• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

Inka goals, methods: “The Inkas were coolly pragmatic, efficient, and totalitarian in their policies toward conquered nations, [attempting to impose] a restrictive area wide standardization of politics, religion, customs, and language…. They maintained order by instilling fear and using force rather than by encouraging knowledgeable participation” (Dobyns and Doughty 1976:48–49).

Inka road system: Hyslop 1984:esp. 215–24, 342–43. The network appears to have been planned carefully (Jenkins 2001:655–87).

“not with the Wars”: Rowe 1946:329.

“where millions”: Quoted in Lechtman 1996a:15. My next sentence is a revamped version of Lechtman’s sentence following the quotation.

Steepest street: Filbert Street. I am grateful to Wade Roush for checking this comparison.

“a wide range”: Diamond 1997:140.

20 of 34 life zones: Burger 1992:12. Only 2 percent of Peru is today considered suitable for agriculture (ibid.).

“vertical archipelagoes”: Murra 1967.

Inka origin accounts: Cobo 1979:103–07 (“extreme ignorance,” 20; “ridiculous,” 103).

Betanzos: Betanzos 1996 (“thirty small,” 13; “two hundred,” 19). For a discussion of his value as a source, see Fossa 2000.

Inkas vs. Chankas, Wiraqocha Inka vs. Inka Yupanki: Betanzos 1996:19–43 (“To this,” 33; “crazy impulse,” 36); Cieza de León 1998:317 (Pizarro sees skins); Cobo 1979:130–33 (“valiant prince,” 130); Pachacuti Yamqui Salcamayhua 1879:270–73; D’Altroy 2002:62–65; Rostworowski de Diez Canseco 2001:78–119; Santa 1963. Three of the fifteen Spanish accounts of Inka history claim that Wiraqocha Inka, not Inka Yupanki, fought the Chankas and then his father. Among them is Cobo, who confusingly attributes what seem to be the same events to both. Rostworowski de Diez Canseco (1999:28–34) convincingly argues against Wiraqocha. Pachakuti literally means “he who remakes the world” or “he who turns over time and space,” but I have followed Michael Moseley in an attempt to suggest how the name might have struck Inka ears (Moseley 2001:14).

Inka chronology: John H. Rowe laid out the timeline of the empire in an influential article (Rowe 1946:203). Rowe relied on the calculation in a manuscript from 1586, still not published in its entirety, by Father Miguel Cabello Balboa (Cabello Balboa 1920). A Swedish historian, Åke Wedin, fiercely criticized Rowe’s use of this and other sources (Wedin 1963, 1966). An insurmountable problem with the accounts, Wedin insisted, was that they were not drawn from interviews with the elite record keepers who actually kept track of events. The implication was that most other Indians were as reliably informed about their society’s history as, say, average U.S. citizens are about their society’s history. Since Wedin’s work historians have come to place a little more trust in Spanish chronicles, which although not taken from record keepers tended to be drawn from interviews with the educated elite. In addition, radiocarbon dating seems generally to support the chronology (Michczynski and Adamska 1997). Rowe’s chronology is now typically viewed as roughly correct, though subject to debate.

Fall of Chincha: Castro and Ortega Morejón 1974:91–104 (“son of the Sun,” 93; “Everything,” 95). My thanks to Robert Crease for obtaining this article for me. See also Santillán 1879:14; Sarmiento de Gamboa 2000:113–14, 135 (brother left in command). As Sarmiento de Gamboa notes, Chincha was a minor incident in a much larger campaign against the bigger polity of Chimor (see Chap. 6). The rising claim on local labor both reflected a deliberate strategy by the Inka state of gradually increasing control and a rise in labor demand in the Inka state itself (Morris 1993:36–50).

Luttwak’s book: Luttwak 1976.

Inka as hegemonic empire: D’Altroy 1987; Hassig 1985.

Austere, contemporary feel of Inka art and architecture: Paternosto 1996:219–22 (influence on twentieth-century art); Thomson 2003:60–62, 86–87, 246–49.

Qosqo and