Paper presented at the
21th Annual Northeast Conference on Andean Archaeology and Ethnohisotry, University
of Pittsburgh, PA. November 2002
Authors:
Chad Gifford, Columbia University
<chg7@columbia.edu>
Samuel Connell, UCLA <sammyc@ucla.edu>
Ana Lucia Gonzalez, UCLA
<anilugonza@hotmail.com>
Maureen Carpenter <palenquemo@yahoo.com>
Abstract:
Understanding the role that local history and
culture play within broader political and economic structures is central to any
investigation of culture contact under imperial expansion. This paper
introduces research that focuses on the dynamic social issues that once swirled
around encounters with the Inka Empire in the Pambamarca region of the northern
sierra of Ecuador. According to the Spanish chroniclers Sarmiento, Cabello and
Cobo (among others), the Cayambe society that lived in this area famously
resisted Inka military advances for as many as 17 years. Archaeologically, the
remains of this standoff include as many as 20 Cayambe and Inka fortresses
concentrated in the hills east of the Quito Basin. In this paper we review our investigations to date that have
focused on Quitoloma and Pucará Guachalá, two of the Pambamarca fortresses.
Prelude
((SLIDE: Wayna Qhapaq)) The moment described in the
title of our paper refers to an exceptional event in Andean history when the
Inka king Wayna Qhapaq was, quite literally, knocked down. ((SLIDE: Wayna Qhapaq on litter)) The
circumstances behind this potentially embarrassing moment for Wayna Qhapaq are
well-known among Inka scholars and concern the empire's attempts to conquer a
confederation of resilient societies in the northern reaches of Ecuador.
((SLIDE: Wayna Qhapaq painting)) Because of their enchantment with Ecuador,
or so the story goes, Inka king Thupa Inka Yupanqui and his son, Wayna Qhapaq,
established in Quito a second great city to complement the capital Cuzco. As they looked out from Quito towards the
verdant lands belonging to groups like the Caranquis, the Cayambes and the
Otavalos in the north, the imperial armies were expecting little resistance to
their forward advances. ((SLIDE: tenth
captain)) But as they set out and
crossed the Guayllabamba River, the Inkas encountered a collection of fiercely
resistant societies that succeeding in holding off the Inkas for over 15
years. It was during this standoff,
then, that Wayna Qhapaq nearly met his maker.
The particular quote we use here comes from
Sarmiento (1960:262), but it is by no means unique, as details about this
unfortunate event appear in a number of other chronicles. According to Cabello de Valboa (1951:370),
for instance, Wayna Qhapaq fell during battle with a group called the
Caranquis, but was quickly saved by three of his captains. In Cobo's account of the same battle
(1979:157), 'the king fell to the ground' only to be saved from certain death
in the knick of time.
Introduction
((SLIDE: Quitoloma)) In this paper we present preliminary data collected in
Pambamarca, Ecuador, at the likely scene of this ancient crime. Beyond a cursory glimpse of the chronicles
provided below, for the moment we report on our archaeological findings and
leave the results of our ethnohistorical analyses for another day. Obviously, the distribution and nature of
archaeological sites and material culture can help determine the history of
Inka domination, but they can detail to a great extent the history of
resistance as well. On the one hand,
the Inka fortresses we describe in this paper obviously speak of a heavily
militarized and even violent approach to domination in the Pambamarca area of
Ecuador. But these same fortresses, as
well as a handful of indigenous fortresses present in the same area, also speak
of strong-willed and well-organized indigenous societies determined to preserve
their independence.
As a preview, we suggest here that although the
majority of Pambamarca fortresses are Inka in origin, a few may have been
constructed by indigenous societies.
The evidence at least suggests that the area was a dynamic border zone
wherein independent communities posed distinct challenges to the Inkas at every
turn. As a result of conditions like
those found at Pambamarca, Inka interactions with the northern Ecuadorian
groups unfolded according to a patchwork logic that involved the interests of
all the parties that were involved. As
such, we argue more generally that it is essential to consider the rich
histories of indigenous societies as they attempt to contend with the threat of
colonization. This, in turn, supports
the commonly-held notion that colonialism is not reducible to a one-sided,
imperial narrative that transcends space and time. In other words, Inka expansion and incorporation of Andean
societies into the empire are not merely explicable in terms of the actions of
Inka leaders. Instead, the
self-determination of the Andean people helped shape encounters with the Inkas,
which in turn shaped the strategies, the possibilities, and even the outcome of
Inka expansion.
Our interpretations of colonialism that highlight
expressions of local autonomy and self-determination in this corner of the Inka
realm find parallels in historical and social anthropological studies of
colonial encounters that suggest that locally-motivated events and intentions
have an influence on the success or failure of the colonial enterprise (Adas
1992, Bhadha 1994, Cooper and Stoler 1997, Stoler 1989, Tiffin and Lawson
1994). Studies from social anthropology
in particular contend that imperialism needs to be viewed from the
point-of-view of the histories of local societies, and not just from the bird's
eye-view of the colonizer (Haynes and Prakash 1991, Irschick 1994, Miller 1995,
Thomas 1997, Wolf 1982). As we draw
from this multidisciplinary approach we maintain an appreciation for the
details particular to life in prehispanic Ecuador. Andean studies, after all, consistently remind us that the
interplay between Inka strategies of colonization and the initiatives of
subject groups created diverse encounters across the Andes (Morris 1998,
Stanish 1997, Williams and D'Altroy 1998).
This research, then, ultimately strengthens our understanding of ancient
culture contact by tracing the forces of indigenous self-determination,
compliance, resistance, accommodation, and cooperation.
Needless-to-say, we are very fortunate to be working
in Pambamarca on behalf of the Instituto Nacional de Patrimonio Cultural del
Ecuador and hope to be there for many years.
One of the greater goals of our project is to integrate with a
grassroots effort currently underway in the study area to have Pambamarca declared
a UNESCO World Heritage Site. At the
moment we are outsiders in this process, but are very excited to support our
Ecuadorian hosts wherever and whenever possible.
As you will see, the area is incredibly rich in
archaeological and historical resources and may rightly deserve this attention. Beyond the well-known Pambamarca fortresses
that are the main topic of our paper today, these resources include the remains
of extensive regional settlement and evidence for a variety of intensive forms
of agriculture in the surrounding valleys and plains. In terms of chronology, although our discussion today focuses on
the Inka-period encounters that took place in Pambamarca during the early part
of the 16th century, in years to come we will also be investigating the
hundreds if not thousands of years of the area's pre-Inka occupation.
To this end, our work is and will be built on the
research of a number of excellent investigators that have passed through
Pambamarca, including the German archaeologist Udo Oberem (Oberem 1980, 1986,
Oberem et al. 1969) and the Ecuadorian archaeologist Antonio Fresco (Fresco et
al. 1990). We also rely to great extent
on the studies of Plaza Schuler (1976, 1977), who created most of the maps and
site plans that you will see today.
Location and Setting
((SLIDE: Ecuador's basins)) To set the stage, we turn now to the
northern Ecuadorian highlands.
Pambamarca lies in the Cantón de Cayambe of the Pichincha Province. ((SLIDE: Quito basin)) This modern canton straddles the equator and
lies in the shadows of the snow-covered Mt. Cayambe volcano. Given the region's steep terrain, it is not
surprising that Cayambe occupies in quite close quarters a number of distinct
ecological bands defined by altitude.
This micro-vertical archipelago extends from 2,400 meters above sea
level at the Pisque and Guayllabamba river valleys to nearly 5,800 meters at
Mt. Cayambe; it includes (1) a subtropical zone in the lower river valleys
where fruit and sugar cane are produced today, (2) higher and less humid
drainages that are used today for dairy and flower production, (3) a drier
upland zone where corn, potatoes, beans, and cereal crops (including quinoa,
wheat and barley) flourish, and (4) the páramo zone, which is the cold, windy
tundra-like highland area above 3,500 meters.
((SLIDE: the páramo)) While the
páramo is used sporadically today for the pasture of livestock like cattle,
sheep and pigs, cultivation in this inhospitable landscape would have been
difficult in the past.
((SLIDE: horizon))
Near the geographical center of Cayambe rises Pambamarca. This cluster of mountain peaks and ridges,
which juts out into the Quito Basin almost like an island, commands a panoramic
view in nearly all directions. Looking
towards the southwest, Quito itself can be seen at the opposite side of the
basin on the eastern slopes of Pichincha.
During the time period in question much of this area to the west and
south of Pambamarca would have been occupied and controlled by the Inkas (Bray 1991,
1992). ((SLIDE: Mt. Cayambe)) Looking in the opposite direction, that is
towards the northeast, the Pambamarca fortresses take in the fertile lands of
Cayambe as well as the volcano of the same name. This area to the east and north of Pambamarca, of course, was
occupied by this confederation of societies that offered such stiff resistance
to the Inkas as they marched north from Quito.
General Description of the Fortresses
((SLIDE: Plaza Schuler)) There are as many as 40 walled installations (or fortresses, or
pucaras as per the Quichua) in the Pambamarca area. While Plaza Schuler carefully investigated 17 of these
fortresses, Carlos Perez, a Cayambe native and historian, has recorded many
more in the immediate area. ((SLIDE:
Perez)) This dense concentration of
fortresses stretches roughly 7 kilometers across, covering most of the mountain
peaks in Pambamarca. The highest
fortress rests above 4,000 meters asl and the lowest at roughly 3,400
meters. For the most part the
fortresses throughout Pambamarca share similar details in their construction:
they usually sit on peaks, high ridges or promontories, they are guarded by
concentric walls supporting higher and higher terrace levels, and the walls are
often surrounded by ditches (or moats) made from the excavation of soil for the
walls. From fortress to fortress these
walls, which are supported by fill from the inside, are made up of rough stone
blocks that have been quarried from nearby sources. Multiple openings in the walls at some fortresses provide
elaborate zigzag routes of access through the fortresses.
Ethnohistory
To appreciate in any detail the Inka-period history
of this incredible concentration of forts, it helps to understand that the name
'Pambamarca' seems to have appeared in historical times, and that the area's
original name was probably 'Quinchicaxa'.
This older name exists in a number of early colonial documents,
including one from 1569 that has been studied by Rowe (1985), but it also
appears in the writings of Cabello Valboa, Sarmiento and Murúa. This name-- Quinchicaxa-- probably refers to
the Inka town of El Quinche, which lies at the foot of Pambamarca to the west
along the eastern edge of the Quito basin.
A common version of the history of Pambamarca simply
contends that the fortresses were placed by the Inkas above and around El
Chinche to serve as a defense against attack from the societies living to the
north and east. For instance, in 1583 Nasacota
Puento, a priest from the nearby city of Cayambe, claimed that the Inkas built
the Pambamarca fortresses during an eight- or nine-year war against indigenous
groups from the area. As an interesting
aside, Puento describes some of the fortresses as being separated by the length
of the shot of an harquebus. Cabello de
Valboa (1951:320) provides some color to this account, saying that the
Quinchicaxa fortresses were built by Cañari Indians from the south as
punishment for their rebellious behavior.
He also states that Quinchicaxa was manned by a strong garrison of
mitmaqkuna from many nations and that the locals were ordered to keep it
supplied.
But as you might anticipate, while some documents
provide hints about the origins and nature of the Pambamarca fortresses, a good
many of them are contradictory.
Returning to Cobo (1979:157), for instance, the fortresses in this area
are said to belong originally to the Cayambes, who withdrew to them over and
over instead of facing the Inkas on the open battlefield. In one gripping account, after bravely
resisting one tremendous Inka assault, the Cayambes went so far as to press
their own attack when they sensed the Inka soldiers were low in number. It is at this point, then, that we can turn
for some help to the testimony of these events as provide by the archaeology of
the Pambamarca region.
Spatial Arrangement of the Pambamarca Forts
Before turning to the fortresses in any specific
details, we begin with a brief look at their overall arrangement. This is an important question and,
intuitively, you might rightly suspect that their placement and arrangement
reflect mostly military concerns. For
instance, the fortresses consistently sit on high promontories in the mountains
and are consistently connected by open lines-of-site. Our Ecuadorian colleague Cristobol Cobo has urged us to also
consider possible cosmological placements and orientations, which we are
currently experimenting with using various GIS analyses (see also Guaña 1993).
((SLIDE: 3 rings))
As Hyslop notes in his 1990 book, the fortresses form roughly two rings
or zones around the central fortress on Cerro Pambamarca (site Pi-0014). The inner zone consists of simple,
two-walled fortresses that may have served as lookouts and strong points at
strategic nodes in the mountains. The
fortresses of the outer ring, which consistently contain interior structures,
platforms (perhaps usnus) and even great halls (perhaps kallankas), would have
housed people (and troops) and served as the focal point for ceremonies,
rituals and administration. ((SLIDE:
two forts)) Site Pi-0023 is a classic
example of an outer-ring fortress, and site Pi-0011 is a classic example of an
inner-ring fortress.
In addition to this basic concentric-ring spatial
model, at this early point in our research we also believe that the fortresses
conform spatially to a hub-and-spoke model.
That is, the central Cerro Pambamarca unit that lies on one of the
area's highest peaks served as a hub for the other fortresses. Radiating out from this point are three
lines (or spokes) of fortresses descending along the ridges to successively
lower peaks: to the south run sites Pi-0013, Pi-0012, Pi-0011 and Pi-0010; to
the northwest run sites Pi-0015, Pi-0018, Pi-0020, Pi-0021 and Pi-0022; and to
the northeast run sites Pi-0016, Pi-0017 and Pi-0023.
Part of the solution to understanding Pambamarca's
spatial logic lies in making sense out of the distances between the fortresses
themselves. While some of the units lie
in the remote corners of the Pambamarca mountains, others lie within several
hundred meters of each other. A few of
these close-in fortresses are actually connected by trenches, a feature which
Hyslop (1990:168) finds to be quite noteworthy. In fact, based on this tight, interconnected arrangement, Hyslop
(1990:165) considers the Pambamarca fortresses to be part of a single Inka
complex; he even ventures that it was perhaps the largest such complex in all
of Tawantinsuyu. Hyslop's observations
bring up the sticky question of affiliation, which we turn to in a minute.
((SLIDE: Quitoloma)) The other simple but crucial variable to consider in studying
Pambamarca's spatial logic is the chronology of the construction of the
fortresses. That is, were these
individual sites even meant to work together as a single unit? Or, where the fortresses built at different
times by different people? While dating
the fortresses should be easy enough, as Hyslop found out in person (1990:168),
even the most basic research in Pambamarca is complicated by the high, exposed
terrain and the brutal weather (including wind, rain and sleet). These conditions also make for poorly
preserved sites, and walls that once stood 4 or 5 meters tall have slumped,
leaving overgrown, grassy slopes. So,
while our research plan for next season includes a site-by-site look at the
chronological indicators of each of the fortresses at Pambamarca, for the
moment we base our speculations about chronology and cultural affiliation on
research we have conducted at two of the lower-elevation fortresses and on
secondary sources like those provided by Plaza Schuler (1976, 1977).
Cultural Affiliation of the Pambamarca Forts
((SLIDE: seventh captain)) The challenge of pinning down the Pambamarca chronology leads
directly to the equally simple question of the cultural affiliation of the
fortress builders. As it turns out,
this remains a point of contention for Ecuadorianists and for many of the
citizens of Cayambe, which makes it a direct extension of the ambiguity
expressed in the historical documents.
On the one hand, there is a strong oral tradition in
the area that holds that these structures were garrisons which the ancestors of
the modern Cayambe people built to protect themselves from the Inkas who
invaded from the south. As such, a
number of patriotic Ecuadorian scholars have claimed outright that the
fortresses were built by local groups as part of their 17-year successful
resistance of the Inkas. On the other
hand, there have been a number of non-Cayambe scholars from Quito and beyond
who believe these fortifications were built by the Inkas to defend Quito from
assaults by the Cayambis and Caranquis, and to launch the reconquest of these
rebellious groups. These include the
Spaniard Antonio Fresco, the Americans John Hyslop and David Brown and the
German Udo Oberem.
((SLIDE: 5 models))
Stepping back for a moment, it helps to think about this question
somewhat theoretically. If in fact
these fortresses date to the beginning of the Inka period in Pambamarca, the
black and white affiliation scenarios as we have just described them are
obvious: either (1) the Inkas built these fortresses to conquer and rule over
indigenous groups; or (2) indigenous groups built the Pambamarca fortresses for
defense against the Inka. Logically,
however, there are a handful of in-between, or gray scenarios that we need to
consider, (3) that some fortresses are Inka, and some are indigenous. This would mean that once upon a time
Pambamarca was a heavily militarized frontier. Alternatively, (4) the
indigenous groups built these fortresses, but did so by imitating Inka forms
(or vice versus). Or finally, (5) some
or all the fortresses were partially built by one group and finished by the
other group as occupancy and ownership changed over time. This would mean that the border zone shifted
during the course of the standoff.
Interestingly, the historical documents allow for
one of these middling scenarios.
Specifically, (as we have seen) at one point after a particular gruesome
battle in the area, Wayna Qhapaq withdrew his forces from Pambamarca in order
to reconnoiter, which would have allowed the Caranquis to easily capture and
occupy any of the Inka fortresses left behind.
((SLIDE: 2 views))
It is also possible to approach the problem vis-à-vis an analysis of the
way that fortresses are actually aligned relatively to a potential enemy
attack. As we have emphasized, in terms
of surveillance, the whole region offers good views (if you were a Cayambe) of
the Inka territories towards Quito, as well as good views (if you were an Inka)
of the Cayambe settlements to the northeast.
((SLIDE: two forts)) In terms of
specific fortresses and their orientation, it appears that we have a mixture of
concerns. For instance, Quitoloma (site
Pi-0010) was seemingly designed to defend attacks from the northeast. Others, like Pucará Guachalá (site Pi-0025)
seem more concerned with threats from the southwest (the steepest slope
guarding this site falls off to the southwest of the site). In other words, the black-and-white (or
either/or) scenarios are not sustained in terms of the fortresses' alignments
and orientations. Instead, a
preliminary directionality analysis seems to support one of the middling
proposition, for example perhaps the third one, which suggests that some
fortresses belonged to the Inkas while others belonged to the Cayambes.
((SLIDE: Rumicucho)) The Pambamarca fortifications are not the only military sites in
the northern Sierras, so is also helpful to look at the affiliation problem
comparatively, that is by looking at fortresses from beyond the Pambamarca
region. A number of our colleagues,
including Tamara Bray, David Brown and Ronald Lippi, have been looking at the
Ecuadorian fortress phenomenon for years.
Brown (2002) makes the case that as many as a hundred of these
fortresses up and down the intermontane Andean Basins, throughout the Western
and Eastern Cordilleras, and in the semi-tropical foothills are Inka in
origin. Brown is currently working on a
typology for these Inka fortresses, which come in a surprising array of shapes
and sizes. Two classic examples of Inka
fortresses in Ecuador include the well-known Rumicucho fortress near Quito
studied by Eduardo Almeida (1984, 1999) and the fortress studied by Lippi
(1998) at Palmitopamba on the lower-elevation western slopes of Pichincha. When compared with a number of the fortresses
in Pambamarca, we can begin to see some very basic similarities, including
straighter walls and the presence of internal stone structures.
((SLIDE: Pi-0019))
So while many of the documented Inka fortresses found near and to the
south of Quito are evocative of the those in our study area, there are some
formal and structural aspects of the Pambamarca fortresses that seem to lie
outside the Inka pattern. These include
the presence of bricks of cangagua (hardened volcanic ash) as a building
material at some forts (i.e., not stone), and the presence of the internal
radial walls connecting the concentric rings.
We are also not sure what to make of the fact that there are no internal
structures in some of the larger, outer rings fortresses, except to point our
that we know very little about pre-Inka, indigenous domestic architecture
because much of it was built from perishable materials. ((SLIDE: Plaza Schuler)) As it turns out, these structural traits are
actually more common in the fortresses that have been documented to the north
of the study area in the regions that remained largely independent from the
Inkas. In the 1970s the Instituto
Otavaleño de Antropología organized a survey of scores of such fortresses throughout
northern Ecuador and concluded that the indigenous societies of the area built
and utilized many of these pucaras as defense against the Inkas (Plaza Schuller
1976).
((SLIDE: Pinguilmi)) Returning, then, to our own study, in this our first year of
fieldwork we initiated investigations at two fortresses on opposite edges of
the Pambamarca mountains. In the
northeastern corner facing the Cayambe territory we mapped and conducted
surface collections at the large fortress of Pucará Guachalá (also
Pinguilmi). While our understanding of this
site is still very preliminary, we are reasonably confident that both the
ceramic and architecture data suggest that this fortress was indigenous in
origin and dates to the Inka period.
((SLIDE: Quitoloma)) Our second
focus of study this year was the site of Quitoloma, which is located on the
southwestern edge of Pambamarca overlooking El Quinche and the Quito
basin. Our work there involved an
extensive mapping program as well as excavations. Together with data from the site collected by Oberem and Fresco,
we are quite certain that Qutioloma was constructed and occupied by the
Inkas. ((SLIDE: Quitoloma)) You will recognize, for instance, the
rectangular usnu and the cleared plaza space in front of the long
kallanka. ((SLIDE: Quitoloma))
Because these fortresses are located on opposite
edges of the Pambamarca zone, and because each fortress is proximately located
near its likely home base, we feel secure enough at this point to suggest that
we are looking at material evidence of that fateful standoff in Pambamarca
between Inka and Cayambe forces. Given
the possibility that this was a militarized zone, it is also certainly possible
that the remaining collection of Pambamarca fortresses were occupied, abandoned
and reoccupied by both sides of the conflict during the ebb and flow of 17
years of battle. Evidence one way or
another for this type of complicated interaction will be gathered in the coming
years, which is a point that brings us to our closing thoughts as they relate
to the greater field of Inka studies and to comparative colonialism and
imperialism.
Closing Thoughts
((SLIDE: blank))
In this paper we have focused on evidence for only the most obvious
forms of domination and resistance in Ecuador, namely the fortresses of
Pambamarca. While Inka history includes
countless instances of brutal repression and violent rebellion, domination and
resistance were typically expressed in much more subtle ways. This is a persistent theme found in the
literature on colonialism, which contends that the diversity of indigenous
responses to colonial intrusion range from revolt, to resistance, to
ambivalence, to accommodation (e.g., Deagan 1983, Fitzhugh 1985, Rogers and
Wilson 1993, Taylor and Pease G.Y. 1994).
Of course, any inclination to recognize diversity in the actions and
reactions of the colonized echoes a larger trend in anthropology, which
stresses the fact that people tend to maintain their identities, even in the
face of incredible adversity, and that outsiders are rarely permitted to interpret
and control the details of people's everyday lives (Adas 1992, Guha 1982,
Haynes and Prakash 1991, O'Hanlon 1988, Scott 1985, 1990).
In this approach to Inka imperialism, the principal
task becomes a matter of conceptualizing imperial encounters in ways other than
as unilateral exercise of hegemony.
Most importantly, imperial expansion and incorporation as well as the
colonial administration of indigenous societies are negotiated between various
parties with divergent interests.
Sometimes these interests are clearly imposed violently from the outside
by an imperial interest, but they are also constructed from the inside by
indigenous resistance, accommodation, compliance, and cooperation-- in short,
by the self-determination of the subjects themselves.
I leave you with this odd coincidence.
((SLIDE:
Quitoloma))
((SLIDE:
Quitoloma, backwards))
((SLIDE:
Quitoloma and Cuzco))
References
Adas,
Michael
1992 From Avoidance to Confrontation: Peasant
Protest in Precolonial and Colonial Southeast Asia. Colonialism and Culture,
edited by N. B. Dirks, pp. 89-134. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Almeida
Reyes, Eduardo
1984 El Pucara de Rumicucho. Miscelánea
Antropológica Ecuatoriana, Museo del Banco Central del Ecuador, Quito Serie
Monográfica No. 1.
1999 'Estudios Arqueológicos en el Pucara de
Rumicucho, II Etapa.' Report on file with the Museo del Banco Central del
Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador.
Bhadha,
Homi
1994 The Location of Culture. London:
Routledge.
Bray,
Tamara L.
1991 The Pazaleo Puzzle: Non-Local Pottery in
Northern Highland Ecuador. Journal of Field Archaeology 22(2):137-156.
1992 Archaeological Survey in Northern Highland
Ecuador: Inca Imperialism and Pais Caranqui. World Archaeology
24(2):218-233.
Brown,
David O.
2002 'Conquest, Collaboration, and Resistance
along the Northern Frontier of Tawantinsuyu: The Inkas in Ecuador'. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.
Denver, Colorado.
Cabello
Valboa, Miguel de
1951 [1586] Miscelanea antártica. Lima:
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Cobo,
Bernabé
1979 [1953] History of the Inca Empire : an
account of the Indians' customs and their origin, together with a treatise on
Inca legends, history, and social institutions. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Cooper,
Frederick and Ann Laura Stoler, Eds.
1997 Tensions of Empire. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Deagan,
Kathleen
1983 Spanish St. Augustine: The Archaeology of
a Colonial Creole Community. New York: Academic Press.
Fitzhugh,
William W., Ed.
1985 Cultures in Contact: The Impact of
European Contacts and Native American Cultural Institutions, A.D. 1000-1800.
Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Fresco,
Antonio, Manuel Coloma and Gustavo Espíndola
1990 'Proyecto Arqueológico 'El Quito de los
Incas'. Octava Parte: Informe excavaciones Pucará Quitoloma (1990)'. Report on
file with the Banco Central del Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador.
Guaña,
Pablo
1993 Cosmovisión Indígena. Quito: Tupac
Producciones Didácticas.
Guha,
Ranajit
1982 On Some Aspects of the Historiography of
Colonial India. Subaltern Studies 1:1-8.
Haynes,
Douglas and Gyan Prakash
1991 Introduction: the Entanglement of Power and
Resistance. Contesting Power: Resistance and Everyday Social Relations in
South Asia, edited by D. Haynes and G. Prakash, pp. 1-22. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Hyslop,
John
1990 Inka Settlement Planning. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Irschick,
Eugene F.
1994 Dialogue and History: Constructing South
India, 1795-1895. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lippi,
Ronald D.
1998 'Exploración Arqueológica del Pichincha
Occidental, Ecuador'. Report on file with the Museo Jijón y Caamaño, Consejo
Provincial de Pichincha. Quito, Ecuador.
Miller,
Daniel
1995 Consumption as the Vanguard of History: A
Polemic by Way of an Introduction. Acknowledging Consumption: A Review of
New Studies, edited by D. Miller, pp. 1-57. London: Routledge.
Morris,
Craig
1998 Inka Strategies of Incorporation and
Governance. Archaic States, edited by G. M. Feinman and J. Marcus, pp.
293-309. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
Oberem,
Udo
1980 Festungsanlagen im Andengebiet. Allgemeine
und Vergleichende Archaologie, Beitrage Band II:487-503.
1986 Complejos de fortalezas en el área andina. Miscelánea
Antropológica Ecuatoriana (Museos del Banco Central del Ecuador, Guayaquil)
6:103-116.
Oberem,
Udo, W. Wurster, R. Hartmann and J. Wentscher
1969 La fortaleza de montaña de Quitoloma en la
sierra septentrional del Ecuador. Boletín de la Academia Nacional de
Historia 114:196-205. (Spanish version of original in Baessler Archiv, Vol.
XVI, Berlin 1968, p. 1331-1352).
O'Hanlon,
Rosalind
1988 Recovering the Subject: Subaltern Studies
and Histories of Resistance in Colonial South Asia. Modern Asian Studies
22:189-224.
Plaza
Schuller, Fernando
1976 La incursion inca en el septentrion
andino ecuatoriano: antecedentes arqueologicos de la convulsiva situacion de
contacto cultural: primer informe preliminar. Otavalo, Ecuador: Instituto
Otavaleño de Antropología.
1977 El complejo de fortalezas de Pambamarca:
contribucion al estudio de la arquitectura militar prehispanica en la Sierra
Norte del Ecuador. Otavalo, Ecuador: Instituto Otavaleño de
Antropología.
Rogers,
J. Daniel and Samuel M. Wilson, Eds.
1993 Ethnohistory and Archaeology: Approaches
to Postcontact Change in the Americas. New York: Plenum Press.
Rowe,
John H.
1985 Probanza de los Inca Nietos de
Conquistadores. Histórica, Pontificia Universidad Católoca del Perú, Lima
9(2):193-245.
Sarmiento
de Gamboa, Pedro
1960 [1572] Historia Indica. Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles 135:193-279.
Madrid: Ediciones Atlas.
Scott,
James C.
1985 Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of
Peasant Resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press.
1990 Domination and the Arts of Resistance.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Stanish,
Charles
1997 Nonmarket Imperialism in the Prehispanic
Americas: The Inka Occupation of the Titicaca Basin. Latin American
Antiquity 8(3):195-216.
Stoler,
Ann Laura
1989 Rethinking Colonial Categories: European
Communities and the Boundaries of Rule. Comparative Studies of Society and
History 31(1):134-161.
Taylor,
William B. and Franklin Pease G.Y., Eds.
1994 Violence, Resistance, and Survival in the
Americas: Native Americans and the Legacy of Conquest. Washington, D.C.:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Thomas,
Nicholas
1997 Partial Texts. On Oceania: Visions,
Artifacts, Histories, edited by N. Thomas, pp. 23-49. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Tiffin,
Chris and Alan Lawson, Eds.
1994 De-Scribing Empire. London:
Routledge.
Williams,
Verónica and Terence N. D'Altroy
1998 El sur del Tawantinsuyu: un dominio
selectivamente intensivo. Tawantinsuyu 5:170-178.
Wolf,
Eric R.
1982 Europe and the People without History.
Los Angeles: University of California.