The Cusco ceque system as shown in the Exsul immeritus Blas Valera populo suo

Abstract

In this article I discuss a recently discovered drawing of the Cusco ceque system. A previous study of the drawing suggests that it is an inaccurate reproduction of the system. In contrast, I propose that the drawing is accurate and organizes information on the system in ways not considered by scholars before. While the accuracy of the drawing is confirmed, the question of authorship remains open.

En este artículo se discute sobre un dibujo del sistema de ceques del Cusco. Un estudio previo acerca del mismo sugiere que es una reproducción inexacta del sistema. Por el contrario, aquí se propone que el dibujo es preciso y que organiza la información acerca del sistema de ceques de un modo nunca antes considerado por los investigadores del tema. Aunque la precisión del dibujo queda confirmada, la cuestión acerca de su autoría permanece aún sin responder.

Notes

1. I thank Laura Laurencich Minelli who first showed me the EiBVps drawing of the Cusco ceque system and aided in its reproduction in this article. I would also like to thank the owner of the document, Clara Miccinelli, who kindly gave me permission for its publication.

2. Cuna is used in Quechua to make plurals, so cequecuna is simply ceques.

3. Part of this overview of the Cusco ceque system is taken from the book The Sacred Landscape of the Inca: The Cuzco Ceque System (Bauer 1998).

4. It is not known why Cuntisuyu contained a different arrangement of ceques than the other quarters of the empire.

5. Because of its complex nature, a clear classification system needs to be used in discussions of the Cusco ceque system. The ceques and huacas are best identified according to the order in which Cobo presents them in his description of the system (Rowe 1980). For example, Cu. 9:3 signifies the third shrine on the ninth ceque of Cuntisuyu, while Cu. 1:15 designates the fifteenth shrine on the first ceque of Cuntisuyu.

6. This collection of papers has also been referred to as “The Naples documents.”

7. See Hyland (2003, 2008) for an overview of the documents and the many controversies that surround them.

8. Laurencich Minelli (2005: 300) noted that this quote from Garcilaso de la Vega (1963 [1609]: 367) comes from Bk 9, Ch. 16 of his Comentarios Reales de los Incas.

9. Laurencich Minelli (2005: 300) noted that this quote from Garcilaso de la Vega (1963 [1609]: 329) comes from Bk 8, Ch. 24 of his Comentarios Reales de los Incas.

10. “… semitas occultas delineo igitur breviter quidem quae terni nectunt, sive continent sive familias pagosque populos urbesque componunt antiqui imperii composite ac moderate facti cuius intimus Corricnacha est. Ita Ariadnae filum ad egressum daedali ducebat ut unaquaeque earum cequecunarum ad sacras huacas a Legatis Ecclesiae deletas ducit. Curnam Garcilasse autem scripsisti: ‘que habiendo Ganado los Españoles aquel Imperio tan sin del vino, ni de otros regalos semejantes.’ Dum excusare credis, accusas. Ecce cequecuna igitur sed quaero antes—curnam Garcilasse scripsisti: ‘si es licito ahondar y declarar tanto los hechos secretos que pasan en las guerras, sin caer en odio, que muchas cosas dexan de decir los historiadores por este miedo?’ Etiam sine investigatione de dictae architecturae consensione quipui, levissimus assentietur. Se pudeat illum indoctum oblivionem iecisse in primum principium Imperii, sed insulsus rudium. Haec fasciae linearum funibus citharae similes quae illos gentiles conciliabat quos Iesus piis manibus accepisset …” (text taken from Laurencich Minelli 2005: 300–302).

11. A reviewer of this article, who is concerned with the originality of the document, has suggested that the familiarity of the Cusco ceque system which is shown in the drawing could have been derived from the works of Tom Zuidema. I do not believe that this is the case. The organizing principles of the drawing are substantially different from those suggested by Zuidema in his numerous writings on the system. In fact, Zuidema (2007), in his own review of this drawing, was unable to decode it based on his understanding of the system and concluded that the drawing is an inaccurate representation of the system. The discovery that the drawing is an accurate representation of the system as recorded in Cobo (and presumably by Polo), but is very different from those presented in current academic studies, has important implications. Rather than suggesting that the drawing was derived from the works of Zuidema, the existence of the drawing could be used to question the validity of many of Zuidema's interpretations concerning the system. This is not without precedent. Extensive fieldwork in the Cusco region (Bauer 1998) has now called into question the physical form of the ceque system as presented by Zuidema as well as many of his elaborate suggestions that the system is linked to a calendar system (Zuidema 1964, 1977).

12. See Adorno (1998, 2015) for a detailed discussion of the many questions that have been raised about the dating and legitimacy of the Exsul immeritus Blas Valera populo suo text.

13. The three red dots representing three hundreds have faded in the original drawing and are difficult to see.

14. Using his model of the internal organization of the system, Zuidema sums the number of huacas contained within each ceques cluster. For example, the first three ceques of Antisuyu (An. 1, An. 2, and An. 3) contain a total of 31 huacas. Not surprisingly, this is not the same number that is reached when the huacas on all the collana ceques of Antisuyu (An. 1, An. 4, and An. 7) are summed (i.e., 25).

15. Zuidema (2007: 100) seems to favor Valera as the artist, writing: “If Blas Valera was that author, he probably could and would have had access to the account and to the ‘carta’ or drawing of the ceque system, that Polo de Ondegardo had made of it in 1559 and that had been consulted in the Concilio Limense. Possibly, Valera later did not remember accurately any more the minor numbers of the ceque system, having lost access to that account and drawing.”