Proceedings of the British Academy (173) Unravelling the Enigma of the ‘Particular Language’ of the Incas 0197265030, 978019726503

Citation preview

CERRON-PALOMINO, R. M. (2012). Unravelling the Enigma of the ‘Particular Language’ of the Incas”. En HEGGARTY, Paul y David Beresford-Jones (eds): Archaeology and Language in the Andes. A Cross-Disciplinary Exploration of Prehistory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 265-294.

11

Unravelling the Enigma of the 'Particular Language' of the Incas RODOLFO CERRON-PALOMINO

Yes de saber que los Incas turieron otra lengua particular que hahlaua[n} entre ellos, que no la entendian los demas Yndios, ni /es era licito apre[n jderla, coma lenguage diuino. (And it must be known that the Incas had another particular language spoken among them, which language was not understood by the rest of the Indians, neither were they allowed to learn it, as it was a divine tongue.) Inca Garcilaso ([1609] 2002: VII, L 166)

Introduction THIS CHAPTER FOCUSES ON THE SO-CALLED 'particular language' referred to by Garcilaso as spoken only among the Inca nobility, in contrast to the 'general language', namely Quechua. With justified scepticism, historiographers have cast considerable doubt on references to this supposed private and exclusive speech, which has been widely viewed as just another element of Garcilaso 's fantasized portrayal of the Inca realm in his Comentarios. Yet his is not the sole source alluding to the existence of this obscure language. And while closer inspection of the mostly lexical linguistic material he provides has so far failed to dispel the doubts surrounding it, in what follows I shall offer new pointers that do permit us to maintain that it did indeed exist. Its identity and linguistic affiliation, intensely debated in recent years, will then be subjected to particular scrutiny.

Information on the 'Particular Language' As observed above, Garcilaso is not alone in his mention of the secret language of the Incas. This in itself should undermine the doubts insinuated as to its existence. Such, at least, was the opinion of J.J. von Tschudi ([1891] 1918: I, 64), on coming upon a passage in Rodrigo Cantos de Andrada's Proceedings of 1111! Bri1ish Acudem_r. 173. 265 294. t: The British Academy 2012.

266

Rodolfo Cerr6n-Palomino

Relaci(m on the Villa Rica de Oropesa and the Huancavelica mines, in which he too, quite independently, makes reference to this secret language. Indeed, in almost the same terms as Garcilaso would later use to evoke it, he states: There is much variety in tongues among the natives; but in its entire extent the caciques and principales of the repartimientos were required to know the general language they call Quechua, so that they could know and understand the messages sent to them by the Inca, and so that, upon visiting his court, they could understand without an interpreter; and among the Inga and his lineage and orejones they ｾｰｯｫ･＠ another language, ll'hich no cacique nor other person of the realm H"as allo\\'ed to learn a single 1rord of (Cantos de Andrada [1586] 1965: 307; emphasis added)

This constitutes our earliest account of the particular language, penned long before Garcilaso's. From it one may safely deduce, then, that the existence of the language was recalled not only by descendants of the imperial nobility like Garcilaso himself, but also among the peoples of the former empire. Nor did notice of the language escape the attention of the Mercedarian friar Martin de Murua, whose account of the special education received by the Inca nobility relates that the first of their four masters 'began by teaching the language of the Inga, 1rhich 1ras the particular one .1poken by him, different from Quichua and Aymara, 11"1ich are the t1ro general tongues of this realm'

(Murua [1613] 1987: II, XII, 377; emphasis added). As with Cantos de Andrada, everything points to this source being independent of Garcilaso's. 1 While the same cannot strictly be said of the further report by the historian Bernabe Cobo, for he was of course familiar with Garcilaso's work, he nonetheless verified the claim against the testimony of Alonso Topa Atau, grandson of Huaina Capac. Cobo writes, 'besides the language of Cuzco, which is the general language introduced by the Incas in their empire and was spoken by all their subjects, they kne11· another, 1rhich they used solely 1rhen they 1rere dealing 1rith and conversing with those of their mm lineage' (Cobo [l 653] 1956: XII, III, 64; emphasis added). Furthermore, the author adds credence to his report by affirming that Alonso Topa A tau, a descendant of the Inca nobility, 'still recalled ... some words of it'. Regrettably, he refrained from inquiring about them, robbing us of invaluable data on the language, and leaving us just the meagre examples provided by Garcilaso. Cobo goes on to report that Don Alonso Topa certified to him that the language was 'the same as is spoken among the Indians of the Tampu valley', that is, the modern Ollantaytambo. Finally, like Garcilaso, Cobo too informs us that 'with the changes in this realm wrought by the new rule of the Spaniards, the descendants of the Incas have forgotten about it' (Cobo [1653] 1956: XII, III, 64). 1 Not so the references to the particular language by the chronicler Anello Oliva, which derive from his having read the corresponding passages in Garcilaso's work, as may be deduced from the citations he makes (Oliva [1631] 1998: L 1, 34). Note that. throughout the chapter. the roman numerals in citations refer first to the book number and second to the chapter number.

THE "PARTICULAR LANGUAGE' OF THE INCAS

267

Lexical Corpus Lexical material ascribed to the particular language by Garcilaso consists of thirteen epithets or lineage names, four toponyms, and one common noun. Following the established linguistic convention of enclosing the precise spellings reported inside < > signs, the names in the first category are: (I, XVlll, 17), (I, XXIV, 22v), (II, XVI, 42), (II, I, 56v), , , , , , , qhapaql a).

THE 'PARTICULAR LANGUAGE' OF THE INCAS

283

the province of U ru barn ba (Cuzco), whose distinctive circular terraces are hypothesized to have been a site for experimental tuber breeding. 22 Since this term bears no clear resemblance to any lexeme in Quechua or Aymara, it might instead be identified with the root mora 'centre, middle' found in Chipaya (the last surviving and only well-documented dialect of the Uro family), and equivalent to Quechua chairpi or Aymara taypi. The remaining -y, a Quechuanized version of the Aymara location suffix *-1ri (Cerr6n-Palomino 2008: II: 3, §2), would add the sense of a 'place where X exists', with X in this case being mora, hence 'place that features a centre'. This word could ultimately have its origin in Puquina, from which it would have been borrowed into Uro just as were and many other terms (see Cerr6n-Palomino 2007: §7, for some examples). Note too that the root reappears in the expression 'carry, or gather grain to the threshing floor' (Santo Tomas [1560] 1994: II, fol. 107v), i.e. 'harvest', particularly with reference to maize. I suggest analysing this as a derived verb formed of the Aymara root aya- 'carry, of long things, like rods', in this case perhaps maize stalks (Bertonio [1612] 1984: II, 3: , in its Lupaca Aymara equivalent), followed by mora. Finally, a further toponym assignable in part to Puquina would be , a placename which features in the mythical itinerary of the Ayar brothers in their trek to Cuzco (Sarmiento [1572] 1965: [12], 215; Urton 2004: II, 50). I analyse this as originally (pronounced [pa:llata]), meaning 'two hills', where is 'two' as in Aymara and is a variant of 'hill' found in Ore's Puquina texts. Note that the form , which refers to the twin snow-capped peaks of Parinacota and Pomerape in Curahuara (Carangas, Oruro; see Blanco 1904: 77), carries the same variant as found in 'Three hills' in the district of Nuiioa (Lampa, Puno; Paz Soldan 1877: 823) and 'Spotted Hill', a municipality in the province of Ayopaya (Cochabamba; see Blanco 1901: 98). In the six cases reviewed here, the roots assignable to Puquina appear quite transparently as loanwords in Aymara or Quechua, borrowed at times when each in turn was the dominant language. The new terms were coined within its dominant system, but building on what was nonetheless a borrowed word. Alongside these cases in which sufficient evidence already exists to postulate a Puquina origin, there are surely many other candidates, but the indicators that might reveal them are not yet available to us. In the meantime, we might test a rule of thumb by which any term whose root proves, by a process of elimination, to be alien to Aymara and Quechua, is postulated as poten" Thus the use of the word (and its Aymaranized variant ) to designate a refined variety of chuiio (freeze-dried potato) would have its origin in an extension of meaning, by association, from the original placename (metonymy).

284

Rodolfo Cerr6n-Palomino

tially of Puquina origin. Candidates would include, among others, such fundamental terms of Inca civilization as: 'inca'; - (and not ), the epithet of the supreme deity in the Inca pantheon; 'solemn feast of the Sun'; and 'great diviner' (an Aymaranized form of the term recorded by Ore).

Evidence from Mythohistory The myths of the Incas' origins and their march to Cuzco all coincide, of course, in singling out Lake Titicaca as their starting point. Garcilaso in fact provides up to three foundation myths, which he calls 'fables' as he seeks to appease the voices of his Christian conscience. Two of these explicitly mention the 'great lake' and the town of Tiahuanacu as the place of origin not only of the primordial Incas but of the human race itself. According to the first version of the myth, the royal couple-Manco Capac and Mama Ocllo'emerged from Titicaca and walked towards the north'-that is, towards Cuzco-as ordered by the Sun, their father (Garcilaso [1609] 2002: I, XVIII, 16-17). According to the second version: the waters of [the flood] having receded, a man appeared in Tiahuacanu [sic], which is to the south of Cozco, who was so powerful that he distributed the world in four parts, which he allotted to four men whom he called Kings, the first was called Manco Capac, and the second Colla, and the third Tocay, and the fourth Pinahua. They say that Manco Capac was given the northern part. Colla the southern part (from whose name the entire great province was subsequently known as Colla), the third called Tocay was given the eastern sector, and the fourth called Pinahua the western, and ordered each to go to his district. and conquer, and rule the peoples they found. (16v-17).

Symbolism aside (for the myth was clearly reconstructed a posteriori as an attempt to legitimize the Tahuantinsuyu), for our purpose here the key point is that as in the previous variant of the myth, the lake and the people of Tiahuanacu, lying in former Colla and Puquina territory, are singled out as the place of origin of the founders of the future empire. It is no surprise, then, that Titicaca-known as none other than the 'lake of Poquina' (Guaman Poma [1615] 1966: 271 )-was sacred to the Incas, who would later conquer it and its 'holy islands', paradoxically displacing the old inhabitants, their Puquina ancestors (Ramos Gavilan [1612] 1988: I, IV, 41). This context seems a natural one within which the partition of the four quarters by the Tiahuanacu deity would see the 'southern part' assigned to the second 'King' known as , in whose memory, Garcilaso points out, the entire region became known as Colla.

THE 'PARTICULAR LANGUAGE' OF THE INCAS

285

Nor were the names of Tocay Capac and Pinao Capac unknown to the oral tradition recorded by the chroniclers, for besides Garcilaso, both Guaman Poma ([1615] 1966: 80, 89, 148, 150) and Pachacuti Yamqui Salcamayhua ([l 6 I 3] 1993: fols. 8v, I 7v) also refer to them. So too do Sarmiento and Cabello Valboa, who portray them as local chieftains who lead their men into skirmishes against the Incas (Sarmiento [1572] 1965: [43], 238; Cabello Valboa [1586] 1951: Ill, ch. 14, 298, 291). Guaman Poma mentions both (89) alongside Manco Capac as among the 'first Inca Kings', assassinated, in one version, by Sinchi Roca and his sons Tupa Amaru Inga and Uari Tito Inga (148); or in another version, by Cuci Uananchire, son of Lloque Yupanqui, who 'began to fight with the first ynga called Tocay Capac, Pinau Capac ... and full of anger conquered him and killed ynga Tocay Capac, Pinau Capac because he had beaten his grandfather Cinche Roca ynga and who had lost two teeth from a blow from a slingshot wielded by Tocay Capac ynga' (150). "3 If one grants some element of historical truth to these origin myths of the Inca state, and some kinship of Collas and Puquinas beyond their shared language (Puquina), then it hardly seems far-fetched to conclude that the original Incas were of Colla lineage. Guaman Poma himself suggests as much, of course, albeit not in exclusive terms ('the Puquina Collas were also a caste of Yngas')-a qualification to be understood in a context in which, once becoming rulers of their known world, the Incas were not above disparaging the first descendants of their own ancestors as 'rude and clumsy' ( = ). Incidentally, such contempt, behind which there presumably must have been some reason, might be accounted for by Pachacutiy Inca Yupanqui's ultimate victory over the Collas only after their three rebellions had been brutally suppressed (see Sarmiento [I 572] 1965: [40] 245-6). Nevertheless, we know from historical references that the Colla chieftains(= Puquinas) continued to claim full rights to the title of 'Capac C:apa apo Indichori', that is, 'King and sole lord, son of the Sun' (Betanzos op. cit., I, XX) or indeed 'Inga Capac' (Sarmiento [1572] 1965: [36], 241). This was precisely the case, we may recall, with Chuchi Capac, the chief of the Collas who proposes the toast to Inca Yupanqui himself, on the day of his marriage to Mama Rontocay, according to Pachacuti Yamqui Salcamaygua. Furthermore, and again from the standpoint of the mythical-historical tradition, several chroniclers report on a role for Colla architects in the '' In Cerr6n-Palomino (2008: I, 7) I analyse the etymology of and , in relation to that of the word , postulating an Aymara origin for the roots and . In light of the etymological digression offered here in §6.1.2, however, it may well be that these words had originally Puquina etyma. Note too that Guaman Poma speaks of both characters as though they were one: in this case, as in others, the optional use of the plural in Quechua seems to be impinging on the chronicler's imperfect Spanish.

286

Rodolfo Cerron- Palomino

building of certain of the Incas' palaces and fortresses. Garcilaso, for instance, in describing the fortress of Sacsayhuaman, relates how four masters were involved in its construction: First and foremost among those they credit with the design of the construction was Huallpa Rimachi Inca, and to signal that he was the foremost they added the name Apu, which means Captain, or superior officer in any office, and thus they call him Apu Huallpa Rimachi, his successor was called Inca Maricanchi. The third was Acahuana Inca, who is credited ll'ith many of the great buildings of Tiahuanacu ... The fourth and last of the masters was called Calla Cunchuy, during his time the tired stone was brought, on which the old master placed his name, so that it may be remembered. ((1609] 2002: VII, XXIX, l 95-l 95v; emphasis added)

Besides the obvious chronological inconsistencies-diluted, it would appear, in the collective memory of the Cuzquefio informants of Garcilaso's time-of interest here is the mention of a Colla architect whose architectural prowess derives from the old Tiahuanacu architectural tradition. Note, moreover, that the names and echo many other names of CollaPuquina ancestry. 24 Similar references feature in accounts of the fortress of Ollantay(tambo). In the version recorded by Sarmiento from his local informants, Inca Pachacutiy inspected the construction in person, where the works were directed by the captive 'sons of Chuchi Capac, the great cinche of Collao whom ... the Inga had defeated and killed in Collao' (Sarmiento [l 572] 1965: [40], 245). Again, it comes as no surprise that in mid-sixteenth-century documents the fortress is also known as or (Glave and Remy 1983: Part I, 2). As in the other cases above, for col/a here we must read Puquina-Colla, not Aymara. Finally, when relating the conquest of Collasuyo by Inca Yupanqui, Murua describes the Colla chieftain, the very same Chuchi Capac mentioned by Santa Cruz Pachacuti and Sarmiento de Gamboa, in the following terms: Colla Capac ... was the universal lord of all of Collao and in Cuzco ordered sacrifices to be made to the sun and brought a great amount of gold and silver to that province, ll'hich completed the house and temple of the sun and endowed

' 4 is clearly a composite word in which one can identify , which obviously alludes to the ethnic group of the same name, also of Colla origin, and , the Aymara word for the corequenque (hence the difference between , the term for the fledgling before its plumage comes to feature both the black and white of the full-grown ; see Bertonio [l 6 l 2] 1984: II, 10). Note, on the other hand, that , and not the notational variants - registered by Guaman Poma and Murua, seems to be the correct spelling of the original early name of Cuzco. Lastly, not to be overlooked is that appears to contain the component , which can be related to and to itself.

THE 'PARTICULAR LANGUAGE' OF THE INCAS

287

it, giving it from all the lands that he had conquered that which was most precious and rich, as well as cattle, farms, servants, women and labour. (Murua [1613] 1987: I, XX, 77; emphasis added).

To ensure the myth's coherence, it is understood that the Colla chieftain's presence in Cuzco and his support for the building of the temple date to before his subsequent rebellion that led to his death at the hands of the Inca. As regards the temple itself, moreover, note that its original name was , and only later did Inca Pachacutiy redesignate it . As per the proposal above, then, the first part of the original name, , would be of Puquina origin.

Archaeological Evidence In this section I shall attempt to outline the scenarios that might enable us to go beyond the mythohistorical references just discussed, to set the Colla origin of the first Incas, and the identification of their 'particular' language as the Puquina of Lake Titicaca, into a rather more precisely defined context. To do so, I look to recent archaeological studies of the Cuzco area, particularly those of a prospective and region-wide scope, as summarized by Bauer (2008). To explain the historical processes of interest, we must step back to the Middle Horizon, approximately AD 600-1000, when the presence of the Ayacucho-based sociopolitical entity of Huari is manifested in the Cuzco region through the imposing and monumental satellite cities of Huaro and Piquillacta in the Lucre Basin (McEwan 1992; Glowacki and McEwan 2001; Bauer 2008: ch. 7). Through their territorial occupation and control of the various sociopolitical chiefdoms that had arisen over the preceding period, known as Cotacalli (AD 200-600), the Huari managed to impose their own language, which may have been a central-southern variety of Aymara, at the expense of the various-and now unknown-local tongues (see Cerr6nPalomino 2000: ch. 7, Torero 2002: ch. 3, §3.63, 127). After Huari fell, for reasons still not fully understood, a number of groups emerged to contest control of the region, striving to fill the power vacuum left by the sudden evanescence of their erstwhile overlords. This period of 'contest' is the Late Intermediate (I 000-1400), represented by several styles of material culture in the Cuzco region, the most important of which is known by archaeologists as 'Quillque'. The chronological sequence for the archaeology of this period has been particularly well studied at the largest Late Intermediate site in the region, Choquepuquio in the Lucre Basin (McEwan et al. 2005). This same period is precisely the one for which it seems reasonable to postulate the march of the 'Inga kings' to Cuzco out of the Titicaca region, coinciding with the fall of Tiahuanacu. Once they reached the territory of

288

Rodolfo Cerron-Palomino

their future capital, after a few skirmishes and alliances with the local Aymaraspeaking inhabitants, they soon, within two or three generations, lost their mother tongue, as frequently occurs when an intrusive minority group becomes the ruling caste of a majority who speak another language (witness the Norsemen in Normandy, Kievan Rus' or Sardinia, for instance). Among the local population, the newcomers' strange and incomprehensible language soon acquired a hieratic character, exclusive as it was to those who claimed to be the children of the Sun. As the generations went by, with no fresh input to reinforce or maintain it this language gradually declined, to be reduced ultimately to just a few stock phrases and words that were progressively incorporated, with the inevitable remodelling, into the Aymara by now firmly acquired by the descendants of the first invaders from Titicaca. 15 The chronicles also tell, of course, of other ethnic groups with whom the mythical Incas had dealings, and who later came to be considered within the Inca social structure as 'Incas by privilege'. The picture offered by Bauer (2008: ch. 8) is of particular interest in this regard, in so far as his fieldwork surveys seek to correlate the territories of these ethnic groups with the material, archaeological clues to their presence. Especially relevant is McEwan et al.'s (2005: 274) suggestion of an association between the settlement of Choquepuquio and the homeland of the Pinahuas and Mohinas (p. 172). For it turns out that the Pinahuas appear to have been the descendants of the mythical king Pinao Capac mentioned by the chroniclers. The genesis of the Inca state would have been marked by conflicts not only between the Colla newcomers and the local ethnic groups, but also between factions within them, as already hinted at by the myth of the Ayar brothers. As regards cultural links to the Altiplano, particularly in architecture and ceramics, archaeological studies point to the lakeside civilizations ancestral to Pucara and Tiahuanacu having influenced the Cuzco region from as far back as the Cotacalli period in the Late Formative, as established by findings at the sites of Batan Oreo and Muyu Oreo (Bauer 2008: ch. 6, 103-9). Such contacts, however, correspond to very early stages that pre-date by at least eight centuries the 'Colla king' diaspora, as per the mythohistorical evidence discussed above. And there were probably periods of hiatus in this long trajectory of contacts, most notably during the preceding Middle Horizon when

Let me point out, in passing, that the historian Hiltunen ( 1999: ch. 4, ｾＲＮＩ＠ also supports an Altiplano origin for the early Incas. and considers them Puquina speakers, such that this would duly have been their 'particular language'. Unfortunately, his arguments in favour of this. like his attempts to incorporate into Inca history the fantasized dynastic lists of the chronicler Montesinos, are all quite invalidated by a failure to assess critically the linguistic sources on which he bases them. In fact, when he deals with the linguistic events in the formation of the Inca Empire he does it as if nothing has changed in Andean linguistics since Riva Agiiero's and Uhlc's time. 15

THE 'PARTICULAR LANGUAGE' OF THE INCAS

289

Huari and Tiahuanacu seem to have established a distinct boundary between the two regions. Nonetheless, these links must have persisted, extending into the Late Intermediate Quillque period, as studies in Choquepuquio, 30 km from Cuzco, seem to attest. These also reveal 'southern influence emanating from the Titicaca basin' (Hiltunen and McEwan 2004: 245-6), thus evidencing links between Cuzco and the Titicaca Basin following the collapse of Huari (McEwan et al. 2005: 266). As for the Late Horizon, the architectural techniques employed by the Incas in their monumental constructions surely did not emerge ex nihilo. On the contrary, to judge from the chroniclers at least, they were heavily influenced by the old tradition intimately associated with the architects of Tiahuanacu (Craig and von Hagen 1993: ch. 7, 103; Hemming and Ranney 1990: 27-8). In fact, Stiibel and Uhle (1892), cited by Protzen (2005: 368) had already called attention to the presence in the fortress of Ollantaytambo of traits from the Titicaca Basin, an idea more powerfully defended by Hemming and Ranney (1990: I 09) who point out 'an uncanny and fascinating resemblance between the central section of Ollantaytambo and the great pre-Inca ruin of Tiwanaku'. These unmistakable similarities pertain to the masonry, rectangular seating, and polygonal megalithic blocks of stone, bevelled and tightly interlocking, as well as to the T-shaped copper pins to hold them together. In pottery, too, excavations have uncovered a presence of Tiahuanacu ceramics in the Suchuna and Muyucmarca sectors of the Sacsayhuaman archaeological complex (Paredes 2003: 109). That said, to conclude this section let us recognize that one of the main problems facing the hypothesis of cultural links between Cuzco and the Altiplano still remains: the 'time gap' between the collapse of Tiahuanacu and the emergence of the Inca state (Protzen 2005: 370), that is, the full chronological extent of the Late Intermediate Period (1000-1400). However, as Meyers (2002: 532) points out, the 'ideological vacuum' between one tradition and the other may not necessarily have been bridged by direct but rather by more mediated influences, in both space and time.

Conclusion In the preceding sections I have reviewed the literature on the 'particular language' reported by Garcilaso and others to have been used exclusively by Inca royalty. This involved first examining the etymologies of the words attributed to this language by Garcilaso; and then the critical analysis and interpretation of the chant of Thu pa Inca Yupanqui, as recorded by Betanzos. I next set out the case for the hypothesis that such a language did indeed exist, showing how my previously published linguistic scrutiny of these data leads us to

290

Rodolfo Cerron-Palomino

acknowledge the existence of some third language, alien to both Quechua and Aymara, and identifiable as the same 'particular language' of the Incas mentioned by the chroniclers. It would appear to have been Puquina, the language of the Altiplano founders of Pucara and Tiahuanacu. Their ethnonym, too, can now be recovered, thanks to a rereading of reports in the chronicles: and it turns out to be none other than Colla, hitherto mistakenly ascribed to Aymara-speaking peoples, a result of the processes of ethnic transformation engaged in by the Incas. I then went on to propose linguistic, mythohistorical, and archaeological evidence to set out a coherent case for the Altiplano origin of the first Incas. Moreover, once recognized as of Colla-Puquina descent, it is but a short step to infer that the language they initially spoke-before learning the local Aymara dialect that they would later appropriate-was of course Puquina. Among various data sources against which this claim can be corroborated is the set of those terms and expressions in the very core lexicon of the institutions of the Inca Empire that cannot be explained from Aymara or Quechua. It is of course only through the required degree of rigour in etymological research, to which I trust this chapter attests, that one can firmly identify terms such as these-and likewise the personal names attributed to the language-as indeed of Puquina origin. Yet provided such due rigour is employed, then this avenue duly promises only to augment their number, and with it our confidence that we may at last have unravelled the enigma of the 'particular language' of the Incas.

Note. This chapter was translated from an original Spanish text by Jorge Bayona Matsuda, with style corrections by the editors.

References Acosta. Jose de. [I 590] 1998. Historia natural y moral de las Indias, in Obras. Madrid: Ediciones de Cultura Hispanica. Adelaar. Willem F.H. 1987. Commentary on Torero (1987). Revista Andina IO, 373-5. Adelaar. Willem with Pieter Muysken. 2004. Languages of the Andes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anonymous (Blas Valera?). [1594] 1968. Relacion de las costumhres antiguas de los naturales def Pini. Madrid: BAE. Vol. 209, Ediciones Atlas, 153-88. Aranibar, Carlos. 1991. 'Indice analitico y glosario' to his edition of the Comentarios, vol. II. Lima: Fondo de Cultura Econ6mica. Barragan Romano. Roxana. 1994. 'Indios de area yffecha'? Entre la historia y la arqueologia de las pohlaciones def no rte de Chuquisaca ( siglos XV-XVI). Sucre: Ediciones Asur 3.

THE 'PARTICULAR LANGUAGE' OF THE INCAS

291

Bauer, Brian S. 2008. Cu:::co antiguo: tierra natal de los incas. Cuzco: Centro Bartolome de Las Casas. Bauer, Brian S. and Charles Stanish. 2003. Las is/as de! Sol y de la Luna. Cuzco: Centro Bartolome de Las Casas. Bertonio, Ludovico. (1612) 1984. Vocabvlario de la lengva aymara. Cochabamba: Ediciones CERES-IFEA. Betanzos, Juan Diez de. [I 551] 1987. Suma y narracion de los incas. Madrid: Ediciones Atlas. Betanzos, Juan Diez de. [1551) 2004. Suma y narracion de los incas. Edition by Ma. del Carmen Martin Rubio. Madrid: Ediciones Polifemo. Blanco, Federico. 190 I. Diccionario geografico de! departamento de Cochabamba. La Paz: Ministerio de Gobiemo y Fomento. Blanco, Pedro Aniceto. 1904. Diccionario geografico de la Republica de Bolivia: departamento de Oruro. La Paz: Oficina Nacional de Inmigraci6n, Estadistica y Propaganda Geografica. Bouysse-Cassagne, Therese. 1987. La identidad aymara. Aproximacion historica ( siglo XV. siglo XVI). La Paz: Hisbol and IFEA. Bouysse-Cassagne, Therese. 1988. Lluvias y ceni:::as. Dos Pachacuti en la historia. La Paz: HISBOL. Bouysse-Cassagne, Therese. 2004. El Sol de adentro: wakas y santos en las minas de Charcas yen el Iago Titicaca (siglos XV a XVII). Boletin de Arqueologia PUCP 8, 23-30. Cabello Valboa, Miguel. [1586) 1951. Miscelcln.ea antcirtica. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Calancha. Antonio de la. [I 638] 1976. Cronica morali:::ada, ed. Ignacio Prado Pastor. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Cantos de Andrada, Rodrigo. [ 1586] 1965. Relacion de la Villa Rica de Oropesa y minas de Guancavelica, in Relaciones geograficas de lndias, ed. Jimenez de la Espada. Madrid: BAE, Ediciones Atlas, 303-9. Cerr6n-Palomino, Rodolfo. 1997. El Diccionario quechuade los academicos: cuestiones lexicograficas, normativas y etimol6gicas. Revista Andina 29, 151-205. Cerr6n-Palomino, Rodolfo. 1998. El cantar de Inca Yupanqui y Ia lengua secreta de los incas. Revista Andina 32, 417-52. Cerr6n-Palomino, Rodolfo. 1999. Tras las huellas de! aimara cuzqueiio. Revista Andina 33. 137-61. Cerr6n-Palomino, Rodolfo. 2000. Lingiiistica aimara. Cuzco: Centro Bartolome de Las Casas. Cerr6n-Palomino, Rodolfo. 2007. Reconstrucci6n del proto-uro: fonologia. Lexis 21(1-2), 47-104. Cerr6n-Palomino, Rodolfo. 2008. Voces def Ande: ensayos sobre onomastica andina. Lima: Fondo Editorial de Ia PUCP. Cobo, Bernabe. [1653] 1956. Historia de! Nuevo Mundo. Obras de! P Bernabe Cobo, vols. 1-11. Madrid: BAE, Ediciones Atlas. Craig, Morris and Adriana von Hagen. 1993. The lnka Empire and its Andean Origins. New York: Abbeville Press. Dedenbach-Salazar Saenz, Sabine. 2004. El lenguaje como parodia: instancias de! uso particular del quechua de Guaman Poma y de Pachacuti Yamqui Salcamaygua. Revista Andina 39, 227-55.

292

Rodolfo Cerron-Palomino

De la Grasserie. Raoul. 1894. Langue puquina. Leipzig: K.F. Koehler, Libraireediteur. De la Vinaza. Conde. [1892] 1977. Bibliogra.fla espaiio/a de /enguas indigenas de America. Madrid: Ediciones Atlas. Durston. Alan. 2007. Pastoral Quechua: the History of Christian Translation in Colonial Peru, 1550-1650. Notre Dame. IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Galdos Rodriguez. Guillermo. 2000. El puquina y lo puquina. Arequipa: UNdeSA. Garcilaso de la Vega. Inca. [I 609] 2002. Commentarios reales. Facsimile edition with a preliminary study by Jose Luis Rivarola. Madrid: Ediciones de Cultura Hispanica. Girault, Louis. 1989. Kallmraya: el idioma secreto de las incas. La Paz: UNICEF-OPSOMS. Glave, Luis Miguel. 1992. Vida, simbo/os y batallas. Creacion y recreaci6n de la comunidad indigena. Cu::co, sig/os XVI-XX. Lima: Fondo de Cultura Econ6mica. Glave. Luis Miguel and Maria Isabel Remy. 1983. Estructura agraria y vida rural en 1111a regi6n andina: O//antaytambo entre las sig/os XVI y Xi X. Cuzco: Centro Bartolome de Las Casas. Glowacki, Mary and Gordon McEwan. 2001. Pikillacta, Huaro y la gran region del Cuzco: nuevas interpretaciones de la ocupaci6n wari de la Sierra Sur. Boletin de Arqueo/ogia PUCP 5, 31--49. Gonc,:alez Holguin, Diego. [l 608] 1952. Vocabv/ario de la lengva general de todo el Perv //amada /engva qquichua o def Inca. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Guaman Poma de Ayala, Felipe. [1615) 1966. Nueva coronica y buen gobierno. Paris: Jnstitut d'Ethnologie. Hemming, John and Edward Ranney. 1990. Monuments of the Incas. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Hiltunen, Juha J. 1999. Ancient Kings of Peru. Helsinki: Biblioteca Hist6rica 45. Hiltunen, Juha J. and Gordon McEwan. 2004. Knowing the Inca past, in Andean Archaeology, comp. Helaine Silverman. Oxford: Blackwell, 235-54. Itier. Cesar. 1993. 'Estudio y comentario lingiiistico' in Joan de Santa Cruz Pachacuti Yamqui Salcamayhua [1613] 1993, Relaci6n de antigiiedades deste reyno def Piru, ethnohistorical and linguistic study by Pierre Duviols and Cesar ltier. Cuzco: IFEA and Centro Bartolome de Las Casas. Jimenez de la Espada, Marcos, ed .. [1881-97) 1965 Relaciones geograficas de Indias, 3 vols. Madrid: BAE, Ediciones Atlas. Julien, Catherine J. 1983. Hatunqo//a: a View of' Inca Rulefrom the Lake Titicaca Region. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lehmann, Walter. 193 7. Vocahu/ar des Uro-dialectes von Ts' imu hei Puno. Berlin: Instituto Iberoamericano. Ms. Markham, Clements R. [1871) 1923. Posesiones [sic} geogriificas de las tribus que formaban el imperio de /os incas . . . . annotated by Jose Maria Camacho. Lima: Imprenta y Libreria Sanmarti. McEwan, Gordon. 1992. El Horizonte Medio en el Cuzco y Ia Sierra del Sur peruano, in £studios de Arqueologia Peruana, ed. Duccio Bonavia. Lima: FOMCIENCIAS, 279-309.

McEwan, Gordon, Arminda Gibaja, and Melisa Chatfield. 2005. Arquitectura monumental en el Cuzco del Periodo lntermedio Tardio: evidencias de la continuidad en la

THE 'PARTICULAR LANGUAGE' OF THE INCAS

293

reciprocidad ritual y el manejo administrativo entre Ios Horizontes Medio y Tardio. Boletin de Arqueologia PUCP 9, 257-80. Meyers, Albert. 2002. Los incas: barbaros advenedizos o herederos de Tiahuanaco?, in El hombre y los Andes: Homenaje a Franklin Pease G Y, vol. IL ed. Javier Flores Espinoza and Rafael Varon. Lima: Fondo Editorial de Ia PUCP, 525-35. Middendorf, Ernst W. [1891] 1959. 'Prologo' to his Die Aymara Sprache, trans. into Spanish as Las lenguas aborigenes de! Peru. Lima: Instituto de Literatura, U niversidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, 56--102. Millones Santa Gadea, Luis. 1971. Pastores y tejedores de los Condesuyos de Arequipa: informe etnologico al Concejo de Regencia. Boletin de la Biblioteca Nacional 25(57-58), 3-14. Molina, Cristobal de. 1573. Relacion de las.fabvlas i ritos de los lngas. Manuscript no. 3169. Madrid: Biblioteca Nacional. Molina, Cristobal de. [1573] 2008. Relacion de las jabulas y ritos de los incas, ed. Julio Calvo Perez and Henrique Urbano. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Universidad de San Martin de Porres. Murua, Martin de. [1613] l 987. Historia general de! Peru. Madrid: Historia 16. Murua, Martin de. [I 590] 2004. Historia y genealogia de los reyes incas de! Peru. Madrid: Testimonio Compariia Editorial. Muysken, Pieter. 1997. Callahuaya, in Contact Languages: a Wider Perspective, ed. Sara G. Thomason. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 427--47. Oblitas Poblete, Enrique. 1968. El idioma secreto de los incas. La Paz: Talleres de la Editorial del Estado. Oliva, Giovanni Anello. [163 l] 1998. Historia de/ reino y provincias de! Peru y vidas de los varones insignes de la Compaiiia de Jesus. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la PUCP. Ore, Jeronimo de. 1607. Ritmle sev manvale pervanvm. Naples: Jaco bum Carlinum et Constantinum Vitalem. Pachacuti Yamqui Salcamayhua, Joan de Santa Cruz. [1613] 1993. Relacion de antigiiedades deste reyno de! Piru, ethnohistorical and linguistic study by de Pierre Duviols and Cesar !tier. Cuzco: IFEA and Centro Bartolome de Las Casas. Paredes, Monica. 2003. Practicas funerarias incaicas en Sacsayhuaman: enterramientos ceremoniales y complejo funerario. Boletin de Arqueologia PUCP 7, 79-111. Paz Soldan, Mariano Felipe. 1877. Diccionario geografico-estadistico de! Peru. Lima: Imprenta de! Estado. Platt, Tristan, Therese Bouysse-Cassagne, and Olivia Harris. 2004. Qaraqara-Charka. Mallku. lnka y Rey en la provincia de Charca.1· (siglos XV-XVII). La Paz: IFEAPLURAL. Polo, Jose Toribio. 190 I. Indios uros de! Peru y Bolivia. Bo/et in de la Sociedad Geografica de Lima I 0, 445-82. Polo de Ondegardo, Juan. [1559] 1985. Tratado de los errores y svpersticiones delos Yndios, in Tercer Concilio Limense [I 584--5] I 985. Doctrina Christiana, y catecismo para instrvccion de los Indios . .. con vn Confessionario, )' otras cosas . .. Madrid: Consejo Superior de lnvestigaciones Cientificas, 265-83. Protzen, Jean-Pierre. 2005. Arquitectura y construccion inca.1 en 01/antaytambo. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la PUCP. Ramos Gavilan, Alonso. [1621] 1988. Hisloria de! Santuario de Nue.1·1ra Se1iora de Copacahana. Lima: Edicion de Ignacio Prado Pastor.

294

Rodolfo Cerr6n-Palomino

Rowe. John H. 1981. Una relaci6n de los adoratorios de! antiguo Cuzco. Historica 5(2), 209-61. Santo Tomas, Domingo de. [I 560] 1994. Lexicon o vocabulario de la lengua general de/ Peru. Facsimile edition, transliteration and preliminary study by Rodolfo Cerr6nPalomino. Madrid: Ediciones de Cultura Hispanica. Sarmiento de Gamboa, Pedro. [1572] 1965. Historia Indica. Madrid: BAE, Ediciones Atlas, Vol. 135, 195-279. Stark, Louisa. 1972. Machaj-Juyay: secret language of the Callahuayas. Papers in Andean Linguistics 1(2), 199-227. Stiglich, German. 1922. Diccionario geografico de/ Peru. Lima: Imprenta Torres Aguirre. Stiibel, Alphons and Max Uhle. 1892. Die Ruinenstiitte von Tiahuanaco im Hochlande des a/ten Peru: Eine Kulturgeschichtliche Studie auf Grund selbstiintidiger Aujiwhmen. Leipzig: Verlag von Karl W. Hiesermann. Szeminski, Jan. 1990. Un texto en el idioma olvidado de los inkas. Historica 16(2), 379-88. Szeminski, Jan. 1997. De las vidas de/ inka Manqu Qhapaq. Caceres: Fundaci6n Xavier de Salas, Convento de la Coria. Szeminski. Jan. 1998. Del idioma propio de los incas cuzqueiios y de su pertenencia lingiiistica. Historica 22( I), 135-68. Toledo, Francisco de. [1569-74] 1986. Disposiciones gubernatirns para el l'irreinato de/ Peru, intro. Guillermo Lohmann Villena. Seville: Escuela de Estudios Hispanoamericanos de Sevilla. Torero, Alfredo. [l 970] 1972. Lingiiistica e historia de la sociedad andina, in El reto de/ multilingiiismo en el Peru, comp. Alberto Escobar. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, 51-106. Torero, Alfredo. 1987. Lenguas y pueblos altiplanicos en torno al siglo XVI. Revista Andina 10, 329-405 (includes commentaries and response). Torero, Alfredo. 1993. El idioma particular de los incas, in £studios de lengua y cultura amerindias /,ed. Julio Calvo Perez. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia, 231-40. Torero. Alfredo. 2002. Idiomas de los Andes: lingiiistica e historia. Lima: IFEAEditorial Horizonte. Tschudi, Johan Jacob von. [1891] 1918. Contrihuciones a la historia, civili::.acion y lingiiistica de/ Peru antiguo, 2 vols. Lima: Imprenta y Libreria Sanmarti. Uhle, Max. [1910] 1969. Los origenes de los incas, in £studios de Historia Incaica. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, 29-69. Urton, Gary. 2004. Historia de un mito: Pacaritamho y el origen de los inkas. Cuzco: Centro Bartolome de Las Casas.