhard 67). The only way to do this in the
early seventeenth century was to make the Incas look as European as pos-
sible.
Leaving aside the question of the degree to which this was a con-
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
9/27
Brokaw 39
reales then, had a determining infiuence on the way in which neo-Inca
activists (re)constmcted Inca dramas. There are also numerous other
examples in Garcilaso's text of the Hispanization of Inca culture that
would have been equally infiuential. The Comentarios reales wasand
continues to beso immensely popular precisely because it resonates
with European readers in ways that less mediated ethnographic represen-
tations do not. Thus, for the eighteenth-century indigenous elites,
Garcilaso's text provided the basis for reaffirming the waning indigenous
elite/popular hierarchy by redefining it accord ing to the same cultural and
economic differences that characterized Spanish society. In the specific
case of the theatrical tradition, Garcilaso's use of terms referring to the
European dramatic genres comedia and tragedia to describe Inca ritual
performances facilitated this process, because, like Garcilaso, the eigh-
teenth-century Inca descendants were already highly acculturated. The
reviva l of Inca drama based on Garcilaso's description became m erely
a matter of infusing an already familiar European dramatic form with an
indigenous content. Ironically, then, Garcilaso's Hispanicized representa-
tion of Inca culture, including bu t not limited to his description of Andean
dram a, served in many w ays as a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.
Garcilaso's text also describes the khipu, one of the icons of Inca
achievement and hence another prime candidate for revivalist projects. In
the eighteenth century, many local communities and haciendas still used
khipu, but there was already a wide-spread view that these surviving
devices were a degenerate vestige of a more complex system of repre-
sentation. Most acculturated Inca elites, who were heavily invested in
maintaining their privileged positions in the Spanish social and political
system, would not have found much use for reviving the khipu as a com -
municative medium, but they m ay hav e resurrected it as a symbol o f Inca
ingenuity. Indeed, the use of the khipu in Ollantay implicitly celebrates
this Inca medium by emphasizing its semiotic or representational capaci-
ty. The implicit description of khipu conventions in the play constitutes
one of the few concrete elemen ts that may provide an opening for under-
standing its relationship to eigh teenth-century indigenous culture and pol-
itics.
Furthermore, it may shed light on the history of the khipu in the
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
10/27
40 BCom,
Vol
58, No. I 2006)
readings take place. In the second scene of the second act, a messenger
arrives with a khipu received and read by the Inca s general. Below, I
include Tschudi s Quechua transcription and the corresponding text from
the first translation published by Jose Sebastian Barranca in 1868:
Ruminahui.
Caicca Ilantta; nan ccahuahuan
Cai umanpi hatascaiia,
Cai rurucunari runam
Tucui paiman huataccafla.
Ynca Pachacutec.
Ymatan ccan ricurccanqui?
Indianer.
Ollantaitas tucui Anti
Runacuna chasquirccancu;
Hinatan huillacurccancu
Ccahuatas ilaitucun panti
O sanitac umallampi.
Rumifiahui
Chaitan quipu huillasunqui. (Tschudi,
Ollantay
87)
RU MI-NAH UI. (Descifra el quipu). He aqui una veirita
que tiene atada la cabeza con una madeja de lana; se han
rebelado tantos hombres como granos de maiz, ves aqui
suspendidos.
PAC HA CU TEC Y tu ^que has visto?
INDIO.Que toda la nacion Anti se ha sublevado con
Ollanta. Me han asegurado que ya se ve su cabeza cefiida
con la borla roja o encamada.
RUMI-NAHUI.Eso tambien dice el Quipu. (Barranca 31)
In Barranca s translation, Rumi-Nahui seems to indicate that the cords
of the khipu are attached to a wooden bar. Although this is uncom mon in
archaeological specimens, there are examples of khipu whose m ain cord
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
11/27
Brokaw 41
instance of khipu reading in the play also reveals the use of objects insert-
ed into the strings. In the fourth scene of the third act, the high priest
Huillac Um a reads the second khipu messag e:
Huillac-Uma.
Cai Quipupin can quillinsa
Nan Ollanta rupasccafia
Horccosccaiquin qquepariscay
Cai pisi ppunchau ccasita
Ay Mama huafiusccan rini
Munacuc sonccoipacc mini. (Tschudi, Ollantay 100)
HUILLAC-UMA.(Descifra el quipu). jEn este Quipu
hay carbon , que indica que ya Ollanta ha sido quemado.
Estos tres. . . cinco quipus atados dicen que Anti-Suyu ha
sido sometido, y que se encuentra en manos del Inca, esos
t r e s . . .cinco, que todo se ha hecho con rigor. (Barranca 46)
In this case, Huillac-Um a indicates that the khipu contains coal. These
passages suggest that the khipu system of representation employed
objects such as com and coal as conven tional signifiers in addition to the
other known conventions such as color, cord configuration, and knots.
Markham's 1871 English edition of
Ollantay
which in many cases
appears to be more a translation of Barranca's Spanish version than of an
original Quechua text, translates the Quechua in exactly the sam e way. In
1878,
Gavino Pacheco Zegarra translated a different but very similar
Quechua manuscript of the play into French. Pacheco Zegarra argues that
the suggestion that kemels of com and pieces of coal were inserted into
the khipu is the result of a mistranslation by Barranca and Markham (52,
108-09).
Ultimately, there may be no way to determine the original referent of
these passages as conceived by the person who produced them, but the
confiicting translations are a useful point of departure for understanding
the nature and status of the khipu in the eighteenth century. The pertinent
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
12/27
42 BCom,
Vol
58, No. I 2006)
Ollantay
59-60). Pacheco Zegarra, however, argues that
ruru
actually
means knot
(52).
Neither o f these translations appears in either co lonial
or more modem dictionaries. In his mid sixteenth-century
Lexicon
(1560), Fray Domingo de Santo Tomas defines
ruro
as both pit
[cuesco
defruta] and egg [huevo](349), and G onzalez H olguin's early seven-
teenth-century Vocabulario(1608) renders rwrw as kidn ey [rifiones],
fruit
[fruto de arbol]
or pit
[pepita o hueso de
fr~uta](322). Frank
Salomon explains that some contemporary Quechua dialects also use the
term
ruru
or
lulun
to refer to roundish objects such as eyeballs (personal
communication). A comparison between the Spanish-Quechua and the
Qu echua-Spanish sections of both colonial and modem dictionaries su g-
gests that colonial Quechua speakers from the Cuzco region and many
modem dialects conceive of pits/fhiit and kidneys as essentially the sam e
thing and that this is the base meaning of the term
ruru
or
ruro.
The
pit/fruit conjunction obtains from the fact that different categories and
developmental stages of fruit are conceived as different kinds ofruru as
indicated by an accompanying adjective. This is consistent with the
Quechua conception of life in general as a series of gradient changes
(Salomon 2 32; A llen). Furtherm ore, all the other secondary referents
associated with
rum
have their own base terms. The standard Quechua
term for egg or hue vo, for exam ple, is
runtu.
The use of such terms
in compound words and phrases confirms their bas e or roo t defini-
tions. All compound expressions containing the term
ruru
and
runtu
relate to, or build upon, the base meaning s of friiit and eg g resp ec-
tively. The use of the term
ruru
to refer to eg gs, then, appears to be a
metaphoric extension justified by the shared characteristic of roundness.
It is unlikely that colonial dictionaries documented all ofth metaphoric
possibilities this term may have inspired. Thus, the translations of the
word by both Barranca and Pacheco Zegarra, which imply a metaphoric
extension to include the referents grains of co m and kn ots respe c-
tively, may represent legitimate metaphoric uses ofth term
ruru
current
in the colonial period.
I have found no exp licit evidence to corrobo rate either of these uses o f
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
13/27
Brokaw 43
neys: single, overhand knots are easily associated visually with pits or
grains of com; the figure-eight knot used to represent a single unit in the
ones position m ay look like a kidney; and a tightly drawn long knot often
creates a crescent-like shape even more visually similar to a kidney. Th ere
also may have been a practical reason for employing
ruru
metaphorical-
ly to designate individual knots on a khipu. The standard Quechua term
for knot was
quipu
or
quipo.
So, in the Quechua metadiscourse dealing
with khipu, there may have been a need to distinguish between the larger
device and individual knots.
The second controversial passage reads as follows: Ca i Quipup in can
quillinsa (Tschudi,
O llantay
100). Barranca and Markham both translate
this to mean essentially In this quipu there is cha rcoal (Barranc a 46;
Markham,
Ollantay
94). While admitting that the term
quillinsa
refers to
carbon o r charcoal, Pacheco Zegarra argues that in this context, it is used
in a kind of metonymy merely to denote the color black (108). The nor-
mal term for bla ck
isyana
but the use of a color metonym y o f this type
is consistent with some contemporary Andean cultural and linguistic
practices (Frank Salomon, personal communication) that may have roots
in earlier periods.
Pacheco Zegarra does not elaborate on the complex issues involved in
the difference between his translation and those of Barranca and
Markham. He does not explain, for example, that the standard mea ning of
ruru
is neither grain of co m nor knot but rather fhiit/pit/kidney ;
and he merely asserts that the term
quillinsa
is used to refer to the color
black. Although both Pacheco Zegarra's and Barranca's translations are
possible, their accuracy depends upon the nature of the khipu depicted in
the play rather than any inherent nature ofth semantic field. Of course,
the play is a representation, and hence does not necessarily refer to any
real khipu practice at all, but the description of how the khipus are deci-
phered implies certain khipu conventions. Ideas about such conventions
must have come from somewhere. In addition to linguistic and philolog-
ical perspectives, an understanding of the status of knowledge about the
khipu in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the history of this
medium leading up to this period provide valuable insights into the khipu
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
14/27
44 BCom, Vol 58, No. I (2006)
Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, very little was
known about the khipu. Coincidentally, Johann Jakob von Tschudi pub-
lished both the first description of an archaeological khipu in 1846 (Peru
425-27) and the first transcription of an
O llantay
manuscript in 1853.The
description and illustration of Tschudi's khipu from Pachacamac also
appeared in Rivero iand
Tschudi s
ntigUedades
peruanas
in 1851 (104).
However, these texts contained only fairly general observations of a sin-
gle khipu. During the eighteenth and most of the nineteenth century, the
prevailing view, as Pacheco Z ega rra's tex t indicates, was that most of the
extant khipu had either completely deteriorated or been hidden away by
the Indians (51-52). In 1864, Jose Pe rez reinforced this view in an article
claiming that archaeological khipu had a tendency to disintegrate when
handled (56). Unbeknownst to Perez, however, the khipu he describes,
originally published by Alexander Strong in 1827, was fi-audulent; and it
is doubtful that Perez ever even saw or handled it himself Rivero, who
was familiar with at least one authentic archaeological specimen, was
also duped by Strong's fraudulent khipu (Rivero , Quipos ), and in 1882
Markham and other experts authenticated two apparently fraudulent
khipu for the National Museum of Anthropology and Ethnology in
Florence, Italy (Loza, Q uipu s 51). The problem throughout most of the
eighteenth century was that nobody knew exactly what a khipu was sup-
posed to look like, which m ade even the experts susceptible to decep tion.
With the gradual emergence o f Peruvian archaeology in the nine teenth
century (Bonavia and Ravines), authentic archaeological khipu began
appearing in M useums and attracting the interest of academic researchers.
It was only at the beginning of the twentieth century, however, when the
availability of a sufficient num ber of archaeologica l specim ens made pos-
sible an informed understanding of the material nature of the khipu . Prior
to the formation of large museum collections of khipu in Berlin, New
York, and Lima, scholars relied primarily on the written descriptions that
appear in colonial chronicles. Eighteenth-cen tury writers drew their infor-
mation about khipu almost exclusively from the Inca Garcilaso de la
Vega's
Comentarios reales
(1609). Nineteenth-century scholars had
access to a few travel accounts, at least one description of an archaeo log-
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
15/27
Brokaw 45
nowhere in the chronicles such as Garcilaso's Comentarios or any later
writings does it say that objects such as com , carbon, or anything else for
that matter, are inserted into khipu (110).
This raises an interesting question about the rationale behind the orig-
inal translation. According to Pacheco Zegarra (109-10), Tschudi claims
that there are a variety of objects which m ay be inserted into a khipu: coca
leaves, small sticks, pebbles, and so forth. O ther than archaelog ical spec-
imens, of which there w ere very few at the time, and w ritten descriptions
by colonial chroniclers or other nineteenth-century travelers like Tschudi
hims lf the only source of information available would have been per-
sonal observation of nineteenth-century e thnographic khipu in actual use.
It is quite possible that at least one type of ethno graph ic k hipu in the eigh-
teenth and nineteenth nineteenth centuries contained the kind of objects
ascribed to Tsc hudi's description by Pacheco Z egarra. Ifso,I would argue
that these khipu probably derived from colonial innovations in khipu
practices.
Many scholars assume that beginning in 1583 the Span iards un iversal-
ly condemned the khipu, prohibited their use, and bum ed as m any as they
could find (Loza, Du bon usage 156; Salomon 113). The corollary of
this assumption is that this campaign to destroy the khipu intermpted the
continuity of the medium, resulting in the loss of khipu literacy with its
associated conventions, but there is no evidence to support these asser-
tions.
The Third Lima Council did mandate the buming of khipus in
1583,
but this order applied only to khipu related to ind igenous religious
practices that threatened to undermine Catholic orthodoxy (Tercer con-
cilio limense 191). The order in the Tercer Concilio with regard to the
buming of khipu does not make this distinction explicitly, but the Tercer
cathecismo s instructions that the Indians create khipus in order to facili-
tate the confession of their sins makes it very clear that the Third
Council's order was not a universal condemnation of all khipu {Tercer
cathecismo
482-83).
Most modem claims that the Spaniards bumed large num bers of khipu
rely directly on the Tercer Concilio and/or indirectly on claims made by
other scholars such as Jesus Lara. In La cultura de los Inkas, for exam-
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
16/27
46 BCom, Vol 58, No. 1 2006)
I have been unable to find any such account in this text. Arriaga does
record an account of the bum ing of idolatrous ob jects, but he does not list
any khipu among them. Lara m ay have misread the term quepa[a kind of
tmmpet] ,
which does appear in Arriaga s list (94). Only a few pages ear-
lier, liowever, Arriaga actually advocates the use of khipu for confession
(89).
As far as I am aware, there is only one recorded instance of a
Spaniard buming a khipu, but it is an isolated case with political rather
than religious motives (Avalos y Figueroa 151). Furthermore, there are
num erous texts that refer to the use of khipu in both religious and secular
interactions between Andeans and Spaniards well into the seventeenth
century (Arriaga 94; Solorzano y Pereyra 1: 53 , 2: 308-09; Vasquez de
Espinoza
2:
758, 807; Perez Bocanegra 111-13). Th us, the
ercero
cathe-
cismo,
A rriaga s text, and several other chronicles from the period reveal
that attempts by religious officials to encourage the adaptation of the
khipu for Spanish religious practices were particularly wide-spread both
before and after the Third Lima Council in 1583. Thus, although the
Spaniards may have bum ed certain types of khipu used in what they iden-
tified as idolatrous practices, there was never any universal condem nation
or prohibition of khipuuse. On the contrary, both th e church and the colo -
nial administration advocated the use of this medium.
The adaptation of
th
khipu for ecclesiastical purposes may have con-
tributed to the production of khipu such as the one that accompanies the
so-called Naples documents (Hyland; Cantu) and the twentieth-century
ethnographic khipu described by modem researchers: the Chipaya khipu
studied by Teresa Gisbert and Jose de Mesa (Gisbert and Mesa 497-506),
the khipu from Rapaz (Ruiz Estrada), and, although not ecclesiastical in
nature, possibly the Taquile khipu discussed by Ravines and Mackey
(Ravines; Avalos de Matos; Mackey). All of tiiese khipu differ rather
markedly from archaeological specimens. Unlike pre-Hispanic archaeo-
logical khipu, twentieth-century ecclesiastical khipu legacies often con-
tain objects attached to their cords. If the corpus of archaeological khipu
is an accurate sample of this medium as used in the pre-Hispanic period,
then the twentieth-century practice of attaching objects to cords would
derive from innovations in khipu practices motivated by new contexts of
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
17/27
Brokaw 47
Moreover, this ecclesiastical khipu tradition was uniform in neither
extension nor intension. In spite of the general recommendation in the
Tercero cathecismo there was never any organized pan-Andean cam-
paign to adapt the khipu for ecclesiastical use. The legacies of ecclesias-
tical khipu traditions that have survived appear to be the result of indi-
vidual projects whose conventions were idiosyncratic to the communi-
ties,
parishes, or individuals that developed them.
Ecclesiastical khipu practices were contemporary with, but different
from, the more traditional khipu that inspired them. These ecclesiastical
khipu would have been much more accessible to observation by travelers
such as Tschudi than the khipu used in more traditional contexts such as
those whose legacy Frank Salomon has studied in Tupicocha. Tschudi s
description of khipu conventions cited by Pacheco Zegarra, then, may
have derived from his personal observation of ecclesiastical khipu during
his early nineteenth-century travels in Peru. In any case. Barranca and
M arkham s translation of the passages inOllantay implying the insertion
of objects in the cords of the khipu is more consistent with the conven-
tions of these ecclesiastical khipu that can be traced back to the colonial
period than with pre-Hispanic archaeological specimens or even the mod-
em non-ecclesiastical patrimonial khipu from Tupicocha.
Neo-Inca activists in the eighteenth century who may have had an
interest in reviving the khipu for either symbolic or practical purposes
would have been aware o f Garcilaso s general description of this dev ice,
but even more infiuential would have been the observable ethnographic
khipu practices of the eighteenth-century
itself
In general, the accultur-
ated Inca elite did not live in indigenous communities where they might
have been exposed to more traditional khipu. So, like Tschudi, the most
prominent and accessible ethnographic khipu would have been the sur-
viving ecclesiastical khipu practices that the Church had actively pro-
moted throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The conven-
tions of these eighteenth-century ecclesiastical khipu may have already
included the insertion of objects that researchers would notice later in
twentieth-century practices.
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
18/27
48 BCom, Vol 58, No. I 2006)
some way their reconstruction of what they saw as a lost authentic Inca
tradition. Thus, if there ever were any eighteenth-century performances of
Ollantay, they may very well have employed neo-Inca khipu props con-
taining kemels of com and pieces of charcoal, inspired by similar con-
ventions of ecclesiastical khipu.
There are very few manifestations of what we might call neo-Inca
khipu in the eighteenth century, but as in the case of the
Ollantay
episodes, all of them relate to a kind of letter function. In considering
these neo-Inca khipu, it is important to keep in mind the nature of khipu
literacy. There is a tendency to think of khipu literacy in the sam e way we
think o f alphabetic literacy: as a conventionally hom ogeno us system. Of
course, even alphabetic writing often incorporates non-alphabetic signs
such as Arabic numerals, but I would argue that the khipu was probably
an even m ore heterogenous m edium that may have em ployed different
types of semiotic conventions at different levels of literacy. The khipu
was an ubiquitous device in the pre-Hispanic Ande s, used for recording a
variety of information types at several different social, economic, and
political levels. The most basic level consisted of pastoral khipu used to
keep track o f fiocks. Another, more com plicated literacy involved reco rds
of community obligations and labor tribute. In pre-Hispanic times, the
highest, mo st complex level would have been dedicated to a kind of Inca
historiography (Brokaw). Unlike modem alphabetic literacy, however,
khipu literacy was not conceived as an independent institution in and of
its lf
Each level with its specific content and conventions of representa-
tion w as tied to institutional stm ctures. Th is is no t to say that there w ould
have been nothing in common between the different levels of khipu liter-
acy, but the adaptation of khipu conventions to different types of content
would no t have been as immediately transparent as in the case of a phono-
graphic m edium . It is unlikely, therefore, that any given level of khipu lit-
eracy wou ld have survived for any significant period of time after the dis-
solution of the institutions with which it was associated.
The pre-H ispanic letter-writing use of the khipu that appears in
Ollantay
is no t very w ell documented in colonial so urce s. Such letter-khi-
pus would have been carried bychasquis, the relay runners posted along
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
19/27
Brokaw 49
before the Spaniards had even leamed the indigenous terms chasqui and
khipu
Miguel de Estete describes messengers mnning from post to post
carrying knotted strings (51). Guaman Poma's
Nueva coronica
also con-
tains a drawing of a messenger carrying a khipu with an alphabetic tag
identifying it as a letter(1:2 02[204]). The link between p re-Hispanic let-
ter-khipus and the
chasqui
system would explain the lack of any more
detailed information about this particular category of khipu, because the
chasqui
system dissolved rapidly after the conquest along with most of
the other high-level Inca administrative institutions. Eighteenth-century
neo-Inca revivalists and rebel organizers, however, may have resurrected
a kind
of chasqui
system as well as the use of khipu as part of their ideo-
logical project.
As the Inca renaissance began feeding into revolutionary movements,
reviving the khipu may have served as both a doubly symbolic gesture
and a strategically astute maneuver. There is some evidence to suggest
that some of the rebellions against the Spaniards that took place in the
second half of the eighteenth century, the most famous of which culmi-
nated in 1780-1781 with the insurgency of Tupac Amam II, may have
employed a kind of khipu in some cases in a symbolic way, and in oth-
ers perhaps as a means of communication.
Fray Matias Borda relates an episode involving the use of a knotted
cord during the rebellion led by Julian Ap asa/Tupac Catari near La Paz in
1781.
Borda's account claims that the Indians no longer used khipus
(217),
but on at least one occasion a m essenge r carried a kno tted rope that
functioned as a kind of letter (209-11 ). The knot in the rope evidentiy held
some kind of symbolic significance related to the carrying out of Tupac
Catari's instmctions to kill all the Spaniards. Borda makes it very clear
that the rebellion produced official paper work in alphabetic script (217-
18), but this use of knotted cords may have been an ideological gesture,
a symbolic incorporation of an organic Andean medium.
William Bennett Stevenson describes another rebellion that took place
in 1792 near Valdivia, Chile, in which a system of colored, knotted cords
was used to communicate among Andean leaders:
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
20/27
50 BCom,
Vol
58, No. 1 2006)
split, and was found to contain the finger of a Spaniard; that it
was wrapped round with thread, having a fringe at one end
made of red, blue, black, and white worsted; that on the black
were tied by Lepitram, four knots, to intimate that it was the
fourth day after the full moon when the bearer left Paquipulli;
that on the white we re ten kno ts, indicating that ten days after
that date the revolution would take place; that on the red was
to be tied by the person who received it a knot, if he assisted
in the revo lt, but if he reftised, he was to tie a knot on the blue
and red joined together: so that according to the route deter-
mined on by Lepitram he would be able to discover on the
retum of his chasqui, or herald, how many o f his friends w ould
join him; and if any dissented, he would know who it was, by
the place where the knot uniting the two threads was tied. ( 1 :
50-51)
x
Amerique pre-historique, Jean Francois Nad aillac produces a very sim-
ilar version of this account, probably based on Stevenson's text (458). It
is unclear exactly what relationship these Chilean knotted cords might
have had to earlier khipu traditions, but they are not consistent with w hat
is known of archaeological khipu.
All of these military letter-khipu and the use of chasqui-\iks messen-
gers appear to form part of the revolutionary branch of the eighteenth-
century Inca renaissance. There is no question that the Andean rebellions
of this period drew from, and built upon, the neo-Inca revivalist move-
ment, invoking Inca symbols and attempting to revive Inca practices with
the ultimate goal of restoring Inca political sovereignty; but indigenous
leaders of these movements normally had more direct ties to indigenous
comm unities than the urban Inca elite who were the p rimary participants
in the Inca cultural renaissance. Unfortunately, relatively little is known
about the full extent of the Inca revivalist project, and even less about the
specifics of its relationship to rebellions that took place in the sam e pe ri-
od. Nev ertheless, Jose Antonio de Areche's sentence pronounced against
Tupac Amam II and his family clearly indicates that the Spaniards saw a
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
21/27
Brokaw 51
mem ory of the Incas. He also reemphasizes the official policy that the
Indians should be taught Spanish as a means of acculturation (771-73).
Shortly thereafter, Spain banned Garcilaso de la Vega's Comentarios
reales
in Peru, and ordered that all extant copies in the viceroyalty be con-
fiscated (Valcarcel 1971, 3: 267-68).
Ollantay
may have been one of the provocations for Areche's prohibi-
tion of indigenous dramas in 1781. Bruce Mannheim has dated the ver-
sion of
Ollantay
copied in the Sahuaraura manuscript to sometime
between 1690 and 1780 (148-50). It has become commonplace to assert
that Antonio Valdez, whose manuscript was the first to come to light,
organized presentations of Ollantay for Jose Gabriel Condorcanqui,
known as Tupac Amaru II. If this is tme, these representations would
probably have taken place prior to the rebellion itself Lienhard has
described this scenario as a legend (78nl7), because critics have perpet-
uated these claims without citing any source. The legen d originates
with Clements Markham who states that Antonio Valdez was a good
friend of Tupac Amaru II, and insinuates that he transc ribed the play from
the oral tradition in order to present it for the rebel leade r Markham 106;
Ollantay6;Incas 145, 148). Markham implies that he obtained this infor-
mation in 1853 from Dr. Pablo Justiniani, an elderly priest from Lares
who w as a friend of Antonio Valdez, who remem bered the Tupac Amaru
rebellion, and who made a copy of Ollantay from Valdez's original man-
uscript. Although there is no other evidence that corroborates the link
between
Ollantay
and Tupac Amaru II, it is consistent with the kinds of
cultural practices involved in the Inca renaissance and their relationship
to revolutionary sentiments.
The fact that Areche does not include the khipu in his prohibition order
suggests that this medium was not a very prominent part of Inca revival-
ism, neither in its strictly cultural nor in its revolutionary strands. The
lack of any more extensive documentary record of eighteenth-century
khipu would appear to confirm this conclusion. Nevertheless, the inci-
dents recorded by Borda, Stevenson, and Nadaillac indicate that knotted
cords at the very least played a symbolic role in the rebellions that took
place near La Paz in 1781 and later in Valdivia in 1792. These practices
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
22/27
52 BCom, Vol 58, No. 1 (2006)
the relationship between them makes it impossible to provide a more
complete description of khipu use in eighteenth-century insurgencies,
their relationship to ethnographic khipu practices, or their function in
indigenous ideological projects. Furthermore, the lack of any records
relating to the production and perfomiance of Ollantay in the eighteenth
century prevent any more definitive elaboration ofitsrole in that con text.
Nevertheless, if Markham is correct about Valdez's staging of
Ollantay
performances and his relationship with Tupac Amaru, then it may be no
coincidence that records of military letter-khipu only appear after 1780.
This admittedly circumstantial evidence has highly suggestive implica-
tions for the role played by
Ollantay
and its khipu in the late eighteenth-
century neo-Inca rebellions. As explained above, the two relevant scenes
in the play involve chasqui delivering military letter-khipu that commu-
nicate the status of Ollantay's insurgency. Thus, the inspiration for resur-
recting this medium in its letter function as part of an eighteen th-cen-
tury ideological project and military strategy may have come from the
military khipu-letters that appear in
Ollantay.
Rebel leaders may have
adopted this medium to serye multiple purposes as a powerful symbol of
the Inca past, an ideological altemative to the hegemony of European lit-
eracy, and a strategically advantageous medium of secret communication.
With regard to the implicit sem iotics of the kh ipu inscribed in the play,
there is no definitive way to reconcile the philological argument corrob-
orating Pacheco Zegarra's translation/interpretation, which is consistent
with m ost archaeological kh ipu, and the ethnographic argum ent support-
ing Barranca and Markham's version, which reflects the kind of ecclesi-
astical khipu practices identified in the twentieth century but originating
in the colonial period. This indeterminacy of
th
Quechua text, however,
may constitute the most significant evidence of all for understanding
Ollantay s
khipu a s well as the play itself In m any respects, the eigh -
teenth century is a transitional period that on the one hand inherited many
indigenous traditions as part of'a pre-Hispanic legacy whose vitality con-
tinues through the present, and on the other hand fed into the independ-
ence movement of the nineteenth century with its new ideological
alliances and tensions between Creoles, mestizos, indigenous elites, and
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
23/27
Brokaw 53
between semiotic and material practices takes place. The indeterminacy
of the Qu echua meta-discourse on the khipu inOllantay then also dram-
atizes this mediation between the continuity of a pre-Hispanic tradition
and socio-political particularities of eighteenth-century transcultural
processes.
WORKS CITED
Allen , Catherine. Body and Soul inQuechuaThouglA.
Journal of
Latin merican
Lore
8.2 (1982):
179-96.
Areche,
3osi
Anton io de. Sentencia pronunciada
en
el Cuzco por el visitador Jose Antonio
e
Areche
contra Jos6 Gabriel Tupac Amaro, su muger, hijos, y d e m ^ reos principales de la subleva-
ci6n, 15-V-1781. 1781.
La rebeiion de Tupac Am aru,
Volumen
11
Ed. Carlos Daniel
Valcircel. Vol. 2. Lima: Comisibn Nacional del Sesquicentenario de la Independencia del
Peni, 1971. 765-73.
Arguedas, Jos6 Maria. El Ollantay: lo aut6ctono y lo occidental en el es tilo de los dramas colon ia-
les quechuas.
Letras Peruanas: Revista deHumanidades
2.8 (1952): 1, 114-16, 139-40.
Arriaga, Joseph de.E xtirpacidn de la idolatria del P iru.Lima: Cerdnimo de Contreras, 1621.
Avalos de Malos, Rosalia Los 'quipus' de Taquile: aclaracidn obligada.
Boietin de Lima
11.62
(1989): 5.
Avalos y Figueroa, Diego de.
Primera parte de la Misceldnea Austral de don Diego Davalos y
Figueroa enVariasColoquias,IntercoiutoreaDelia y Cilena, con la Defensa de D amas d iri-
gida al excellentissimo don
Luis
de Velasco, C avallero de la Oden [sic] d e Santiago, Visorey,
y C apitan general de los Reynos del Piru, Chile, y Tierrafirme.
Lima, 1602.
Barranca, Jos6 S eb as ti^ , ed . and trans.Ollanta: Dram a quechua espanolen tres actos. 1868. Lima:
Ediciones de la Biblioteca Universitaria, 1963.
Betanzos, Juan de.
Suma y narracion de los Incas.
1557. Ed. Maria del Carmen Martin Rubio.
Madrid: Ediciones Atlas, 1987
Beveriey, John.Subalternity and Representation: rgumentsin Cultural Theory.Durham: Duke UP,
1999.
Bhabha, Hom i K. Of Mimicry and Man: The Am bivalence of Colonial Discourse. TheLocation of
Culture.
London: Routledge, 1994. 85-92.
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
24/27
54 BCom,
Vol
58, No. 1 (2006)
Brokaw, Galen. The Poetics of Khipu Historiography: Guam an Pom a de Ayala's Nueva coronica
and the Relacion de los quipucamayos. Latin American Research Review38.3 (2003 ): 111-
47 .
Brotherston, Gordon. The Royal Drama Apu Ollantay, Between Inca Ideology and the Spanish
'Golden A ge. ' Com parative Criticism 8 (1986): 189-212.
Calvo Perez, Julio. An ^isis de la obra andnima quechuaOllantay. Ollantay: edicidn critica de la
obra andnima quechua. Ed. Julio Calvo P6rez. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Regionales
Andinos BartolomS de las Casas, 1998. 9-189.
Cantii, Francesca. Guaman Poma y Bias Valera: Tradicion andina e historia colonial. Rome:
Instituto Italo-Latinoamericano, 20 01.
Estete, Miguel. Noticia del Peru (El descubrimiento y la conquista del Peru), [c. 1534-1535].
Coleccion de libros y docum entos referentes a la historia del P eru.
Vol. 8. Second series.
Lima: Imprenta y Libreria Sanmarti, 1924. 3-7 1.
Garcia-Bedoya, Carlos. Teatro quechua colonial, barroco andino y renacimiento inca.
Actas del I
Encuentro Internacional de Peruanistas.
Lima: Universidad de Lim a, 1996. 325-38.
Garc ilaso de la Vega, el Inca.C omentarios reales. 160 9.2 vols. Caraca s: Biblioteca Ayacucho, 1985.
Gisbert, Teresa, and Jos6 de Mesa. Los chipayas. Anuario de E studios Americanos 3(1966): 479-
506.
Gonz^ez Echevarria, Roberto.M yth and Archive: A Theory of Latin American Narrative. Durham:
Duke UP, 1998.
Gonz^ez Holguin, Diego. Vocab ulario de la lengua general de todo el Peru llamad a lengu a
Qquichua o del Inca. 1608. Lima: U niversidad Nacional Ma yor de San Marcos, 1989.
Grafton, Anthony.Defenders of the
Text:
The Traditions of Scholarship in an Age of Science, 1450-
1800.Cam bridge: Harvard U P, 1991.
Guaman Pom a de Ayala, Felipe.Nueva coronica y buen gobiemo. 1615. 3 vols. Ed. John V. Mu rra,
Ro lenaA dom o and Jorge L. Urioste. Madrid: Historia 16 1987.
Hills,
Elijah Clarence. The Quechua Drama, Ollantay. Romanic Review 5.2 (1914): 127-76.
Hyland, Sabine. Woven Words: The Royal Khipu of Bias Valera. Narrative Threads: Accounting
and Recounting in Andean Khipu.Ed. Jeffrey Quilter and Gary Urton. Austin: U of Texas P,
2002.
151-70.
Lara, Jesus.La cultura de los Incas. 2vols. La Paz: Editorial Los Amigos del Libro, 1967.
.Poesia Quechua.Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Econdm ica, 1947.
Lienhard, M artin. La 6pica incaica en tres textos coloniales (Juan de Betan zos, Titu Cus i Yupanqui,
el
Ollantay). Lexis
9.1 (1985): 61-85.
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
25/27
Brokaw 55
Mackey, Carol. Los quipus de Taquile: respuesta a Rogger Ravines.
Boietin de Lima
11.62 (1989):
4-5.
Mannheim, Bruce.
The Language of the Inka since the European Invasion.
Austin: U of Texas P,
1991.
Markham, Clements R.
Th e Incas of Peru.
London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1911.
.
Markham in Peru.
1862. Ed. Peter Blanchard. Austin: U of Texas P, 1991.
.Ollantay: An Ancient Ynca Dram a. London: TrObnerA Co, 1871.
Mitre, Bartolomd.
Ollantay. Estudio sobre el drama quechua.
Buenos Aires: Imprenta y Libreria de
Mayo, 1881.
Nadaillac, Jean Francois.
Pre-historic America.
1884. Trans. N. D 'Anve rs. Ed. W. H. Dall. New
York: G. P. Putnam , 1893.
Pacheco Zegarra, Gavino.
Tresor de la lang ue des Incas.
omo
I :
OllantaX:
drame en vers quechuas
du temp des Incas.
Trans. Ga vino P acheco Zegarra. Paris: Maisonneuve, 1878.
P6rez Bocanegra, Juan.
Ritual formulario e institucion de curas para administrar a los naturales.
Lima: Geronymo de Contreras, 1631.
P6rez,
iosi.
Notice sur les qquipos des anciens Piruvie ns.
Actes de la Sociite d'Ethnographie
Americaine etOrientale
4 (1864): 54-57.
Ravines, Rogger. De Ravines a Mac key: una replica. Boietin de Lima11.62 (1989): 5-6.
. iLo s quipus de Taquile?
Boietin de Lima
10.59 (1988): 3-4.
Rivero y Ustariz, Ma riano Eduardo de. Quip os. Coleccidn de memorias cientificas agricolas e
industrials. Vol 2. Brusse ls: Imp renta de H. Goem aere, 1857. 76-84.
, and Johann Jakob von Tschudi.
Antigiiedades peruanas. 2
vols. Vienna: Imprenta Imperial de
laCortedelEstado , 1851.
Row e, John H. El movimiento nacional inca del siglo XVIII.
Revista universitaria
(Cuzco) 43
(1954):
17-47.
Ruiz Estrada, Arturo.
Los quipus de Rapa2.
1981. Huacho, Peru: Universidad Nacional Jos^ Faustino
SAnchez Carridn, 1982.
Salomon, Frank. The Cord Keepers: Khipus and Cultural Life in a Peruvian Village. Durham: Duke
UP,
2004.
Santa Cruz Pachacuti, Juan de.
Relacidn de antiguedades deste reino del Peni. Antigiiedades del
Peni.
1613. Ed. Henrique Urbano and Ana Sanchez. Madrid: Historia 16, 1992.
Santo TomSs, Domingo de.
Lexicon, o vocabulario de la lengua general del Peru.
1560. Lima:
Instituto de Historia, 1951.
SoI6rzano y P ereyra, Juan de.
PoU tica indiana.
1629-1639. 5 vols. Biblioteca de Autores Espafioles,
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
26/27
56
BCom, Vol 58, No. 1 (2006)
Stevenson, W[illiam] B[ennet]. Historical and Descriptive Narrative of wentyYears Residence in
South America. 3 vols. London: Longman, Orm e, Brown and Green, 1829.
Strong, Alexander. A prospectus of the Quipola, or an Explanation of the Quipoes, now open for
Public Opinion.London: J Phair, 1827.
ercero
cathecismoy exposicion de la doctrina Christiana, por sermones . 1585. Corpus Hispanonim
de Pace, 26.2: 333-778. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1985.
ercerConcilio Limense. 1583. ercerConcilio Limensey la acultwacion de los indigenas sudame-
ricanos. Ed. Francesco Leonardo Lisi. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, 1990. 103-
227.
Tschudi, Johann Jakob von.
Ollantay. Die Kechua Sprache.
Vienna: Kaiserlich-KOnigliehen Hof-
und Staatsdruckerei, 1853.
. Peru: Esbozo s de viajes realizados entre 1838 y 1842. 1846. Lima: Pontificia Universidad
Cat61ica del Peni,
2003.
Valc^ cel, Daniel.La rebelion de upacAmaru. Lima: Editorial Universo, 1970.
. La rebelion de upacAmaru. 4 vols. Lima: Comisidn Nacional del Sesquicentenario de la
Independencia del Peru, 1971.
Vasquez de Espinoza, Antonio. Compendio y descripcion de las Indias occidentales. 1630. 2 vols.
Ed. Balbino Velasco Bayon. Madrid: Historia 16, 1992.
Yepez Miranda, Alfredo. La incanidad del 'Oila ntay .' Revista del Instituto Americano delArte 7.2
(1958): 157-70.
-
8/10/2019 Brokaw, Ollantay the Khipu and Neo-Inca Politics
27/27