The power of Huacas: change and resistance in the Andean world of colonial Peru 9780292756953, 9780292756946

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
Acknowledgments (page vii)
Introduction (page 1)
CHAPTER ONE. A Land Obsessed with Confessions; or, The Historians' Insights into the World of Colonial Andean Religious Specialists (page 26)
CHAPTER TWO. Civil Versus Ecclesiastical Authorities (page 47)
CHAPTER THREE. The Sickening Powers of Christianity: A Response by Andean Religious Specialists (page 68)
CHAPTER FOUR. Talking to Demons: The Intensified Persecution of Andean Religious Specialists (ca. 1609-1700) (page 104)
CHAPTER FIVE. From Outspoken Criticism to Clandestine Resistance (page 136)
CHAPTER SIX. Glimpses of the Protective Powers of Andean Rituals in the Highlands (page 175)
CHAPTER SEVEN. Andean Notions of Nature and Harm, and the Disempowerment of Andean Healers (page 192)
CHAPTER EIGHT. Weeping Statues: The End of Jesuit Demonology and the Survival of an Andean Culture (page 229)
CHAPTER NINE. Epilogue (page 254)
Notes (page 273)
Glossary (page 369)
Consulted Archives and List of Abbreviations (page 373)
Bibliography (page 375)
Index (page 443)

Citation preview

THE POWER OF HUACAS

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

THE POWER OF HUACAS Change and Resistance in the Andean World of Colonial Peru

BY CLAUDIA BROSSEDER

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS PRESS “+> Austin

This book was produced with the help of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and Heidelberg University. Copyright © 2014 by the University of Texas Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America First edition, 2014

Requests for permission to reproduce material from this work should be sent to: Permissions University of Texas Press P.O. Box 7819

Austin, TX 78713-7819

http://utpress.utexas.edu/index.php/rp-form © The paper used in this book meets the minimum requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (R1997) (Permanence of Paper). LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA

Brosseder, Claudia, 1973The power of huacas : change and resistance in the Andean world of colonial Peru / by Claudia Brosseder. — First edition.

pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-292-75694-6 (hardback

1. Indians of South America—Peru—Religion. 2. Indians of South America— Peru—Rites and ceremonies. 3.Shamanism—Peru. 4. Peru—Religious life and customs. 5. Peru—History—1548-1820. I. Title. F2230.1.R3B76 2014 299.811'44—dce23

2014002682

doi:10.7560/756946

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments vii

Introduction 1 CHAPTER ONE. A Land Obsessed with Confessions;

or, The Historians’ Insights into the World of Colonial Andean Religious Specialists 26 CHAPTER Two. Civil Versus Ecclesiastical Authorities 47 CHAPTER THREE. The Sickening Powers of Christianity:

A Response by Andean Religious Specialists 68 CHAPTER FOUR. Talking to Demons:

The Intensified Persecution of Andean Religious Specialists (ca. 1609-1700) 104 CHAPTER FIVE. From Outspoken Criticism to

Clandestine Resistance 136 CHAPTER Six. Glimpses of the Protective Powers of Andean

Rituals in the Highlands 175 CHAPTER SEVEN. Andean Notions of Nature and Harm, and

the Disempowerment of Andean Healers 192 CHAPTER EIGHT. Weeping Statues:

The End of Jesuit Demonology and the Survival of an Andean Culture 229 CHAPTER NINE. Epilogue 254

Notes 273 Glossary 369 Consulted Archives and List of Abbreviations 373 Bibliography 375

Index 443

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

TO WRITE THE BOOK was an odyssey, and my travels opened up a great

many possibilities. 1am deeply indebted to the many scholars whom I met. How can I thank them all? Let me try. Chance brought me ashore on the beaches of Peru and then led me further into the Andes. What began as an adventure transformed into an intellectual voyage, which could not have been more felicitous. The Bavarian state, in granting me the Bayerische Habilitationsf6rderpreis, made it possible. I am particularly grateful to Walter Ziegerer, who trusted that my ship would not drift apart on the seemingly endless ocean of transatlantic history. Trust humbles any scholar during his or her research. It serves like an anchor dropped in the dark sea, more necessary to a scholar than to a captain. Without Anthony Grafton, of Princeton; Winfried Schulze and Wulf Oesterreicher, both from Munich, who knew me from my previous endeavors and kindly served as referees; Paula Findlen, at Stanford, and Tamar Herzog, now at Harvard; and finally the referees

from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, my journey would have ended on the river Rhine. Almost miraculously they all trusted that the archival material and the immense scholarship in the various seas through which I would sail would smooth the rough ideas I had in my mind. Special thanks goes again to Anthony Grafton, who was willing to read and comment on earlier drafts of this book, giving generous help when questions arose. I am grateful to the above-mentioned scholars, who live the wonderful practice of scholarly give-and-take, for enabling me to see from the northern Pacific in Stanford what was distinctive about the southern shores of the same ocean. Stanford provided the tranquility I needed to reflect on what I had collected on my many trips to the Andes.

It was particularly during these voyages to South America that I collected much more than flotsam. When I arrived there, especially in Peru, the various archives, libraries, and convents of Cuzco, Lima, Arequipa, Trujillo, Cajamarca, Chiclayo, Piura, Quito, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Santiago de Chile, and La Paz all made available their treasures. They welcomed a total stranger who was searching for information on so suspicious a matter as hechizerta, sorcery, in colonial Peru. Though these collections provided deep insights into colonial as well

vill THE POWER OF HUACAS

as modern South America, they did not contain what I was looking for. As I traveled back and forth to the Andes, on stays both long and brief, I was able to make the acquaintance of many people who helped me in my investigations. In Peru, I must name in particular Ramon Mujica Pinilla, Manuel Marzal (t 2005); Julian Heras, OCD; Armando Nieto; Jeffrey Kleiber; Jorge Flores Ochoa; Marcos Cueto; Luis Millones; Cesar Quiroanga, OBVM; Padre Armando, OP; Jean Jacques Decoster; and the staff of the Centro Bartolomé de las Casas. In Lima, Ram6n Mujica Pinilla shared his abundant knowledge about colonial art with me,

while Marcos Cueto familiarized me with the world of the colonial scientists. In Cuzco, Jorge Flores Ochoa introduced me into the world of Andean ethnographers. I thank them all. I also thank the members of the Jesuit, Dominican, Franciscan, and Mercedarian orders in Lima and Cuzco. The Mercedarians in Cuzco and the Dominicans in Lima decided to lock me into their rich colonial libraries, and my days there determined the paths I would take. Laura Gutiérrez Arbulti from the Archivo Arzobispal in Lima and the ever-helpful staff of the National Library of Lima allowed a gringa to dive into Peruvian documents while

keeping her from drowning. Without the personnel of the various archives, museums, and libraries in South America, Mexico City, Spain, and Rome, I would not have fished out any information. Special thanks go to Monsenor the Archbishop Héctor Miguel Cabrejos Vidarte of Trujillo and Antonio Vasco of the national library of Quito. Iam grateful for the wonderful conversations I had with the Jesuits in Santiago de Chile and the help of the director of the library in Cuzco. Iam particularly indebted to Nasario Turpe Condori, the altomisayug from the Auzangate region, who showed me what trust in the powers of stones truly means. Unfortunately, he can no longer share his visions with us. My insights gained from archival material from New Spain and modern-day Mexico

provided the yardstick necessary to measure differences between the various colonial Latin American areas. They will be analyzed in a sepa-

rate study. My life would be so much poorer without my friends in Peru: Gudrun Mayer-Ullmann and Karl-Heinz Horner, Marina Ascue Cabrera and Senora Raquel Cabrera Antezana, Edilma Samalvides and Douglas Stewart, Pablo Segovia, Holly Wissler, Wendy Weeks, and especially Mauro Condori, Joaquin Garcia Ttito, Fabian Condori Villaga, Timoteo Melo Garcia, Fortunato Condori Condori, and their families from Junuta, Tinqui, and Chaupimayo. They taught me a world of respect for life in the Andes. Some of them showed me an everyday existence that humbles and enriches a researcher’s life.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS _ IX

In the United States, I extend my gratitude to James Sheehan, Stanford University, who kindly served as contact for the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. I thank Tom Cummins, Harvard University, for our unplanned meeting in Lima, when he advised me to think about mulatto hechizeros. I thank Sabine MacCormack (+2012) for the intense conversation we held in her office. I thank Jorge Canizares-Esguerra, University of Texas at Austin, who cordially helped me explore baroque science. Charles Walker, University of California, Davis, generously shared his knowledge about Andean postcolonial times, and Kenneth Mills, University of Toronto, kindly posed the right questions about Andean religious specialists. Londa Schiebinger, Stanford University, offered valuable insights into the world of colonial scientists. Laura Smoller knows more about the discourse of magic and the saints than seems possible. Though I was a stranger, they all greeted me like an old friend. I thank them all. Paula Findlen gave me the opportunity to enjoy the amenity of the wonderful place called Stanford and teach a seminar there. I thank her deeply for this learning opportunity and her generous support. Tamar Herzog, with her admirably steadfast will, persuaded me that English was the proper language for this book so that it might reach an international audience beyond the Germanspeaking academic world. I thank her for her generous support over the years and her lucid critique of the manuscript. William Taylor of the University of California, Berkeley, invited me to give a presentation at the Latin American Studies Seminar at Berkeley after kindly having read the first forty pages of this book. Iam grateful for his conversations and the critique I received from him and the members of this stimulating circle. I thank the staft of the John Carter Brown Library in Providence, Rhode Island, who helped dig out unanticipated riches in books originating in colonial Peru. The Harvard Atlantic History Seminar was one of the harbors that provided time to explore, discuss, and laugh about history. I thank Bernard Bailyn, Allan Greer, my young colleagues, and especially David Tavarez for his keen and supportive comments on the entire manuscript. Thanks go as well to Nicholas Griffiths and Gabriela Ramos, both in the United Kingdom, who gave valuable advice. The members of the Cambridge Seminar on Astrology gave valuable comments on a draft, related to this study, of an article on the history of science in the New World. I want to thank José Carlos Farrago, whose enthusiasm for the Quechua language opened a new door into an unknown world. I extend my gratitude to Oriana Bleecher, who showed me how to fare in

X THE POWER OF HUACAS

the rough seas of English, and to Alice Falk, who is an extremely sharp and helpful copy editor.

In Stanford, good fortune brought me into a seminar taught by Nathan Wachtel. I joined his mind- and heart-opening voyage into the past. I want to thank him for his pointed question: And what about the Andean side? I also want to express my gratitude to him for having read and commented on the entire manuscript. I want to thank Tristan Platt for generously sharing his great knowledge about the Andean world

with me and helpfully asking the right questions when reading the manuscript. Likewise, Iam indebted to Sabine Hyland for her valuable comments. All shortcomings, however, are my responsibility. When colleagues in the United States encouraged me to apply for

a job at an American university, I landed at Stetson University in Deland, Florida. There, Bob and June Sitler, Bill and Nize Nylen, Margaret Venzke, Kimberly and Michael Reiter, Grady Ballenger, and par-

ticularly Elisabeth Poeter and Susanne Eulen opened their doors for the unknown Ms. Brosseder. I thank them all for their warm welcome, their great collegiality, and their friendship. I thank the students in my Latin American history seminars, who helped the almost shipwrecked

German to see that Latin American history requires knowledge, enthusiasm, and an awareness of social injustice. I thank Hyman Sternthal, who encouraged me to learn to see in a different direction. But there are also many friends in many areas of the world I was so lucky to meet, who established a stable home for the passerby. I want to express special thanks to Philippe Buc. Without his encouragement, help, and constant critique, I would have underestimated that it “all makes deep sense.” During the long absences, my German friends Stefan Mauerer, Karl Sattler, Brigitte Irmler and Bruno Zackskorn, and Christa Benecke have been truly needed and trustworthy companions. I thank Tankred Steinicke for the maps. A scholar who only briefly drops his or her anchor in a mooring is grateful to the people who provide shelter for this fleeting stay. Shan March let me live in her cabin near Stanford, a wonderful place with unexpected visitors who made the long days behind the computer screen yet another adventure. I want to thank her dearly. Supporting me through both smooth and rough seas while this book was produced was my family. The constant help of Gerlinde, Johannes,

and Ursula Brosseder was much needed and much appreciated. Leni Klingele accompanied me on the many journeys in her mind. Wherever I was, she found encouraging words. Eberhard Weiger lives what I study, and I thank him dearly for his great help. During all these voy-

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS XI

ages my husband kept my ship on the right course. Iam deeply grateful

for his patience, sensitivity, openness to social injustice, happiness, and strength. I hope he knows what I owe him. Our two sons bring the greatest joy. Therefore, to my husband, to my sons, and to our dear friends in the southern Andes, especially in the Vilcanota Cordillera, I want to dedicate this book.

NOTE: Unless otherwise credited, all photographs are by Claudia Brosseder.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

THE POWER OF HUACAS

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

INTRODUCTION

ALMOST ALL OF THE SPANIARDS who came to the Andes from 1532

onward and left written records found the many different Quechua and Aymara terms for denoting what we can call, for lack of a better term, religious specialists highly problematic: achik, achicoc, achiycamayok,

amauta, aucachic, ychuri, calparicu, camasca, soncoyoc cauchu, runapmicuc, condeviza, hacaricuc, cuyricuc, hacchini, hampicamayoc, hampioc or hampicoc, guacamayoc, huasca, huachachik or huachachicuc, huatuc or watog, layca, macsa, villac, mdscoc, omo, umu or homo, miuycamayoc, pacharicuc, rdpiac, socayoc, vacanqui camayoc, vallaviza, viropiricoc, vizaconas, yacarcaes, yachaccunacta, tala, tutu, phuu, supayona alicomata haque, toqueni, and hamuni:' As the Spaniards transformed Quechua and Aymara into written languages, they spelled these terms in various ways. They also debated how the words should be translated, most often rendering them “diviners,” “priests,” “people who cast lots,” “wise men,” “confessors,” “sorcerers, “high priests,” “herbalists,” “people who kill with poison,” “midwives,” and “practitioners of love magic.” Spaniards subcategorized “diviners” according to their “instruments”; for example, spiders, beans, spittle, entrails, [lama dung, dreams, tremors of the arm, coca leaves, and grains of maize.* Colonial Aymara was particularly rich in verbs indicating actions that Spaniards interpreted as divinations, including aroKkhaatha, coca phahuatha, hacchitha, hacchirapitha, huankona ul-

latha, huanko cchaatha, piuirutatha, huankona anocarapana ullatha, hamuttatha, hamuttatha and acahamani, and sapinitha.’ These different terms provided more detail than the blanket term “diviner” by specifying the instrument of divination. Yet despite this diversity and specificity in native terminology and native arts, lexical univocality reigned in Spanish discussions of indige-

2 THE POWER OF HUACAS

nous beliefs and practices. Most Spaniards simply resorted to the concept of hechizero (sorcerer) to label Andean religious specialists, and hechizeria (sorcery) to encompass his or her acts. Evidently, Spaniards used the category of hechizeria as a blunt tool, ignoring differences between Quechua, Aymara, and many other religious specialists.* In early sixteenth-century Spain and colonial Peru, the meanings of hechizeria were basically threefold: “false god, false cult, false actions,” or “idolatry, superstition, sorcery.” In his orderly cosmos, Thomas Aquinas elevated

superstitio above sorcery, divination, magic, and idolatry.” According to him, superstitio was “a-religio,” and the label belonged properly to any cult or belief deviating from the official religion, Catholicism. In

this way, a concept of hechizeria with implications of superstition and idolatry came to dominate Peruvian sources and Spanish actions toward certain Andean people. Even more, the dynamics of this Spanish

discourse about hechizeria and its constant dialogue with the Andean people had sociopolitical consequences that changed the Andean world in an unprecedented way.° To date, a few books have reconstructed the European discourse on Andean hechizeria and its effects on Andean religious specialists.’ Important studies on which this book builds have treated different aspects of the complex history of colonial hechizeria as it reached into many contexts that historians of the colonial Andes have examined: the Spanish and Creole extirpation-of-idolatry campaigns in the archdiocese of Lima during the seventeenth century; the emergence of an Andean Catholic world; the history of gender relations and, in part, of witches in a colonial setting; the history of the relationship between Andean and Spanish political institutions premised on colonialism; the history of the persecution of non-Andean Spanish, Creole, and Afro-Peruvian ritual specialists; and the ongoing history of Andean and Inca religious- and sociopolitical-economic structures, by Pierre Duviols, Kenneth Mills, Juan Carlos Garcia Cabrera, Frank Salomon, Luis Millones, Gabriela Ramos, José Carlos de la Puente Luna, Sabine MacCormack, Ana Sanchez, Nicholas Griffiths, Juan Carlos Estenssoro Fuchs, Laura Larco, Bonnie Glass-Coffin, Irene Silverblatt, Maria Manarelli, Iris Gareis, Polia Meconi, Tristan Platt, Therése BouysseCassagne, Thierry Saignes, Gabriel Martinez, Josep Barnadas, and many others on the Inca and Andean world.®

No single book, however, has analyzed the evolution of Andean rituals and their symbolic makeup during colonial times in more detail in an effort to reconstruct the effects of the discourse of hechizeria on

INTRODUCTION 3

the Andean world and of accompanying transcultural interactions and dialectical dynamics between Spaniards, Creoles, and Andeans. Analyzing Andean rituals and especially their symbolic makeup allows this book to show in which respect the world of Andean religious specialists changed; how it changed, on both the level of concepts and beneath the level of theoretical discourse, on the basis of practices and due to the practical give-and-take between Spaniards, Andeans, and, in part, Afro-Peruvians; and why it changed. The book argues that certain elements within the complex world of Andean religious specialists’ rituals changed owing to the Spanish invasion and to cultural influxes that came in its wake, and yet maintained something that might be called an Andean logic. Among these elements, and one especially preserved among Andean religious specialists in the highlands, is an Andean concept of the embodiment of specific powers (which we might call a concept of the “holy”)? of nature, and of an Andean understanding of sickness, social harmony, and the coexistence of cultures. Most of these principles continued to work as fundamental organizational principles of the Andean world and even dictated the responses that ritual specialists gave to transcultural interactions and, in particular, the European invasion and the introduction of Christianity —despite changes that can be observed

in the function of Andean religious specialists in colonial Andean society, within their rituals, their performances, and their symbolic makeup. The European introduction of a distinction between natural and supernatural spheres most radically challenged Andean concepts of nature.’° A nuanced tracing from an Andean perspective of where change and resistance to change—from precolonial to early and later colonial times—were located is one of the principal aims of this book, as is the analysis of the evolution of the European discourse on hechizeria in Peru and in Europe, as the vicissitudes of the European discourse reflected back and forth across the Atlantic. This European discourse on magic serves as a mirror of the Andean world. It was also an important vehicle for change in the Andean world. As the book strives to present explanations for either change or resistance on both sides, it analyzes the dynamics of the dialogue between Andean religious specialists and European and Creole Christians

by analyzing shifts—existing or nonexisting—within the structure of Andean concepts of sickness, health, the embodiment of powers, nature, coexistence of two cultures, and social harmony; and within Christian concepts of representation, the natural, the preternatural and

4 THE POWER OF HUACAS

the supernatural, salvation, social harmony, and the “holy” —something that in both worlds, even though it was differently conceived, required human respect and veneration and was, perhaps, beyond human reach. Analysis of these parameters of the interaction between European and native perceptions reveals that within the encounter of these different

cultures, the grounding principles changed more radically in Europe and among Europeans in the Andes than among Andeans, where ritual specialists and commoners may have adopted Christian images and rites but retained the same basic understanding of what was important and how it could be defended, what was holy and what was the relation-

ship between what Europeans perceived as natural versus the supernatural sphere. The book will also examine what assimilation really meant for different inhabitants of the Andean world. This book relies on the perspective of a historiography that is at once historicist (taking into account historical change) and structuralist (uncovering underlying structures with a quality of Jongue durée). In doing

so, the intent is to contribute to our understanding of the dynamics of transcultural processes in the Andean world—a world that was neither trapped in cultural stagnation nor upended by total cultural change." THE FOCUS OF THE BOOK

My investigation of the history of hechizertfa from the late sixteenth to the late eighteenth century and its related intellectual parameters from the perspective of the transcultural processes rests on many different types of sources. The main informants of this history are the various chroniclers, the Huarochiri Manuscript, Jesuit cartas annuas (or litterae annuae, the annual letters, which are most explicit during the first half of the seventeenth century}, reports by individual Jesuits, and other Jesuit manuscripts. Crucial are visitation records produced by the extirpation-of-idolatry campaigns in the archdiocese of Lima (sometimes identical with the information contained in the cartas annuas). 1 also make use of the records of civil visitas that were conducted

mainly to collect tributes if they contain information relevant to our understanding of the world of Andean religious specialists. The same holds true for the relaciones geogrdficas, as these official reports to the Council of the Indies in Seville sometimes contained information on local Andean customs and knowledge. Scholarly treatises of both Peruvian and European origin (provided that they found their way into the

Andes} were consulted, in addition to sermons by secular priests—

INTRODUCTION §

mainly in Cuzco and Lima—and by priests who belonged to the various orders. Inquisition records from Lima documenting the persecution of

Spanish, Creole, and Afro-Peruvian ritual specialists; colonial paintings, statues, and other objects from the central and southern highlands; and annotated books that I found in former colonial libraries in several Peruvian cities all provided vital information on how the Spanish and Creole discourse on hechizeria evolved in its interaction with the Andean world and how the world of Andean religious specialists and of commoners changed.” In all this, as the reader will notice, I concentrate on Jesuit sources and visitation records, given that the Jesuits undoubtedly were the most meticulous in describing the acts performed by Andean religious specialists from the late sixteenth century onward. In the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the Jesuits considered Andean religious specialists to be their greatest rivals and focused a great deal of effort on persecuting hechizeros. This book, however, does not attempt to add to the existing histories of the Jesuit order in colonial Peru; doing so would require comparing their Peruvian engagements with their many other evangelical projects in other parts of the Spanish and Portuguese empires, as well as in Europe and Asia.’ Instead, the Jesuit views presented in this book are used mainly to provide an entry into the Andean world.

In sketching the world of Andean religious specialists from an Andean perspective, the book has to overcome a number of methodological traps—the major one being that colonial Andeans, with the exception of a very few documents from the early seventeenth century, left no written record of their world that is understood today." But one of the most meaningful spheres for grasping the world of Andean religious specialists during the colonial period is that of rituals centered on “instruments,” or objects, used by healers, diviners, and priests. Such objects included stones, sebo (fat), maize, coca, guinea pigs, powders, feathers, toads, certain plants, and yllas (objects of various forms; some-

times stones that resembled maize or llamas). Members of two institutions paid particular attention to the enumeration of these objects, which were considered to be “idols,” often recording their Quechua (and,

sometimes, Aymara) names: the Jesuits and the visitators (or notaries] in the extirpation-of-idolatry campaigns in Lima. The Jesuit reports indirectly drew on insights from private confessions that were products of psychological pressure. The visitators’ records were the outcome

of public confessions and persecutions that threatened the Indians with corporal punishment. And even though the Jesuits’ or visitators’

6 THE POWER OF HUACAS

notaries did not describe these items as explicitly as an archaeologist would do today and, unlike ethnological data on modern-day mesas,'° often did not capture their exact place within a ritual performance, the obsessive documentation of the objects for the sake of their destruction provides many clues about cultural resistances and transformations, as these records show little influence of a Spanish interpretation. In contrast, when chroniclers, Jesuits, visitators, or notaries tried to record Andean narratives about ritual practices and performances, or to grasp an underlying intellectual foundation, Spanish concepts heavily influenced their narrative. As this book will show, most of these objects—as well as practices

of Andean ritual specialists and paradigms—were not necessarily only of local or regional importance, or even of importance only for an individual Andean religious specialist. Instead, each had a long tradition, and some of the objects had long-established symbolic meanings in various archaeological cultures or within various sociopolitical or ethnic Andean groups. These symbols and objects were embodied powers that retained a notion of sacredness and were conceptually tied to huacas.” In examining some of these symbols and objects (such as stones, birds, villca, toads, the color white, huacanquis, yllas, bezoar stones, fat, coca), this book seeks to capture shifts in these objects over time, including their symbolic meanings and use in rituals. The first step toward that end is to decode some of these significations by carefully drawing on seventeenth-century practices, local Andean myths, Inca history, colonial Quechua/Aymara-Spanish dictionaries, and a close analysis of a European rendering.’” In some instances, we will look at archaeological and semiotic fields of some of the abovementioned objects and symbols. The second step will be to examine how the importance of these symbols and objects changed for religious specialists during the colonial period. The book also contextualizes Andean religious specialists’ practices as they, in the representation of the Europeans, were the ones that got most heavily imprinted by a European understanding (such as communication with huacas, taking “confessions,” use of hallucinogens, fabricating figurines, healing, divination, inflicting harm). By contextualizing Andean symbols, objects, and practices in an Andean and

(sometimes necessarily) Inca setting, as well as in its representation in the European discourse, Andean cultural paradigms are uncovered, layer by layer, as they were: notions of embodiment, nature, sickness, health, coexistence of culture, fertility, and social harmony.

INTRODUCTION 7

Assimilations in the realms of symbolic meanings, practices, and beliefs are particularly difficult to grasp, especially in a society that pos-

sessed many local traditions. Adding to the challenge in the case of Andean religious specialists is the variability of their practices: their rituals depended on the cultural conventions of each specific ayl/u, or even on the customs of one particular individual. But as archaeologists and ethnohistorians such as John Murra and many others have shown,

one of the central features of the pre-Columbian (pre-Inca, Andean, and Inca) world was its remarkable exchange network, which enabled goods, ideas, and symbols to travel rapidly from the coast through the Andes to the Amazon region and vice versa.” This ease of transmission,

in turn, caused many symbols and practices to be shared by different sociopolitical communities and ethnic groups.” During Inca and colonial times, Indians were forced to move between various regions at an astonishing rate, leading to more intermingling.° As this book argues, religious specialists relied in essence on a supralocal cosmos of preColumbian symbolism and practices, with slight regional variations. Religious specialists throughout the Andes trusted in the meaning and power of a fairly limited set of symbols, though each specialist decided individually on the arrangement of these symbols within a ritual.*’ The performance thus varied. The careful employment of archaeological and ethnological evidence to scrutinize the shifts in Andean beliefs and symbolic meanings that resulted from assimilation and the contextualization of Andean practices in Andean and European contexts, and especially the European discourse on magic, is new to this volume, as is the recognition of parallel processes of assimilation between Andean, Spanish, and Creole specialists with respect to love magic, and—with respect to sympathetic magic— Afro-Peruvian ritual specialists.

Throughout the colonial period, as this book shows, religious specialists took different approaches to including symbols in their mesas and practices. As the array of sources suggests, many religious specialists (particularly those from the central and the southern highlands), despite changes in their social status and in their function, continued to adhere to long-established Andean symbolic meanings and powers throughout the colonial period and beyond (even to this day, in some local traditions). In the highland regions, although the material carrier of the symbol sometimes changed over the course of the later seventeenth century—for example, hard liquor might substitute for chicha (maize beer], tobacco leaves for ground tobacco, and smoke for colored powders—its meaning and associated power did not. Often the place of

8 THE POWER OF HUACAS

the symbol within the ritual conveyed a symbolic meaning that seems to have been established in the distant Andean past. As this book ar-

gues, mesas and their objects in the central and southern highlands condensed the essence of Andean notions of embodiment and the holy. As I will show, during the colonial period these symbols used in rituals

proved to be the last bastion of resistance against Christian evangelization. Indirectly, resistance grew out of the Andean notion of embodied powers in Andean huacas. In contrast, the colonial Andean religious specialists of the northern and central coast more rapidly adopted the symbols of the Christian church.*? Moreover, as this book shows, during the colonial period the European discourse about sympathetic

magic, as well as the practices of Spanish and Afro-Peruvian ritual specialists, affected the rituals of Andean religious specialists in both coastal and highland regions, as at different times they began to use such items as pierced toads or puppets, tobacco leaves, and spirits. Another peculiarity of the reactions of indigenous religious specialists to transcultural processes will also be investigated: especially in the highlands, religious specialists were more open to including invocations of Jesus, Mary, and the saints—and thus of something “ideal”—than to using material objects from the Christian tradition. Again, this peculiar assimilation was firmly rooted in an Andean notion of the embodiment of power. The varied responses over time and space of religious

specialists to Christianity will be an important focus of this book in addressing a number of questions: In which areas did members of the various cultural traditions adopt ideas, practices, and symbols from a previously foreign culture? How and where did Europeans and Andeans allow assimilations within the concept of embodiment and the realm of the holy? In which areas did these assimilations follow a cultural logic,

and in which are they instead best described by using the concept of mélanges?**

The investigation of these multiple levels of interactions between Spanish, Andean, and rudimentary Afro-Peruvian cultures through the lens of Jesuits, ecclesiastics, and Andean religious specialists pulls together the metropolitan and local histories of the central and southern Andes, some small villages, and several Jesuit missionary outposts in colonial Peru. I concentrate (in geographic terms) on the central, south-central, and southern Andes, making reference to the coast from modern-day northern to southern Peru.*? As viewed by the Inca empire, this area represents the heartland of Inca Tawantinsuyo. As viewed by colonial ecclesiastics, the area under investigation includes

INTRODUCTION 9

the dioceses of Lima, Cuzco, Charcas, and Trujillo. As viewed by colonial administrators, this area was mainly identical with the Audiencia of Lima.*° I give some consideration to occurrences in the Audiencias of Quito and Charcas, but little to the Audiencia of Chile. In the ter-

minology of Jesuit political organization, I concentrate on the province of Peru, established in 1568. I make some reference to the missionary activities among the so-called Mojos, celebrated by Jesuits as famous hechizeros, though I largely exclude the missionary regions of Maynas in the western Amazon and of Chiquitos near Santa Cruz de la Sierra. More sparing are my explorations into the Jesuit provinces of Paraguay and Nueva Granada. Colonial chroniclers considerably simplified the diversity of different ethnic groups of the Andean peoples, but from a linguistic standpoint of colonial times this book deals with Quechua- and Aymara-speaking Indians.’ These categories embrace a considerable number of so-called ethnic groups of the Inca and colonial era, including, among others, the Chanca, Vilca, Collagua, Chachapoya, Huamachuco, Conchuco, Chinchaycocha, Yauyo, Lupa, Cana, Canchi, Aymara, Sora, Yanahuara, Omasuyu, Atabillo, and Huanca.”®

This history of the Andean-Christian dialogue requires at once a transatlantic and local perspective, as well as a careful conceptualization. Investigations into the history of both European and Andean religion and science, into their medical knowledge and practices, and into early modern European natural philosophy are all necessary. Some scholars familiar with the complexities of Peruvian history may view writing such a book as sheer intellectual hubris. Others may question the utility of such a broad perspective, arguing that only a microhistorical approach—centering on one local tradition—can render valu-

able insights into the idiosyncrasies of these transcultural dynamics between Andeans and Christians.*’ Yet if we are to reconstruct assimilations, changes, and resistances within Andean ritual practices and within the world of Andean religious specialists, we have to deal with the limitations of the available colonial sources. Unfortunately, they do not allow us to trace continuities and discontinuities in religious specialists’ rituals and beliefs within a certain geographic area, or even for a particular individual. An individual with his or her ritual appears — perhaps in only a glimpse—on the surface of history, and then

is lost again in its unrecorded depths. Sometimes Spaniards revisited certain villages and added to the existing written record, but in most cases these new reports concerned other individuals, other huacas, and other rituals. And at least for the beginning of the early sixteenth cen-

10 THE POWER OF HUACAS

tury (and often beyond)—despite all the differences between Andean religious practices, rituals, and concepts of local origin—they can be clearly distinguished from the Christian rituals and concepts that missionaries, priests, and conquistadors tried to communicate to Andeans. In the beginning, Christianity is thus distinct from local Andean religions. This distinction is a necessary heuristic tool to discern assimilations, changes, and resistances—engagements that were mutual. In seeking to reconstruct these differences, and given the nature of the available sources, the book merges several local Andean traditions, almost in a macroperspective, to investigate their differences with Christianity. Only in this context does it mention an “Andean logic” and “Andean paradigms.”

I hope to convince my readers that data from these various areas, cultural groupings, and different fields of knowledge are not arbitrarily lumped together, but ultimately join into a coherent conceptual framework that reveals the idiosyncrasies of the encounter of different cultures. THE ORGANIZATION OF THIS BOOK

This book is mainly about discourses and their evolution. At the same time, it is about practices, as it examines their changes. Its investigation covers much of the colonial period—that is, from the early 1540s

to the late eighteenth century—and the choice of time frame is not arbitrary. During the colonial period, the church, civil authorities, and especially the Jesuits turned hechizeria into a public issue. After 1800, the sources use a different language in discussing hechizeria and healers. By then, the often ferocious, puzzling, concerned, and stirring tone that sixteenth- and seventeenth-century sources employed when talking about indigenous, Creole, mestizo, and mulatto forms of hechi-

zeria and healing practices had all but disappeared. Within this time frame, the dialectic that evolved between Andean religious specialists and Christian (especially Jesuit) priests dictates the book’s organization; that is, the book in its structure tries to capture responses of Andeans to European actions and arguments and vice versa. The book at large is chronologically arranged, but in the attempt to get at Andean notions it is often requisite to introduce flashbacks within single chapters. Moreover, the book depends on European representations but dismantles them layer by layer so as to get to an understanding of Andean beliefs. At the end, the book weaves together the different strands of

INTRODUCTION 11

contexts in which the history of Andean religious specialists, their beliefs, and practices was placed. None of the existing frameworks in the wide range of scholarship consulted on the relationship between relligion and “magic” proved adequate.” At the end of this introduction I provide an overview of basic sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century Spanish assumptions regarding the concept of hechizerfa. Over the course of the book I show how this sixteenth-century, basically medieval notion of hechizeria changed. In chapter 1, I jump directly into the seventeenth century and show the urgency Jesuits and others felt in making Andean religious specialists confess in order to liberate Andean souls and lands from the grip of the demon and to outwit the Andean hechizeros, whom they viewed as rivals. By trying to (re)define alleged Andean canons of sins, these authors collected—indirectly, en passant, and detached from the individual sinner —information on rituals and on the standing of ritual specialists in Andean society as they informed the annual letters. Together with the avowals of Andean suspects in the legal framework of ecclesiastical visitation processes, those turned out to be valuable documents about colonial Andean rituals. From an Andean perspective, these catalogs of sins reveal the notion and centrality of sickness for the wellbeing of Andean society during Inca times; a notion—as will be shown in chapter 2—that acquired a new quality due to the European conquest. From a European perspective, Spaniards in those times were still interested in highlighting similarities between Andean and Christian religion in an attempt to accommodate Christianity to Andean converts. Chapter 2 takes a retrospective look into the sixteenth century to discuss how and why the issue of hechizeria gained momentum in colonial society in the first place. The chapter discusses the links between the first documented Andean response of religious specialists to Christianity in the so-called Taki Onkoy rebellion, Viceroy Toledo’s and Albornoz’s approaches to idolatry extirpation, and the execution of the last insurgent Inca, Tupac Amaru. As the Andeans presented Spanish presence as a new kind of sickness, and as the religious specialists’ argument in favor of two “republics” (another colonial Andean parameter] threatened Spanish political ambitions, Viceroy Toledo wanted to impose capital punishment for the teachers of Andean hechizerias; before long, this move was put on hold by the Jesuits, who soon after their arrival managed to gain political prominence in colonial Peru. The Jesuits ultimately became the ideologues behind the Peruvian discourse on hechizerta in the archdiocese of Lima, as well as in their missions, until

12 THE POWER OF HUACAS

the second half of the seventeenth century. Civil authorities regained prime responsibility for anewly understood business of hechizeria only during the latter half of the eighteenth century (as will be shown in chapter 8). Chapter 3 reconstructs key Andean notions about transformation, birds, stones, embodiment, huacas, and the necessity of active commemoration of the power of huacas as a precondition for the functioning of Andean society—beliefs that came under acute threat due to the conversions of Andean commoners to Christianity. This chapter also analyzes the Andean belief in the limits of the powers of Andean religious specialists, and how they were distinguished from the power of huacas, thereby showing that the prime task of an Andean religious specialist in early colonial times was to ensure and restore life with the help of huacas. It was on this fundamental level of what constituted the Andean concept of embodiment and the interrelated Andean concept of nature that a lack of understanding between Andeans and Christians with respect to notions of the preter- and supernatural, nature, and sickness was rooted. This chapter thus lays the groundwork for understanding the organizational principle of embodiment in the Andean

world during early and, in many respects, as will be shown later, throughout colonial times. Only on the basis of this and the other principles mentioned above can we question, understand, and measure the impact of assimilations on the Andean world. In chapter 4, Ishow how Christians in the archdiocese of Lima as well as in Jesuit missions, as both Andean religious specialists and commoners responded to evangelization, slowly sharpened their ideological tools and their methods of persecution. Andeans who were first thought to have been the vic-

tims of the devil, to whom they spoke in stones, became the willful agents of the devil and made him enter idols. I add to existing accounts of this particular aspect of history*' the evidence of interconnectedness with the European discourse on magic, even in its earliest beginnings, and evidence that this trend simultaneously depended on and produced a parallel development: the convergence of the discourse on indigenous

belief with the discourse on mulatto, Creole, and Spanish (and thus non-Andean]) hechizeros and witches. The representation of the Andean religious specialist within this discourse not only afflicted the lives of many, but also changed the perception of Andean religious specialists through Andean commoners and thus contributes to our understanding of why and how changes occurred. The chapter ends by discussing the impact of this discourse beyond the archdiocese of Lima, especially in Jesuit missions. In chapter 5, Ienter the spheres of Andean commoners

INTRODUCTION 13

and religious specialists to discuss their respective assimilations of and resistances to Catholicism, arguing that there were at least three “republics” during colonial times. For Andean religious specialists of the

central and southern Andes, even though their role in society had changed and they worked clandestinely, assimilations never replaced Andean symbolic meanings and challenged but did not alter the concept of embodiment, and Catholic objects were not incorporated into southern Andean rituals. Therefore, along the lines of the Andean notion of embodiment, adopting Christian notions proved for some Andean religious specialists simpler than the adoption of objects. When Jesuits saw this resilience and, above all, became more critical about their order’s own evangelization methods and the perceived failure of a forceful persecution of Andean religious specialists, they resorted to different approaches. In part, they were willing to modify their own missionary strategies and symbols so as to disempower Andean religious specialists. Chapter 6 continues with the Andean perspective, discussing the function and structure of Andean rituals during the seventeenth century and providing insights into the Andean notion of sickness and healing rituals performed by ritual specialists from the central Andes (to the extent that the sources allow). The role of healers, which has always been fundamental to the role of Andean religious specialists in precolonial and early colonial Andean society, became the official profile of Andean religious specialists, one result of previous persecutions. It will be argued that many Andean ritual specialists con-

tinued to adhere to a notion of sickness that required a sacred geography in the lands they inhabited and required them to carry the sacred geography of Andean huacas in the minds and bags of Andean religious

specialists, thereby maintaining an early colonial Andean notion of embodiment and of sickness despite assimilations. The Andean vision of two “republics,” which had already been formulated in times of the Taki Onkoy movement was now projected into the realm of sicknesses and healings and the competence of Andean versus Spanish healers. For some, the Incas rose to guarantors of health. Yet the role of Andean religious specialists, as will be shown in chapter 7, continued to change. The sixteenth- and seventeenth-century discourse on hechizeria with its many facets, unfolded up to here, and interactions between Afro-

Peruvian and Creole and Andean religious specialists challenged an Andean understanding of nature and fostered the introduction of a notion of sympathetic magic, challenging for the first time most radically the Andean concepts of natural processes. Simultaneously, the

14 THE POWER OF HUACAS

notion of sympathetic magic changed the way evil was believed to be inflicted during Inca times (and, for others, still valid during colonial

times) and the way Andeans thought that evil was brought into the world (something that is also shown in chapter 3). By way of the fusion of concepts and symbols (such as evil harm and the symbol of toads) and practices (such as piercing puppets or toads) in instances related to sympathetic magic changed once more the role of Andean religious specialists in their society. Increasingly, they were sought after as protectors against evil as well as masters of it. Finally, in chapter 8, turning to the evolution of the Andean-Christian transcultural dynamics beyond the late seventeenth century, and after having analyzed how fundamental Andean principles (such as sickness, embodiment, a belief in huacas and the commemoration of their powers, and the vision of the separation of two cultures) dictated reactions of either assimilation or resistance to transcultural influxes, I show how the Jesuit interest in hechizeria was replaced both by a new kind of naturalism and, framed in the words of the European discourse on magic, by an interest in natural and

technical magic. Criticism of demonology was introduced into the Andes indirectly via the reception of Athanasius Kircher’s writings on technical magic. Nationwide interest in indigenous hechizeros dwindled, and it flared up again only in the provinces in contexts that exhibited a notion of hechizeria that was new—different from the one that had dominated late sixteenth- and seventeenth-century discourse — and enforced by different agents: no longer the Jesuits, but now civil institutions and a local clergy under the tutelage of local bishops (Arequipa, Quito, Cuzco, and Cajamarca}, and enforced for different ends: no longer for the salvation of “barbarian territories” or for the sake of “two republics,” but for social peace and cultural homogenization in Creole society, and as a response to a new kind of Andean ritual specialist, one that was a product of colonial encounters. Throughout the book I have been careful in my use of language to avoid Eurocentrism, “essentialism,” and other red flags that scholars —

sometimes rightly, sometimes polemically—have waved at those entering the history of the colonial world.°** Despite talk of the religious

specialist or the Spaniards or the church, we should never forget that alternative voices existed in every sector of society. Whenever the book

speaks of the Andean highland ritual specialist, this implies the majority of them but never all. Just as the worlds of indigenous religious specialists varied, the Spanish church also encompassed great diversity. In fact, the persecution of hechizeros was often shaped largely by the

INTRODUCTION 15

personal inclinations of one particular priest, bishop, or archbishop.*’ One group did push toward uniformity: the Jesuits, who, with their organization, incredible communication network, and powerful political influence during much of the early seventeenth century, forced a good deal of homogeneity upon the colonial world (despite the presence of dissenters in their own ranks).°* However, in the interest of uncovering both assimilation processes and structural differences between Andean and Christian concepts of nature, the holy, and human powers, I have made no eftort to capture all of the deviations from the “standard” European or Andean discourses, though meaningful divergences or idiosyncrasies have been addressed. This book seeks to capture the flux of meanings of ideas, symbols, and rituals for both Andeans and Europeans, examining shifts in the argumentation and politics of representatives of European culture, and focusing on the continuities and discontinuities created by this dialogue. Above all, my aim is to put the indigenous world, the Spanish world, and sometimes even the AfroPeruvian world into a context of constant dialogue, without making judgments about what is correct, false, brutal, good, or bad. We may certainly employ these adjectives when talking about political acts, but when it comes to perceptions, such labels rarely help us achieve deeper knowledge. Since many people from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds were involved in colonial-era Peruvian religious dynamics, I have chosen to apply the term “Spaniard” or “Creole” not only to those either born in Spain or in the New World, but also to any intellectual trained in the European tradition who brought that tradition to South America. Whenever I speak of “Creole society,” I refer to the new colonial society established in Peru, disregarding its ethnic or cultural composition. The term “Andean” —and sometimes “Indian” (in sources often called indios}, “Amerindian,” “native South American” or “indige-

nous person” —when not otherwise qualified, refers to an individual who advocated Andean or Andean-Christian traditions. But when sources have identified “Mestizos,” I kept that term. Blacks, in the sources sometimes labeled as “Negros,” are referred to either as AfroPeruvians or as blacks. When the sources name mulattos and specify other castas, I have maintained the original denotation. I did not attempt to identify their ethnicity—a task for other studies to fulfill. I embarked on this project well aware of the intellectual minefields in this area of scholarship; the book’s success at traversing them is left for the reader to decide.

16 THE POWER OF HUACAS

ON THE USE OF TERMS; OR THE DEFINITION OF HECHIZERIA AT THE OUTSET OF COLONIAL TIMES

One Iberian author, Martin de Castanega, who was especially popular among Spanish writers in Mexico and Peru, set ground for the transatlantic spread of the basic meaning of hechizeria as “false god, false cult, false actions” or “idolatry, superstition, sorcery.” Writing on the background of a long and intricate Iberian history of hechizeria* that involved Christians, Moors, lawyers, poets, inquisitors, theologians, and natural philosophers (among many others}, a pious Franciscan and a follower of Thomas Aquinas, Castanega perceived a deep cleavage in his world between, on the one hand, the Catholic Church and, on the other, the diabolical church.*° Hechizeros and witches belonged to the latter. His “subtle” and “thorough” treatise on the subject, Supersticiones y hechizeritas, was published in 1529. This small book could serve as a vade mecum for medical doctors, healers, village wizards, and diviners, providing a ready reference to check the orthodoxy of certain rituals.*”’ In the course of these evaluations, Castanega labeled hechizeros base ministers of the demon, performing “vain and superstitious deeds.” Castanega provided a long-winded explication: “|S]Jome have an

occult pact with the demon, when they are—as they think, without abjuring —‘apostasizing,’ or losing the Catholic faith, believe in, and perform diabolical ceremonies and invocations; but these have an occult

pact|,]... for their ceremonies entail apostasies from Christ... and what they do is against Christ and his law; these we commonly call hechiceros.”** Witches, in contrast, consciously renounced Catholicism when entering a pact with the devil.*’ Castanega’s criterion for distin-

guishing between orthodox and sinful acts of hechizeria was adherence to Catholic rites and Catholic sacraments.” The rites of the Jews, Moors, and hechizeros were not “sacramientos” but “execramientos” — excrements in the diabolical church.’ Castanhega’s program equating

non-Catholic beliefs and rituals with hechizeria was unspectacularly medieval.*” His chief authorities were the Bible, Augustine, the church councils, and Thomas Aquinas—and not, for example, natural philosophy.*® Despite being somewhat pedestrian, Castanega’s vision of the Catholic and the diabolical church was adopted by José de Acosta (1540-1600} in his Historia natural y moral de las Indias (1590) when he deplored that Indians were in the grip of the demon and had to be rescued." In the second half of the sixteenth century, the Indians of Peru were not well enough instructed in key concepts of the Catholic

INTRODUCTION 17

Church and in Catholic rituals to consciously turn away from them, and it was thought that they only implicitly adhered to the demon. While Acosta viewed Castanhega’s framework for definitions of hechizeria as the best fit for the landscape of the Andes, Castanega’s treatise also served as a quarry for Acosta’s most reliable informant, whose

own work most strongly influenced the key Third Council of Lima: Polo de Ondegardo (ca. 1520-75) and his De los errores y supersticiones

de los indios (written around 1566 and later published as Instrucci6n contra las ceremonias y ritos que usan los indios and jointly distributed with the Confessionario para los curas de los indios of 1585).*° Despite Polo de Ondegardo’s keen and careful attention to details in the world

of Andean religious specialists, he consulted Castanega, along with other authorities from the European discourse on magic, for an understanding of some individual rituals as well as some contextualizations. Castanega, as well as Polo de Ondegardo, held that hechizeros were always old and vile people.*® In the case of the Andes, the Incas chose to employ them when they had grown to be superfluous members of the Inca empire.” Both authors argued that poverty lay at the root of all hechizerias. In the Andes, the poor old hechizeros originally fed themselves from the sacrifices that they were to offer the gods. Under colonial rule, these destitute men received not sacrifices but instead silver,

clothes, or food in exchange for their services. For both authors, the meaning of the sacrifices transcends their socioeconomic value. Sacrifices served to (re]connect the Indian with the devil, demon, or, in similar vein, an Andean huaca.** The congruence between the works of Polo de Ondegardo and Castahega extended further, to such subtle details as how Polo de Ondegardo organized his report, as well as how he describes the Indian manner of praying to Viracocha, how he distinguishes between hechizeros and healers, and how he discusses Catholic and superstitious healing methods.”

Yet despite the influence of a medieval concept of hechizeria on Acosta and Polo de Ondegardo, and their respective influence on church politics and the evangelization standards as laid down in the Third Council of Lima, as we will see later, other contemporaries did not necessarily follow Acosta’s and Polo de Ondegardo’s keen interest in defining hechizerfa, in considering hechizeria a social problem, and finally, in putting hechizeria on the political agenda. Prior to Polo de Ondegardo, and even prior to Pedro Cieza de Le6n’s Cronica del Pert (published in 1553) and the Relacidn of the Augustinians of Huamachuco (written around 1560}, alleged Andean hechizeria did not receive

18 THE POWER OF HUACAS

much attention.” According to Cieza de Leon (ca. 1518-54}, Peruvian hechizeros were modern Roman vestals, as they served in temples. They were surely an integral part of a wondrous and fallen world, in which a demon could do wicked things. A demon could, for example,

maliciously lift into the air an Indian who wanted to convert and stubbornly hold him there for several minutes, forcing two hundred people to chain the Indian to their belts and lead him away from a demonic barrage of stones and into the church, where holy water solved the problem. But Cieza de Le6én’s interest in hechizeros was, at best, superficial. It was the Augustinians—specifically, Juan de San Pedro (ca. 1514-94)—who, similar to Polo de Ondegardo, were preoccupied with hechizeros and considered them a problem for a new Christian society:

“|T|hese false priests, which we better call hechizeros, when they want to consult with the demon or want to call one of them [demons], use drums soaked in the blood of guinea pigs, others use some handcufts|,| ... afterward the demons appear.”°” In the early seventeenth century, Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala (ca. 1535-50 to ca. 1615) also labeled Andean religious specialists and those priests who served the ruling Incas hechizeros.*’ But why? Juan Diez de Betanzos (?-1576) and Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa (1535-92?) would not have readily agreed with these equations, though they were well versed in Inca history.°* Diez de Betanzos, for example, deliberately called Andean and Inca priests of precolonial times “priests” —and not hechizeros—though he claimed

for Inca history another Merlin, the great medieval sorcerer. Sarmiento de Gamboa was equally reluctant to call anybody a hechizero. But in this respect, neither Diez de Betanzos nor Sarmiento had much effect on their peers. In political terms, Polo de Ondegardo and his avid readers—José de Acosta, Crist6bal de Molina from Cuzco (ca. 1529-85),°° Cristobal de Albornoz (ca. 1529-ca. 1610}, and, as I will show later on in this book, Pablo José de Arriaga (1564-1622) and his contemporaries and

followers—turned out to be the most influential writers on things related to Andean religion. These authors all took note of Andean rituals in an attempt to uproot Andean practices. Sometimes they drew on the legal, theological, and natural philosophical European discourse on magic for an understanding of the performance and function of certain Andean rituals (something that will be shown later on in the discussion of individual rituals). These authors discussed novelties in the world of hechizeros that were introduced during the transition from the Inca to the colonial regime; some detected (or perhaps imposed] certain hierarchies among ritual specialists.°’ Some tried to slot Andean rituals into

INTRODUCTION 19

neat categories, separating the diviner from the priest and the healer.°® Yet in 1653 Bernabé Cobo (1580-1657) corrected some of his predecessors

by stating, “Most commonly, priests were confessors, medical doctors,

and hechizeros at the same time... one should not assume that they held distinct offices.”°° Sometimes, intellectual categories proved to be inconsistent. These sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century authors often used categories such as divination, borrachera (drinking), maleficio (evil sorcery), and

superstition as shortcuts to describe acts performed by Andeans. In so doing, they ascribed meanings to Andean rituals that can never be taken at face value by the historian. Some inferior terms for religious specialists—such as idolatra/o, dogmatizador of idolatrias, superstitious healer, superstitious diviner, superstitious priest, superstitious hechizero, and mochador (venerator)— were used as well, but appeared harmless when compared with “minister of the devil,” “evil weed,” “diabolical plague,” and “poisonous animals.”°° These terms were all associated with hechizeros—and thus the triad of idolatry, superstition, and sorcery—and were used interchangeably. Yet all these European categories and efforts at making distinctions were ultimately subsumed under the umbrella heading of hechizeria, superstition, and idolatry — as if no other interpretation were possible.®’ This paradoxical tendency to simultaneously differentiate and simplify was not a matter of different people discussing different things at

different times, or of linguistic confusion, as it appears in the works of one and the same writer. It would be wrong to assume that any one author or order—say, the Jesuits—invented all this. On the contrary, Augustinians, Dominicans, Mercedarians, Franciscans, and the secular clergy also made use of the concept of hechizeria. In general, however,

these orders seemed less interested in the subject of hechizerta than were the Jesuits; the Augustinians came closer to matching the Jesuits’ preoccupations.” Why then did Spaniards in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries produce ever more knowledge about different kinds of Andean diviners, priests, confessors, and sorcerers only to condemn religious specialists of hechizerfa? One could certainly view this movement from (a) searching for hechizeria to |b) analyzing different actions of hechizeros to (c) corroborating the concepts of hechizeria, idolatry, and superstition as a hermeneutic circle. But such an analysis does not explain much, for out of the Andean-Christian discourse on hechizeros evolved genuine Peruvian dynamics that had the theoretical potential to

20 THE POWER OF HUACAS

undermine the validity of these concepts. Nor can the constant production—and to a certain extent, recycling—of knowledge about Andean rituals, acts, and specialists be explained as a product of mere curiosity. One reason involved the attempts of missionizing orders to liberate and

convert the inhabitants of Andean lands; another less known reason lies in the nature of the early modern European discourse on magic. European Catholics and Protestant theological polemics, viewing the discourse on magic as a battlefield in the struggle over confession, mandated the reconstruction of explicit details. The typical late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century European author investigated a magical practice ad nauseam to determine its potential for heterodoxy or orthodoxy. Many went to great pains to formulate theoretical principles from which to derive notions of legitimate and illegitimate practices—beyond the rather simple criteria of their employment in the ceremonies of Jews, Moors, or Catholics. Yet pluralism within the criteria used for evaluation coexisted with general agreement on the need to seek and record ever more subtle details. Against the background of sixteenth-century natural philosophy—in which scholars, for example, paradoxically sought to reconcile such a detail-obsessed art as astrology with Aristotelian syllogisms—this emphasis on observation might seem surprising. But in fact the early modern European discourse on magic, matching its legal heritage, proved resistant to de-

ductive reasoning. This intriguing fact has important ramifications. For Spaniards in the New World, the attention to detail required by the formal nature of the discourse on magic meant that they could not simply censure Indian rituals or beliefs on principle, with eyes closed; instead, the Spaniards had to know and produce evidence of their unorthodox nature before condemning them. The move of some influential Peruvian writers in the second half of the sixteenth century toward a medieval notion of hechizeria had two major implications for the Peruvian discourse on hechizeria up to the first decade of the seventeenth century. First, it successfully prevented the use of alternative terms from the European magical tradition. Second, it blocked the development of a naturalistic perspective on magic that had begun to take hold in Spain from the latter half of the sixteenth century onward. Just as it elided differences between regional, local, and even individual traditions, so hechizeria also replaced alternative concepts avail-

able in the European tradition. We cannot simply assume that Spaniards were sloppy linguists. Even if they sometimes were and employed

INTRODUCTION 21

categories fluidly, the absence of other terms already in use in the European discourse on magic points to a conscious objection of alternatives.

For example, colonial sources employed forms of the term mago, or magician, very sparingly. Two (admittedly prominent} exceptions are Gonzalez Holguin (1552-1618) and Ramos Gavilan (ca. 1570-ca. 1639}, who both reserved it for someone who in Quechua was called umo, or “diviner.”°? Gonzalez Holguin translated humu (umo) as “magico hechi-

zero,” suggesting that the humu was the deftest hechizero.°* Ramos Gavilan once alluded to “magicos y hechizeros.” In both cases, magus appears in conjunction with hechizero. In the Augustinian context, this language served to accommodate Andean diviners to the three magi of Christian lore, an accommodation similarly followed by Jesuits and by Alonso de la Pena Montenegro (1596-1687) in his widely read Itinerario para parrocos de indios (1668).® But nobody followed Gonzalez Holguin or Ramos Gavilan in their cautious use of mago or mago hechizero. At

the other extreme were the Quechua umo and its Aymara equivalent layca |translated “diviner” and later sometimes equated with “witch”}, the only words that sometimes are taken whole into the Spanish language, making clear that umos and laycas were widespread among Andeans.®° In between was the employment of the term brujo (witch), found by diligent historians in sixteenth-century chroniclers such as Martin de Murta (?-ca. 1620).°’ In other works of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, however, the term brujo, associated with the capacity to inflict harm, is used cautiously when not avoided altogether, as it was applied only slowly to the indigenous world.°° Its employment implied that the writer believed that the Indians already understood the truth very well and continued to consult demons willfully, and Murua clearly was one such writer, as will be shown later on. Peruvian civil sources, such as secular visitation protocols and the relaciones geograficas, also use brujo more frequently, mirroring a similar trend in metropolitan Spain. Civil authorities were less lenient than ecclesiastical ones toward witches. The complex issue of why the term brujo began to be employed increasingly from the 1620s onward, flourishing particularly in eighteenth-century provinces, will be addressed later.”° Yet at no time did it supplant the term hechizero. It is interesting to note that Peruvians also did not draw on terms originating from the European tradition of erudite magic—such as astrology, chiromancy, hydromancy, pyromancy, or necromancy— when referring to indigenous crafts. Only one or two Spaniards ever described

indigenous actions or rituals as necromancy, an attractive term both

22 THE POWER OF HUACAS

because it was commonly used in Spanish poetry and because it befit the tradition of ancestor veneration in the Andes, which after the conquest remained an important feature in the Andean cosmos and in everyday life.” But Spaniards seem to have avoided terms associated with erudite magic because these exquisitely learned arts (even though some of them were suspicious} had a clear profile in the European discourse on magic and required a well-established set of books, performances, and instruments. What those interested in hechizeria found in the Andes was apart from the Inca regime and, according to their logic, involved peoples who were illiterate, ignoble, and prone to idolatry. The basic assumption was that Andeans had herbal knowledge and stones,

but lacked script, scientific instruments, and natural philosophy.” When confronted with complex cultural manifestations such as Sacsayhuaman (a stone wall in the shape of lightning, in Cuzco], where Indians had piled up enormous stones on top of each other with great mathematical precision, Spaniards credited them to demons. Thus according to the Spanish discourse in early colonial times, the true wise man in the Andes was the demon and not the Indian. The influence of Castanhega’s writings on Peruvian discourse during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, which later in Lima’s archdiocese was replaced by Martin Delrio’s Disquisitones magicarum,

forestalled yet another kind of general perspective on matters concerning hechizeria that can be found in the Refutation of Superstitions and Sorceries (Reprobacion de las supersticiones y hechizertfas, 1530) by

Pedro Ciruelo, an astronomer, theologian, mathematician, and Salamanca professor. Ciruelo followed the tradition of Thomas Aquinas, Castanega, and others in grouping hechizeria with superstitio, idolatry, and implicit pacts with the demons, including it in the catalog of sins. But his treatise exhibited something potentially new when dealing with hechizeria.’* According to Ciruelo, hechizeros performed superstitious deeds by relying on demonic powers, but there existed the possibility of producing unforeseen eftects by following the “natural” course of natural causes leading to natural effects.” All this gave rise to concern, and the outside observer was left with the difficult task of determining which effect was produced by natural causes and which had demonic underpinnings. Ciruelo referred the reader to “natural reason” and especially “experience,” nourished by a natural philosophy along Aristotelian lines. In his words, “There are some things which one duly knows by natural reason: but to know these, much work is required over a long

time, making experiences and listening to the masters; but there are

INTRODUCTION 23

sciences and arts that show the effects of [natural] causes, thereby getting to know the virtues and properties of stars, stones, herbs, fishes, birds, and other animals of this earth.”” For Spaniards in Peru, this definition posed serious problems. Who was to decide what had been acquired through natural experience and what not? Who ensured that the scholarly community rather than the demon was the teacher of facts? Did new knowledge about nature— such as that obtained by Indians—belong to this orthodox canon of natural experiences? How, if at all, could New World indigenous knowledge become integrated into the canon? These questions were not as arbitrary as they might at first appear. As we will see, the Spanish idea that the demon was probably the teacher of all indigenous knowledge —

including such useful knowledge as the virtues of native plants— challenged the Jesuits to find a way to gain access to this knowledge while simultaneously controlling Indians who were in the fetters of hechizerta. Meanwhile, back in Spain, Ciruelo and others helped pro-

mote novel “naturalistic” arguments about witches among Spanish scholars and Inquisitors. They began to question what was and was not possible in nature, ultimately turning the accusation of witchcraft into benign disapproval of melancholic women’s self-delusions and antics.” In Peru, however, such arguments were brought forth only rarely

ithough from the beginning of the seventeenth century onward, we sometimes encounter an “advocate of Indians” who argues along these lines). The fact is that those who produced the most extensive records of the world of Andean religious specialists, such as visitators, ecclesiastics, and Jesuits, hardly ever followed Ciruelo’s recourse to natural philosophy, relying instead on Castanega’s general equation (also shared by Ciruelo) of hechizerifa with “false gods, false cults, false actions.” And even though this notion of hechizeria did not necessarily bring

the idea of inflicting harm to the fore, hechizeria was and remained still terrifying for many individuals throughout the seventeenth century.” At no stage in its history was the Peruvian discourse on hechizeria a mere academic pastime, concerned simply with slotting this or that Andean specialist into this or that predetermined drawer. Fear lay at its heart: the threat of the demons turned hechizeros into the chief enemies of Spaniards in their attempt to build a Christian society, even though one of two “republics.” For example, Antonio de la Calancha (1584-1654), usually a careful scholar inclined favorably toward Inca—if not indigenous—customs, recounted that a “gran hechizero” by the name of Charimango wanted to challenge the mo-

24 THE POWER OF HUACAS

nopoly on power claimed by God.” Therefore, one day Charimango summoned his fellow “idolatrous Indians,” who all “hated baptism,” to a gathering at the base of a certain mountain so that he might display a power dwarfing Christ’s. Charimango then climbed the mountain, proclaiming that he would make the mountain collapse. With those words, he kicked the mountain— probably not the one he was standing on, although Calancha was not precise on this point —and indeed, the mountain collapsed. When the dust cleared, it was half its previous size. According to Calancha, Charimango’s performance scared those Indians unwilling to be baptized, but not himself. He reasoned that the demon, through his knowledge of “natural philosophy,” had simply known the

exact hour when the Earth would tremble and cause an earthquake. Calancha’s explanation is quite revealing, for although he was quick to mock Charimango’s pretenses, that ridicule did not extend to the demon’s power or perhaps the demon’s obedience to Charimango. As so often happens in Peruvian stories about hechizeros, Charimango ulti-

mately met an unfortunate fate that Calancha apparently thought appropriate. A few days after this performance, the demon decided that it no longer wanted to be Charimango’s assistant and returned to its true nature: an evil bug. According to Calancha, the demon slipped into Charimango and tormented him with lice and worms until he died. In Calancha’s eyes, the story’s resolution contained a question mark: “T could not find out whether God had sent this chastisement on behalt of the sermons which the monks or the priests gave .. . or not.” But by implication, Calancha assumed Charimango’s infection to be the result of God’s volition rather than the demon’s. We might think that Calancha was simply superstitious, but he was not alone in believing in a connection between collapsing mountains and supernatural powers. Another reasonable man, the Jesuit José de Acosta, told a related though much less spectacular story. According to him, one day a huge landslide occurred halfway between Chuquisaca (the modern Sucre) and Chuquiabo (the modern La Paz), destroying an entire village. This village, as Acosta carefully mentioned in a subordinate clause, was famous for its hechizeros. Thus, according to Acosta, its burial by an avalanche was God’s judgment.” Together, these stories reveal much about Spanish fears of demonic powers and hechizeros as well as about Andean cosmology. Andeans considered mountains to be sacred places. These sacred mountains granted fertility to fields in the

Andes often threatened with drought. Moreover, certain mountains secured health and social harmony among Andean communities. It is

INTRODUCTION 25

therefore not surprising that Calancha’s and Acosta’s reports centered on mountain sites. Not astonishing either is the absence of any tales by authors in Europe about magi or sorcerers who made mountains collapse. Obviously, European magi interacted with demons that lived elsewhere. In Peru, as Spaniards believed, indigenous hechizeros worshipped demons in the mountains, to name but one example. In this way, as Spaniards forced the concept of hechizeria on the Andes, the Andean landscape and, even more forcefully, the logic of Andean culture aftected the rhythms of their discourse on magic. And just as Spaniards were driven by fear, so were Andeans.

CHAPTER ONE

A LAND OBSESSED WITH CONFESSIONS; OR, THE HISTORIANS’ INSIGHTS INTO THE WORLD OF COLONIAL ANDEAN RELIGIOUS SPECIALISTS

DURING THE COLONIAL PERIOD, Peru became a land of confessions.

In 1684 the artist José Lopez de los Rios captured the dramatic importance of this Catholic practice in the history of Andean religious specialists on a 4 x 8 meter cloth (figure 1.1). In the picture’s upper left corner an indigenous woman kneels in front of a Jesuit priest. Her face is black, a devil pulls her by her shoulders, and snakes crawl down her bosom. Behind the woman’s back, two other women dressed in indigenous gowns kneel in front of a third indigenous person—who boasts

two horns—and ofter him a gero, the ritual cup that preserved the memory of the Incas during the colonial period.* The tableau thus depicts two different confessions: one in front of a Jesuit, and the other in front of an indigenous priest. Underneath these, a Latin message reads: “Vae nobis cur peccavimus mittent eos in caminum ignis ibi erit fletus et stridor dentium in infernon |sic| nulla est redemptio” (Woe on us: why did we transgress? They [the heavenly powers] will throw those [who transgressed] into the chimney of fire where there will be howling and teeth grinding. In hell, no one is redeemed). This allusion to Matthew 8:12 divides the picture into two halves, with the lower part reserved for the horrors of hell.’ Lopez de los Rios made the onlooker vividly imagine how devils torture, devour, and kill their victims. Destructive fires surround loathsome creatures and naked human beings, their eyes filled with fear. They seem to hope for rescue, but salvation cannot be expected from this world of horrors.

Above hell, the two confession scenes are complemented by a vignette in which an indigenous couple move stiffly to the music of two musicians. One musician plays a zampona (similar to a pan flute) and holds a drum; the other beats a drum. In the upper right corner, Spaniards, Creoles, mestizos, and an Afro-Peruvian indulge in the pleasures

A LAND OBSESSED WITH CONFESSIONS) 27

oeBa VRRP a O'=) Pe oF EP Tin)

tT] SN eee

VS, &. “MEEPENTosincaa@ Ee MIN VM IGNTS, [BSE

TE at DO i ei OY oe. a mS agit el ee ee | 4 \ eg [0

| Oo (Ny

f' 4 Pe GR di el Pe poe ty, RAED |

FIGURE 1.1. Panel from Fl Infierno (1684), by José L6pez de los Rios. Church of Carabuco, Bolivia.

of life. For all the people on this small earth, hell awaits. In each of the four scenes, one person is depicted with horns: the devil, the indigenous priest who receives the gero, the indigenous musician, and one Spaniard. In two instances, the artist makes earth and hell converge. He pushes the Latin inscription aside to allow two clouds of steam to

emerge from hell. These little clouds curl up around the confessing woman (apparently a Catholic), the indigenous person playing music, and the two women confessing to the indigenous priest. What was so sinful about these acts? What was wrong with an Andean woman’s confession to a Jesuit priest, musicians playing, and the offering of a gero by two women? THE POLITICAL AND SPIRITUAL CONQUEST OF THE LAKE TITICACA REGION

Lopez de los Rios’s late seventeenth-century image was painted for the church of Carabuco, a small town perched on the eastern shore of Lake Titicaca at an elevation of about 3,830 meters. During colonial times, the southern highlands were the heartland of the indigenous Andean population. It is estimated that in 1620 around 350,000 of an estimated total of 670,000 indigenous Peruvians were living in the region of Lake

28 THE POWER OF HUACAS

Titicaca“ This area boasted a mythological importance for the Collas, the Lupacas, and the Omasuyos (ethnic groups from the south) as well as for the Incas.” The Incas built their identity around Tambo Tocco, Cuzco, and the lake. They located their dynasty’s and Viracocha’s origin on the largest island in Lake Titicaca, the island of the sun.° According to their myths, it was from this rugged island that the Incas began their astonishingly rapid rise to power.’ Unsurprisingly, and consistent with their imperial politics, once the Incas were in power they continued to recruit high-ranking officials from the Collasuyo.® Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala identified the high priests of the Inca regime (“laycaconas, umoconas, vizaconas, camascaconas”)—for him the prototypes of hechizeros—with the Collasuyo region by depicting them with the headdress typical of the southern plains.” The Vilaoma, the priest in charge of the Qoricancha (the main Inca temple in Cuzco}, and the bearers who carried the litters of the reigning Inca from one battle site to another were people from the south: Collas, Lupacas, and Kallawayas.”” The Kallawayas, still famous for their herbal knowledge, lived and continue to live east of Carabuco.” From the mid-sixteenth century onward, the Lake Titicaca region became famous among Spaniards for its many other hechizeros, its diviners and healers. According to Juan de Santa Cruz Pachacuti Yamqui Salcamaygua (seventeenth century], Inca Yupanqui, the ninth Inca, met with two hechizeros trom the Collao before he undertook his military campaign against the Condesuyos. Pachacuti recounted the hechizeros’ names, Ccoles and Camanchacas, but not much else.” The Augustinian Alonso Ramos Gavilan (ca. 1570-1639) unearthed a tale from the south in which one such diviner once beheld a beautifully colored bird sitting on the wall of the Qoricancha. The bird predicted the end of the Inca regime: “When some people |in the Qoricancha] heard a noise from outside, they saw how a bird took off until they lost sight of it. Afterward, the magicians and sorcerers ascertained that this bird foretold the ruin of the Inca regime. New people would come to be their masters. An Indio by the name of Tupagualpa uncovered this prediction and omen. He affirmed that he had seen the bird and heard the voices.”° For Ramos Gavilan, these diviners were like the three magi following the star of Bethlehem. Of course, this prophecy was just one of several retrospectively mythologized omens of the Inca empire’s end.” It is well known that the Incas’ prophetic visions of the end of their empire did not avert its conquest. In quick succession, relying on indigenous alliances and brutal warfare, Spaniards took over Inca and Andean

A LAND OBSESSED WITH CONFESSIONS 29

lands. The conquest began with Pizarro’s landfall at Tumbes on May 16, 1532."° In the following months and years, Spaniards dismantled the Inca regime with gruesome efficiency. First they strangled Atahualpa in Cajamarca on July 26, 1533, after having perfidiously offered him the Bible and baptism so as to avoid being burned as an infidel. After a long period of intra-Spanish warfare and Inca resistance in the Vilcabamba— Cuzco’s northeastern mountain range with its deep valleys, Inca roads, snowcapped mountains, and stretches of cloud forest—a fugitive partisan of Diego de Almagro killed Manco Inca Yupanqui in 1544. Finally, Francisco Toledo, the fourth viceroy of Peru (1569-81), ordered the beheading of Tupac Amaru, the last legal heir of the Inca rulers, on September 24, 1572. Viceroy Toledo acted like a conquistador, shamefully

ending a succession of murders. As we will see in the next chapter, his behavior had an impact on the life of religious specialists. Protests against this violent termination of the Inca regime proved futile. Some realized afterward that the killing of the Incas had been a grave mistake. In 1588 José de Acosta bemoaned, “Had the Spaniards not killed but converted Atahualpa, the Indians would have easily followed his example and received the Christian faith, because it is marvelous to see the obedience of these barbarians toward their kings and caciques [local lords].”"° In condemning the beheading of Atahualpa, Acosta indirectly condemned the murder of Tupac Amaru as well. The Jesuit was well aware of the problems inherent in converting Indians, and especially hechizeros, to true Christianity. Thus by 1572 Spaniards were the political lords of the Andes. Conquistadors, encomenderos, and others formed personal ties with Inca coyllas (female members of the former social elite), thereby both satisfying their desires and easing the transition from Inca to Spanish political power. The king of Spain appointed the viceroy over the people and set up town councils and courts. The Spanish crown was the patron of the Catholic Church. Encomenderos exploited Indians all over the country. Politically speaking, Indians were without power. They were

granted the right to keep their local representatives, the curacas, but Europeans well understood how to transform curdcas into instruments to extend their own political will.” Of course, from early on, many Indians aligned themselves with the Spaniards, but many others did not. Whenever we observe that indigenous people used the Spanish legal system for their own ends, whether to fight for their lands or properties or to write petitions to the king, seeking redress for brutal exploitations, we must understand that such spaces for legal actions

30 THE POWER OF HUACAS

occupied a tiny corner in an essentially unjust system.’* Spaniards and Creoles built Lima, a city of glorious wealth where silver adorned the

tables, on the back of a society starkly divided between the rich and powerful, mostly Spaniards and Creoles, and the often poor and powerless Indians and Afro-Peruvians. But again, the history of political vicissitudes does not tell the whole story. Culturally, neither Toledo nor the missionaries of the different orders anticipated the resistance of indigenous religious specialists and the logic of Andean culture.” Therefore, as the Carabuco image at the opening of this chapter demonstrates, in 1684—five generations after the conquest—Spaniards and Creoles still felt the need to graphically remind the Indians, and especially the religious specialists, of the punishments that awaited them in hell.*° Hell would greet those Indians who danced to indigenous musicians, who offered geros to indigenous specialists, and who perhaps falsely confessed to a Jesuit priest. How did the Jesuits and other missionaries get to Lake Titicaca in

the first place? And, more important, why is a brief history of Carabuco and Lake Titicaca an appropriate introduction to a history of the transcultural processes in the world of Andean religious specialists that tries to decipher the underlying axioms of their beliefs? While Spanish adventurers conquered the Incas militarily, Dominican, Augustinian, Franciscan, and later Jesuit missionaries set out to conquer the Andes by other means.” In their missions, departing trom their colegios during the seventeenth century, Jesuits employed a plethora of interconnected measures to combat indigenous hechizeria: incarceration, accommodation of indigenous myths, indoctrination via images, and, last but not least, confessions and redefinitions of indigenous sins. Many of these approaches began to take shape in the Jesuit missions among the Lupacas and Omasuyos around the doctrina (parish) of Juli (beginning in 1576). In the beginning Jesuits flocked to the highlands of the Altiplano, slowly becoming proficient in Quechua and Aymara, a knowledge that enabled them to gain insights into indigenous worlds. At first, Domingo de Santo Tomas (1499-1570], a Dominican who published his Quechua dictionary in 1560, drew on knowledge from the southeastern Andes.*” Compared to those that followed, his dictionary was small, because he did not fully exploit the rich expressiveness of the Andean world.”* The Jesuit Alonso de Barzana (1530-97), one of the best early specialists in Quechua, worked in Juli and Cuzco, and later wrote a Quechua dictionary (1586)** that was superseded only by the Jesuit Gonzalez Holguin’s dictionary Vocabulario de la lengua general de todo el Peru llamada

A LAND OBSESSED WITH CONFESSIONS 31

lengua quichua, 6 del Inca (1608). Another Jesuit specialist on Aymara and Quechua was Diego de Torres Rubio (d. 1634) who published his grammar and dictionary Arte de la lengua quichua in 1619.”° Officially, the Jesuits arrived at Lake Titicaca in 1576. Relying on dubious evidence, Viceroy Toledo dislodged the Dominicans from Chucuito, charging them with poorly ordered and implemented missionary strategies.*° With the permission of the viceroy and King Philip IJ— always a key precondition for formally setting up a new mission—the Jesuits accepted the doctrina of Juli, thirty miles south of Chucuito.*’ Juli soon became an important experimental laboratory for missions among native South Americans. Other early Jesuit endeavors—such as the doctrina of Cercado (Santiago de Cercado} in Lima and Huarochiri, in Lima’s hinterland—were far less successful by Jesuit standards.*® In Juli in 1600, 14 Jesuits estimated that they were in charge of 14,000 Indians. It was an all-Indian parish, covering an immense territory. In fact, with its four churches—San Pedro y San Pablo, San Juan Bautista, La Santa Cruz, and San Ildefonso—Juli can be considered a smaller predecessor to the famous Jesuit reducciones of Paraguay (where the first missions began in 1609).*” Jesuits experimented with different methods of thoroughly indoctrinating indigenous people. They used music, set up a simple school for Indians, had their own printing press, preached on Sundays, and heard confessions at regular intervals.*° Jesuits from Juli ventured, with their crosses, into the villages of neighboring ethnic groups, bemoaned their laborious but fruitful work, and baptized more and more Indians, whom they could then make confess. According to the account of Rodrigo de Cabredo, one day in 1600 a famous hechi-

zera entered Juli. She was a forastera, or foreigner, but was stunned by the piety of Juli’s Indians. As the Jesuit narrative tells it, this happy devotion aroused in her the wish to convert to Christianity.*' She confessed all her sins and “idolatries,” and listed 150 “idols” as proof of her sincerity. In Juli and Cuzco, and later on in many other places, Jesuits began to listen carefully to Quechua and Aymara myths. They tried to understand the practices and rituals of ordinary Indians, of religious specialists, and of healers in order to ultimately dispute and undermine them with their own ideas and practices. According to Jesuit discourse, Juli

was a successful experiment. But sometimes, when the character and mood of the reporting Jesuit allows us to see it, it becomes clear that the Jesuits struggled with the many hechizeros of the region. They came to realize that it was not enough to incarcerate forty hechizeros in the

32 THE POWER OF HUACAS

ea OO EE, \ AY B's: or or Bs a ae ee — ‘\ % Oe : a ae Pe \ \ i r\ i (Ses ee FET scope, ta. See GI

Be et mee a a a ia Cie at at. ele. .ear 2 Ss h=4 ea te sr. 4 -| = eopre ee An ee a 2 ia seed )/ aaaterae \‘ ~ ie tl. a—— a es Ze BOSD gfier Bee eA3hy, —5ee _etoS |SS} aS9we” a-abs Ee —esue4ee . -A Peers metal ee oy SEAT Ce s\% Bini ek SB Maylene Se ae Be Rod 23>. Ret aoe BED oes

Pil Ae: fia “7A + $ae TEP aS aeen ae ;— Ge i“ee ee PSgS i a eg

2 BE Saew ceno aeaaa ce .:as Pia i tS. 4 ee cae fC f a ed =; ee Sa ee aS ae Se » ee Ome & Lo ee Fey ee : li&.el OldZewe Si. \YePRR Thee eg esPigs gee Se Fc SE RP &Bee! War uct : ~SS FERS es FIGURE 1.2. Adoration of the Magi, by Diego de la Puente (1586-1663). Church of La Asuncion, Juli, Peru.

year 1621:* there were still many more who remained free, all with the ability and motivation to seduce the Indians. Late seventeenth-century depictions of the “Adoration of the Magi,” a familiar Christian motif,

are more numerous in Juli and its environs than in any other area of colonial Peru.*®? The Indian magus is depicted as an Inca, and the image

clearly alludes to hechizeros as heirs of the Incas (see figure 1.2; more generally, see chapter 2). Jesuits began to believe that hechizeros were the evil weeds that threatened the garden they were attempting to plant im Peru" The desire to “pull out these evil weeds”*°—a metaphor by which Jesuits both devalued hechizeros and made them more anonymous— caused the order to oppose these religious specialists with more rigor, taking a subtle theoretical and symbolic approach. It was in Juli that the Jesuits, for the first time in their history in Peru, began to target indigenous hechizeros systematically. In fact, Jesuits incarcerated hechizeros even as they entered into a dialogue with the indigenous world, listening to what the religious specialists had to say and gaining information about the world of Andean religious specialists. In Juli we can trace the development of both of these strategies. In 1582 Jesuits erected an official prison for hechizeros.°° On the one hand, they were

A LAND OBSESSED WITH CONFESSIONS 33

copying the Dominicans in Chucuito and enacting the decrees of the Second Council of Lima; but they also heeded the bishop of Charcas, Alonso Ramirez Granero de Avalos (appointed 1579-85], who believed that a new type of prison needed to be erected for hechizeros.’’ It was to be prominently located on the main plaza—not in some side annex to the church. Everyone should see the hechizeros being incarcerated. The Jesuits followed his instructions, and later documents testify to the prison’s operation throughout much of the seventeenth century.** The remains of the building can still be observed today. But most interesting

is the Jesuits’ willful attempt to accommodate Christianity to indigenous practices, myths, and symbols—or at least shape their lessons to what they thought these indigenous elements meant. One of these accommodations involved the story of Tunupa, the myth behind another image found in Carabuco in which the figure of the hechizero figured prominently. Jesuits found that hechizeros trom Lake Titicaca had already targeted Christianity in pre-Spanish times. Thus hechizeros trom Lake Titicaca presented a special threat. ACCOMMODATING TO ANDEAN HECHIZEROS: AN EXAMPLE FROM EARLY COLONIAL MYTH

Before the Europeans invaded their lands, the people living on the shores of Lake Titicaca had been handing down a story about Tunupa.” According to Pachacuti Yamqui Salcamaygua, Tunupa was a white-

bearded man who punished vicious people with a stick and transformed them into stones. He also expelled the hapifunos, who were considered malevolent ghosts.*° For those indigenous people who could glance at the dark blue of the lake, Tunupa was associated with the beginning of a new era." By 1613, when Pachacuti interwove the Tunupa

legend with his understanding of Inca pre-Spanish Andean-Christian monotheism, the Incas had already assimilated Tunupa to Viracocha (the high god of the Incas}. The details of this complicated story of Inca assimilations are not relevant here.** The Jesuit version of this legend

reveals much about the confrontation engineered by the Jesuits between themselves and the hechizeros, whom they had set into opposition to it and to Christianity. In 1599, the Juli Jesuits on their mission to Omasuyo learned about the Tunupa legend while they were interrogating a number of inebriated hechizeros. Jesuits usually disapproved of these collective benders, considering drunkenness to be a demonic vice and failing to recognize

34 THE POWER OF HUACAS

its potential to fulfill a sacred function.*’ In this particular instance, the Jesuits raised few objections to the drunken hechizeros, because they learned from them the story of a cross—the Cross of Carabuco.* According to this indigenous myth of the Omasuyos, one day in time immemorial, a white man appeared on the eastern shore of Lake Titicaca. He was a disciple of Jesus—the Holy Thomas (or Santo Thomas}, who,

according to a tradition of the third and fourth century, was the first apostle to India. As the native myth goes, this holy man erected a cross in the Andes in the midst of the ushnu of Carabuco. Once his task was done, a demon in human form joined the indigenous people and drank and celebrated with them. From the Jesuit narrative of the indigenous

myth, this demon’s identity, origin, and relationship to the cross remain unclear. It is said that he explained foreign things to the people of Carabuco but then disappeared. The village people were concerned and asked their hechizeros to address the demon and ask why he had stopped appearing. The hechizeros did so, and the demon responded: he was busy somewhere else, but they should continue to adore him and provide him with food. The religious specialists replied that they did not want to adore the cross, they had not heard of the person who was nailed to the cross, and they would not give him food. Without further ado, the hechizeros burned the cross. On the next day, however, the cross reappeared on the ushnu unharmed. The hechizeros allegedly then turned to more extreme measures and sought to burn the apostle

Thomas, but of course, as is a saint’s privilege until his martyrdom, Saint Thomas escaped. After hearing this account, Jesuits from Juli ventured out in search of the mythical site of Carabuco. They found three stones, or idols, and— more important for them—they discovered Thomas's cross. Today their finds would probably be identified as pieces of a pre-Columbian artifact, since Ramos Gavilan also tells us that other missionaries found the mantle and sandals of the saint somewhere nearby.” Very likely, all these items were unearthed from different pre-Columbian tombs. But since they were not archaeologists, people in 1599 immediately believed in the authenticity of their finds and began to cut fragments from the holy cross. The Jesuits also cut away their share of this relic.*° Sources disagree over the fate of the Cross of Carabuco. Jesuits say they brought it in its entirety to the metropolitan church of Chuquisaca. The Augustinian Ramos Gavilan, who claimed to have interviewed old Indians who vividly recalled the excitement of the cross’s discovery, reported that only one of the three pieces of wood was brought to Chuquisaca,

A LAND OBSESSED WITH CONFESSIONS) 35

while another remained in Carabuco. Ramos Gavilan also mentioned three nails, which were another point of contention. At first priests found only two nails. After serious digging, the missing—and symbolically significant—third nail was found. From these artifacts, Ramos Gavilan concluded that the Cross of Carabuco was Jesus’ original cross. Afterward, the nails were distributed over the Collasuyo region and at

some point were lost. In obedience to the Tridentine rule, the bishop Don Alonso Ramirez de Vergara (1594-1602) carefully investigated the cross’s potential for miracles.” He verified its authenticity and officially proclaimed that it should be considered a holy relic. Thus, Peru had its

first official relic, one that had allegedly survived the base attacks of hechizeros in pre-Spanish times. By that time, of course, Lake Titicaca already had the Virgen de Copacabana (recognized from around 1582 onward), who constantly worked miracles for sick people and demoniacs.** But unlike the story of the Carabuco cross, the tale of the Virgin’s origin

was never associated with hechizeros. And despite the survival of the cross, hechizeros also somehow managed to outlive Christian politics. According to Jesuits and Augustinians, the Cross of Carabuco testified to the Jesuit belief that the Andeans had once been Christians. It was the devil’s engano (evil inventiveness], working through the hechi-

zeros, that had deluded and perverted Andean Christianity. In fact, from the late sixteenth to the late seventeenth century, Jesuits and Augustinians found and reconstructed several other similarities. They found evidence for Andean monotheism, for concepts of the Trinity, for the existence of confessions, and for the worship of saints.*? They heard that a comet, much like the star of Bethlehem but in the shape of a condor, had announced the arrival of Christianity in the Andes.°® When Jesuits turned their attention even closer to hechizeros and their rituals, they stumbled upon even more astonishing analogies. The missionaries came to believe that hechizeros feasted during Lent (the forty days before Easter) and that they served as confessors, ychuris, quite like the Jesuits themselves.*’ The history of colonial representations of Tunupa and his relations with hechizeros reveals how much hechizerta weighed in the European discourse about conversion of the Andean people from the very beginning of the encounter onward. In his Nueva corodnica, the Christian native Andean Guaman Poma, writing in defense of the legitimacy of Andean (not Inca) customs, provided his own distinctive vision of hechizeria by referring to the legend of the Carabuco cross.°? Despite living in atime, and country, with little tolerance for irony with respect

36 THE POWER OF HUACAS

to religion, Guaman Poma was an artist in crafting meaningful stories, hiding his own views behind apparent Catholic orthodoxy. One of his tales deals with the apostle Saint Bartholomew (San Bartolomé), the Jesuit Saint Thomas (see figure 1.3). In the medieval and early modern Iberian discourse on hechizeria, Saint Bartholomew was held to be the one who captures demons.’ One day, in the time of Sinchi Roca Inca, shortly after the birth of Jesus on the other side of the Atlantic, Saint Bartholomew appeared in Tawantinsuyo. He reached the village of Cacha, near the eastern shore of Lake Titicaca in the province of Collao. There, the holy man was stoned by the local inhabitants, and he fled into a cave where an hechizero kept his idol. The hechizero, who went by the name of Anti, wanted to ask his idol about something while the holy man was present, but the idol did not respond; because of Bartholomew’s presence, it did not, or could not, talk. Anti left, but the demon returned to him in his dreams and told him that he could not come back to the cave. Perplexed, Anti asked the holy man for advice. Saint Bartholomew instructed him to reenter the cave and speak again to the idol. Anti obeyed, and the demon confessed to Anti that the poor man (Saint Bartholomew} had more power than he himself. The demon’s admission of his weakness was the beginning of a happy ending. Anti embraced the apostle, kissed his hands and his holy feet, and begged for grace and “restoration.” Bartholomew baptized Anti, who became his first Andean apostle, and, as a sign of this holy miracle, erected the Carabuco cross. According to Guaman Poma, Anti’s conversion to Christianity was God’s first miracle in pre-Tawantinsuyo times. Thus again, in Guaman Poma’s version of the myth of Carabuco, a Christian apostolic figure confronted an hechizero face-to-face.* The saint conquered the hechizero, his idol, and his demon. The latter’s voluntary surrender hardly surprises readers, given the strong impression

that this creature was rather tame. There is no hint that the demon tried to make the hechizero harm the holy man. Instead, the demon merely talked about his powerlessness. Curiously enough, Guaman Poma called the hechizero Anti. Gonzalez Holguin, in his dictionary of 1609, translated “anteruna o anti” as “the Indian man of the Andes” (“el indio hombre de los Andes”}. Guaman Poma seemed to either suggest that the inhabitants of Inca Antisuyo were hechizeros and were thus converted, or that Anti, with his worship of an idol and his talk to a demon, was representative “of the Indian man of the Andes.” Hechizeria was thus endemic. From the time of having collected the Andean myth about Tunupa,

f' 5 . é a . : : ay i : d

|ye aoe ef. Se ee + | i , ~~. COU OS oa lf eee —— a a ti CU Sey je catabuco ~&; [SSS vr SSS

Cee 4 iF Uae H | | LT| NO? ark. } \ o_e | 1h} SM Gi ! Sie saath aha ao. ae vy, ° y- yi

| K log be UtYaC urvacotha.co BIE ayeP yihart uh Pr

gf f] | ly ffi-~ iheke Ny re | ) ||| /K WA gi! PRN fb t 7 VaR by i: yr i \ i y l fi A | AS 5 | ey i Bo iif | ! ty ApSieylit

Sot : j } \\ y) | | f ‘

GY Pi , GP x\ 3 ¢j i; MA } :{1B A aa \,~yy | LEE N®

| ye eaTSAR & ER VARSA A 92

Pi ID“AGya cB U3Wee WR BH OD|

:

Ye Gon ARF \ f2——S = 2; ymM¢ f a ao al GS eQ- ‘ 4SN Sadbeollne Oe aa Ee MB Bs lt ;

UMA pip vm et atl co Hao Hono Sequim puch fo Je iti aaah tryptic)

ai 3S 7e avios Lia pa} , t

FIGURE 1.3. Saint Bartholomew. From Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala, Nueva corénica y buen gobierno (1615), 92. Courtesy of the Royal Library, Copenhagen, Denmark.

38 THE POWER OF HUACAS

from 1599 onward, Jesuits working in the Lake Titicaca region (along with their brethren in Lima, Cuzco, and elsewhere} became painfully aware that neither Saint Thomas’s nor Saint Bartholomew’s prepara-

tory work had smoothed the path for conversion of contemporary Andean hechizeros.° The Cross of Carabuco proved efficacious during colonial times for healings and exorcisms, but not for converting religious specialists. THE RIVALRY BETWEEN TWO CONFESSORS: JESUIT VERSUS YCHURI, AND AN INCA NOTION OF SIN

By the time of the Carabuco depiction of hell and the Last Judgment, in 1684, the retelling of the story of Carabuco in a new medium was intended to instill the fear of hell in the Andeans and again to combat hechizeros and their alleged idolatries. One alleged sin addressed by the image of Carabuco was false confession, depicted in two different ways. As noted above, the artist Lopez de los Rios juxtaposed two priestly

figures: a true Jesuit confessor and a mendacious indigenous one. What the artist condemned in the case of the woman facing the Jesuit priest was not the confession itself but dissimulation within confession.°’ The devil and the snakes undoubtedly alluded to Satan as represented in traditional Christian iconography; and here, as in Diirer’s Melencolia I (1514), the woman’s black face signaled an abundance of black bile. Although in sixteenth-century European tradition excessive black bile was considered the source of melancholy and thus intellectual ingenuity, it is unlikely that the artist— who was censured by some unknown church authority—would have openly praised the Indians’ abilities. Instead, her condition was much more likely to be an allusion to deception, frenzy, and insanity, whose association with black bile was commonplace in late medieval and early modern demonology. In his Tratado del examen de revelaciones (1634), the Spanish author Jeronimo Planes regarded melancholic people as prone to satanic possession. He concluded, “Demons take advantage of melancholia and desire it in men.”°* Thus, the black-faced woman kneeling in front of the Jesuit lied about her pact with the devil and concealed it in her confession.’’ But what about the other two women, who kneel in front of non-Jesuits? Apparently, they are confessing to an ychuri, the indigenous “confessor.” Who were they?

Polo de Ondegardo mentioned several indigenous notions of sickness. According to one Andean conception, a sickness was a sin that

A LAND OBSESSED WITH CONFESSIONS 39

had not been expiated.°° The first step toward recovery was a sacrifice, which was followed by a pilgrimage to the ychuri, an hechizero who would hear confession. In Polo de Ondegardo’s words: “And as a cure they used sacrifices: on top of this, they confessed verbally in all the provinces, and they had confessors delegated for that |purpose|, more

and less important ones, and there were sins reserved for the main [priest], and they received penance, and sometimes a harsh one, especially if they who had sinned were poor and had nothing to give to the confessor.”°' Polo de Ondegardo reported that when one Inca was sick, the whole province had to confess. The Collas (either the ethnic group that lived on the northern shores of Lake Titicaca or the inhabitants of the entire Inca Collasuyo) in particular had to reveal their state of sinfulness to the ychuri. The gravest sin was to not confess.®* At the end of this paragraph, Polo de Ondegardo explained to his Spanish readers that the ychuris had adopted the idea that a sin could be spiritual only under the influence of Christianity.®* He thereby revealed that during the first twenty-five years of Spanish rule, the inhabitants of the formerly Inca realm had not abandoned the office of the ychuris but had instead adapted it to Christianity. One of Polo de Ondegardo’s greatest opponents was the anonymous writer of De las costumbres antiguas de los naturales del Pirti, usually attributed to the Jesuit Blas Valera (1544-97), who proudly referred to a different Inca canon of sins.®* Like Polo de Ondegardo, Blas Valera was

gripped by the idea that the Inca regime—a theocracy, in his view— required the punishment of its subjects’ sins. The compulsion to confess mirrored the individual’s social rank. At the top of the socioreligious hierarchy stood the Inca, and then the Vilaoma. The Vilaoma, almost like a Roman pontifex maximus, was exempt from confession, and the Inca certainly was as well. With great satisfaction—and with repeated jabs at Polo de Ondegardo—Blas Valera described the different kinds of sins and punishments.° Unlike Polo de Ondegardo, however, Blas Valera ignored the place of sin and sickness within the larger context of an Inca worldview. Instead, he concentrated on social and political hierarchies and constructed his overall narrative along the lines of Marcus Terentius Varro.®° Yet in the Inca and Andean world, sin and sickness were linked to huacas and to a larger sociopolitical whole: the well-being of Inca society and, as documents from the late sixteenth and seventeenth century reveal, of a particular ayllu (kinship group) as well.®’ One such Inca ritual was described by Cristobal de Molina in his account of the festivals of the month of Coyaraymi (August}.° Its orga-

40 THE POWER OF HUACAS

nization merits a brief summary as it underscores an Andean notion of sickness as being dependent on social coherence, a concept that provoked Andean religious specialists to view the arrival of Spaniards as a state of sickness into which the Andean world had deeply fallen (see chapters 2 and 3}. In times of Inca rulership, during the month of Coyaraymi the people

took part in a succession of festivities that centered on health and sick-

ness, including one of the greatest feasts in the Incas’ religious calendar, the Citua. As Molina recounted, this feast was intended to expel existing sicknesses from Inca lands and to prevent the onset of sicknesses that accompanied the beginning of the rainy season. To those ends, people from the four regions— Andesuyo, Cuntisuyo, Collasuyo, and Chinchasuyo— brought their huacas to Cuzco. There, the objects

were placed in the Qoricancha and dedicated to Viracocha, the Sun and Thunder, which was the primary center of this cultic action. The statues of Chucuilla and Viracocha were also brought there. After this massive pooling of huacas, the Inca, priests, warriors, and the population of Cuzco (with the exception of hunchbacks) gathered in the main plaza, the Haucaypata. Later on, members of different social groups, notably warriors and priests, exclaimed in the direction of the four regions, “Evil, go away,” or “Diseases, disasters, and misery, and dangers leave this world.”© Over the course of the ceremonies, certain people left Cuzco for different provinces after observing a special ritual whose details varied by region. The deputies for the Cuntisuyo, for example,

went to the river of Cusibamba to bathe and wash their armor. According to Molina, this ritual cleansing of bodies and arms chased diseases away from Cuzco. The Inca and the populace of Cuzco also had to go to rivers and wash themselves as they said, “May diseases leave us.” During this part of the ritual they crafted bundles of straw, which

they later ignited or exchanged. After being cleansed, these people went to their houses and cooked zanco (a type of maize pudding or maize cake). “They put it on their faces and also on the door frames and they put sanco where they stored their food and their clothes; and they brought sanco to their springs and threw it into them, saying,

Tl]hey will neither become sick nor will any sickness enter the house.’”’° After sickness had thus been expelled from Cuzco and from

their individual houses, people shared the remaining zanco with the other members of their ayllu, with their friends, and also with the dead. After several other steps within the festivities, the ones present in the central ceremonies swore to “not mock Viracocha, the Sun or Thunder,

A LAND OBSESSED WITH CONFESSIONS 41

to be faithful, and to not be a traitor to the Inca”,”’ if they behaved other-

wise, condemnation and (forced) labor awaited them. Finally, the representatives of the ayllus took this oath for those who, because of sickness, were absent from the ceremony. Afterward, priests inflated the lungs of the four sacrificed llamas to divine the course of the coming year. At the end of these ceremonies, the priests distributed pieces of llama meat to the inhabitants of Cuzco while addressing Viracocha in prayers that pleaded for prosperity. In two of these prayers, the Sun was invoked to protect against sickness.” In another, the penultimate prayer during the distribution of the llama meat, the huacas and villcas, forefathers, and fathers should help to bring the people to ask Viracocha to protect them against “curses, witchcraft, divination by lots.””° According to Molina’s account, sin, sickness, social well-being, and even hechizerta were already all interrelated during Inca times. THE JESUITS AS CHRISTIAN CONFESSORS PAR EXCELLENCE

José de Acosta, who became the Jesuits’ most important ideologue through the early seventeenth century, read and cited Polo de Ondegardo, Blas Valera, and perhaps even Molina and their notions concerning indigenous ychuris.” In 1577, when Acosta finished his De procuranda indorum salute while still in Peru, he had begun to encourage

his brethren to note down all the sins Indians committed, which they ideally should confess in front of a Jesuit. Even though confessions were

taken under the seal of the confession, some of what the Jesuits had heard from those that confessed their idolatries became detached from the person who had confessed,” but informed Jesuit knowledge of the Andes and might even have informed the description of Andean rituals in the cartas annuas. Acosta suggested that the ychuri be replaced with the Jesuit. Acosta exclaimed that “in all this blindness” —a reference to being surrounded by indigenous idolatries—the Jesuits “have to congratulate ourselves that they |the Indians] had some sense of contession.”’° But according to Acosta, the indigenous notion of sins needed to be replaced. Constant supervision, painstaking investigations, and the scrutiny of hidden intentions and committed deeds would become mandatory for the Jesuits in their dealings with the indigenous world throughout their missions, and especially of the hechizeros and ychuris

among them. The Jesuits understood this approach to be a prerequisite for the liberation of the Andes from the sinful state of existence into which it had fallen.” Confession, in Jesuit eyes, had become the

42 THE POWER OF HUACAS

first step toward salvation and the healing of the indigenous soul and world.” Indeed, in his De procuranda indorum salute, which had many readers and adherents in colonial Peru, Acosta had emphasized that confession was the only “hope for the salvation of the Indians.””” The only hope!®° Already in 1577 Acosta was congratulating himself on the success of Jesuits who had begun roaming through the countryside to

hear confession. He was convinced that indigenous people came voluntarily, begging to confess, and insisted that thousands of Indians had already sought relief. According to Acosta, if the indigenous people did not come during their lifetime, they at least approached Jesuits shortly before they died: “Do we not see that the fear of death conquers the fear of the priest?”*' Thus, the definition of “voluntary confession” was somewhat flexible. Acosta also valued confession as the first step toward recovery of health, both physical and spiritual. Following the church fathers, and especially Augustine, Acosta dropped the “garden and weed” metaphor, instead repeatedly using medical imagery to characterize the fallen and sick spiritual state of these “pagan people.”*? As he said, confession is “medicine for mortal sicknesses, efficient purification of leprosy; finally it is resurrection of the soul that is already on the brink of death through its sins.”** The identification of the Catholic confessor with the medical doctor was common in discourse about indigenous peoples until the late seventeenth century,** and the specific image of leprosy was taken up by Villag6mez in his Exortaciones (1646). For Acosta, God was without doubt the “true medical doctor.”* To par-

take in his healing powers, the indigenous person had to lay bare all his or her sins. The Jesuits’ focus on confession was also motivated by the order’s own vows, which called for painstaking self-examination. In the late

seventeenth century, any Peruvian Jesuit who entered the splendid church La Compania in Cuzco would have seen a painting that showed Ignacio de Loyola holding his book Spiritual Exercises toward the onlooker. Ignacio stands above six fallen men whose heads are wrapped in Moorish turbans. From the inscription on the headdresses, Jesuits knew

that these beleaguered individuals were Luther, Melanchthon, Hus, Wyclif, Ecolampad, and Calvin. This Counter-Reformation painting, with its simple message, afirmed that spiritual exercises were the best way to combat heresy and immoralities.*° It also is one among many pieces of evidence of the centrality of Spiritual Exercises (1522-24) to Jesuit self-understanding in Latin America.*’ The rigorous exercises taught that one way to achieve self-control was to envision hell: “First

A LAND OBSESSED WITH CONFESSIONS 43

point: to see in imagination the great fires and the souls enveloped, as it were, in bodies of fire. Second point: to hear the wailing, the screaming, cries, and blasphemies against Christ our Lord and all His saints. Third point: To smell the smoke, the brimstone, the corruption, and rottenness. Fourth point: to taste bitter things, as tears, sadness, and remorse

of conscience. Fifth point: with the sense of touch, to feel how the flames surround and burn souls.” After this spiritual exercise, one was to envision Christ and be grateful that one had not committed sins. The phrase “Behold the sin” appears over and over in Ignacio’s volume.*® It is unlikely that indigenous people from the countryside who passed through Cuzco on their trade routes ever glimpsed and understood the picture of Ignacio and his book. For the Jesuits, hell signified an imperative to examine oneself and others.*? And when being confronted with indigenous sins, the priest, according to Acosta, should interrogate, instruct, and instill fear."? Thus, in this respect as well, the image of Carabuco pointed to a basic Jesuit instructional process and acquired political force during the seventeenth century. First, the priest was to make the Indians behold their sins. Second, he should make their untrained eyes behold these horrifying creatures of hell, depicted with singularly gruesome bloodthirstiness.”' Jesuits believed in the power of images as a tool of evangelization.” And the Jesuit Ludovico Bertonio had explicitly given in Aymara detailed examples of what hell and purgatory meant. He suggested to any Aymara-speaking priest to make a knowledgeable Indian read these examples aloud in front of the congregation.’’ We should imagine that Carabuco’s indigenous people walked out of their church after mass in fear. AGAINST THIS BACKDROP —the Inca and Andean notion of sin, joined

with Acosta’s preoccupation with confessions—it is clear why the image of hell in the church of Carabuco juxtaposed a Jesuit and an indigenous religious specialist hearing confessions. Both kinds of confessors operated and continued to operate in their own fashion until at least the second half of the seventeenth century. In 1614, for example,

the religious specialists of Concepcion de Chupas were continuing with their rituals of confession.”* Fernando de Avendano (ca. 1580-1655}

described the resiliency of a confessional ritual in his Relacion de las idolatrias (1617),? repeating his ideas in Sermones de los misterios de nuestra santa fe catélica (1649).°° Avendano drew his knowledge from his interrogations of hechizeros as an appointed “visitator of idolatries” (from 1617 onward}, where he (together with José de Arriaga [1563-1622],

44 THE POWER OF HUACAS

the other great Jesuit connoisseur of Andean rituals, whom we will dis-

cuss in more detail later) visited Andean villages in the coastal area around Huacho and, already from 1614 to 1615, in the highlands around

Cajatambo.”’ Indigenous “superstitions” were a particular thorn in Avendano’s side, and his determination to pluck them out was paired with great rhetorical skills.°* He was truly appalled by the fact that Andeans used confessions in case of sicknesses and in other matters.” What in 1577 had seemed to Acosta a welcome opening for introducing Jesuit confessions was now highly undesirable. Acosta had not foreseen that the ychuris, like the Jesuits themselves, could adapt to their new colonial environment—for example, redefining their canon of sins to include going to church. REDEFINING ANDEAN “SINS”

Throughout the seventeenth century, the problem for Jesuits continued to be that the Andeans obviously had a different definition of sin and

that they still addressed Andean religious specialists on that matter. For the ychuris, it was sinful to not worship the huaca. For any Peruvian Christian, and especially Peruvian Jesuit, the exact opposite— worshipping a huaca—was considered a sin. Any Peruvian Christian who began to see the hechizeros as the opponents of their honest and necessary efforts to evangelize would have considered it a simple task to add the worship of huacas to his list of forbidden sins. The image at Carabuco showed that it was sinful to confess to an indigenous priest and, likewise, to dance to an indigenous musician. That the musician shown is specifically a drum player fits colonial notions of hechizeros.'°° Once the musician was originally depicted holding not a drum but a harp. The artist was probably urged to make the change so that the painting’s message would be clear. Playing the harp was a practice valued among good Catholic Amerindians, whereas playing the drum

or the flute was considered to be hechizero activity.’°' Thus, the defining lines between orthodox and heterodox behavior of hechizeros or Indians were subject to constant redefinition. The Andean world required a keen eye for detail. It was full of contested meanings that spoke in different ways to its many inhabitants. When the Jesuits developed the model of making indigenous people and, in particular, Andean religious specialists, confess, they did this to prohibit Andean rituals and to more effectively undermine it with their own symbolic meanings and ideas (for example, by exchanging harps

A LAND OBSESSED WITH CONFESSIONS 45

for drums). Yet the practice that they initiated nearly escaped their control. The lists of indigenous sins that Christians produced in their inquiries into the rituals of Quechua and Aymara natives (either in inquiries of guipucamayocs (cord keepers}, or in inquiries of incarcerated hechizeros, or in formal visitation processes, or, and only indirectly, in confessions that should conduct the penitent to penitence} and that got first published in the Confessionario para los curas de indios of 1585 and later on in different handbooks for priests, as well as in those Confessional Manuals that were adapted to more local indigenous traditions, became longer and longer, and ever more detailed during the seventeenth century.’°* These lists both expose specific local customs at a certain moment in time and capture pan-Andean symbolic meanings. It is easy to imagine that these lists of sins must have begun to confuse those priests who were honestly trying to hear confessions from ordinary Andeans and religious specialists when they sat in their confessionals (in Juli, for example, the confessionals were wooden cubicles in which the priest sat in front of the Jesuit emblem, JHS— Jesum habemus socium or Jesu humilis societas—painted into a heavenly cloud that radiated rays of the sun). The Decalogue was simple in comparison.

To take one example, in 1585 the nineteenth sermon of the third catechism in the Doctrina Christiana rated—among other things—the following deeds as sinful: venerating a I/JaHahua (a dried corncob, some inherited figure, or an unusual potato), keeping a pirva (a storage place

usually for grain) in the house and making a procession in honor of it; possessing huacanquis (certain herbs or signals in nature that were used for love magic); sprinkling the sun, the earth, or the fire with two fingers of chicha in order to evade evil events; and believing that the owl’s song or a dog’s yow! was a sign of death. It was superstitious to believe that the buzzing of an ear or a person’s stumbling was a bad omen,

to put clothes on the street in the hope that sickness would thereby be carried away, and to fasten a corncob or braid of hair to one’s house, trusting that this act would protect the members of the household.'°° A few paragraphs later in the same manual, the catalogue of forbidden superstitions was expanded to include the indigenous belief that a poor potato crop was caused by the anger or displeasure of their huacas.*** Finally, the sermon proclaimed, “Don't believe that the huacas provide you with health and food... ; don’t ask hechizeros tor remedies for your needs; don’t let them cure you with their words; don’t let them blow on or suck your body.”"°° Therefore, enumerating alleged Andean sins became a Peruvian Catholic obsession from the late sixteenth to mid-

46 THE POWER OF HUACAS

seventeenth century. Even though the Franciscan Luis Jer6nimo de Oré 1554-1630], in his Rituale, seu manuale Peruanum, satisfied himself with a skeletal enumeration of “sins” in his Confessionario of 1607,'°° Pérez Bocanegra (?-1645}, a third-order Franciscan, extensively captured in his Ritual formulario, e institucion de curas (completed in 1622, published in 1631) Andean rituals in the environs of Cuzco.’ Pérez Bocanegra concluded his list of one hundred and twenty-seven questions by admonishing the confessant: “Whenever you did any of the things just described [any of the one hundred and twenty-seven Andean ritual performances or beliefs] or whenever you believed in their efficacy, you have committed a grave sin.”'°° In 1649 Pedro de Villago6mez (d. 1671), an-

other of the determined visitators of idolatries who will receive much attention later in this book, augmented with new and more specific knowledge of Andean rituals, through the many visitations into the hinterland of Lima, Ondegardo’s original list.’ Without doubt, almost every ritual that Andeans performed during early colonial times came to be suspected by Catholic priests and visi-

tators to be a great sin. But among the most important questions in these Confessional Manuals were offenses against the First Commandment and the questions: “Have you confessed with an hechizero? Did you consult an hechizero for healing or divination? Are you an hechizero?”"° The hechizero was truly considered the one who inhibited the spread of Christianity. Did any of these apparently tedious catalogues of sins ever lead to success? Did the confessors get the answers they were looking for? In some respects, yes; in others, no. The four strategies of the Society of Jesus— incarceration, accommodation to Andean myths,

indoctrination via images, and confession to combat the idolatries of the common people and especially of those of whom they labeled hechizeros—moved many Andeans to assimilate to Christianity. But Catholic stigmatizations of indigenous practices and of Andean hechizeros and their activities prompted a first response from religious specialists, who held conversion to Christianity to be a grave sin and at the root of the sickness that Spaniards had brought to the Andes. Other responses were to follow.

CHAPTER TWO

CIVIL VERSUS ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITIES

THE JESUITS, MORE THAN ANY OTHER ORDER, were to determine

the fate of thousands of indigenous religious specialists in Lima, the southern Andes, and beyond. Their three-pronged strategy of confession, incarceration of religious specialists, and reeducation spread westward from Lake Titicaca to the archdiocese of Lima.’ There it was transformed into a unique political program charged with exceptional ecclesiastical power. From 1583, 1609, and especially from 1621 onward, Jesuit preoccupations turned into an ideology of a new and, in the seven-

teenth century, radical persecution politics with the Jesuits continuing in the role of ideologues until the late 1640s. With their increasingly systematic search for indigenous idolatry and their precise means of identifying situational acts of evil sorcery, Jesuits successfully shaped the perspective of many visitators as they searched for practices and instruments viewed as idolatrous, superstitious, or hechizero/a.? But before this rise of the Jesuits as shapers of a program that determined the fate of religious specialists, one that gripped the entire archdiocese of Lima and was implemented in their missions as well, even in the absence of such a close collaboration with bishops as in the archdiocese of Lima, Peruvian religious specialists were not originally placed under primary surveillance by ecclesiastical supervision. In 1572, Viceroy Francisco de Toledo (1569-81) insisted on established lines of the joint procedure of civil and ecclesiastical authorities in matters of indigenous hechi-

zeria and in their punishment, but made determined efforts to subject indigenous teachers of hechizerta to capital punishment because he disapproved of exempting indigenous people from the Inquisition.’ To sixteenth-century religious specialists, this play of political forces might have seemed a distant storm, but instead it posed a serious threat. A close look at the decisive year 1572 shows that in a time of heightened

48 THE POWER OF HUACAS

tensions, increased Inca threat in the Vilcabamba, and vibrant rumors of attacks on the viceroy by hechizeros, Toledo strove to find a solution to the problem of hechizerfa—according to him, a final one. A YEAR OF FATEFUL DECISIONS

The year 1572, crucial in the history of colonial Peru, was equally momentous for the history of hechizerfa. On March 4, 1572, Sarmiento de Gamboa (1532-92) finished the last pages of his briskly produced

History of the Incas. Within the space of two years, Sarmiento had concluded his investigations into the Inca past and put them in persuasive written form. The frontispiece adorning the manuscript sent to Philip I]—obviously designed by Sarmiento himself—played on Charles V’s motto, “plus ultra.”° Two columns framed the coat of arms

of Castilla and Leén. One column contained a sign depicting a man with an armillary sphere in his right hand, his left hand pointing to the sun. The man was set directly on the Atlantic—a somewhat clumsy allegory of Atlas as that ocean.’ The maritime theme also alluded to the author, a successful navy officer who crossed the seas as easily as the wind. But Sarmiento de Gamboa had interests beyond those displayed in this self-representation fashioned for official consumption. He was an avid talismanic astrologer who exhibited sympathy toward Andean necromancers even as he provided a plethora of evidence on the Incas’ tyrannical regime. Six months later, on September 24, 1572, Viceroy Toledo gave the order to execute Tupac Amaru, the Incas’ last official heir. Despite verbal protests by several church authorities, Spanish soldiers brutally beheaded the king on Cuzco’s former main square, the Haucaypata. Now, Toledo thought, he had put the final touch to the last chapter of Inca history. He rushed to Potosi and to a new battlefield. In the name of the Crown, he fought the Chiriguanos in the lowlands of Bolivia. These Indians, also known as the Guaranis, would ultimately become members of the Audiencia of Charcas, based in Chuquisaca. As Toledo’s military commander, Sarmiento de Gamboa was deeply involved in this endeavor. Yet his luck was soon to run out: Toledo’s expedition failed. Like the Incas in the Vilcabamba, the Chiriguanos oftered serious resistance.’ Around the same time, an indigenous rebellion threatened the Spanish viceroyalty. Beginning in 1565, indigenous religious specialists in the so-called Taki Onkoy rebellion pledged to resurrect their huacas. And while Viceroy Toledo was trying to organize the state from his residence in the high Andes, a new era began for

CIVIL VERSUS ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITIES 49

the Jesuits in Lima. José de Acosta arrived in the City of the Kings in 1572.'° In Joannes de Zuniga’s eyes, Acosta was the apostle of new hope.

Only he could clean the Augean stable that the young Jesuit province of Peru had become.”

The completion of Sarmiento’s History, the execution of Tupac Amaru, the Taki Onkoy, and the arrival of José de Acosta seem at first unrelated episodes in Peruvian history, united simply by a coincidence of time and space. Yet, as I will show, each of these events is meaningfully interconnected.” Only when we examine them together can we understand why religious specialists turned into the heirs of the Incas. An examination of political events in the year 1572 also deepens our understanding of how Jesuits managed to rise to political prominence under the auspices of José de Acosta. Acosta, who was introduced in the previous chapter, became the decisive architect of the Third Council of Lima and wrote De procuranda indorum salute (1588). Both of these cultural productions help us understand how Jesuit dominance over religious specialists in the missions presented a “middle ground” between the envisioned rigid regime against hechizeros and the more lenient or less potent responses of other religious orders—namely, the activities of the less politically influential Augustinians, the more disinterested Dominicans, and the inclusive Franciscans, whose campaign to incorporate religious specialists into the native Christian tradition we will examine in chapter 7. RELIGIOUS SPECIALISTS AND THE SPANISH CONQUEST

While Inca Titu Cusi Yupanqui (ca. 1535-71) was hiding in the Vilcabamba in the 1560s, the Cuzco priest Crist6bal de Molina made a dis-

quieting discovery. Molina had heard from another priest, Luis de Olivera, that indigenous hechizeros were roaming through the country-

side in Huamanga, Cuzco, Chuquisaca, Chuquiabo, Arequipa, and Lima, preaching terrifying messages to their fellow Indians.’* Rumors had spread among the Indians that the Spaniards planned to kill them in order to make a certain medical unguent, which they would send to their mother country. Spaniards created this substance out of the flesh and tat of Indians who visited Spanish houses to trade goods." Thus, according to these Indians, Spanish soldiers were no longer the only threat. Rather, ordinary Spaniards, encomenderos, officials, and traders, all seeking profit, were also perfidiously luring Indians to their deaths. The terrified Indians started to avoid any personal contact with Span-

50 THE POWER OF HUACAS

iards in their houses. Of particular concern to Spaniards was the news that indigenous priests were telling their people that the huacas, their guardians, had deserted their lands. Since the arrival of the Spaniards a generation earlier, huacas had been forced to live in the air, and had almost died of thirst and hunger. The religious specialists argued that the Spaniards who were responsible for the sufferings of the huacas— and the resulting suffering and hardship of the people—had enjoyed the protection of “Dios nuestro Senor.” Meanwhile, the Indians had been weakened, bereft of their protecting huacas. But now, the indigenous argument went, times had changed. Now, after thirty years of repression, the huacas would be resurrected. The time had come for the Indians to overthrow Spanish rule. Once that overthrow was accomplished, the huacas would come back to life, restored to their former power. The activities of these indigenous priests came to be known as Taki Onkoy.’* Though it is sometimes classified as an indigenous rebellion, the Taki Onkoy did not urge Indians to take up arms.*® Instead, indigenous priests appealed for a spiritual revival and a return to Andean—though not necessarily Inca—religion.” Only such a return would heal their land from the state of sickness into which it had fallen. This was indeed a frightening prophecy for Spaniards, given that there was an Inca still alive. As these ideas spread through the valleys and plateaus of the Andes, ultimately reaching Indians along the coast, Spaniards did not remain passive observers. Their first response came from Cuzco. By 1570, the Cabildo Ecclesiastico (Ecclesiastical Chapter) of Cuzco had appointed Cristobal de Albornoz, an ordained secular priest, as visitator to extirpate the heresies from Huamanga.** One year later, Albornoz was given the royal command to persecute hechizeros in Parinacochas and Andahuaylas. A vain and ambitious man, Albornoz repeatedly wrote to high officials in Peru and Spain seeking acknowledgment of his efforts to extirpate indigenous idolatries. By 1583 he had begun to long for the episcopal throne in Cuzco—without success. In writing about the regions he had visited during the 1570s, he had relied on earlier Spanish observations. But in his Informaciones de servicios of 1570 and 1584, with which he hoped to establish his authority in the region, Albornoz did not hesitate to put the same definition of the “Taqui Ongo” in the mouth of every single witness testifying on the supposed crimes of hechizeros: “Many Indians followed the Taqui Ongo sect, also called Aira, and they said that they would not believe in God nor in his commandments, nor would they adore crosses and images, nor would they

CIVIL VERSUS ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITIES 51

enter churches, and |they said] that they would confess with those who

fasted according to their rights and ceremonies as in the time of the Incas, and not with the [Christian] clergy.”’ In short, Albornoz was interested in the details of Andean rituals and religion only insofar as they enabled him to provide long lists of local huacas and equally long lists of incarcerated Indians and hechizeros.° Albornoz’s informants

were curacas, encomenderos, and priests. They were all asked what they knew about indigenous preachers. Despite making some dubious distinctions, Albornoz broadly defined hechizeros and accomplices of the Taki Onkoy as anyone who worshipped huacas and who did not “be-

lieve in God, nor in his commandments, would not adore crosses and images,” and so forth.?! Albornoz disciplined entire villages, punished alleged accomplices, condemned supposed participants to church service or indoctrination, and destroyed the “idolatrous” huacas. Of course,

he also asked Indians whether they worshipped the seventy “resurrected” huacas, whether they “feasted [on] salt and aji,” and whether they still performed sacrifices, despite the fact that the huacas had officially been defeated. Furthermore, Albornoz assured his readers that he “castigated many others among the said indigenous people, hechiceros

as well as diviners and the people who consulted them in matters of marriage and incest in the first and second and other degrees, and many other crimes.””? For him, hechizeros were nothing but evil seeds, and he punished a staggering number of people. Albornoz, who twice represented Bishop Lartatin in Cuzco, remained in charge of the persecution of hechizeros in the southern Andes until the 1590s. Even his own troubles with the Inquisition in Lima could not weaken his determination to extirpate idolatries. He also had a profound influence through his protégés on the future of indigenous hechizeros. One of his helpers, Guaman Poma de Ayala, showed great admiration for Albornoz, while at the same time sympathizing with Andean religious beliefs.?° Yet it was Cristobal de Molina—about whose actual extirpation practices we know nothing— who best captured the Andean logic that was behind the actions of the Taki Onkoy priests. Molina added the brief but thorough account of this Indian “apos-

tasy” of the Taki Onkoy to his calm and careful work on Inca and Andean religious customs**—even though it somewhat marred the organization of his Relacién—because he and other Spaniards greatly feared the power of indigenous priests. Spaniards seem to have been taken by surprise by the still profound influence of Andean priests over their fellow Indians—an influence that could extend across huge dis-

52 THE POWER OF HUACAS

tances and that included many groups. As the Taki Onkoy showed, the indigenous priests’ understanding of current and past events continued to be accepted by many Indians living in an area that stretched from the high Andes of Cuzco to Huamanga and even to Lima. Spaniards feared the religious specialists’ ideological might. These indigenous priests argued that Christianity might be good for Spaniards, but not for them. They—the Andeans—needed the protection of the huacas. These religious specialists also spread the belief among Indians that Spaniards would steal their blood and body fat, elements that were and continue to be symbols of life in the Andes.*° Thus, these priests were in essence discussing how to organize a society in which two cultures could coexist: one for Spaniards, and one for Indians.

The indigenous priests of the Taki Onkoy era had clearly given up hope that Spaniards could be expelled from their country. Unfortunately, the chroniclers don’t allow us to determine conclusively whether the Inca-centric emphasis in some records shows that the priests placed their hope in the Incas or former Inca priests or instead reflects the Spaniards’ preoccupation, though there is reason to suspect the latter. The priests associated with the Taki Onkoy placed greater stress on the worship of local huacas, an emphasis with two possible explanations. They might have thought that neither Titu Cusi nor Tupac

Amaru was strong enough to recapture the Inca religious center, the Qoricancha, or they might have renewed their commitment to local huacas because the huacas had always been more highly valued than the Inca cult. What the Taki Onkoy thus showed the Spaniards was that Andean religious identity was still imbued with considerable power—a power that could overcome the respect and fear that Indians may have felt toward the Spaniards, who had by now taken up residence in the former Inca palaces in Cuzco and begun to act the part of overlords. The intrinsic limitations of Spanish-produced source material make it difficult to see whether the Taki Onkoy priests shunned violence.*® The Spaniards thought not. According to Molina’s investigations, huacas had already “planted many fields with worms to infect Spanish hearts and life-stock of Castille, horses, and the hearts of those Indians that remain Christian.”*” The meaning of this claim remains uncertain, and

it seems unlikely that indigenous people literally bred worms to kill Spaniards. We should remember that worms were a powerful symbol in the Andean world, associated with any state of sickness as well as death.’* Certainly, fear may have been one author of this assertion, and misunderstanding another.

CIVIL VERSUS ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITIES 53

TOLEDO’S VISION OF THE TREATMENT OF HECHIZEROS

While indigenous priests were raising hopes regarding the resurrection

of the huacas and Spanish-Andean coexistence, Viceroy Toledo left Lima on October 22, 1570, with a lawyer, a captain, a cosmographer, a naturalist, amedical doctor, and some church officials.?? He was headed to Cuzco via Xauxa and Huamanga. This trip, Toledo’s visita general ot 1570-75, was to become synonymous with his will to enforce law and order. On his way, Toledo made his companions interrogate curacas and Indians in order to determine the Inca legal claim to these lands. Each step brought new insights into Inca history, and each step nourished Toledo’s conviction that the Incas had conquered these people unjustly. Some erudite individuals have praised Toledo for having introduced law and order to colonial Peru.*® Others have seen in him a political tyrant who, without legal justification or the consent of Philip II, ordered the execution of Tupac Amaru.*' Toledo was much inspired by Juan de Matienzo (1520-79), an adviser who had a particularly low opinion of indigenous people, whom he liked to depict as herb-chewing brutes.** Nevertheless, Toledo wanted to protect the Indians from the regular abuses of encomenderos.*’? While on his visita general, Toledo

also appointed auxiliary visitators to inspect regions that did not lie along his own path. Visitators went to Huancavelica, Chucuito, Lambayeque, Guayaquil, Quito, Huanuco, and Chachapoyas. Along with their other responsibilities, they were directed to rein in the abuses by hundreds of encomenderos who were thought to be using the Leyes Nuevas (New Laws, 1542) to exploit Indians through the mita (tribute system] and through commerce in coca, mudlus (Spondylus shells), and other items.** Toledo supplied these visitators with a long list of questions that they were to take out of their saddlebags when approaching an hacienda, village, or tambo (supply post).°° It was during Toledo’s visita in the cities of the former Tawantinsuyo, and particularly in Cuzco, that he developed a special interest in idolatry and, later on, in hechizeros.°° In June 1571, the viceroy had instructed his loyal visitators to persecute hechizeros, imprison them, and make them work.°*’ This directive was Clearly a response to the Taki Onkoy movement. In Huamanga, Albornoz had told Toledo about the hechizeros involved in the Taki Onkoy and the progress he had made in extirpating these idolatries. By 1572, Molina might have informed Toledo of the structure of Spanish and indigenous coexistence envisioned by many of these indigenous priests. As the visitators witnessed in their travels, indigenous idola-

54 THE POWER OF HUACAS

tries—or practices construed as such by Spaniards— were widespread. And the hechizeros increasingly seemed to Spaniards to be the “ideologues” behind these indigenous idolatries. Even more threatening to the Spaniards, the Taki Onkoy seemingly revealed a pan-Andean ideological coherence that transcended any local cult or shrine.** But then, only three months after his first instruction, Toledo issued a second, more elaborate, and far more severe edict regarding hechizeros. In this new instruction of September 8, 1572, Toledo granted civil and ecclesiastical authorities the right to sentence the dogmatizers, the leaders and teachers among indigenous hechizeros, with capital punishment. What had prompted this changed approach? AN ASSASSINATION AVERTED

On July 4, 1571, the thirty-year-old Dona Ysabel Julia approached the civil authorities of Cuzco and accused a twenty-nine-year-old priest, Juan de Luna, of “certain spells against his Majesty with the intention of murder.”*” Dona Ysabel said she had witnessed Luna visiting a black woman named Juana. Allegedly, Luna had asked Juana whether she knew how to cast spells on the viceroy. Juana told him of an Indian acquaintance who was skilled in freezing the ocean. Dona Ysabel asserted that she had previously approached Luna and asked him whether he intended to make “hechizos” against the viceroy. Luna denied it. But other witnesses—among them the viceroy’s servants, Cuzco’s capitular, Dona Ysabella’s servant, and several important inhabitants of Cuzco—claimed that Luna had, indeed, searched for hechizos or hechi-

zeros. These witnesses brought to light a slew of confusing details about Luna’s activities. It seems that before moving to Cuzco, Luna had been Toledo’s chaplain. But during his visita in Huamanga, Toledo had dismissed Luna, accusing him of robbery.*® Toledo confiscated Luna’s clothes (probably his priest’s robes} and planned to exile him from Peru.

Somehow Luna managed to stay in the country and ultimately went to Cuzco. Since that day of utter humiliation in Huamanga, Luna had obviously exerted every effort to regain Toledo’s respect. And so, according to his own account, Luna set out to find Indian hechizeros who might help him regain his honor.

Luna claimed never to have had any intention of killing his esteemed master. As witnesses from Toledo’s entourage agreed, he had approached the viceroy’s servant to seek Toledo’s cuspidor. He also, according to at least one witness, gave Toledo’s servant some powders

CIVIL VERSUS ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITIES 55

to throw into the cooking pots in the viceroy’s kitchen. Furthermore, Luna had asked a Cuzco baker whether she knew an Indian woman who could protect him from the viceroy’s evil will. Finally, Luna had unquestionably given Ysabel a cloth that the viceroy should use to brush his teeth or his head and if things would work out well, he would make her queen of Peru. Some testified that they advised Luna to visit the church to regain his honor instead of taking the path of the devil by using hechizerias. Indeed, according to another priest, Luna had tried to confess, but that confession had been a failure. Toledo had not reinstated him to honor. Thus, there was no question that Luna had sought help from hechizeros. The whole debate between Luna and the witnesses centered on the question of whether his hechizos were intended to serve evil or positive functions. On July 7, Luna was finally asked to confess. He denied the alleged robbery in Cuzco and said that he had only helped another black person who had stolen three (silver) plates and one pot. Asked whether he had ever employed hechizeros against the viceroy, Luna vehemently denied it. He also denied that he had ever searched for an Indian hechizera, that he had promised Dona Ysabel she would be queen of Peru with the help of an Indian woman, and that he had given her (poisoned) powders for the viceroy. In the end, Cuzco’s civil court decided to prosecute Luna in Cuzco instead of sending him back to Spain, and the mayor handed Luna over to the cathedral’s ecclesiastical chapter, convinced that Luna had indeed tried to kill the viceroy. Finally, Luna was moved from the civil to the episcopal prison. THE DOGMATIZERS AMONG THE HECHIZEROS SHALL RECEIVE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

The accusation against Luna increased Toledo’s fears of hechizeros, which began to torment him continuously. The incident was certainly one reason for Toledo’s instruction of September 8, 1572, urging ecclesiastical and civil authorities to persecute and prosecute hechizeros more

persistently and relentlessly. It granted the right to civil authorities to apply capital punishment to native dogmatizers, to those teachers and leaders in things related to hechizeria, and even to those who were not Christians.*! To ensure due process, ecclesiastical authorities were first to investigate the state of Christianity of the already baptized Indian hechizero. It the hechizero turned out to be of good Christian understanding, the delinquent had to be punished with utmost rigor within

56 THE POWER OF HUACAS

the framework of existing laws. If the hechizero, however, turned out to be a dogmatizer, and even though he was baptized or infidel, then the clerics were to ultimately hand the case over to the civil authorities — that is, to the Audiencia for punishment. Thus, with the issuing of this decree, capital punishment could be applied to hechizeros who were considered teachers and leaders of hechizerta.* In Spanish civil law, such treatment of hechizeros was generally allowed.** In 1538, Pedro Ciruelo reiterated that hechizeros should be treated as murderers and therefore given capital punishment. His reason was that hechizeros killed people and were traitors of the republic.“ In fact, civil authorities in sixteenth-century Spain often proved more determined in their persecution of hechizeros than were the ecclesiastical authorities.* In this respect, Toledo’s Peru was to be no exception. Toledo’s constitution followed the principle of mixto fore, according to which both the civil and ecclesiastical authorities could prosecute hechizeros, the civil arm being held in charge of physical punishment.*° This law meant that from September 1571 onward, any indigenous religious specialist who had already been baptized and instructed in the Christian faith but who still worshipped huacas and was considered by the capacious category of a dogmatizador was at the mercy of civil and ecclesiastical authorities and risked capital punishment. Toledo’s new instruction served to suddenly radicalize previous legislation within Peru and to put the persecution of hechizeros on the political agenda. This directive is also notable as the first civil and royal legislation against hechizeros in Peruvian history with national scope.” Previously, during the First and Second Councils of Lima, the church had issued similarly far-ranging laws against hechizeros, but both councils had advised admonishment, corporal punishment, banishment, or imprisonment. The death penalty was not their aim.* Toledo’s sudden intensification of the law against hechizeros and infidel dogmatizers had many causes, including Toledo’s failure to

mandate indigenous people to the Inquisition, Molina’s account of indigenous hechizeros who planted worms to infect Spaniards and their horses, and, even more likely, the rumored attempt to poison the viceroy, described above. Such reports exacerbated Toledo’s paranoia and perhaps made him recall a similar incident of which he might have heard in the Audiencia of Lima in 1547, when an indigenous herbalist attempted to kill a conquistador.*” Now that Toledo feared for his own life, he stretched the umbrella term of hechizerta to put baptized as

CIVIL VERSUS ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITIES 5/7

well as non-Christian indigenous religious dogmatizadores into the same category as Spanish, mulatto, and Creole sorcerers.” At this extremely tense moment, Viceroy Toledo had to decide the fate of the last Inca, Tupac Amaru. In fact, Tupac Amaru seems to be the first victim of Toledo’s new law. Tupac Amaru was equated with dogmatizadores hechizeros, and Andean religious specialists with him. They became the heirs of the Incas. TUPAC AMARU, THE FIRST VICTIM OF THE NEW LEGISLATION AIMED AT HECHIZEROS

Toledo’s new legislation against hechizeros turned out to be highly problematic, its details resting on a nebulous hermeneutical structure. Who was to decide whether a given indigenous hechizero had already been adequately indoctrinated? Who was to decide if he was a Christian who had deliberately abandoned the true doctrine? Who was to decide

if the hechizero was a dogmatizer or not? The punishment of Tupac Amaru was the first test case, illustrating the inherent problems that characterized this law—and here the legal principle of mixto fore did not work. While ecclesiastical authorities defended Tupac Amaru, insisting that he had honestly converted to the orthodox Christian faith, the head of the secular authority and proxy of the patron of the church did not believe his ecclesiastical advisers. Toledo ordered that Tupac Amaru be executed. It must have been a pitiful sight when an officer dragged Inca Tupac Amaru into Cuzco with a chain around his neck. Guaman Poma de Ayala, who perhaps was present on that day in 1572, depicted the scene as analogous to a Christian procession, so that the Spanish soldiers appeared to be carrying a monstrance (see figure 2.1).

In fact, they bore the idol of Punchao in front of them, adorned, according to Guaman Poma de Ayala, with the corona typical of a silver or gold monstrance in Peru. Two officers bearing lances followed the Andean idol. At the procession’s end walked Tupac Amaru, with his head down and his hands in a gesture of prayer. Guaman Poma de Ayala intentionally did not include the tears that he had depicted on the Inca’s face in Martin de Murtia’s Galvin Manuscript, which the Mercedarian

friar concluded around 1590.* Guaman Poma also transformed the crossed arms that he had depicted in Murtia’s Galvin manuscript into a gesture of prayer. This depiction of the last Inca as a humble Christian and the idol Punchao as the visual center of a Spanish procession

t+9 eee Za BVBMIGOBIERO

& s tea : fa, ;? :;i :A Py 5a> ie

| oy! PSY fan it Co fheuia L = WN NX | poeees tea "|

, LN ag ( hia aye @ } a Yee f ‘ Ve : fii} es meer Ge , of 2 y BS SE GA: » fi“ALy, Wie é NAV , yYt CEY 2 SS; )

n 4 Gey ay : : 0] of ) L_TyY \ if ep | SS Ae©.TWEE p\ Yi, ait eG At) A| ee ©) Fs 7 /XS 4 , 4(a < til

REA 4 Se SyPY | \ (3) Ww PN ae : || aK ro iS WY, J | yy a 373 . f HK,

epee (| MS ETI , Agi ¢ PP yy | | ,Boe oa: st4=aUS Bae ers \ a | -TTLip roe | B — Sup 2 = : | , intl cu 4 io CAP? tr sips

FIGURE 2.1. The capture of Tupac Amaru. From Guaman Poma de Ayala, Nueva coronica (1615), 449. Courtesy of the Royal Library, Copenhagen, Denmark.

CIVIL VERSUS ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITIES 59

is a striking inversion. Did Guaman Poma perhaps hope to suggest that the Spaniards—in their search for the Incas and the idol Punchao—had come close to worshipping the idol themselves?°°

Months after his conviction, Tupac Amaru was made to stand on the Haucaypata and publicly renounce the idol Punchao.** In the intervening period, Jesuits, Augustinians, Mercedarians, and Franciscans had worked tirelessly to convert him. By the fall of 1572, they had come to the conclusion that Tupac Amaru’s conversion was honest and well rooted. But malicious rumors circulated throughout Cuzco about the murder of an Augustinian friar who had been killed in the Vilcabamba while attempting to convert Tupac Amaru.” And though Tupac Amaru received lessons in Christianity, Toledo began to seriously doubt the success of previous conversions. As reports about the Taki Onkoy and the poison affair underscored, hechizeros of whatever racial background continued to pose a danger—despite baptism and careful indoctrination. For Toledo, Tupac Amaru—the last legal heir of the Inca rulers — belonged in the same category as other Indian hechizeros whose con-

versions had not neutralized their threat. Toledo might have seen in Tupac Amaru a leader or dogmatizer whose influence was so great that

only capital punishment could put an end to it; it is no wonder that three weeks later, in September 1572, he concluded that Tupac Amaru’s conversion was not reason enough to set him free. Toledo treated Tupac Amaru no differently than any other infidel dogmatizers, except in the way in which he was killed. Dogmatizers were to be killed by burning (much like heretics), while beheading was reserved for the Inca.°° The

beheading of Tupac Amaru remains an unhealed wound in the flesh of Indian and Creole history. José de Acosta was convinced that the murder of Inca leaders—first Atahualpa and then Tupac Amaru—was a fatal error. But even before the execution of Tupac Amaru, Toledo had already sent new visitators, Ramirez de Quinones and Antonio Lépez de Haro, through the southern Andes to uproot indigenous hechizeros and lead the dogmatizers among them to the stake. In a 1580 ordinance, Toledo threatened corregidores with capital punishment if they did not denounce the hechizeros.°’ Now that the last Inca had been killed, the so-called indigenous hechizeros became the country’s new enemies. Neither Sarmiento de Gamboa, who was one of Toledo’s closest advisers, nor the Jesuits had the will or influence to prevent the execution of Tupac Amaru or the newly determined efforts to persecute and prosecute hechizeros. It appears that Sarmiento de Gamboa had little interest in saving Tupac Amaru; many believe that his Historia de los

60 THE POWER OF HUACAS

incas helped persuade Toledo to kill the last Inca. However, while Sarmiento may have urged Toledo to execute his Inca rival, his own view

of indigenous hechizeros—which to date has received no attention from historians—was quite different from Toledo’s rigid attitude. Indeed, had the viceroy shared Sarmiento’s interests, the history of the legislation on hechizeros in the 1570s might have taken a very different course. Sarmiento’s unusual opinion of indigenous hechizeros not only hints at his own interest in talismanic astrology and rings with unusual powers, but also encouraged Toledo (albeit indirectly} to spare the arts and bodies of indigenous hechizeros. Unlike Toledo, who feared the stunning capacities of indigenous hechizeros, Sarmiento marveled at them. Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa was an artist in dissimulation. He knew

how to survive the political friction between the viceroy Don Diego Lopez de Zuniga y Velasco, Conde de Nieva (1561-64), and the newly erected inquisitional court in late sixteenth-century Lima.°® This is not to say that he managed to avoid all unpleasant encounters with the political and religious elite. Although Sarmiento had been the viceroy’s esteemed court astrologer and had carved three magical rings on the viceroy’s behalf, in 1564 Lima’s archbishop, Fray Jer6nimo de Loaysa, indicted him on charges of necromancy and suspicion of making a pact with the devil.’ He had used a mirror to divine future events. In addition, the three rings that he had fabricated served to “attract the will of men and women, and to gain the power of arms.” Sarmiento defended himself by arguing that theologians like Fray Francisco de la Cruz had approved of these rings, for they conformed to the principles of natural

magic. Loaysa sentenced Sarmiento to abjure his interest in magic, especially in judicial astrology, and to leave the country. Yet Loaysa kept the rings among his possessions.°’ Viceroy Toledo, who needed the talented man’s strategic and scholarly expertise, called Sarmiento back. Though he apparently returned as Toledo’s court historian rather than his court astrologer,’ Sarmiento retained an interest in analyzing

occult influences. He seems to have been convinced that they ruled nature in Peru as they did in Europe.

A close reading of Sarmiento’s Historia de los incas can help us infer his thoughts about indigenous magic during the reign of Viceroy Toledo. In that work Sarmiento rails against the tyrannical regimes of the various Incas, from Manco Capac to Atahualpa, but in chapter

46, his tone becomes slightly more gentle. He describes the great boredom that had overtaken Tupac Inca after he had subdued several

CIVIL VERSUS ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITIES 61

people along the northern coast of Peru. In this dull moment, a group of fishermen reported to Tupac Inca that they had encountered some unknown islands that abounded in great riches—in gold and in people. Tupac Inca knew, according to Sarmiento, that one should not believe fishermen blindly, and he thus decided to ask a man from his entourage, Antarqui, what he thought about the reported lands and riches. In Sarmiento’s words, this Antarqui, “they all declare, was a great necromancer and could even fly through the air.” He continued, “Antarqui answered, after having thought the matter well out, that what they said was true, and that he would go there first. They say that he accomplished this by his arts, traversed the route, saw the islands, their people and riches, and, returning, gave certain information of all to Tupac Inca.”°* The conquest was easy, and Tupac Inca brought back to the mainland black people, gold, a throne of bronze, and the jaw and hide of a horse. These trophies were ultimately stored in the Qoricancha in Cuzco. Sarmiento declared, “I am particular about this because to those who know anything of the Indies, it will appear a strange thing and difficult to believe.”®? Recognizing that his account would strike many as incredible—the horse’s jaw and skin probably aroused the most suspicion—he particularly referred to his eyewitness, Urco Huaranca, who was still the guardian of the trophies when Sarmiento was living in Cuzco. But beyond the details of the story, Sarmiento’s description of An-

tarqui, the so-called necromancer, has some unusual elements and displays some sympathy for indigenous hechizeros—a sympathy that

Toledo neither shared nor acknowledged. According to common Spanish notions, a necromancer was an evil sorcerer who had made a pact with the devil.“ But although Sarmiento called Antarqui a necromancer, he did not depict him negatively or associate him with demons, despite his ability to fly. In fact, Sarmiento characterized him more as an intellectual than as an irrational demon worshipper.” By explicitly stating that Antarqui “had thought the matter well out” before taking off for his flight, Sarmiento suggested that Antarqui had perceived the truth by means of his intellect prior to using his exceptional abilities. In fact, in a letter to Philip II], Sarmiento offered a similar description of his own mathematical skills (which had enabled him to discover the Solomon Islands shortly before he had started to write the Historia de los incas on Toledo’s behalf) and thus implicitly associated Antarqui with himself: “God gave me talents, industry, and erudition, especially in mathematics, and even though they are few, I was familiar

62 THE POWER OF HUACAS

with many undiscovered territories in the Southern Ocean that nobody had discovered before me.”°° We can only guess at the reasons for Sarmiento’s unconventional characterization of Antarqui and speculate about his attitude toward Antarqui’s magical tricks. But there is substantial evidence that Sarmiento himself had an interest in the art of divination, and thus may have sympathized with the Inca’s necromancer. Moreover—and somewhat astonishingly, considering the context in which his history of the Incas was written—Sarmiento named other hechizeros only twice.°’ Polo de Ondegardo, in contrast, also a member of Toledo’s staft, gave numerous descriptions of hechizeros in the present as well as in Inca

times. In addition, in his reports on Inca priests, Sarmiento did not label them hechizeros, as was commonly done by Murta, Blas Valera, and others. In this way, Sarmiento indirectly and cautiously pleaded that the distinction between priests, necromancers, and hechizeros be more finely drawn. Viceroy Toledo did not wonder about Sarmiento’s curious silence, nor did it occur to him that Tupac Yupanqui’s necromancer was perhaps much like Sarmiento, his own esteemed officer. But then, Toledo saw nothing positive in any dogmatizer or hechizero, be he Tupac Amaru, Manuel Luna’s collaborators, Antarqui, or an unknown religious specialist. THE DECLINE AND RISE OF THE JESUITS’ STAR

At the same time that Sarmiento’s perspective was failing to lessen Toledo’s ill will toward hechizeros, the Jesuits also lost their confrontation with the viceroy over the fate of Tupac Amaru. Neither Alonso de Barzana, Hieronymus Ruiz de Portillo, nor Luis Lopez was able to influence the will and conscience of Toledo.®* At this decisive moment in the history of colonial Peru, indigenous hechizeria stood squarely at the center of three different forces: reactions to the Taki Onkoy, Toledo’s distrust of hechizeros, and the Jesuits’ changing position in the political arena. In 1572, the execution of Tupac Amaru dramatically spotlighted Jesuit weakness. By then, the Jesuit province could be said to resemble either the Augean stables or a ship without a captain. The Jesuits lacked direction, and, with their confidence in divine guidance shaken, some members began to lose their moral certitude. Jesuits regularly sent let-

ters across the Atlantic, indicating their demand for directives from Rome about the most basic aspects of organizing Indian missions: Who would pay the Jesuits, the king or the bishop? How should the mission

CIVIL VERSUS ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITIES 63

schedule be organized? Who had the aptitude to become a missionary? Whom should be made confessor to Spaniards and whom to Indians? Of course, this constant transatlantic dialogue with the central authorities in Rome was a requisite of the order, but Peruvian Jesuits in early times conferred with Rome even on delicate issues and sought guidance on minutia, such as asking, before dismantling parts of Sacsayhuaman, if they might use its stones to build their own church in Cuzco.®’ In 1568, the arrival of the Jesuits in the New World had been promising, marked by auspicious signs and general goodwill. On the exact hour when the first six Jesuits landed in Peru in January 1568, an eclipse of the sun occurred.”” According to Didacus de Bracamonte, who was on the ship to Callao, this was a wonderful and promising sign, foretelling great success for Loyola’s followers.” Shortly thereafter, when an earthquake shook Lima, it was interpreted as yet another sign that

God had chosen the Jesuits “as instruments to help the souls of this country.””* And when Viceroy Toledo set out for the New World the following year, he was very favorably disposed toward the Jesuits; he promised Philip I] that he would take special care of them, and made the same promise to his Roman friend, the Jesuit general Francisco Borgia.” Toledo kept that promise in his first years as viceroy, granting the Jesuits good estates and stipends.” Before 1571, he consulted with

the Jesuits about politics, asked the Jesuit Provincial to read a mass once a week on one of David's psalms, and confessed regularly to Bartolomé Hernandez.” Not surprisingly, Toledo took three Jesuits along

with him on his visita throughout the country: Hieronymus Ruiz de Portillo, the Quechua specialist Alonso de Barzana, and Luis Lopez.” Obviously, in the years before 1571, the relationship between Toledo and

the Jesuits was an entente cordiale. However, at the beginning of the visita general, discord developed between the Jesuits and the viceroy over several issues. They disagreed about tribute payments, and especially about whether Indian fiscals should assist priests with evangelization. Adding to the problem were the significant structural defects in their order’s charters, under which Jesuits labored during the early years. Rome knew about these issues and tried to remedy them, but the discussions with Rome began to affect the chemistry between the Jesuits and the viceroy. On April 19, 1572, Toledo’s confessor, Bartolomé Hernandez, expressed his concern in a report to Rome. He had fallen into disagreement with the viceroy about the visita general, and especially about the issue of corregidores of indios.”’ Hernandez also wrote disparagingly about a certain Domi-

64 THE POWER OF HUACAS

nican, a Garcia de Toledo, who now seemed to have privileged access to the viceroy’s secret chamber.’”* Had the Dominicans won greater influence than the Jesuits over Viceroy Toledo? The rivalry between the two orders is rightly notorious. On an official level, Jesuits and Dominicans constantly strove with each other for influence, whether personal, ideological, theological, or practical. This competition was, in essence, a battle for political power.” Indeed, in 1572 the Jesuits were on the point of losing the battle, and their royal privileges along with it. They lacked a compelling model for indigenous evangelization, such as the Dominicans had produced in the work of Bartolomé de las Casas, and the Dominican Domingo de Santo Tomas had written the first SpanishQuechua dictionary. By 1570, Dominicans staffed Lima’s San Marcos University, the Inquisition, and the archbishop’s see.*° In 1572, Jesuit power was at its lowest ebb, the Jesuits themselves incapable of implementing a unified program. One Jesuit, Luis Lopez, and his antics were a symptom, if not a cause, of the chaos in the Jesuit province in the late 1560s and early 1570s. Lopez was involved in a curious case of exorcism.*' In 1569, a time when only a handful of Jesuits

resided in Lima, Lopez wrote a letter to Rome in which he mentioned a certain Dominican—identified by historians as Padre Gasco— who was spreading rumors about Lopéz’s and Ruiz de Portillo’s alleged heresies.°* Lopez did not go into the details of this accusation, but he was clearly upset that Padre Gasco had made their “heresies” a public issue. We now know that these rumors concerned the exorcism of a Spanish woman named Maria Pizarro. Her case led to the first major series of trials in the history of the Inquisition in Peru, as charges were brought against Fray Francisco de la Cruz, Luis Lopez, Ruiz de Portillo, and even the astrologer and officer Sarmiento de Gamboa.’ This brief episode re-

veals much about Jesuit convictions about the might of the demons— a conviction that not only came to affect Andean religious specialists, but Jesuits themselves. The episode began in 1569, when Maria Pizarro was allegedly possessed by a demon.** Several clerics acted as exorcists, among them Fray Francisco de la Cruz and Lopez himself, who was the lead exorcist. According to Maria’s 1573 confession, in their nightly exorcism sessions, the Jesuit fell in love with her. They had sexual intercourse in her house, and she ultimately became pregnant.*? Her pregnancy served to corroborate her possession, for her swollen belly was said to house a demon. More importantly, Maria now confessed that the demon had asked to possess her only after Lopez had engaged in intercourse with

CS nae

CIVIL VERSUS ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITIES 65

ye 4% Opa,pFeeara x Orr pe. ; Wee ai a ea SOUTH AMERICA Pacific Ocean “1 SSN | “e Trujillo 1623 7

“4S e'Chavin de Pariarca RZ MCN |

1581 Callao ggg Huorochivs FEF ee

REESE ROSE 1568 LIMAY 605 pRGuzco[1571Ih * 7) |

1620 Pisco® 1 RO SSS Si. :

“ i576 pati iit Sy ~ aS 1571. > Foundations of Jesuit Be EU. Ree 1588 }

> Jesuit doctrinas eae ie. '1582|Potosie cumeaes 1595)

—___ We

MAP 2.1. Jesuit foundations.

her. According to Maria, therefore, the demon had simply aped Lopez. The details of these events were probably known to very few initiates.*° And although Lépez had been convicted during the course of Fray Francisco de la Cruz’s trial, he was somehow cleared of charges.*’ Indeed, it is curious that over the course of this long trial—which disclosed a clandestine network of prominent figures in Peru who were

keenly interested in magic, Indians, and a new Creole society—the Jesuits alone escaped persecution.** That the Jesuits seemed unassailable was a sign of their rising power in the Creole church under the auspices of José de Acosta. For when Acosta arrived in December 1572, the Jesuit Joannes de Zuniga wrote that only his arrival brought some “alivio” (relief).8° “Now I feel relieved that I have someone to talk to

after Father Joseph arrived. ... What we do right now is to weep and ask God that he could send some remedy.””° Indeed, with Acosta, anew era began for both the Jesuit order and the religious specialists. Acosta

not only introduced moral honesty into his order, he also proclaimed moral honesty to be a requisite for the missions among the indigenous people. And finally, the missions now became the prime concern of the Jesuit order in Peru.”’ With Acosta being the driving force behind

or = -_s a

" i PS \*21028, iE tis hh cm}

a.aa

Cocantins f ‘Es Le jo rm rx) / 12 | eal et% g3 A a g § 5 oo yt on 4 is} ; 2e,. ifOS » =SC 3§ > — % rad = |= 3“a’ |— = f“~ ee 2 Miko. Slane wo) YY\+ —SwHiee ce Tf _= cge oS :

a — wy ims

wn Sn =Lom =een7tyy@ .\> oS = yo] . ad ot toySe Oa ln] SW Mogg. ~ wh IAs =eor =| 03/9 ocr > ‘eo —® In| ce ‘See ef sx ke Bs pe “ic@ "@ (eu ow Md 7] = Ww = : = es Aco ve ‘4EhEs) Sa5a =V7.6 £ Fi PAS stga wyars Sss 2,c aw = bh in =3Se 229

cial FAS =—pe SUe«ek sa |=|Sprory “2 eg 2s SU esse5i ~: eis a 8 8 Os ee GFE IE Led!6lSi%Ol=| Ye s“So petSUO Hh % ~ Cm eeto sec gMs Big as = SS SSeS Alol s =o < Seb oO >it Veo aU. SS gg \S|= on YSTH, S>12 giclols Allo; ost RSS bre's aw - Oe 2 i —— ae oF aS Sn Es} 4 = in Stele 3vi o) ~|= oOfoay ne) PB Pa < S55 (So mE Solty ——s, WM EW &=O csJMa =2/2 Rune) Se =a ‘ rena | © o cS = mn f Ss B = Re ; =a ef = PY\O VY 2 Le 2,0 s// (siz! 89 Ss] . =S|)oSimN Ss \e8.q —35j= Sy,

h]en . FINN — =rye I[gel[s) ns? =A amm ae a‘68 6SHIN |Sieisic ae ® & am t= AG Lo) a |S cS wn S ~ > x“ |] Oo ee Wo =~ pi o u — ‘ ~ . ‘ Lowe #) — © ~ S NN _ € ’ " © ISISiS) 5 S f wel FS be 2 8 Nal = S > (S]s| e ff)(") < c WK —) “Sil als 22° 3} = 2i32i ‘ ~) eo) “S| x 3| @ + ry al =: Sag T7e va U : ® P \s S Alin Sc — “D in ij ped ‘> ji) aw aw} @)) TC” vs m WI oR z= P — soll | OO c Ke = "o oS oe C§ )wr fctsas Gs el, 2° SPR =S=E a~ + =2JSulESWEL 31S a) yy cs) -® ; AW t) Ss aN = o 4 Ss hy a Ld ad —2 |r ein mee HOY Ve ae N 2 ® e wa fja9p rsae 4, c 7) MAN O-5 a 3 = vy SxS 2a0 > 8 EM-ae si] o e¢?tf) 2= jay ‘) ae} (@) Pst =) a]Ss) |= A(X Sse%| £@) n :anpop => FaSo , Cy) ee eyry ed |slee.— Oe ae =— osanve ION oan | heer) Wwon c2 6 >iS

fei ¢ oy ‘ 2 = =|— $ =ll oa ~~ = > cS es |\} 4~: “32s |/

) — oC rye SZ 2) |e) Elm SiS| s etesS ees = x zSp i) =| —= (el oe|S=—5 LJ > AEST 5m= 8)S [S|spe S/Sote|2 cae>

C3 2S Sc Els) (ew ee) eeei= S| |e ie 30 = 232 z) =2a:

Ywo 8a =} ys |S)|S| S AS HeeS 525 SH TSJos) || SHS]Cle Gumt‘Bes =e Ve Hs) Arqueologico de Tiwanaku, ty : yg i ; “ | ° ° Hive ¢ / i Bi ghey Bolivia. We weil.

Te feHs 5

i} war ar yO ge ?

pt hea ae ai * ‘7 Ae r, 7

: ; re ¢ x. : bie, * Ae es

:: : — a‘ eet in,—ere ee>4

eee a 4 —

en — tgs A es gee Se a Se Ss erEN ee ga FS,:alYo al eT,

he Ne Ke a pe. é Fea eh Sd wes:Re P» OS eT .atee an = osile these ™ $ig*“a Bo) ,: rh ‘\ INS ~, >

“7 Fe an - . Ss S 7 _ ioe > ee DAE ; ae Ee as. ey mF SA:‘' i} 7 , igur fkaiyOe ay! . Ta i emis Prete Sv )7 es atteiesA5As AB.>Bae I)9dan Peat re a |>) - Ns Bs al: : ~— 4 2 Se * ‘eS ee ¥

2] aes eero ome Os, Hey 4 »\ “> BRoa yy) ee i oe NG | en cea ee ST... < \ tno a ‘4 ae Ri ma . Ses . _ f ed

; aS ee a) ae

yer PERS ’ eh see es nea ete sy ERI f 4 | aeOR

So RRM, i MR OE | eeaeiRS¥ne: (abees Re 8 4) eenay. reyee ae i Se oivn. i : ee3n. Sires: Re pee ‘| Nh Sete 2 attSMe | | si cram aay /| oy sd > he > ef Me : i =i $s - iy!

ie ou (3 bei aa yy ROO} a pe San\ wS SY ||| :|— OTHE SRST 119 1 9 BS GaN ’ Pree A ig. = aa , Jp yy) ‘

DES HOA 8) NI CC toh - (> ~ met =. tif MA DANE YET yj / Ke ‘ . k. Sighs | Lf / naa ‘\ Wn ie {/

/ ee NARS icra Pi ffl oft | Se NIT cet ge Pe HY gel Z = aie ! | | j XN 1a he eet L) if pie see I

| ) Sey ee iy j Fogel

a Ae eB { \/ Fy ro | | /7/‘AY i) ‘. . $5 t TY) j Hal Ey Se ee OS ay YS / & Fay). ik.

,e§

MK Jism cane 4h Loko| al Fr ne a a nae < . LA me / of co; ie eS IzsHalei :gel EePee ae afeweer

= ; yj 4 an ith Arto te ee ie ee eS

FIGURE 4.1. “Priests, Valla Viza, Laica, Umu, Hichezero.” From Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala, Nueva coronica (1615), 277. Courtesy of the Royal Library,

Copenhagen, Denmark.

108 THE POWER OF HUACAS

The combination of Jesuit fascination with hechizeros’ communications and Jesuit reluctance to go into the details of these same communications exemplifies the thorough ambivalence of the Society of Jesus’ attitude toward the native world. This ambivalence was shared by the Augustinians. The members of both orders were torn between curiosity and fear, between concepts of assimilation and utter alienation, between their own interest in natural magic and their zeal to extirpate idolatries. Why, for example, did a Jesuit in 1576 deliver a stone to Gregory XIII (pope, 1572-85) as proof of Peruvian idolatry?'’ Was the stone merely the token symbol of a foreign religion? Or did the Jesuit himself think that this object was somehow exceptional? Did the pope turn the stone over in his hand or hold it to his ear? In this instance, as in so many others, the sources do not allow us to investigate Catholic ambivalence in more depth. In seventeenth-century Spanish and Creole discourse, it was water on European mills when Santacruz and informants from the Huarochiri region reported that a colonial religious specialist heard huacas enter his or her house howling “huhu” or “chuchu.” To a Spaniard, these meaningless sounds merely provided further evidence of the nonsensical nature of typical demons’ talk."® Yet for the Andean religious specialist, the onomatopoetic “huhu” and “chuchu” were the happy signs of the wind huaca’s arrival, containing the promise of quick healing of a sick patient or the finding of a lost item.” In seventeenth-century Peru, the standard Jesuit and Augustinian rhetoric presented religious specialists as talking to demons in the form of idols—namely, huacas, fire, an elm tree, stones, mummies of ancestors (mallguis), thunder (Illapa), or the Sun.*° Before reviewing how demonological discourse intensified over the seventeenth century

and what its consequences were for native religious specialists, it is worth investigating how seventeenth-century Andean religious specialists’ communications with higher entities differed from those of their Inca predecessors. What did communication between Auacas and semihuman or human beings look like before, and after, the Spanish conquest? TALKING... BUT HOW? SPANISH REPRESENTATIONS OF INCA AND ANDEAN WISDOM

Intensely alert as always, early chroniclers interrogated quipucamayocs to find out how Incas communicated with the alleged preternatural forces. These inquiries brought forth a plethora of evidence.

TALKING TO DEMONS 109

Notably, chroniclers recorded in great detail how the Incas succeeded in foreseeing their regime’s demise. Spaniards were impressed by these predictions because history had proven them correct. The Inca—and indeed the Andean and colonial Andean—world contained many specialists and many ways to read a huaca’s will. In Inca times, mirrors were probably used for both personal use and astronomical observations. Mirrors, of course, were objects dear to learned magi in Europe and popular throughout the baroque world. They were employed by Peruvian Catholic artists in baroque altars to shed God’s light into the souls of believers. In the early decades of the conquest, Spaniards marveled at the grandeur of the Inca Empire. Giovanni di Botero believed that silver and the perfect road system lay at the heart of Inca “grandezza.”*” To a later gen-

eration, the ninth Inca, Pachacuti Yupanqui, stood out as the empire’s architect. According to most guipucamayocs and chroniclers, this Inca was exceptionally gifted. He succeeded in transforming a local regime

into an empire that rivaled its ancient Roman counterpart in greatness.?*> One question in particular intrigued the chroniclers: How did Inca Pachacuti Yupanqui manage to subdue the Chancas, a confederation of people living near Cuzco? Their defeat was widely held to be the turning point in Inca history.** Sarmiento de Gamboa and Cristobal de Molina oftered the same answer to the riddle of Pachacuti’s success: a speaking mirror, which had come into his possession at Susurpuquio, a lake south of Cuzco. Here, Pachacuti Yupanqui Inca was said to have had a vision. According to Molina, one day the ruler was resting on the lake’s banks, baffled as to how to proceed in his military campaign against the Chanca, whom he had thus far been unable to conquer.”

In this idyllic place, far from the front line where his soldiers were fighting with clubs and bows against stubborn resistance, a mirror fell into the pond. In this mirror, Pachacuti Yupanqui saw the figure of an indio, but this Indian was not a normal human being. The figure had serpents as arms, the head of a cougar, three rays emanating from its head, and pierced ears. Then the image began to speak to the Inca. It said, “I am the Sun, your father, and 1 know that you will subject many nations and thus revere me.” Having spoken, the strange animal-like figure vanished. Only the mirror remained. In Molina’s words, “And thus vanished the apparition and only the crystal mirror remained in the pond. The Inca took it and guarded it. It is said that the Inca ever since saw whatever he wanted to know.””° In his 1572 history of the Inca

empire, Sarmiento recounted the same story as Molina, with a slight

110 THE POWER OF HUACAS

but significant variation.*’ As in Molina’s account, the Inca Pachacuti Yupanqui, again in the midst of battle against the Chanca, had a vision. A person appeared “in the air like the Sun consoling him |the Inca] and

animating him for the battle. This being held up to him a mirror in which the provinces he would subdue were shown, and told him that he would be greater than any of his ancestors... . He [Pachacuti] took the mirror, which he carried with him ever afterwards, in peace or war.” As Sarmiento added, “the vision gave spirit to Inca Yupanqui.”** Both

Molina and Sarmiento depicted the Inca as consulting a mirror, but while Molina’s mirror resembles an elaborate piece from the Wari culture that depicts a ferocious animal,?” Sarmiento’s account conforms more closely to European expectations: his supernatural being is more purely human in form, and the mirror itself resembles the instrument of a European magus.

In sixteenth- and seventeenth-century European discourse about magic, it was anything but abnormal to speak to demons or angels via a mirror.’? In the colonial world, Sarmiento himself was accused of having placed a mirror underneath the earth, which would enable his client to predict when luck or misfortune would cross his path.*! But unlike in Mexico, Peruvian Inquisition records provide no evidence of a rigorous employment of mirrors through the hands of European-type learned magi in the viceroyalty.* In general, the impact of European erudite magi on indigenous religious specialists was marginal.’ In contrast, Philip II, to whom Sarmiento dedicated his work, is known to have been a great admirer of mirrors and stars.** We do not know whether the astrologer and chronicler Sarmiento hoped that this anecdote of Pachacuti Yupanqui’s success, owed to consulting a mirror, would help convince Viceroy Toledo and Philip II that they should avail themselves of Sarmiento’s own skills with that technique.** But this story undoubtedly corresponded well with the Spaniards’ own perception of the Inca regime as ruled by tyrannical kings and their belief that the Incas’ success indirectly rested on consultation of demons. Mirrors, but not of crystal, were also part of the Andean world. The Moche and the Wari peoples treasured beautiful mirrors. Their social elite kept them as valued objects, and a few Moche and Wari mirrors still exist today.*° Unfortunately, the elaborate pieces themselves do

not reveal how they were actually used. And though the use of mirrors was widespread among the Inca, Wari, and Moche elite, as well as among erudite European magicians in the New World, according to colonial visitation records, they were not standard equipment for

TALKING TO DEMONS i111

colonial-era Andean religious specialists. In their offerings to huacas and in the ceremonies that Spaniards interpreted as divination rituals, religious specialists used beans, spiders, and coca leaves, but they did not use mirrors (see chapter 6]. And as we will see, although documents from the mid-seventeenth century onward show traces of exchange of ritual practices between folk practitioners of different cul-

tures in the colonial period, mirrors apparently did not cross the cultural border. No seventeenth-century documentation refers to mirrors as being used by local Andean religious specialists. Today some Chiclayo and southern Peruvian curanderos include mirrors in their mesas, but as the documentation of the visitation protocols from lateeighteenth-century Trujillo shows, even here, where adaptations to foreign practices were far greater than in the highlands, this is likely to be a twentieth-century innovation.*” During colonial times, mirrors—once the prerogative of the Inca elite who symbolically bore the attributes of Mama Huaco or Ocllo—belonged to a distant world.** Yet despite playing no part in native religious practices, mirrors came to

be present in Christian spaces. In even the tiniest parishes, mirrors adorned the altars, tabernacles, and statues of the saints.*? In Spanish and Creole narratives, the mirror became a symbol for the immaculate conception of Mary, or even a metaphor for the Holy Trinity.*° These features were never adopted by seventeenth-century Andean religious specialists for their rituals. FROM PRIVATE CONFESSION TO PUBLIC TRIAL

One might call the Jesuit preoccupation with communication between hechizeros and demons monotonous were it not for the increasing suffering it began to inflict on hechizeros. Compared to their experiences in the period beginning in 1609, the life of religious specialists from 1583 until that point seems to have been relatively secure. During the late sixteenth century, few documents testify to the active persecution of hechizeros. The church and its clergy appear to have simply disregarded the urgent warning of Lima’s Third Council (1582-83) on that matter. Even though the Third Council of Lima stigmatized hechizeros in public as “worshippers of the devil,” for quite a while this rhetoric was not accompanied by enforcement or widespread public support.” Gradually this lax attitude changed, especially in the Archdiocese of Lima, with considerable shifts taking place in the years 1609, 1621, and 1649 (see map 4.1)—a story that has already been told. But in the effort

é ? ie

112 THE POWER OF HUACAS

. g Quito \ ds Maly a hae |

1, Put, A pn ig x py a i :=ny ' Ng \ | Taga fe WS 7) a Chimboraze SB a Pate ee { SS se > eeeNas . Pn~=

;gi umbez ss po ee / y,

a fobs Cuenca a Pina \ ee A, 4 Y ES Scatacaos NOS ~ SOUTH AMERICA “S. ‘y : . & he 7 7 . Ry

!’7

« ‘+ ajamarca Lucma

; ~*~ 4 Huamachuco

Santiago de Cao +, ~S Trujillo + Moche

* + Yautan Huanuco }

)Pact + vAye} |% Up. 5Se Pararink@ryne ee ey be 5esMe

Huacho we gMiavillos Altosa os ~ aeiatPybeercchin Pomacocha » “2 eae: 2 Hiahansa gece Andaman Tomas de Rondocan” ¢~Huaro. ) Ye >“\_~“Santo Checacupe _ ee ee I~ SSS ‘NX ; SKA See _ Logo’

Chancay, ¢@Huamantanga = 2: aes San Lorenzo de Quinti4 *Xauxa~. ~~ *

4, DAD’, Andagua Titicaca 4ycarabuco

ni Ibe >Ocean Nevado aoanle are Neveds Iilampu Pacitic sore: eae. Mi> aes eee Bchoauiabo “aap, + Arequipa )

™~ ~~ #Moquegua 4 gC huquisaca

0 120 240 360km

\ 3 ¢ Potosi +

MAP 4.1. Places where Andean religious specialists were persecuted during colonial times.

to understand the many shifts in the role of Andean religious specialists, which depended on both a changing theoretical discourse as well as on cross-cultural interactions, we need to recapitulate these shifting European perceptions, this time through the lens of the different facets within the European discourse on magic. The changes in policy that took place after 1609 were due most di-

TALKING TO DEMONS 113

rectly to the work of four ambitious priests who wanted to inscribe themselves into history and, ultimately, into heaven: Francisco de Avila ica. 1573-1647), José de Arriaga (1563-1622), Fernando de Avendano (15771655}, and Pedro de Villagomez (d. 1671). With the exception of Arriaga and

Villago6mez, who didn’t know each other, the men were all acquainted. This quartet was convinced that the persecution of hechizeria required

public support, that hechizerfa was an issue of the highest public priority, and that more priests were indispensable for the purpose of eradicating idolatries. All four of them made themselves publicly heard in sermons and published treatises: Avila’s Tratado de los evangelios (1646-48, with a reflection on activities from the year 1609), Avendano’s Sermones de los misterios de nuestra santa fe catélica (1649), Arriaga’s La extirpacion de la idolatria en el Perti (1621), and Villag6mez’s Exortaciones e instruccién acerca de las idolatrias (1649). Avila was a secular

priest and received his own parish while in his mid-twenties; Avendano, a secular priest, served as professor of theology for three years before becoming rector of the University of San Marcos; Arriaga, a member of the Jesuit order, became rector of the Colegio de San Martin, the Jesuit seminary in Lima, at the age of twenty-four; and Villagomez, a secular priest, ascended Lima’s archiepiscopal throne at age fifty-one.

All four were figures of considerable public repute, and their general outlook on the indigenous world was similar. They all suspected that behind the hechizeros’ actions were the manipulations of demons. Of course, their demonology varied. To simplify, the stages of their demonology in the discourse in the archdiocese of Lima can be identified as follows: from a demonology with special emphasis on idolatry, to a demonology with an emphasis of the equation of the magus with the heretic, and, at last, toa demonology with an emphasis of the equation of the magus/hechizero with the heretic/witch. Let us consider these three stages of development. ON DECEMBER 20, 1609, Avila publicly staged an auto-da-fé in the Plaza Mayor of Lima, the heart of Spanish power, that prominently staged the new demonology that was to dominate seventeenth-century discourse on Andean religious specialists in the archdiocese of Lima. For the first time, the Spanish and Creole public was able to witness the punishment of an indigenous hechizero, a man named Hernando Paucar’? Avila must have felt great satisfaction that day. According to the reports of Avila and Arriaga, Paucar was chained to a pole and forced to look on as Avila’s Jesuit cohorts piled up wood for a bonfire.

114. THE POWER OF HUACAS

Avila preached a sermon against demon worship in eloquent Quechua. Arriaga, in retrospect, called Paucar a “great master of idolatry, who spoke to the Devil.”*° As we can infer from the gripping language of his Tratado de los evangelios (1646-48), Avila was truly a great rhetorician. Afterward, the Jesuits threw onto the pyre hundreds of idols that they had collected with Avila on their mission to the Huarochiri district. Under the auspices of the initially skeptical viceroy Marqués de Montesclaros, who looked on the pitiful spectacle of Hernando Paucar

from a window in his palace, the fire was lit. Paucar had once been the most highly esteemed religious authority in the Huarochiri area. Many Indians had consulted him regarding their future, luck, marriage,

health, and other matters, both prosaic and extraordinary. In those days, Paucar had served the huaca Chaupinamocc as its main priest, probably attired in beautifully woven textiles and adorned with a multicolored feathered headdress. In Lima, however, the Spaniards chained him to a pole and punished him with two hundred lashes. Humiliation needed no translator. Paucar also received a stigmatizing haircut and was sentenced to serve in the Jesuit colegio of Santiago de Chile, thousands of miles away from his homeland. Was Paucar ever sent to Chile?

To what use could the Chilean Jesuits put him? The record is silent. But we do know that the official staging of the auto-da-fé of Paucar at the heart of Spanish Peru's political geography marked a radical shift in colonial policy toward indigenous priests. Never before in the history of either Lima or Cuzco had Spanish officials made an indigenous hechizero sufter through auto-da-fé. Up until this day in 1609, the Inquisition had reserved autos-da-fé for Spanish, mestizo, and Afro-Peruvian hechizeros and, especially, heretics, because Philip II had exempted indigenous people from inquisitorial oversight and prosecution.”* But as we already have seen, Viceroy Toledo had worked towards that aim. In trying to explain this specific event, I argue that Avila’s motivation for the 1609 auto-da-fé (and not simply its description in 1646-68} was influenced by a recent import from European demonology, especially from Martin Delrio’s book Disqguisitionum magicarum libri sex.” Almost every order possessed at least one copy of it.“° The former Jesuit library of Cuzco owned the 1599-1600 edition of the Disguisitionum magicarui libri sex, the first among several.” It bore the official seal of the Jesuits. Eymerich’s Directorium was equally popular’*® While Avila was imprisoned in Lima in 1607, he or the Jesuits accompanying him could have gotten hold of the Disquisitionum magicarum libri sex, the Directorium, or both’? It is known that Avila acquired both the Direc-

TALKING TO DEMONS 115

torium and the Disquisitionum magicarum libri sex at some juncture,” but his copy of the latter bears no publication date, and we do not know when he bought it. Avila was an avid book collector throughout his lite, and he always wanted to enter the Jesuit order. His love for the Jesuits and his loyalty to them remained with him throughout his hfe — even though the order had denied him entry. Avila and the Jesuits who accompanied him to Huarochiri probably already knew this book by the time of their visitation. Like many others, Paucar was accused of having been in constant communication with the devil. The hechizero had set up an unidentified small idol to enable the demon to speak, and the demon had not disappointed him. Avila was highly agitated by Paucar’s fame in Huarochiri. In his confession, Paucar stated that “when I enter a village, the [Indians] erect arches for me and there is dancing. Women play the drums. They provide housing and give me food|,| . . . moreover, they erect a little hut made out of branches and they close it off with mantas textiles] and allow me to enter it day and night, all by myself. People come to this place to consult with me and I answer and sacrifice guinea pigs, spill chicha, and perform other ceremonies, depending on what is at stake.”°' Was Paucar treated like an important Christian religious figure —a visitator, or even a bishop—by his own people? When Cuzco’s

bishop and the Corpus Christi procession stepped off the main plaza, they stepped on flowers that pious Indians and Creoles had spread before their feet.** Likewise, when a new viceroy entered Lima, or when the San Marcos University celebrated the Virgin Mary’s ascension to heaven, elaborate arches were erected. Paucar’s arrival in a village was no less elaborately celebrated. Paucar’s close relationship with a demon, together with his authority within his community, made him particularly threatening to Avila, and thus particularly worthy of public censorship. It did not matter that Paucar had (voluntarily or involuntarily) asked Avila to convert him to Christianity. It did not matter that Avila himself could look back on considerable success in converting the Indians of the region.°* According to him, the Indians wanted to deliver their idols and convert to Christianity. Avila regretted that “all these idols were but little stones and ridiculous things, none was of silver or gold.” He added dismissively, “One Indian happened to possess a silk button, made of black silk, which was the idol of his household ({dolo penate). He had found it somewhere in Lima in the trash, brought it to his village, and showed it to the teacher of idolatry, who said that it was a great thing (gran cossa) and that he should use it as his household

116 THE POWER OF HUACAS

God (dios penate).”*» One wonders: if Andean idolatry was so ridiculous,

if all the Indians were already converted, why then was Paucar’s autoda-fé necessary? This demonstration likely was aimed not at indigenous people but at Spaniards and Creoles. Either way, an auto-da-fé of this size surely indicates that hechizeros or dogmatizers seriously challenged Catholic authority. Arriaga commented that the event was effective. It was only in its aftermath that Viceroy Montesclaros became “totally convinced that idolatry was as deeply rooted among the Indians as it was concealed.” In 1610 Avila was appointed the first official visitator of the archdiocese of Lima, beginning a major campaign to extirpate idolatries that was to last until 1622.°’ During those years, an estimated 1,618 hechizeros, or dogma-

tizers, were scrutinized. Some of them were imprisoned in Lima’s Santa Cruz prison, designed for hechizeros.® In his retrospective description of 1646, composed after a career in Peru’s ecclesiastical hier-

archy and almost thirty-seven years after the auto-da-fé, Avila was careful to present Paucar’s history in terms consistent with the current orthodoxy. BY 1609, AND BY 1646 AT THE LATEST, Avila understood and explained Paucar as a Peruvian Faust. Avila stressed Paucar’s active role in the alleged process of communication, saying that “on his |Paucar’s|

command, the idol spoke.” Avila claimed to have learned this from Paucar himself, who supposedly confessed, “I made him [the demon| speak by putting up an idol that represented him.”°’ No proof can be given for the authenticity of this purported confession. It is mean-

ingful, however, that Avila represented Paucar as an omnipotent magus, capable of guiding the demon into the desired object. Thus, according to Avila, it is the hechizero who summons the demon, and not the demon that ensnares the sorcerer. Martin Delrio’s Disquisitionum magicarum libri sex (with twentyfour editions published in Europe between 1599 and 1755), a great treasure chest of stories related to European magic, pejoratively referred to a magician from Antioch who used his “magical powers” to make an idol of Jupiter speak, thereby increasing hatred and persecution of the Christians.°’ Delrio condemned the speech of the talkative Dodonian doves, the Dodonian oak tree, the ship of Argus, Achilles’ horse, the Brahmanian elm trees, and the river Causus, which said “hello” to Pythagoras, as not grounded in the workings of nature.®’ He consid-

ered these marvels to be either lies or the result of dealings between

TALKING TO DEMONS = 117

a demon and his magus. Delrio described demonic magicians as those who “use unknown, false, unauthentic, absurd and senseless words, or misuse or distort holy words, by inserting them into inappropriate contexts, or use them for purposes they had not been assigned for, or when they use unknown names of good angels or make use of angels’ names which are unknown in the Catholic tradition.”® Avila’s characterization of Paucar as a magus was consistent with the prevailing Jesuit orthodoxy concerning European sorcerers. In Avila’s language, Paucar’s idol represented a preternatural creature. In 1609 Avila’s motives for organizing the auto-da-fé of Paucar had been exceptional. He was the first to openly argue that hechizeros were like “demonic magicians,” who made demons come and go. He was also the first to treat hechizeros almost like heretics—despite a different treatment mandated through civil law. While earlier missionaries and clergy had followed Acosta in emphasizing that these “ministros del diablo” were victims of the devil’s deceit, Avila began to use a symbolic language that had hitherto been reserved for heretics. Until the end of the century, the auto-da-fé was a powerful tool in Peru, providing a platform for religious authorities to voice their concerns to hundreds of pious Limenos.®? In a city that prided itself by the mid-seventeenth century on its fourteen convents, its 3,500 clergymen, and its more generous expenditures for pious works and white wax than any other city in the world, heresy was a true spectacle.®%* Had the auto-da-fé taken place in the countryside, it could not have achieved its purpose. In some respects, Paucar’s auto-da-fé was like a rally to attract support for a political party, but the gruesome event was also the practical application of Avila’s readings, notably Eymerich’s Directorium and Delrio’s Disguisitionum magicarum libri sex, to religious expression in Peru. Both of these authors broke down the division between heretics and magicians, and, in analogy, Avila broke down the division of Andean religious specialists, the new magus, and the heretic. A NEW LANGUAGE ACQUIRES NEW MEANS: SYSTEMATIC VISITATIONS

In 1621, between the auto-da-fé of 1609 and the dissemination of the writings of Avila, Avendano, and Villag6mez in the late 1640s, which severely changed and destroyed the lives of even more alleged hechizeros, the Jesuit José de Arriaga declared, “|Ml]y plan is to liberate the many souls that are trapped in the devil’s servitude.”°° To him this

118 THE POWER OF HUACAS

meant countering the clandestine teachings of the hechizeros with disclosure and developing new tools to organize effective episcopal visitation campaigns. In these visitations each bishop had the right to initiate investigations into misconduct in his diocese and punish those he considered guilty. Visitators could initiate interrogations, and bishops could impose any punishment they saw fit.°” Even twelve years after Avila’s first appearance in public, Arriaga still complained, “We are missing a cure [for that sickness of idolatry and hechizerta| and it is because most people do not notice that the evil is greater than anticipated. There was hardly anyone in the beginning who believed in it and even today many doubt it, but only because they cannot see it and grasp it with their own hands. Some deny it wholeheartedly.”° In fact, in 1610, Fernando Quispillocllayn, for example, from the Yauyos, even though he had claimed to be a good Catholic healer, was suspected to have carried stones in his blue bag.°? Seven years later Tomas Parinanco from the doctrina of Paucartambo was interrogated about his veneration of the huaca Jurpalpa, offering coca and cuys (guinea pigs), among several other things. When he was asked who the founders of the huaca Jurpalpa were, the suspect said that he did not know but that once a curaca had transformed into stone, “so that they |the indios| would venerate him like a God.””° According to Arriaga, Peru’s biggest problem was that its Spanish and Creole elite still did not believe in the need to take radical steps

against these and similar indigenous hechizeros, be they orthodox Andean religious specialists or those who claimed to be Christian healers. The incumbent archbishop, Lobo Guerrero, was an old man, and by 1622 it was obvious that he was sick with gallstones.” The first sequence of extirpation campaigns was at risk of being interrupted.” The church lacked priests who were willing to leave “civilization” for the hinterlands, and some indigenous groups seem to have been equally reluctant to host them.” In 1602, for example, Jesuits tried six times to enter Lauxa, near Huamanga. They gave up because “barbarian Indians longed for our lives.” Many of these Jesuits had already found the trip to the Americas to be a considerable hardship, and some were unwilling to sacrifice more.“ Admittedly, most priests and friars liked to emphasize their voluntary sufterings for their faith, but there is little reason to doubt the difficulty of the journey.” And when priests finally made their way into the hinterland, they were often considered ill equipped for their duties and morally lax.” According to Arriaga, priests still allowed Indians to incorporate their huacas into Catholic processions;

TALKING TO DEMONS) 119

they didn’t interfere with curacas, who often protected hechizeros; and they continued to permit Indians and hechizeros to use their own instruments, especially trumpets and pututus, to gather people from afar. THE REPRESSION OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE and their old- and

new-fashioned hechizeros had thus been slow to come, and Arriaga hoped to be the agent of change. He contributed in three respects to the intensification of the discourse on hechizeria in Lima’s diocese: first, systematization; second, closer investigation; third, identification of hechizeros with witches. Arriaga’s scrupulously written treatise demonstrated conclusively that Peru’s majority was still deeply mired

in idolatry. Arriaga overcame the objections of his less-motivated brethren, using his royal patronage to convince powerful Spaniards and Creoles to publish and then draw on his work. Although initially Arriaga’s suggestions were controversial, within twenty years they were being acclaimed in Lima’s highest Catholic circles. Villag6mez used Arriaga’s work as the foundation for his extirpation campaign of 1644-77, when he read to the indigenous people of Yautan the Jesuits’ rule that “from now on, no male or female Indian may adopt the names of huacas or thunder. He may no longer call himself Curi, Manco, Misa, Chacpa, Libiac, or Santiago. Instead, he should call himself Diego.””’ Thus, Arriaga’s ideas still underlay the last major campaign in Lima’s archdiocese, launched at a time when he himself had been dead for more than forty years. However, this episode also reveals the limitations in the Jesuit’s imagination, for Arriaga focused in some respects on the superficial and failed to recognize the fact that a “Diego” could be falsely assimilated to Christianity. Perhaps he did not believe that

a renamed Indian could still commit idolatry. Yet the records from the 1660s and 1670s show that visitators convicted several “Diegos” — including Diego Chauca, Diego Gaxa Guaman, and Diego Guaman— all accused of hechizeria.

Arriaga made a major contribution to crystallizing this discourse into an actual political program; in fact, he was so diligent and productive that he apparently never slept. The Jesuit cartas annuas (litterae annuae) were more detailed during his tenure than the annual letters ever before or afterward.” Arriaga brought his organizational talent to bear in the public arena when he began to (rejorganize the visitation campaigns of the archdiocese of Lima, a move made necessary by its negative public image.” In order to regularize visitations and to prevent further abuses, Arriaga developed a standard procedure

120 THE POWER OF HUACAS

for visitators, tailoring Eymerich’s Directorium inquisitorum—and, perhaps, Delrio’s treatise as well—to the unique situation of Peru’s indigenous idolaters.°° The recommendations in Arriaga’s treatise found widespread support among the visitators of the archdiocese of Lima and among some Jesuits even beyond.

Perhaps in keeping with his own obsession with detailed written records, Arriaga mandated that visitators keep three different registers when visiting an indigenous village. He explained, “In all cases the visitator has to record everything that he learns in meticulous and accurate manner. Dubious |cases| should be marked as dubious; reliable data marked as reliable.”*™' The visitator was to title one book “The

idolatry that was found in such and such a village on such and such a day, month, and year.” In this book the visitator (or his secretary) was to record the names of idolaters and hechizeros who confessed what they knew about Auacas and idolatries in their village. A second book was to be called “Accusations against Indians in this village, in this part of the country, on such and such a day, month, and year.” In this book, the visitator was to record the accusations Indians made against their fellows and against local hechizeros. Every member of the village was to appear before the visitator. Testifying to his flair for the dramatic, Arriaga then provided a detailed description of the physical space where the questioning would take place. The visitator was to sit behind a desk in the village church, a crucifix or cross carefully placed beside him.** Once the indigenous person stepped up to the visitator, he or she was to remain standing while answering the visitator’s questions about huacas, mullus, and other venerated items. Arriaga was at pains to distinguish between these interrogations and confessions, which took place with the Indians sitting or kneeling. From this distinction, the Indians were meant to realize that absolution worked more directly in a confessional than in semipublic visitations. Indians could also use the guipu to document their sins. After the visitator had finished, the notary was to immediately place little crosses next to the names of accused hechizeros, who would be supervised closely in the future. The questioning procedure should last until dinner was ready; then the remaining indigenous people were to kneel down in two rows in front of the church.*? When the visitator finally stepped out of the church after a long day of examination, he was to tell the Indians, “You are still children of the devil.” After this statement, the visitator was to have the Indians abjure and was to make the sign of the Cross with his right hand above his head, “since it is known that indios are utterly

TALKING TO DEMONS 121

impressed with these public ceremonies.” Finally, he was to flog the Indians and make them listen to a lecture from Eymerich’s Directorium inquisitorum. On the following day, the Indians were to gather their idols and deliver them to the church. The visitator was then to open his third book. In it, he was to record all the items collected, noting the name of the huaca and that of its owner. The next step was to burn these idols, whose remains were to be thrown into a river so that Indians could not gather and misuse the remnants and ashes. Finally, the visitator was to summon the hechizeros and order them to study Christian doctrine every day. From that time on, hechizeros were to wear an eight-inch-long cross around their necks—either to make them distinguishable from the rest of the people or to direct God’s power against them.** The visitation procedure was concluded by a procession of hechizeros: after a special mass the hechizeros were to follow the cross with candles in their hands, ropes around

their necks, and (sometimes) with corozas, the hats worn by victims during autos-da-fé. The hechizeros were to publicly tell their fellow Indians that they no longer worshipped Auacas and that they had lied for their entire lives. This is the exact punishment that Inca Tupac Amaru received prior to his death in 1572. Thus, Arriaga’s 1621 treatment of hechizeros indicates that he, at least, considered them to be the heirs of Tupac Amaru. Indeed, Jesuits still considered hechizeros to be leaders among the Indians, and Arriaga knew that without their support, the Indians could never be wholly converted. After this public confession, the hechizeros had to walk as penitents in front of the cross. As Arriaga wrote, “To anyone who can observe this spectacle with his

own eyes, it provokes deep sentiments and instills great respect.” Arriaga’s program was evidently implemented in Lima’s hinterland. The visitator Juan Sarmiento de Vivero became a close reader of Arriaga

and a humble devotee of Pedro de Villag6mez. He enacted Arriaga’s program in San Lorenzo de Quinti in 1660, castigating Maria Chumbiconu, Martha Magdalena, Maria Chumbu Julla, and more than twenty other Indians for their “idolatries, hechizertas, superstitions,” and blasphemies. Don Pedro Solis de Quinti, named a “dogmatizer, hechizero,

idolater,” received instructions, the perpetual cross, and banishment from his hometown. Alvira Suyo 0 Cargua received one hundred lashes over a “bestia de albarda corosa” and was condemned to wear the perpetual cross. Maria Guanico, named a master and “idolatrous hechizera,” received a perpetual iron cross and the standard physical punishment—all this in conformity with Arriaga’s program and its execution

122 THE POWER OF HUACAS

by Villago6mez. At the same time, other visitators imposed difterent kinds of punishments.*° These seem to have depended also on the visitator’s personality, and on whether he was a more or less zealous servant of Lima’s Catholic Church.®’ Often, visitators implemented Arriaga’s suggestions in combination with the punishments legislated by Lima’s First and Third Councils.** The First Council had mandated fifty lashes for a first offense, anda hundred lashes plus ten days’ imprisonment for a second offense. The Third Council had called for imprisonment and instruction. Throughout the 1650s, ’60s, and ’7os, visitators ruled that hechizeros—called hechizeros supersticiosos, hechizeros idolatras, and many other names—be punished with floggings, incarcerations, abjura-

tions, and confiscations of goods.” Imprisonment continued to be the norm even during the height of the hechizero craze, when suspicion of evil sorcery and pacts with the devil ran rampant, from the 1650s to the late 16908, ceasing shortly after the turn of the century.”° Physical torture was rare.’ Instead, hechizeros were often sent to prison in a small parish or to the Casa de Santa Cruz in Lima, where they might remain for life’? Not every hechizero was as lucky as Pedro Vilca Guaman, the religious specialist who managed to escape his makeshift prison in Huarochiri in 1700. As late as 1771, Trujillo’s officials physically segregated hechizeros from the rest of the population. Maria Isidora Asnaran, an indigenous woman from Trujillo, complained about the prison’s excessive cold, protesting especially in light of her horrible fever. She applied for a transfer to the Hospital Bethelemitico.”’ In none of these cases do we know how families and ayllus dealt with the loss of these individuals and their expertise. Sometimes we find record of a desperate husband asking for his wife’s release — but without success.”* In comparison with the punishments witches faced in early modern Europe, those of hechizeros in Peru were generally mild. But consider the fate of Maria Pomachumbi, who in 1650 suftered exile and humiliation for her uncompromising loyalty to her ayllu’s traditions. She was

an alleged hechizera who, in the words of the Spaniards, “committed serious and abominable venerations and idolatries and was a priestess of huacas and idols that belonged to the village and ayllu of Huamantanga; and she had agreed on venerating and worshipping them by use of evil deeds (maleficios) and sorceries so as to increase livestock; all this fraudulently and by means of an explicit pact with the devil.” As a result, Maria was forced to work without pay in the Santa Ana Hospital in Lima, one hundred miles away from her village.” It was stipulated that she should never return to her hometown “because of the damage

TALKING TO DEMONS) 123

that she had caused with her evil life and her depraved customs.” Did Maria adapt to her new life in the hospital? Did she ever come to believe that she had harmed anyone? What did she do in the Santa Ana Hospital?’° The documents provide no answer. A number of visitators sent female hechizeras to work at the Santa Ana Hospital, while most male hechizeros were imprisoned in the Casa de Santa Cruz in Santiago del Cercado (a part of Lima).”’ If we are to believe Arriaga, the Casa de Santa Cruz, in 1621 at least, resembled a boarding school populated by old men: “Right now there are forty hechizeros in the prison Casa de Santa Cruz. It had been erected for the most dangerous hechizeros. Most of them are very old. The house was built functionally, and it is convenient to house many of them. The hechizeros never leave the house, except in the company of an official, when they attend mass and the sermons on church holidays. Every day, a priest instructs them in the Catholic faith. They receive plenty of food on behalf of the viceroy.

Although spinning wheels have been erected for the fabrication of wool for their living—which is a simple work, and common among Indians—it is not enough for what they eat. Only those who are able to work do so, and they work only as much as they want to.”’® Despite Arriaga’s almost idyllic picture of life in the Casa de Santa Cruz, we cannot imagine what the everyday life of hechizeros in the prison was really like. We do not know whether religious specialists from different regions began to exchange knowledge, whether they began to believe in the Christian God’s powers and virtues, or whether they debated the theological implications of the Holy Trinity, as Arriaga envisioned.” Did they try to call on their huacas tor help? These interesting details cannot be recovered, but Don Rupaichahua’s 1669 case illustrates the agony of one religious specialist who came to sufter for his traditions.

Don Rupaichahua was a curaca of Huamantanga who wrote with great fervor against an extremely zealous visitator, Juan Sarmiento de Vivero. The curaca complained that the visitator had incarcerated him without properly notifying him of the reason for his imprisonment.’°° Claiming that he had been treated unjustly and following a path taken by many other sixteenth-century community leaders, he exploited the Spanish legal system and petitioned for restitution. Don Rupaichahua was eventually locked up in the Casa de Santa Cruz, and he was far from the only one who felt the strains of colonial rule. Many others came to be separated from their families, ayllus, and huacas. In addition to his “success” in developing a new standard procedure

for dealing with hechizeros, a plan that would be amplified consider-

124 THE POWER OF HUACAS

ably by Villagomez in 1649, Arriaga also became an innovator of a different sort. He became Peru’s most eminent seventeenth-century critic of Andean rituals. Instead of simply sending all the data that he had col-

lected about idolatry to Rome in the cartas annuas or to the Council of the Indies in the less detailed relaciones geogrdficas, Arriaga made this knowledge accessible to a broader Peruvian audience. As Arriaga deplored in the preface of his publication —despite Polo de Ondegardo’s list of Andean rituals that the Third Lima Council regarded as sins that required confessions—idolatry was even less visible as “Indians now perform their same old rituals in utter secrecy.”"”'

Secrecy could be combated only by bringing occult practices into the light, and such exposure, in turn, would bring greater power over Indians. In theory, private confession was turned into a public one. Therefore, Arriaga was careful to distinguish the one from the other through a clear set of symbols. If a priest, when hearing a public confession in a visitation, could ask an Indian precise questions about what he or she worshipped and what rituals he or she performed, he would gain an advantage over the Indian. If the priest were uninformed, the Indian would be able to evade his questions far more easily. Since

knowledge about indigenous customs provided Catholics with legitimacy in the persecution of hechizerias and idolatries, this knowledge gave them power. But to prove that an Indian engaged in acts of sorcery, interactions with the demons, or non-Catholic rituals, a visitator or confessor needed detailed evidence." Avendano and Villag6mez followed suit. INTERPRETING THE RITUALS OF HECHIZEROS IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

According to his own estimate, Arriaga confessed 6,o00 people between 1617 and 1618, including 700 hechizeros and dogmatizers, and 63 brujos (witches}. Arriaga skillfully wove these confessions in visitations together with information derived from Roman classics, biblical wisdom, and medieval and early modern treatises on witchcraft.°? Arriaga gave ample evidence that the everyday life of indigenous people was pervaded by superstitions. Hechizeros and idolatries were present

in almost every period of life: birth, marriage, child rearing, confession, and death. Arriaga also developed a neat hierarchical classification of sorcerers, in the order huacapvillac, libiacvillpac, maquipvillac, macsa or viha, aucachic, s6cyac, rdpiac, mdscoc, and hacaricuc. These

TALKING TO DEMONS 125

sorcerers could talk to huacas, the Sun, or mallquis. They were either healers, confessors, diviners, interpreters of dreams, or prophesiers who relied on the intestines of cuys. Though he would later be criticized by Bernabé Cobo for these compartmentalizations, Arriaga undoubtedly contributed in a third respect to Lima’s discourse on magic that constrained the liberties of many religious specialists of the central Andes. Arriaga helped develop and spread a distinctive image of the witch in colonial Peru. In one of his

illustrations of indigenous idolatry, Arriaga described some hechizeros known as chupadores (“suckers of fat,” according to Andeans, but “suckers of blood” in the Spanish interpretation).!°* He said he had heard this story while he was with Avendano on a visita (a very similar story had already appeared in the cartas annuas in 1617})."°° On a certain day, the chupador gathered his pupils into a house at night, where

he would put them all into a deep sleep. Then the chupador would leave and approach another person whom he wanted to kill. He would suck some blood from his victim and then carry it back to the meeting.

There, Arriaga recounted, the chupador and his fellow hechizeros sat around a cooking pot and ate the “blood, which the devil multiplied, or converted into flesh. (I think they mix it together with some other meat.} In each session, they boil it and eat it. The effect is that the person from whom they have sucked the blood dies within two or three days.” Arriaga continued, “When I asked one of them what kind of meat it was and how it tasted, he answered by making a face showing his disgust |and said] that it tasted bad, insipid, and like airdried cattle meat. During these sessions the demon appeared to them. He came either in the shape of a puma or a jaguar that took a seat, or rested on its forepaws, and was generally horrible to look at. They worshipped him.” These nightly gatherings served as an initiation process. The chupador told the young boys, “Now you are brujos |witches] and you have to visit us each time we call for you. If you don’t come or if you

betray us, we will kill you.” In this multilayered account of the chupadores, Arriaga fused information from different cultural traditions. In some ways, his understanding of the chupadores reflected indigenous understandings of sickness, drawing on a concept that the Taki Onkoy religious specialists had already employed.'°° However, as discussed in chapters 2 and 3, the Taki Onkoy priests had identified Spaniards as the ones who were stealing essential body fat. During colonial times, fat—and not necessarily blood—continued to be an Andean symbol of the essence of life and of the power to endow ritual acts, objects, and

126 THE POWER OF HUACAS

human beings with vital force.’°’ Fear of the pishtacu or Karishiri, an evil person who sneaks in at night and steals human fat, is still widespread in the Andes.'° Andeans sometimes identify the pishtacu with the forastero, or foreigner, who brings evil from the outside. Andeans may have made this identification even before Spaniards arrived, but this cannot be proven. The sixteenth-century author Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala (and, indirectly, the Doctrina christiana) had previously referred to chupadores, characterizing them as (fraudulent) healers.’°’ Unlike Arriaga, however, Guaman Poma did not depict them as evil witches gathering for a nightly sabbath; nor did he describe an army of hechizeros stealthily

stealing blood by night or suggest cannibalistic blood drinking. Arriaga’s representation of the chupadores’ deeds was indeed fabricated from several discourses: from Europe, from the Andes, and from New Spain. In 1529, Martin de Castanega had already reported on New Spain’s chupadores, probably citing Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdés (1478-1557)."° The interpretation of the chupador in Arriaga thus obviously traveled from New Spain to Europe, and then into the Andes. Much like Castanega, in Arriaga’s eyes, a chupador was a villain that

resembled a witch.'" In Martin Delrio’s book, witches can put other human beings into a deep sleep."” In addition, Arriaga’s story has some questionable elements. We might ask whether the Indian who supposedly said that the flesh tasted like old cow meat even knew how a cow

tasted, since it did not commonly belong to the diet of the colonialera Indian.’° The way in which Arriaga presented chupadores’ activities, though not necessarily the idea of chupadores, seems to have been foreign to the Andean horizon. Nevertheless, this account of the chupadores was considered a valuable cautionary tale for Jesuit missionaries in the New World. Geroénimo Pallas included it in his Misidn a las Indias, con advertencias para los religiosos de Europa, a handbook for European Jesuits contemplating missions, which circulated only in manuscript form from the 1620s onwards." Pallas, who had also been a missionary to Peru, wished to warn his brethren about the evil that

lurked in the New World. Indeed, toward the mid-seventeenth century, Catholic clergy and visitators in Peru began to see not just Andean commoners but the maleficio (evil sorcery) of hechizeros everywhere. The visitation records, however, do not include a confession about such

a seventeenth-century chupador. But Catholic propaganda played its part in disseminating a new fear of evil sorcery in Andean society.

TALKING TO DEMONS 127

THE FUSION OF TWO HITHERTO SEPARATE DISCOURSES: THE IDOLATER BECOMES THE HERETIC AND THE WITCH

In accordance with Archbishop Villag6mez’s explicit and detailed Exortaciones y carta pastoral (1649), greater numbers of visitators ventured into the highland of Lima’s archdiocese during the second half of the seventeenth century, better instructed than those of the generation before. Villagomez added a few things to Arriaga’s intellectual arsenal, including hymns, sermons, and even more record books. Visitators were now advised to keep six books instead of Arriaga’s three. In line with Jesuit practice, visitators were to take along rosaries, images of saints, little crosses, and copies of the catechism to distribute to the Indians."” Villag6mez’s Carta pastoral and Avendano’s Sermones de los misterios de nuestra santa fe catolica were sometimes even bound together in one book."° The archbishop was convinced that borracheras—those collec-

tive benders with chicha—and improper instruction in the Christian faith were the source of much of the evil in the Andes.” Avendano’s sermons about the mysteries of the Catholic faith added to this perception by detailing the genesis of demons. He explained how God had punished these former angels, dispersing them throughout the air, the earth, and the underworld. Because of their fall, they had become ugly creatures. The only positive thing that Avendano had to say about these demons was that their fall had left some space in the heavenly ranks

next to God, which faithful Christians could hope to occupy in the afterlife. Hechizeros, however, were in the thrall of these horrible fallen angels. In fact, one could not believe a single word a hechizero said because demons could speak directly from a hechizero’s mouth. Further expounding on the relationship between hechizeros and demons, Villagomez added that demons crept into the imagination of hechizeros via the borracheras."** By the mid-seventeenth century, the hechizero had therefore become almost an incarnation of the demonic. Given this ex-

treme outlook, it is unsurprising that Villag6mez was determined to find a permanent solution for the hechizeros’ adherence to demon worship. For the last time in Lima’s history, he used his power as an archbishop to draw on Jesuits, visitators, and—as he hoped—indigenous collaborators to solve the problem. A visitator should bribe clever Indians to become allies of the Church. As Villag6mez suggested in his Carta pastoral, “Look out for the most canny Indian in a village and offer him an award if he collaborates.”

128 THE POWER OF HUACAS

In Villag6mez’s regulations, three discourses of ultimately European origin were finally entirely fused: the discourse of hechizero as idolater, the discourse on the magus as heretic, and the discourse on the witch. The main current of the late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century

discourse of hechizero as indigenous idolater was in Lima thus replaced. The final fusion of the hechizero with the heretic—even though the hechizeros remained under the supervision of the archbishop and were not handed over to the Inquisition—is apparent in the first question a visitator was to pose to a confessing Indian: “First of all, do you know or have you seen or heard, or understood by whatever means, that some male or female Indian is or has been a heretic, or has believed in heresy or made any heretical statements, or has spread errors?”"”’ This

discourse merged with the discourse on Creole, Afro-Peruvian, and pardo (mixed-raced) hechizerias, and especially witchcraft—a tendency that was also stimulated by intercultural exchanges that brought to the Andes a new notion of maleficio, as will be explored in chapter 7. But in the first instance it was a projection of European demonology onto the world of Andean religious specialists. Around the mid-seventeenth century, for a few years visitators and priests began to pose the same questions to their indigenous parishioners that inquisitors asked their

non-indigenous hechizeros. And more and more, as is already well known, they identified women as the primary culprits. In 1650, the visitator Antonio Caceres saw it as his obligation to root

out indigenous witches from the countryside. Inés Carua Chumbi, a woman from Pomacocha, in Lima’s hinterland, was one of the victims of his effort. Inés was considered a “muy grande muger de echizeria,” known for healing with herbs and various concoctions.’””° Her healing protocols also included regular “feedings” or sacrifices to a “demon” called either Capa Quircay or Apo Quircay de Chicharycocha. In addition, Inés was a teacher of idolatries and instructed her grandchild in her arts. According to her own testimony, Inés’s only sin was healing

her patients by rubbing their bodies with llama fat and with white and black maize. Yet the presbyter found that she failed to recognize a much greater sin: her contact with the demon. Years earlier, Inés and her now-deceased husband used to worship the Apo together. In their offerings, they carefully followed the appropriate dualities of Andean rituals, joining black and white maize and so forth. When asked how often she had talked to the demon, Inés confessed that she had spoken with him twice. Apparently, he appeared in a white gown. At first the demon requested money and food, but when Inés replied that she was

TALKING TO DEMONS) 129

a widow, the demon gave her maize and maca (the tuber that Cobo knew as a fertility stimulant). This explained the maca and maize in Inés’s house at which the visitator had already marveled. The next question Caceres asked was whether she had slept with the demon. Inés replied that she had slept with him twice. And finally she was interrogated about the mechanics of the intercourse. Had the demon taken her in the same manner as her husband? Inés answered yes, in the exact same manner. “What quality did the semen have?” Inés said that it was like warm white milk. Finally, when asked about the appearance of the demon’s penis, Inés answered that it had the same form as her husband ’s.’*' After this confession, Caceres punished Inés with “excomunion mayor,” a punishment that was usually reserved for nonindigenous witches. Inés was not the only indigenous person in the latter half of the seventeenth century to experience this new kind of interrogation. Other hechizeros were increasingly suspected of seeking the aid of demons to undertake maleficent witchcraft.’? Acts of maleficio were detected

from the 1650s until the turn of the eighteenth century and even beyond.”° Suspicions of both kinds of infractions, maleficio and witchcraft, crept into the Andes by various informal channels. High and low cultures both participated in this transmission, and Arriaga’s treatise introduced a more definite image of the witch than the chroniclers before him had provided.’** Both his work and the writings of his contemporaries tightened the imagined links between hechizeros and demons.’ At the same time, increased concern with the crime of maleficio was also a product of individual visitators. When Caceres began to interrogate an hechizera about her pact with the devil, he drew more from sources like Delrio’s Disquisitionum magicarum libri sex,

which was widely disseminated, and the Malleus maleficarum than from Avendano’s or Villag6mez’s instructions. Moreover, as we will see

in chapter 7, the suspicion of a maleficent woman was predicated on an influx into the Andes of Spanish and Afro-Peruvian practices and, of course, contingent on laypeople’s accepting that maleficio existed. NATIVE NOTIONS OF DEMONS?

The clergy strongly suspected that hechizeros and demons interacted. But as we shift our focus away from this missionizing Christian elite, we must ask whether indigenous people ever shared their belief in demons. Before the 1650s, indigenous witnesses rarely related sightings

130 THE POWER OF HUACAS

of demons, which Spaniards often equated with upani or supay.’”® But from the 1650s until the late 1690s, and then again in eighteenth-century Quito, Arequipa, Trujillo, and Cuzco, so-called demons periodically appeared in their dreams or on other occasions. We have no transparent ethnohistorical accounts of these appearances, however, because they

were transmitted through the pens of Catholic notaries of idolatries, who scribbled down the witnesses’ testimonies. In grappling with this result of linguistic and cultural translation, the historian must discern carefully whether the entity seemed to the indigenous person to have the quality of an old Andean huaca or of a European demon. Apparitions of “demons” in the form of pumas, snakes, or condors still seem to resonate with Andean symbolism, but sometimes the demon might appear as the Virgin Mary or a priest.’””” Andean apparitions also often occurred in white—for example, a white Santiago or a white dog (see chapter 6). Avendano, in contrast, depicted the demon as a huge black dog.’*® When an Indian named Fernando ventured into the countryside to look for his horses one day in 1650, he came to a cave where he encountered the demon in the form of a white dog.’”’ The Indian who saw the white dog was given black stones by a demon and became a healer; in this typical Andean experience, the alleged demon was actually still

a huaca. In other instances as well, demons in testimonies did not resemble the terrifying figures that populated church walls in (mainly) the southern Andes.’’? Nor were they fantastic figures like Punchao, possibly a being with solar rays radiating from its heads and with serpents emerging from its sides. The majority of these reported demons were animal apparitions, characteristic of the Andes. The colonization of the indigenous imagination thus was slow to progress, despite Avila’s description of horrifying figures with tails, or Avendano’s black dog. The Doctrina christiana didn’t even attempt to provide a more detailed image of the demon. Yet in some instances, Indians glimpsed demons more in keeping with the European model. In one recorded instance, a man saw a diabolical goat. In Trujillo in 1774 —and thus quite late— Maria Olalla was suspected of being a witch

because of her ability to make herself dissolve in the mountains. In another instance, two witnesses, Pablo Huran and Garpan Florez, reported sighting the devil. To one, he appeared in the figure of a goat; to the other one—significantly—as an Englishman. A goat also appears in the image of the Cross of Carabuco. There, the animal is shown being

worshipped by Indians with coca leaves. In sixteenth-century European parlance, the goat commonly symbolized a witch. Diirer painted

TALKING TO DEMONS 131

a witch riding on a goat, and the Waldensians, much reproached for witchcraft, were depicted in European woodcuts kneeling in front of a goat. Carabuco’s goat radiates fire from its back. Had some priest told the artist that the devil takes the form of a goat? The image of the Indian witch may have spread through the Andes by religious figures influenced by this discourse about indigenous idolatries. But in urban Lima during the same period, inquisitors were relentlessly intensifying the prosecution of non-indigenous hechizeras and thereby helping to bring the notions of maleficio and the witch into the Andes. From 1630 to 1660, female hechizeras of mulatto, other casta, and Spanish background were targeted in increasing numbers.’’” Most cases dealt with the offense of superstition—a term that could encompass as many “crimes” as the term hechizeria.'** In 1639, in an auto-da-fé in Lima, several female hechizeras were brought to the Plaza Mayor to confess their crimes.’** Mariana de Olaba, hechizera of Cuzco, had to confess to a pact with the devil. After being forced to wear a coroza and carry a green candle around the plaza, she was banned from Cuzco and Lima. Ana Maria de Contreras, a mulatto woman, was also considered a great hechizera. She received one hundred lashes and was branded. A Creole hechizera faced banishment from Potosi and Chuquisaca for six years, while a woman from Cuzco classified as a “natural,” Beatriz de la Vandera, was charged with hechizerias and with having a demon appear to her in the form of an ape. She was exiled for four years. A mestizo woman originally from Ayacucho received one hundred lashes because she had seen a demon in several apparitions. She was banned

from Cuzco for three years. And Luisa, a casta woman who had allegedly deceived many Limenos, received the standard punishment for an hechizera: she had to leave Lima for good. In the years 1655-56, four mulatto hechizeras were prosecuted: Maria de Cordova, Antonia de Abarca, Luisa de Vargas, and Ana Vallejo. They had made invocations to the demons, mixing them with invocations to the ocean. Last but not least, it became obvious that these nonnative practitioners had begun to borrow from indigenous practices. From 1621 to 1700, a total of eighty-eight persons were prosecuted for involvement in idolatrous ceremonies, pacts with the devil, superstitious faith healings, and love magic.’ The persecution of indigenous hechizeros thus reinforced the persecution of non-indigenous hechizeros and vice versa.’*° The same

rise in the persecutions of “superstitions” occurred in the Cartagena tribunal. Here, from 1621 to 1650, inquisitors punished primarily AfroPeruvian hechizeros, mostly condemning them to abjurations.

132 THE POWER OF HUACAS

The reasons for this increase in persecution were many. The range of crimes expanded in 1630, when the Inquisition of Lima published an instruction that prohibited faith healers. Even more important was the massive circulation in the New World of Delrio’s Disguisitionum magicarum libri sex also in this context.'°’ CHANGING STRATEGIES: THE EFFECTS OF VISITATION CAMPAIGNS BEYOND LIMA

In Lima, at intervals of twenty years or so, a new generation of outstanding Catholics thought they had found the ultimate solution to indigenous idolatry and hechizeria. In 1583, 1609, 1621, and 1649, new pro-

grams were developed to correct malefactors and eliminate heresy from the “republic” of Indians. The solutions were confessions, reeducation, the separation of hechizeros from the rest of the population, systematic visitation campaigns, and persecutions and punishment of hechizeros

as magi and heretics, as well as an indoctrination about a European notion of the workings of nature (that Avila and Avendano, especially, saw fit).’°’ The more the Catholic clergy were foiled by the hechizeros’ ongoing cultural performances, the more alleged erroneous Andean assimilations to Catholic practices were observed. And the more European demonology entered Spanish and Creole circles, the more dangerous the demon and his pupil, the hechizero, became in their eyes. But while the Spanish and Creole clergy in Lima’s archdiocese placed demonology at the center of archiepiscopal politics, the available data indicate that in the dioceses of Cuzco, Trujillo, Cajamarca, Quito, and Charcas (archdiocese since 1609}, the bishops saw no need for systematic episcopal persecutions of idolatry and hechizeria during the seventeenth century.’ Only Arequipa saw — with Pedro de Villag6mez (163540}, the same who later became archbishop of Lima, and with Antonio de Leon y Becerra (1677-1708)—two bishops who tried to put the extirpation of idolatry to the fore.“° In 1649, Villag6mez and some of his Jesuit

supporters—mutch like Viceroy Esquilache (1609-22) in 1619—would have liked to see Cuzco’s bishop follow the Lima line.“ Villag6mez reprinted the devout letter of a Jesuit, Francisco Patino, to convince the prelate of the necessity of persecution. Patino, a priest from Huamanga operating under the auspices of Juan Alonso de Oc6n (1644-52), referred to his own diocese of Cuzco as the “madre de la idolatria” (the mother of all idolatries}). Yet Bishop Oc6n remained unconvinced and took no steps to launch a systematic campaign of persecution.’

TALKING TO DEMONS 133

But even in the absence of systematic episcopal persecutions, religious specialists in the provinces did not live in tranquility.”° In the missions, it was Acosta’s discourse on the hechizero as idolater that still dominated throughout the seventeenth century. Here, the belief that hechizeros consulted idols, and that the demon occupied the idols, and that these idols possibly spoke, was still valuable; the demonology that emphasized the magus as heretic and the heretic as a witch, in contrast, had insignificant impact until the late eighteenth century. But even here, toward the end of the seventeenth century, one or the other Jesuit paid particular interest in cases of maleficio.'“ In general, however, the Jesuit short- and longer-term missions among the Huamali and the Conchuco, in Cajatambo, Huarochiri, Huamanga, Cuzco, Juli, Arequipa, and in other places, still dominated the preoccupation with confessions, which we already encountered in chapter 1, and the salvation of the Indians by other means than coercive visitation. Indoctrination was one means, saint worship another, and cofradias a third (among the Jesuits often called “Nino Jesus” or “Nombre de Jestis”). But

even then, Jesuits as far distant as modern-day Chile employed incarceration, reeducation, and more subtle means to extirpate hechizeros’ beliefs.’*° In 1606, Jesuits had arrested seven hechizeros in the Condesuyos mission south of Cuzco; in 1627, they arrested thirty. In 1639 in Cuzco, some time between 1664 and 1666 in Arequipa, in 1675 among the Huamali, sometime between 1680 and 1690 in Huanuco, and surely on many other occasions that did not find their entry into the cartas annuas, Jesuits destroyed the idols of hechizeros.“° Among the Chumbivilca, south of Cuzco, Jesuits publicly heard the confession of an hechizera.*’ In 1664, an hechizera from Juli was suspected of having a pact with the devil."** In 1676, the Jesuits Pedro Narban Arias and José del Castillo found that being an hechizero was considered a great honor among the Mojos."*” In 1696, Diego de Eguiluz saw the hechizeros

among the Mojos as instruments of the devil. Regardless of whether it was operating within or beyond the boundaries of the archdiocese of Lima, the Society of Jesus thought it could win over hechizeros with the combined might of God, sermons, symbols, and images. In Huacho in 1650, the Jesuit visitator Phelipe de Medina arrested an hechizera for her superstitious healing practices.°° And in 1660, Jesuits sent hechizeros who had served as healers in the hinterland to the Casa de Santa Cruz in Lima. Sebastian Valerte wrote in 1675, from the mission among the Conchuco near Huaraz, that they erected a cross in the hamlet of an old hechizera.*' Hechizeros would here function as priests, doctors, and

134 THE POWER OF HUACAS

wise men. In Huamanga in 1678, a Jesuit instructed a woman because she had consulted an hechizero.’*? Up to around 1700, the list could be extended easily. In all their endeavors and missions, the Jesuits hoped for the help of Mary and thought of themselves as Joseph in Egypt.’*° In the mid to late seventeenth century, they still often referred to “the villages of barbarians.”*** Yet despite the Jesuit insistence on conformity, the clergy in the provinces often employed more subtle strategies than did their brethren in Lima. One of these strategies (and the next chapter shows other means}, the Jesuits, stood at the beginning of a strategy that employed images, especially those of hell, to move indigenous people to conversion.’ Carabuco’s depiction of hell was only one among many

others in the southern Andes. It is said that already in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the Jesuit painter Bernardo Bitti painted a large image for the Jesuit church in Cuzco that represented the punishments in hell.°° In a famous trope, Guaman Poma suggested to the Spanish king that in every church there should be an image of the Last Judgment and hell.’ And even though Avendano’s account of 1649 is surely a distorted mirror of Andean practices, when compared with visitation protocols, the visitator does capture practices that for many Indians were still as valid as they had been before the arrival of priests into their lands. At the same time, it mirrors the conviction in the provinces that Andean customs required a biting tone and the prospect of hell. In one of his sample sermons, the priest should address the native churchgoer: You know how hechizeros deceive sick Indians when they tell them they are sick because they have forgotten their mal/quis, and that if they ofter them |the mal/guis| drink, they will heal. I tell you that your mallquis’ souls are in hell. Thus, they cannot even liberate themselves from the punishment of hell: how can they then care about you and liberate you from your sickness? Tell me, if you were imprisoned behind bars and your son whom you love so much was imprisoned in a different jail... and he were to beg you, my father, please help me get out of this prison, help me so that the corregidor might liberate me from this prison. Would you not tell your son, stupid you, can’t you see that I am suffering as well and can’t even liberate myself from this prison?...In the same manner, your mallquis—because they adored huacas like gods and because of many other sins—are burning in hell. Therefore they cannot liberate you from your sicknesses. Do you

TALKING TO DEMONS 135

understand that, hermano? What do you say? What can you respond? Do you still say there must be an indio who dares to consult an hechizero and ofter drink to his mallquis?*®

A local clergy and different orders in rural settings—far off from the Spanish and Creole political centers—made artists translate these and

similar convictions into paintings. Demons began to be depicted on church walls, as we have already seen, in Carabuco by the late seventeenth century, and in Huaro, Caquiaviri, Oy6n, and several other places by the early to mid-eighteenth century. In the highland areas, especially in the southern Andes, more demons in paintings were pulling Indians into hell than in the northern or central highlands.” These images were to speak for themselves, as they mainly aimed at speaking to an indigenous population in rural areas and not necessarily to a Spanish or Creole urban population. By beholding the punishments, Andeans were admonished to renounce their customs. As chapter 8 shows, even in the late eighteenth century, suspicion of idolatry and hechizeria lingered on in the peripheries. Priests who indoctrinated Aymara-speaking Andeans could draw on detailed examples in the Aymara language on what hell and purgatory meant.’ These Andeans were ideally led to penance prior to seeing a priest or even without a priest in an act of confession. In the absence of systematic episcopal visitations, therefore, and in recognition of the failure of the systematic visitation campaigns in Lima’s hinterland, fear instilled by images, which Acosta had once considered requisite in indoctrination, was yet again considered an effective as well as necessary means to finally turn indigenous people away from idolatries and to defend a true Catholic society.’*' With the church instilling this fear, the indigenous people were indirectly deemed responsible for ensuring their own salvation. But unlike seventeenth-century preoccupations among missionizing Jesuits in the later colonial period in the periphery of Spanish and Creole power, a new fear rested now on the side of those Catholics who held political power. As chapter 8 shows, these depictions of hell originated in a context of fear—fear that originated in the face of well-

known sociopolitical instances of unrest and political claims about the reinvigoration of the Incas. It also originated from newly acquired knowledge about Andean religious specialists and their respective trust in Inca power (see chapter 6) and their respective power to induce harm by other means than by taking up arms (see chapters 7).

CHAPTER FIVE

FROM OUTSPOKEN CRITICISM TO CLANDESTINE RESISTANCE

AGAINST THE HYPOCRISY OF THE MIND; OR, RETAINING THE NOTION OF EMBODIMENT

During the seventeenth century, times grew difficult for religious specialists. Over the previous few generations, their enemies and obstacles had multiplied as they increasingly struggled against God and the Catholic priests, visitors and unknown sicknesses, ongoing denunciations, and the conversion of their own people to Catholicism. It might seem likely that religious specialists, facing the misery of conquest, started to believe what priests had preached all along: that God and his staff were more powerful than their huacas. Some religious specialists certainly did’ Many others, however, were not led by God, or by the tortures of demons, onto the path toward the hierarchies of heaven—despite what Jesuits liked to suggest. More important, religious specialists were far from defenseless against Catholic powers and the many subtle challenges to their authorities and skills. They entered a dialogue with the Catholic priests about the basic premises of their own theology. Since Jesuits like Rodrigo de Cabredo and preachers like Fernando de Avendano were skilled in a Ciceronian rhetoric that hailed the effects of speech on listeners and, indirectly, readers, these authors

reproduced the oral statements of religious specialists brought forth against the various friars in the dioceses of Cuzco, Charcas, and Tucuman.” These restaged dialogues originated in simple prison cells and the many elaborate confessionals in the various churches. Feeling like disciples sent by God into pagan territory, Jesuit priests in their missions, detached from the political center in Lima and its vibrant discourses about indigenous people as heretics and witches, trusted in the powers stored in the cross, the host, the depictions of Saint Ignatius,

FROM OUTSPOKEN CRITICISM TO CLANDESTINE RESISTANCE 137

and the Catholic rituals to overcome the religious specialists’ objections against Catholic theology. Beyond Lima’s boundaries, therefore, Jesuits—along with the Augustinians and Franciscans—preferred to speak via symbols and actions. According to Andean religious specialists, the theoretical arguments presented by the Catholics did not prove convincing. Theory and practice, as we will see, diverged much more sharply in Peruvian Catholicism than in Andean logic. For us, these faint echoes of a long-ago communication show that religious specialists were not merely people who, in answer to Catholic accusations, were reduced to simply uttering, “No, I did not”—as the visitation records make them appear. Instead, religious specialists—the former camascas, amautas, and other wise men and women of Andean and Inca society —argued on substantial grounds that Catholicism was not so different from the Andean religion. They had already begun to do so in earliest colonial times.

THIS CHAPTER SHOWS HOw the discourse about representation versus embodiment evolved, and partly explains its failure with the divergence between Catholic theory and practice in which a number of potent Catholic objects were designed to create different republics in viceregal society. Another reason for its failure was the resistance of

Andean religious specialists toward the intrusion of potent Catholic objects into the world of Andean rituals. But while Andean religious specialists tried to retain the purity of their ritual mesas, at the same time they articulated the way Andean commoners should assimilate to Catholicism following the principle of juxtapositioning. Against the background of mutual assimilations in the world of Catholic symbolism, the singularity of Andean religious specialists’ actions will be understood. The notion of embodiment retained its power throughout the seventeenth century. THE DISCOURSE ON EMBODIMENT VERSUS REPRESENTATION

In his report to Don Diego de Castro, Inca Titu Cusi Yupanqui, in the latter sixteenth century, had already remarked in passing that Catho-

lics’ worship of a person painted on cloth was similar to deifying a huaca.’ Religious specialists argued as well that revering a saintly statue was like venerating an Andean huaca, thereby calling into question the claim that there was a significant difference between a saint and a huaca. The Catholic priests, of course, argued to the contrary. In

138 THE POWER OF HUACAS

its famous sermon 19, the Third Catechism of 1585 told hechizeros to strictly follow the distinction between representation and embodiment when they worshipped saints. It admonished the confessing hechizero: “When you say that Christians would adore the pictures that are printed or made from wood |and| metal, and kiss them and kneel down before them and begin to talk to them, and ask, ‘aren’t those huacas much like ours?’ the answer must be ‘no.’ Christians do not adore images for

their own sake, for Christians do not adore the wood, the metal, or the image, but rather Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary as mother of all saints, and all the other saints. But all these saints are not |contained| in the images or statues. Instead, they are only painted on them. There-

fore, Christians are to give their hearts to the heavens and to Christ, for those images represent [Christ and the Virgin], but they are not in them.” The priest was to conclude, “You have your heart in the figure and you assume that the figure is enclosed in your huaca.”* The distinction between representation and embodiment that Span-

ish priests wanted to introduce to the Andean world drew on longstanding European theological disputes about images and their worship. Priests and some scholars argued over whether pictures or statues possessed a “magical quality” —that is, whether an object contained unusual powers by virtue of its own properties.’ In the first Christian millennium, this discussion centered on the Bible’s first commandment and the question of whether believers were allowed to fabricate images of God, Jesus, the apostles, and saints and to venerate them.® During the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation, the discussion about representation and embodiment took two different directions. On the one hand, it shifted toward the nature of the Eucharist and the Catholic concept of transubstantiation. On the other hand, Protestants criticized the veneration of saints as undermining the role of Christ as the sole mediator between God and his people.’ That the distinction between representation and embodiment had been a major point of contention in the later sixteenth century between Protestant and Catholic popular beliefs (often supported by bishops and priests) was crucial in sharpening its impact on the Andes. The twenty-fifth session of the Council of Trent refuted the Calvinist allegation that Catholics worshipped pictures as gods. Rather, pictures represented Christ or the saints.®

This European ruling made its way into the Andes and ultimately into the decrees of the Third Council of Lima.’ However, introducing

the distinction between representation and embodiment into the Andes in the times hereafter was not as simple as the model sermon

FROM OUTSPOKEN CRITICISM TO CLANDESTINE RESISTANCE 139

quoted above suggests.'” Spanish scholars alleged that the Quechua and Aymara languages presented a problem because they lacked a proper

word for representation. Santo Tomas and, later, Gonzalez Holguin translated unancha as “any sign, banner, insignia, or coat of arms” and rickchhay as “color, or fabrication with anything of a face, or picture, or figure.”" Thus, according to Gonzalez Holguin, the Quechua term rickchhay referred to the process of making an image without specifying the nature of that image. Later, in Bertonio’s 1612 Aymara dictionary, imasena or unancha was “image”, “figure” was ahano or ullinaca, further elaborated (to the baftlement of modern readers) as “making a figure of an angel or a demon, or taking it from an angel or a demon.”” However, in the translation of the Third Catechism—and specifically

in its nineteenth sermon, which treated representation at length— none of these Quechua or Aymara words were used to describe this notion.’ Instead, Blas Valera, Diez de Betanzos, and Ludovico Bertonio, who likely were responsible for the document’s final version, took the Spanish word ymagen (image] into the Quechua and Aymara text. This

linguistic quandary underscores Catholics’ extreme difficulty in explaining to Andeans how an image represents something else. To make

Andeans understand that wooden painted saints represented entities that were far removed from this earth and that addressed an entity at an even greater remove, God, Spaniards availed themselves of a metaphor: seeing the representation of a saint should be understood as similar to “kiss|ing] the ring of the corregidor, which is like venerating the king.”“ It is questionable, however, whether indigenous countrymen who listened to this sermon ever had the pleasure of kissing a corregidor’s ring or were aware, if they did, that they were with that act venerating a king in a remote country—one whose location they probably did not know. Though scholars have not yet investigated how concepts of geography among indigenous peoples changed beyond Andean concepts of the organization of socioeconomic space of their ay//us during the colonial period, they likely did not have a clear image of lands beyond the boundaries of former Tawantinsuyo.” Since Spaniards used one incomprehensible concept to explain another, it is no wonder that their efforts to dis-

tinguish between representation and embodiment ultimately proved futile. As will be shown, the indigenous assimilation of saints obeyed an Andean logic, not the idiosyncrasies of Catholic theology. Jesuits remained convinced of the need to refute hechizeros, whom they viewed almost as semi-crypto-Protestants. Soon after the sermon’s publication, missionaries of the Society instructed Andean Christians in Cuzco and

140 THE POWER OF HUACAS

in the central highlands on how to correctly define the relationship between saint figures and their mighty powers. In 1600 Gregorio de Cisneros (1558-1611], an always talkative Jesuit, exclaimed with a dissatisfaction bordering on despair that upon entering a village halfway between Cuzco and Huamanga he and his fellow brethren had found no one who could properly distinguish between representation and the

materialization of the holy. He was upset and indirectly blamed the Franciscan friars for their negligent indoctrination.” ON ANDEAN AND INCA NOTIONS OF REPRESENTATION

To this day, historians debate whether Andean or Inca cultures had a concept of representation in the sense of the European distinction between a concrete sign and an abstract signified.” To those engaged in this debate, its presence would prove that Andean worldviews were not “magical.” Such a worldview, or a magical concept of an image, generally suggests that an image or object draws on a power that is, in fact, not separate from the object itself." Since earliest times, Peruvian chroniclers reported instances and events that Catholics were tempted to deem Inca representations of something else. Sarmiento was convinced that the image in the Qoricancha “represented” lightning. Diez de Betanzos pointed to the little statues of themselves fabricated by the ruling Incas, suggesting that the figures represented the persons. In Inca times, each Inca lineage buried a little statue (whose exact nature is still unclear} in the Qoricancha.”” But did these huauquis, Polo de Ondegardo’s technical term for these figurines, simply represent an Inca, or did they also contain traces of his virtue and power? Diez de Betanzos was also convinced that the Qoricancha owned a statue that was worshipped “in place” of the Sun.*° Archaeological finds give evidence of little statues of Inca, Wari, and Nazca origin, among others. Those cultures also treasured figurines that were dressed and adorned with feathers. During Inca times, female figurines were often involved in the sacrifices of young maidens on snowcapped mountains, performed when loyalty to the new Inca was demonstrated from those in the peripheries of his empire. What the historian must ask is, did these figures “only” represent powers that did not belong to the object? Or did the object itself also embody these powers? In the case of conopas, yllas, and other particular stones, the powers of that which was represented were also implicit in the object. For example, commentaries by religious special-

FROM OUTSPOKEN CRITICISM TO CLANDESTINE RESISTANCE 141

ists preserved in seventeenth-century visitation records suggest that an ylla or conopa in the shape of a corncob made the maize flourish when it was buried in the fields.*’ Inca Orcon, a son of Viracocha Inca Yupanqui, was said to have taken the statue of Mancocapac into the battle against the Collas.2* He hoped that when this statue was beheld (by him or by his enemies}, the luck of his predecessors would return. Furthermore, Incas destroyed foreign huacas on the assumption that this destruction would disempower them.

All of these instances suggest that the Andean conception of representation did not obey the simple dichotomy found in Catholicism. Cristobal de Molina and Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala deliver the keys to understanding the native Andean concept of representation. Molina referred to a prayer to Viracocha in which the question was posed: “Where are you, inside or outside?”?? The prayer did not contain the answer. Yet obviously the duality of inside and outside, hanan and Aurin, high and low, black and white, which was pervasive in the Inca and Andean world, explains the Andean concept of the relationship between representation and embodiment.** The Andean world did

not perceive this pair as mutually exclusive opposites; likewise, objects represented and embodied at the same time.” In this world, the Catholic conceptual nightmare induced by Reformation iconophobia was dificult to comprehend. In fact, many Andeans never did. Until the mid-seventeenth century, Catholics continued to voice their frustrations over erroneous Andean assimilations. Avendano, for example, exclaimed that it did not matter if the statue of a saint broke, since it did not mean that the godly powers were gone.”° In his sermon given a week after the Epiphany (January 6), Francisco de Avila explained how to understand the dove as a symbol of the Holy Spirit and warned, “And in no way when you see a dove or the lamb in the painted images say

that the Christians adore those; those figures are only used to make the Gospel understood. But, if you say this dove represents the Holy Spirit, and this lamb Jesus Christ, and I want to worship these representations, then do it. But don’t [worship] this particular dove, or that specific] lamb. This would be a great sin.””’ And he added, repeating an Andean argument: But padre, don’t you Christians also call on Saint Mary, Saint Peter, Saint Francis, and other saints? If this is so, why can’t we do the same with our progenitors |mallquis|? I tell you: listen carefully. You are right if you say Christians do that. But it is not that one says to the

142 THE POWER OF HUACAS

saint, Senor, give me health, because the saint has no force or power to do so, but we worship the saint and beg him to ask God that he take us into his grace, because God is the one who gives. You, however, don’t do it like that. In past times you said: My grandma or my father causes my sickness, and you worship him that he provides health. That is a great error for two reasons: First, because you adore someone who is in hell with the demon. Second, you ask him for health although he lacks the power to give it.”®

However, in 1663, Hernando Chaupij Loraz Chaupi of San Francisco de Mangas and many other religious specialists in the central and southern Andes continued to worship their mal/guis in hope for fertility.” While evangelization advanced, religious specialists voiced even more ways to resist Catholic ideas than simply saying, “You do the same.” Other nameless religious specialists adopted Catholic theological discourse and informed Jesuits that they would not worship but would bless their mountains and pay them respect: respect for the fact that their rivers gave them fish, and their acres maize.*” Obviously, religious specialists knew how to evade theological pettifoggery by putting it to their own use. Avila’s and similar admonitions filled the pages of Catholics’ books but often remained theory. One reason why Andean

people disregarded this theological distinction, or why Andean religious specialists reversed the argument and turned it against Catholics, must be seen in the fact that in a missionary’s everyday life, and thus in practice, Catholics in the New World also disregarded the careful distinction drawn by theologians and scholars between representation and

embodiment. The discrepancy between theory and practice evolved wider in the Catholic than in the Andean world. In 1600, for example, the friars did not respond theologically to the

hechizeros who disregarded the distinction between representation and embodiment. Instead, they made the religious specialists kneel down in front of a monstrance.” Religious specialists were obviously to understand what Catholic theology was all about by focusing on the higher might enclosed in the Eucharist. In the high plains of the Andes, missionaries handled the cross, the saints, Saint Ignatius’s handwriting, medallions, and other Catholic objects as if they by their own virtue were full of power. These Catholic objects disclosed, conquered,

and exorcised demons; except for exorcism, they did what religious specialists claimed their huacas could do. In the end, a Catholicism spread through the Andes that drew heavily on manifestations, sym-

FROM OUTSPOKEN CRITICISM TO CLANDESTINE RESISTANCE 143

bols, miracles, and rituals. Had José de Arriaga not said that gestures had a deep impact on indigenous people?’ When missionaries gestured or trusted in the might of these Catholic objects, they often forgot to explain to indigenous people that these objects’ qualities were signs of God’s overflowing powers.*® Yet in the end, this was a distinction without a difference, observed by no missionary in his strenuous life. Given the emphasis on the Virgin Mary, the saints, and the Eucharist, God was almost forgotten in Peruvian evangelization campaigns." God was buried in sermons. In baroque altars, he was relegated to the highest echelons of the golden structures, while space in the front —the preeminent position—was left to the Virgin Mary and the host. The religious specialists’ allegations that Catholics worshipped their saints as embodied powers did, in fact, bear more truth than Catholics wanted to admit. Thus, when Rodrigo de Cabredo in 1600 declared that a false Christian works like the devil’s minister—and thus like a pagan—to express his annoyance at some indigenous people, he could have been speaking of many Catholic priests in the Andes as well.® CATHOLICS DEVIATIONS: EXORCISING THE ANDES

In the seventeenth century, magnets were much-admired natural objects. Since Pliny’s time, they had garnered considerable attention in treatises on natural philosophy and magic. In Peru, scholars, erudite magicians, and folk healers alike speculated about the properties of attraction of the magnet, or piedra iman.*° Female ritual specialists in Lima who were persecuted as hechizeras used the stone in their recipes against lovesickness.*” For the Augustinian Ramos Gavilan, however, the magnet was an allegory for demons. He wrapped in flowery language what became a standard technique in conversions: attracting and expelling demons by means of exorcism. According to Ramos Gavilan, The glorious San Isidore |of Seville] left us a metaphor |to understand the workings of the demon] about the diamond and the magnet using its properties to attract iron. The saintly man said both [the diamond and the magnet stone] attract the iron but with the difference that if the diamond touches the magnet, the magnet loses its power to attract iron, since the diamond developed its full virtue. Therefore, says the saintly man, we have to take Christ our Lord or the Virgin Mary, his mother, as the diamond. As magnet stone we have to take the opposite, which is the demon or the world, because both sides have virtue

144 THE POWER OF HUACAS

to attract souls. The world attracts to delight and contentedness. The demon attracts to hell and torment. In this manner, the iron is the hieroglyph of mankind for the soul that wanders between God and the Demon.*®

Other missionaries believed Ramos Gavilan’s well-intended but confusing metaphor and thought that symbols of Christ and the Christian tradition attracted souls, and simultaneously attracted and expelled the

demons.” In many instances, Augustinians, Franciscans, the secular clergy, and Jesuits exorcised the Andeans, particularly hechizeros.*° In 1668, the Quito bishop Pena Montenegro explicitly spelled out the means of exorcisms.” Yet the methods varied. In an image from 1767 of indigenous people surrounding Our Lady of Cocharcas (where the first miracle had occurred in 1598), a priest is shown exorcizing an indigenous woman with holy water as a little demon takes off from her womb. Three scenes may allude in particular to religious specialists. Next to the priest who is exorcising a demon from an indigenous or mestizo woman, a second woman is shown sitting in front of her mesa.

A third person crawls on all fours with the devil on his back. In this splendid small church perched between mountains, halfway between Ampay and Huamanga, the Virgin Mary was considered potent against the attractions of demons and idolatry“? Most of the time, it is simply

said in Catholic reports that the missionary or priest used the cross and other devices to liberate an indigenous person from the grip of the demon.*® The priests followed Girolamo Menghi’s Compendio dell’ arte essorcistica (1576), which enjoyed wide distribution in colonial libraries.“* In the Andean world, the object that contained the greatest powers to both repel the demons and induce conversion was the cross.” According to Avendano, the cross had worked the earliest miracles in South America. Three of them—the Cruz de Carabuco, the Cruz de Santa Cruz de la Sierra, and the Cruz de Pachacamac—deserved special mention for defeating demons.*° Owing to these testimonies and to Johannes Chrysostomus, Avendano was convinced that the demon feared the cross. Therefore, he suggested that when an Indian felt lured by the demon, he or she should immediately make a sign of a cross overtly or in his or her mind.*” Avendano was not alone in this conviction. All orders and many lay priests considered the cross a prime instrument for exorcisms and conversions.” Jesuits, showing their usual love for telling semimiraculous stories, again provide the best insights into the employment of the

FROM OUTSPOKEN CRITICISM TO CLANDESTINE RESISTANCE 145

cross by their brethren all over the country. In one case in 1575, a Jesuit took a crucifix on his search for the land of gold, Paititi, in the Amazon

regions. Upon encountering ferocious Indians, and not the mythical land of gold, the figure of Christ on the cross averted his eyes. Allegedly,

the hechizeros of that region were shocked and converted to Christianity instantaneously. In other areas, crosses opened the mouths of indigenous people possessed by a demon. An indigenous woman, for example, was so heavily burdened by her sin and her encounter with a demon that merely touching “the True Cross” led her to confess. The ending of the story is a familiar one: the woman was healed and became a good Christian.*”’ In 1606, a peasant from Tucuman attempted to burn across that Jesuits had once erected on his field. When he set it on

fire along with some other wood, the holy object remained unscathed. Around the same time, Juan de Vivero was busy erecting crosses on indigenous fields in the place of conopas or yllas, which Andeans buried in the land they cultivated in hope of fertility. His intention, obviously, was to replace an Andean custom with a Catholic one. In 1608, another Jesuit was convinced that the cross that an Indian woman had put on her field averted a plague of locusts. Her neighbor, who faced the same problem and whose fields were already under attack by the voracious insects, followed her approach and erected a cross. According to the Jesuit’s report, “One grasshopper immediately left the field. It felt the Cross’s superior power.’°° Sometimes, the holy object fought against a stone—or rather, Christ and God contended against a huaca. In 1608, a stone crumbled in Cuzco when confronted with the superior might of the cross.°' Thus, if the Jesuits’ reports are to be believed, crosses were employed both for exorcisms and conversions. Moreover, the cross’s inherent powers were used “to exorcize” demons from the Andean landscapes. The Andes mountains must have been densely populated with crosses in the colonial era. In various regions, indigenous people obviously began to rely on those powers that were allegedly stored in the cross. For example, a baptized indigenous woman used a cross as a protective device against an unbaptized Indian man who was trying to rape her.°? The upright Jesuit Rodrigo de Cabredo reported of a situation in which powerful signs were much more powerful than any theology. In his carta annua, he reported the case of an old Indian in a region near the Mojos whom a soldier by the name of Joan Flores had already met in the second half of the sixteenth century.®® This Indian possessed a miraculous cross, which he had found on a battlefield that had seen the victory of Spanish conquistadors. Seeing the number of dead on

146 THE POWER OF HUACAS

the Indian side, the man reasoned that this object possessed some exceptional virtues; he therefore took the cross to his house and made it part of his conversations with a demon (which we should probably identify with the huaca that his ayl/u had worshipped). Somehow, the old Indian found out that it could expel his demon, which was driven away on every appearance. Upon hearing this story, Joan Flores was intrigued and eager to give the cross’s virtue a try. The soldier lifted the

cross with his hands and became nauseous. Astonished and at a loss, Flores resorted to baptizing the cross’s new owner with holy water. The

Indian had not seen a Catholic priest for more than forty years, and even though he had adopted the wonder-working sign, he had not renounced his Andean customs and convictions. For the baptismal ritual, the old man advised Flores to take the water from the river behind his hamlet, which contained better qualities than what the Catholic priest transported in his “bucket.” At this point, the report lapses into a brief disquisition on the superior properties of holy water. By reporting this “authentic” story,* it seems that Cabredo believed that the virtues that inhered in the cross or occasionally descended into it trumped the distinction made in Jesuit preaching between representation and embodiment of powers. In the second half of the seventeenth century, the vigorous Catholic

discourse about representation versus embodiment waned. Jesuits realized that the Andean notion of the holy was incompatible with a Catholic worldview that separated the preter- and supernatural spheres from the natural one. The Andean concept of the holy required a natural object. In those Andean rituals, coca, maize, colored powders, stones,

and yllas were all reported to be still considered powerful objects in their own right. But while the discourse on representation and embodiment continued to be articulated in handbooks for priests, the Catholic clergy—and especially the Jesuits—tailored other powerful Christian objects to the clientele they were dealing with: crosses and statues for infidel Indians; Saint Ignatius for already baptized Indians, mestizos, and Creoles; relics, Saint Ignatius, and the saints, but also agnus dei amulets for the members of the Society of Jesus; and relics for Creoles. Throughout the seventeenth century, Jesuits fostered the belief in powerful objects and images.

FROM OUTSPOKEN CRITICISM TO CLANDESTINE RESISTANCE 147

CATHOLIC DEVIATIONS: SAINT IGNATIUS’S HANDWRITING, AGNUS DEI, AND OTHER POWERFUL CATHOLIC OBJECTS

Saint Ignatius, the founder and patron of the Society of Jesus, was one of the powerful entities that were propagated to make life and evangelization on the South American plains easier. In 1606 in Panama, which then still belonged to the viceroyalty of Peru, two Jesuits came down with a high fever after having saved many souls from “demons’ claws.”°° Upon beholding an image of Saint Ignatius and offering fervent prayers

to God, they were healed. In 1608 in Cilca (modern-day Quilca], near Lima, an indigenous man suftered from glaucoma. He chanced to look at a depiction of Saint Ignatius, and even though he did not know who this holy man was, his ailment disappeared.°° A Creole woman in Santiago de Chile was in severe pain from ulcers, so she prayed to Saint

Ignatius and immediately recovered.’ In 1603 in Tucuman, people could borrow Saint Ignatius’s images from the Jesuit colegio so that they might heal at home, as if they were borrowing books from a library. In 1609 in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, a noblewoman suffered from

problems in her knees, a disability that prevented her from walking. After touching a relic of a piece of Saint Ignatius’s autograph, she was able to move again. She rendered thanks with a donation to the saint’s altar.°° One year later, Ignatius’s handwriting worked yet another, but certainly not the last, miracle. In Cuzco, a girl who had served in the household of a curaca fell down a steep mountain. She survived because she called on the name of Jesus Christ. Recovery from her injuries was slow, but when she finally touched the autograph of Saint Ignatius, her health and energy were fully restored.” IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY, Jesuits were hesitant to report miracles among indigenous people that were associated witha particular statue. According to a strict understanding of theology, those miracles happened supernaturally. Yet Avila began to suggest that native South Americans should treat those statues as if they had inherent powers.°° Without much theoretical reflection and in the context of indoctrination in everyday practice, Augustinians and Franciscans had already begun fostering this idea sixty years earlier. In 1588, the statue of Our Lady of Copacabana worked its first miracle. Augustinians and Franciscans, in particular, considered the Lady of Copacabana to be more than a painted pole. The Augustinian chronicler Ramos Gavilan allowed the artist who had crafted the Copacabana Virgin, a shy mestizo filled with

148 THE POWER OF HUACAS

self-doubt, to tell his own, almost heartbreaking story.®' Other artists had attacked Don Francisco Tito Yupanque’s artistry from the beginning as he attempted to carve a statue of the Virgin Mary. They derided him for his incompetence, and the statue for her coarse face. Although the potential buyers rejected this rather unconventional, if not inelegant, piece of art, and asked for one from Spain, the statue finally came to exhibit its genuine properties. After Yupanque deposited the statue with Fray Francisco Navarrete, the Franciscan monk observed that rays radiated from its face. This was its first miracle. The Omasuyus of Copacabana became eager to purchase this unusual piece of art. Since that time, people were healed when they prayed to the Virgin Mary in her Copacabana manifestation. The southeastern tip of Lake Titicaca, near the Island of the Sun and the Island of the Moon, was transformed into the greatest pilgrimage site in the southern Andes. Indigenous people, mestizos, and erudite Catholics alike understood the statue of the Lady of Copacabana as incorporating some supernatural powers, much as did those of the Senor de los Temblores and other saints.®” In the end, the Augustinians and the archbishop of Charcas did little to uphold the distinction between representation and embodiment. DESPITE THE MANY PROTECTORS and the powerful weapons in their

hands, Jesuits from the sixteenth to the seventeenth century thought they could become the victims of hechizeros and their demons. Since the time of José de Acosta’s Historia moral y natural de las Indias, hechizeros in Chachapoyas were believed to be able to predict the exact hour of a person’s death by calibrating the amount of poison they used.®* To protect themselves against this and similar threats, Jesuits took recourse in an analogous belief in powers that were beyond na-

ture—trusting in supernatural powers. Right from the beginning of their missionary activities, they asked Rome and Seville for protective devices against sorcery: agnus dei amulets. In Europe, agnus dei talismans were believed to offer protection against sorcery. Consequently, the Peruvian church allowed its priests and missionaries to carry these wax disks imprinted with the figure of a lamb.® Since the white lamb was a symbol for Christ, the use of color was forbidden. The demand did not come from a tiny minority, if we can judge from the supply: the Peruvian Jesuits received several chests of the talismans from Spain. How precisely Jesuits employed these little lambs in their everyday lives or in their encounters with religious specialists during the seventeenth century remains unknown. Since depictions of the Lamb of God

FROM OUTSPOKEN CRITICISM TO CLANDESTINE RESISTANCE 149

are no more numerous in Peru’s baroque churches than one might expect —notwithstanding the particular appeal that agnus dei might have in an agrarian society like Peru—the devices were probably used mainly in private and were not intended for public display.°’ THE CONSUMPTION OF RELICS IN CREOLE SOCIETY

For aconsiderable time, Peruvian Creole piety maintained its difference from the Catholicism of recently converted Indians, remaining quite close to its Hispanic origins. In Creole society, as in Spain, powerful objects accompanied the rhythms of life. Spaniards in Peru and Creoles used relics as supernatural devices to defend against the many hardships that could befall a premodern city. When Lima, Cuzco, and Arequipa were struck by an epidemic or hit by an earthquake (as happened with unfortunate frequency}, the various orders took out relics and saints from their churches and prayed for God’s grace.®* Episcopal authorities did much the same in Rome and Milan when facing diseases, and in Lisbon when earth tremors occurred.®’? When the volcano Omate near Moquegua erupted in 1600, Jesuits immediately took a cross, pelted themselves with stones, and took the relics and saintly statues out of the colegio to go on a procession —but the rain of ashes did not cease.” Here, as elsewhere, Jesuits and Augustinians interpreted hardship as God’s punishment for the lax morality of the Peruvians. Thus, Peru’s Creole society did not diverge markedly from Spanish practices and beliefs regarding devotion to Christ, Mary, and the saints. Spaniards and Creoles believed in the efficacy of amulets, talismans, and pictures that encapsulated the powers of these divine and quasidivine entities.” Part of Peruvian Spanish and Creole devotion involved

little talismans—perhaps the most apt term for those silver-framed images of Christ, Mary, and saints that could be hung around the neck

and that first appeared in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.” (The Museo Murillo in La Paz and the Collection Enrico Poli in Lima house beautiful examples.)”° Narratives about Creoles’ pilgrimages to the shrines of the new “Creole” saints—Saint Rose, Toribio

de Mogrovejo, and San Martin de Porres—often involved such objects.“ The witnesses in the canonization of San Martin de Porres, for example, reported how hundreds of people visited the body of the deceased saint. They were eager to strike their amulets or medallions on the cloth of the friar. These little objects, so they hoped, would become charged with his healing aura.” As the French traveler Amédée Frézier

150 THE POWER OF HUACAS

(1682-1773) indignantly observed in the late eighteenth century, Lima was an unusually pious place.” Lima’s Creole, mulatto, and Spanish ritual specialists were probably indignant. At the beginning of a consultation, they first made their clients lay aside the rosary, the cross, or any other Christian amulet.” It was believed that these Christian talismans inhibited the ritual specialists’ arts.” The Andean belief in powerful stones seems not very different from this widespread trust in the supernatural powers of special objects. But the concepts underpinning these beliefs reveal how utterly different they in fact were. In Peru, carrying a relic was the prerogative of Creole society’s upper classes. They were never handed out to indigenous people.” A relic was a treasure; some of them could be carried as pendants (see figure 5.1). The trade in relics and objects of devotion was well established in the Atlantic world. In 1661, the Jesuits in Lima made a list of all the relics belonging to their colegio of San Pablo.®° In total, they housed some one hundred bones of saints or fragments of holy places. Their collection included pieces of the True Cross, a star from the roof of the house of Loreto, and a large number of bones belonging to San Simon, San Ignacio de Loyola, San Francisco Xavier, San Urso, Francisco Suarez, Francisco de Borja, three apostles, and “holy” people from Peru like Juan de Avila and Alonso Rodriguez.*! In 1583, the Third Council of Lima reminded members of the church to use only those relics that had been officially licensed.” Restrictions on carrying these sacred items

were introduced. Nevertheless, priests, friars, and apparently even Spanish and Creole laypeople were allowed to bear them.

Other relics, the larger pieces, were exhibited in the churches of Lima, Cuzco, and Ayacucho. Inventories of Jesuit churches (for example, the Colegio de la Transfiguraci6n in Cuzco} show that they were literally crowded with these holy objects.*° In 1661, the Jesuits took their

relics in a procession through the city so that “the people could give them the proper veneration they merited.”** The people should pray an “Our Father” and an “Ave Maria” in front of these relics. In fact, the Jesuit collection already exceeded those of other orders. And, despite the nearly one hundred holy remnants kept in Lima’s San Pablo colegio alone, in the late seventeenth century the Jesuit Alonso Rodriguez was convinced that the Jesuits lacked relics: he believed that even more such objects were required for their “spiritual defense.”*® Into the late eighteenth century, bishops and archbishops in Peru granted approval for new shiploads of relics.°° The Creole lands should be as holy as the European motherland. It simply required admonition sometimes on

FROM OUTSPOKEN CRITICISM TO CLANDESTINE RESISTANCE 151

ear

Eee, j ,? } ‘ ST dbiase no 85)

| Ary OT a Fee el a hae s,.+2

y < , b , i 1 i i. : »» i} im "WAY f a nes \ 4 La Py:kae.rope wale ‘a‘ id] o*“ye7.] 'y

salL} \ NAY wee wT |}‘\eAcA ¥ we Os agit

\ Sa , Yi aw Wi .=

|vee i, r. , > — | / ‘) led e) =), : wi ‘4 \ } 4 SH / | ie

\ De

FIGURE 5.1. Relics in the sacristy of the church La Compania, Lima, Peru.

how to behave in church and what to believe.*’ According to Antonio de la Calancha, Peru would already be accounted the holiest land on earth were it not for its indigenous people. Only the small churches in the countryside lacked relics. Thus, in its religious culture, colonial Peru was a land of two Catholic “republics”: one of Creoles and the other of indigenous people.*® In fact, as I will now argue, over the course of the early modern era, Peru was transformed into a country containing three different “republics”: Creole Catholic, Andean-Christian, and properly Andean.®? Whereas Catholicism united Creole society and was its foundation, it began to split the indigenous society. The emergence of a third “republic,” the properly Andean one, can best be understood by investigating how some religious specialists (as opposed to commoners] reacted to Jesuit

distributions of images of saints and medallions. This diffusion of Catholic objects threatened the Andean world much more fundamen-

152 THE POWER OF HUACAS

tally than did invocations of saints or theorizing about the Christian God. Religious specialists perceived Catholic objects as having powers equal to those of Andean holy objects. To preserve what was threatened, religious specialists reluctantly created what we can call the third “republic” within colonial Peru. MAKING GOD’S POWERS TANGIBLE, RESISTING CATHOLIC OBJECTS, AND THE PRINCIPLE OF EXCLUSION

When Villag6mez advised his visitators in 1649 to take along rosaries, images of saints, and catechisms on their visitation campaigns, he was not innovating. Rather, he was following a Jesuit practice that the order had employed for many years in the provinces and missions, though with mixed success. In 1588, sixty years prior to Villag6mez, José de

Acosta had argued for the need to supplant indigenous rituals with Christian ones. Therefore, he suggested distributing “holy water, pictures, rosaries, consecrated items, and candles.” Doing so should extirpate idolatry from the hearts of the indigenous people. Acosta was

familiar with the challenges of his enterprise. He admonished his fellow missionaries: “One has to pay great attention to replace pernicious rituals with beneficial ones, and erase one ceremony with another one.” He added, “In your sermons in front of the people, you have to praise all these practices so that new Christian symbols replace old

superstitions. Once they are occupied with better and more decent rituals, they will denounce the old superstitions of their sect from their hands and hearts.””! Even though Acosta fostered a distrust in the idolatries of the common people, and knew that distributing tangible items with Christian symbols to indigenous people was likely to cause

misunderstandings about the proper distinction between representation and embodiment, he was willing to take the risk. His approval of images of saints grew out of his Spanish heritage. Peruvian Jesuits followed Acosta’s advice. In 1603, Lucan Dario, from his missionary outpost in Cordova in Tucuman, asked his fellow Jesuits in Rome for a chest containing “images of the angels of Jesus and those papers that bear the figures of the commandments, articles, and other things of devotion.”’* It is not known whether this particular chest was ever packed and sent to Tucuman, but other trunks full of devotional objects successfully accompanied members of the Society on their missions. As Acosta had wanted, Peruvian Jesuits handed out “estampas, medallas y rosarios” to the new converts.’’? One of Guaman Poma de

FROM OUTSPOKEN CRITICISM TO CLANDESTINE RESISTANCE 153

Ayala’s pictures shows a scene in which a Jesuit hands out devotional objects during a confession. He is giving a rosary to the kneeling indigenous person in front of him. In his left hand he also holds a string carrying hearts, bearing engravings of a cross.”* These objects were awarded to those who knew basic doctrines, Arriaga said.”? Well into the seventeenth century, Jesuits were famous for being the order that distributed rewards. José de Arriaga reported how he staffed the priest of Santo Domingo de Ocros in Cajatambo, Hernandez Principe, with rosaries.”° As late as 1751, the Indians who came to be classified as Mojos

apparently asked for a relic or medallion of Saint Ignatius.” Not every indigenous person was happy to receive the Jesuits’ gifts, however. The religious specialists tended to mistrust them deeply and resisted the intrusion of Catholic objects into their ayllus and—as we will see later—into their mesas. Diego Francisco Altamirano (1625-1715) recalled in his unpublished Historia de la provincia del Peru (1710) the fierce struggles of his predecessors against hechizeros.’* In one instance in the late sixteenth century, Gregorio de Cisneros took the confession of an hechizero on a mission between Cuzco and Ayacucho.” This unnamed hechizero had attempted to heal a woman—ineftfectively, as it turned out. After washing the woman in herbal baths, he had rubbed her body with maize and, to the horror of the Jesuit, sacrificed her rosary to an unnamed huaca. Altamirano recounted another anecdote in which

Catholic objects had been destroyed: “Another minister of the devil used to take away from the Christians images of saints and lockets and rosaries which they |the Indians] had received from our missionaries,

and he later made them |the Indians] go to a mountain slope, which was arduous to climb. They had to use their hands and put the rosaries in their mouths to reach the top. There, they sacrificed the objects to the demon.” Yet a third story involving the sacrifice of Catholic holy items featured an hechizero who had been “justly” pushed off a mountain while he worshipped a huaca. Having suffered a broken leg and so, finally, having realized his errors, in great remorse he asked for confession. More to the point here, this religious specialist was also guilty of having offered the rosary to his huaca, for reasons not spelled out by Altamirano. The hechizero may have thought that he was offering his

huaca a valuable and powerful item, as was standard practice, or he may have specifically intended the gift of the rosary to beg pardon from his huaca or to forestall the conversion of his people to Catholicism. As Guaman Poma reported, in one instance, huacas helped religious specialists to get rid of rosaries. Here again, we see that the struggle over

154 THE POWER OF HUACAS

rosaries between an hechizero and a Catholic priest or missionary was viewed not as a minor distraction but as crucial. Whatever their motives, their actions show that some religious specialists considered Catholic objects to be powerful in themselves (and not just representations}. They feared their ability to attract believers, and in sacrificing them, they drew a sharp distinction. Obviously, they believed that what was good for the Spaniards was not good for the Andeans. The already known response voiced by Taki Onkoy religious specialists and in actions by nameless seventeenth-century religious specialists, now suggested cultural separation within the world of devotional objects: Catholic and Andean objects should inhabit different worlds,'°° and the Andean world should stay clear of Catholicism’s (powerful) objects.

Ancient Andean cultures such as the Moche and Nazca had already taken this same approach in distinguishing between friends and enemies, between their own and foreign huacas, between forasteros (for-

eigners) and members of an ayllu’% But unlike in pre-Columbian times, when coexistence of different cults was possible, under Spanish colonialism this vision of coexistence could only withdraw into clandestinity and thus into the last bastion of Andean cultural logic: into

Andean ritual performances, through the hand of Andean religious specialists. This was the answer to which many religious specialists turned when they realized that their suggestion that indigenous people and Spaniards should live in “two worlds” divided by religion found no welcome among Catholics. To appreciate where many religious specialists stood in an everchanging world, and before the motives behind religious specialists’ distrust in Catholic objects can be discussed from the perspective of Andean practices and notions, we have to survey the basic premises of the evolving Andean-Christian “republic.” This middle “republic” should not be confused with mestizo culture; one might call it a playground for mestizaje or mélange.'°” Throughout, it should be kept in

mind that until the late seventeenth century, even this middle “republic” was shaped not by Catholic logic, but by an Andean one, visible

in the Andean notion of embodiment of specific powers and in the principle of juxtapositioning.’”’ In some instances we can even capture that some religious specialists began to advise the people on how to assimilate to Christianity. Curiously—and again, Jesuits captured this in Juli—religious specialists suggested a means for assimilations among common people. Jesuits had identified hechizeros as the teachers of the Andean world. They were correct.

FROM OUTSPOKEN CRITICISM TO CLANDESTINE RESISTANCE 155

ALLOWING THE COMMONERS TO ASSIMILATE SAINTS TO HUACAS: A RESPONSE BY RELIGIOUS SPECIALISTS

According to the 1603 carta annua, Juli’s religious specialists suggested

that their people should see Tunupa in Christ, or worship either Tunupa or Christ, depending on the specific situation. Religious specialists thus opted for inclusion in the form of juxtaposition when faced with Catholic dominance. This argument, of course, took Jesuits by surprise. Had they not fully identified Tunupa with Saint Bartholomew or Saint Thomas (as we saw in chapter 1)? Religious specialists modified the Jesuit position, arguing that Christ should be taken as Tunupa.** Religious specialists thus suggested to their fellow Andeans to assimilate Christ to their indigenous god." Thus the alternative to the exclusive either/or answer that many religious specialists gave to Catholicism’s intrusion into their world, and to which we turn in more detail

in a moment, was an inclusive one following the form of juxtaposition—and it, too, was no colonial invention. It can be found among the priests and artists in the service of the Chavin culture (ca. 900200 B.C.E) and was later copied by the Tiwanaku (ca. 300-1100 C.E.} and

the Incas, among others. Those cultures adopted features from other cultures for various reasons. Inclusion was one way to demonstrate superior powers: similarities and other kinds of adaptations would attract believers or followers, whether religious or political. The Inca Tawantinsuyo probably best exemplifies the belief in South America that integration was necessary for a society’s well-being and for the survival of the “whole world.” Inclusion was thus essential to the Andean and Inca world. It was exactly this move to assimilation that would long shape indigenous people’s attitude toward Catholic saints. They likened the many saints to their Andean huacas and treated them accordingly. Therefore, Catholics saw themselves as forced to insist on the distinction between representation and embodiment until the second half of the seventeenth century. Only then did Catholics involuntarily become more tolerant of minor versions of “false assimilations” of saints and the Christian God, even if it continued to trouble Catholics.’ In the process of assimilating saints and Christian rituals, the list of saints grew longer in the Andean world than in Europe. In the Catholic missions, the Virgin Mary in her many manifestations was the primary focus of saint worship. She was followed (in the hierarchy devised by Pseudo-Dionysius) by the archangel Michael, San Gabriel, San Raphael, John the Baptist, the apostles Saint Paul and Saint Peter, Santiago, Saint

Bartholomew, Saint Luke, Saint Mark, the “innocent saints,” Saint

156 THE POWER OF HUACAS

Lawrence, Saint Fabian, Saint Sebastian, the martyrs, Saint Gregorio, Saint Bernard, Saint Martin, and the founders of orders, Saint Anthony and Saint Dominic. The list ended with two holy women, Saint Mary

Magdalena and Saint Anastasia.'°° The Confessionario instructed Indians to ask these saints to intercede on the sinner’s behalf for liberation from death, the punishments of hell, and diabolical powers. It did not explicitly recommend that they should be called on in times of sickness. Soon, the saints’ wooden statues adorned the altars of mestizo-baroque churches. Pious believers and Jesuits, Augustinians, Franciscans, and Dominicans authored apologetic histories of new Andean miracle-working saints, who then became saints of the indigenous people: Our Lady of Cocharcas, Nuestra Senora de Copacabana, the Virgen de Cayma, the Virgen de Pomata, and the Virgen de Guadalupe de Pacasmayo, among others. Those were mainly saints to those in the southern Andes, normally with a local following, but sometimes drawing from farther away when they demonstrated their powers by miraculously saving individuals, such as an Indian boy who fell from a church balustrade, or an Andean child who almost drowned.'"* Some cults of the Virgin were quite old. The devotion to the Virgin of Copacabana began in 1588, and that to the Lady of Cocharcas was initiated in 1598 by the Jesuits. The Virgin of Pomata was perhaps revered as early as 1597. Teresa Gisbert believes that already in the seventeenth century, the Jesuit print shop in Juli was fabricating and distributing little images of the Virgin. Jesuit demand for saintly images and rosaries

from the early seventeenth century makes this highly plausible. And it was an ongoing activity until the eighteenth century.’"? Perhaps seventeenth-century religious specialists convicted as hechizeros— including Maria Gumbituella, Tomas Parinanco, Lorenco Lllaxcayauri, Maria Llaxsa, Francisco Garcia Julcapuma, Pedro Sayao, and Francisco Malqui Guaman—also hoped that their namesakes might rescue them from their prison cells; if so, they hoped in vain."° JUXTAPOSITIONS: THE CREATION OF THE ANDEAN-CHRISTIAN WORLD

The indigenous worship of saints became a medley of components drawn from Andean and Catholic rituals, most often ordered by an Andean logic, and by the principles of separation and inclusion in the form of juxtapositions.”’ Andeans oftered coca leaves, textiles, llamas, and guinea pigs instead of silver, crowns, and gold."* They began to

FROM OUTSPOKEN CRITICISM TO CLANDESTINE RESISTANCE 157

wrap their saints in cloth, a practice known since Inca times; it highlighted that these saints were part of life. Cruz velakuy |the “dressing” of a cross in cloth) or the changing of the saint’s dress prior to Corpus Christi is a typical feature of Peruvian Catholicism to this day. It can be assumed that during colonial times some inhabitants in Cuzco, Arequipa, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Huamanga, Potosi, Charcas, Chuquiabo, and Cocharcas worshipped saints as replacements of their old Andean sacred guardians. But in the seventeenth century, the worship of saints often coexisted with reverence for huacas. Churches were erected on top of old huacas or adjacent to them, which ironically allowed indigenous people to revere old huacas while attending Mass.’ Augustinians and Jesuits discovered that indigenous people hid their huacas or weavings inside baroque church altars. In the 1560s, the Augustinian Juan Ramiro reported that he spent months searching vainly for a huaca of terrifying repute, Guamansiri, and was greatly relieved when finally an hechizero confessed where it was hidden. He led the astounded Augustinian into the white church in Huamachuco. Behind the main altar a little manta was hidden. The hechizero explained that they simply adored their huaca in the form of a weaving in the altar while the Spaniards worshipped their saints.’ Such juxtapositions of Andean objects and Catholic symbols became a vexing problem debated by Spaniards and Creoles.” They demonstrate that in the first phases of Catholic influence, assimilations were not conceptual but rather took concrete form. This emphasis on the physical testifies indirectly to the Andean notion of embodiment of powers not in a supernatural entity, but in accessible material objects. In 1621, Arriaga admitted having conducted an “archaeological” search almost two meters beneath a cross. There he found the Auaca of Choquechuco."° He also scolded the priests for allowing their church members to put Auacas on top of the racks that were used to carry saints in processions. Even though Arriaga answered with a sharp negative that evangelization could be considered successful when Andean-

Catholic juxtapositions in cult ran rampant, many priests in everyday life thought differently. But even Arriaga himself welcomed the gift by an indigenous man of a beautifully crafted stone to serve as a stoup.”””

There are innumerable examples of seventeenth-century Andean people combining a Catholic object with an Andean habit, or a Catholic

feast with an indigenous one, but this is not the space to analyze all individual idiosyncrasies."“° A few examples will suffice. The Jesuit Diego Francisco Altamirano, for example, described how an exemplary

158 THE POWER OF HUACAS

indigenous Christian woman buried a small altar in her field so as to ensure its fertility."’ In doing so, she was putting a Catholic spin on the burying of a conopa among crops, a practice described by Guaman Poma and still followed by some campesinos, or peasants, in southern Peru—those who have not converted to strict Protestant evangelism. In another colonial instance, an indigenous woman approached a Jesuit in Juli to ask the friars to hold a mass on behalf of her ayllu’s fields. According to this Jesuit, members of the ayl/u oftered money for that mass, just as they would compensate a religious specialist for his ofterings to a huaca. In another event, a so-called neophyte, whose task was to help baptize Indians in Juli, used holy water in a non-Christian manner.’*° Jesuits were horrified and performed the baptism anew. Most of these assimilations were not mandated by any authority but grew out of custom, except perhaps for the equation of Christ with Tunupa. At the same time, other members of Andean society did not blend

the two cultural horizons, either through juxtapositions or ritualistic adaptations. Instead, they founded altars and made donations and thus had status as exemplary Catholics.*' During the late seventeenth

century, the old Inca elite and local Indians liked to be represented as donors on the foreground of Christian images. They all considered themselves “true” Catholics and probably believed in the resurrection and in hell.'?” ADAPTING CATHOLIC SYMBOLS TO THE CULTURE OF ANDEAN COMMONERS

To create an authentic Catholic world in the Andes, Catholic elites made

many steps toward adjusting Catholicism to the indigenous world. Here, mutual adaptations had their share. It will be asked whether there was a special Jesuit language of symbols directed towards hechizeros—one that went beyond the depiction of hell that, as we already have seen, became a standard language of symbolism in the southern Andes, and especially in the eighteenth century. Catholics took advantage of the needs and fears of an agrarian society.’*’ The colonial calendars transformed saints into powerful patrons for planting and harvesting.’** Confraternities distributed alms and cultivated fields; these efforts were intended ideally to replace the institution of the minka, the Andean form of communal work.’*” According

to Avila, a peasant longing for rain should speak a prayer and adore

FROM OUTSPOKEN CRITICISM TO CLANDESTINE RESISTANCE 159

no huaca. In his Symbolo catho6lico indiano (1598), the Franciscan Luis Jer6nimo de Oré indirectly adapted indigenous beliefs in the power of nature. He made God identical with nature, even though, of course, his

orthodoxy held nature to be a mirror of God. In Rituale, seu manuale peruanum (1607), Oré, inspired by his Spanish Franciscan predecessor Martin de Castanega, prescribed a procession to call for rain, exorcism against thunderstorm, and a vow against clouds and hail.”° Thanks to this liturgical practice, Franciscans in missions that lay on the borders of the civilized world could walk with indigenous people and in effect speak Latin to those who spoke Patag6én, Bagua, Chirino, and Copallin, among other languages, to obtain rain.’*’ Thus the different orders did, in essence, accommodate indigenous agrarian customs by trying to replace them with Catholic prayers or saintly patrons.

In many respects, churches in the southern highlands whose indigenous congregations were large employed a symbolic language that

served to attract their interests and then bestow indigenous associations with new Catholic meanings. An artist’s assimilations were often enriched with a didactic purpose. To be sure, it is difficult for a histo-

rian to distinguish between uncritical assimilation of an indigenous or mestizo artist and a directed program reflecting the interest of another party. Acosta advised his readers to replace Andean customs with Christian symbols, and Arriaga allowed crafted Andean stones to be transformed into stoups.’** It remained an unwritten law, however, to which symbols and objects this directed assimilation could extend. As

in the case of the toad examined later, Catholic artistic conventions were tailored to an indigenous horizon, and artistic expression might directly allude to hechizeros. In the Andes, Jesuits’ trust in the inherent symbolism of the world was as pervasive as the meaning given to objects by indigenous people. Jesuits viewed the whole world as a hieroglyph.’ In Filippo Picinelli’s famous 1654 book Mondo simbolico, each fork, each chalice, each bell, the granadilla, the Lion, and many other objects acquired the status of a symbol representing God’s omnipotence.’ More loosely, Peruvian Franciscans fostered the same perspective. The most prominent application of this ubiquitous symbolism to the indigenous world is the as-

tonishment of early modern scholars about the passion fruit, which was seen as a symbol for the passion of Christ.’*’ Many other examples

in which Christian arts borrowed typical Andean pictorial language but transformed its Andean meaning have received less attention, including the juxtaposition of gold and silver in baroque altars.** In the

160 THE POWER OF HUACAS

Andean and Inca world, silver was the Moon’s metal, and gold the metal of the Sun. The principle of duality and its expression in the juxtaposition of gold and silver were quintessentially Andean as well. MUTUAL ADAPTATION: CATHOLIC SYMBOLISM DIRECTED TOWARD HECHIZEROS

A much more prominent example of mutual adaptations in the language of symbols that relates directly to the world of Andean religious specialists is the representation of Santiago in colonial churches. Both

the saint and his scallop-shaped shells underwent transformation. When he left Spain for the New World, Santiago was accompanied by his trademark insignia, beloved of his pilgrims. In the Andes, the frequency and prominence of Santiago’s shells, sometimes replaced by Spondylus princeps (Pacific thorny oyster], increased even more when Peruvian chroniclers found out that the aquatic objects were widely used among hechizeros. In the late sixteenth century, Polo de Ondegardo accused the Spaniards of a flourishing but destructive shell trade. According to him, mollo (or mulJlu), the spondylus shell, was a standard item used in offerings for huacas. The chronicler also observed that indigenous people drank ground mollo with chicha. From Sarmiento’s comment, historians have concluded that the Andean world valued shells more than gold and silver.’*’ Indeed, seventeenth-century religious specialists continued to arrange shells in their rituals.°* Furthermore, during Inca and early colonial times shells symbolized water. No wonder, then, that John the Baptist is also depicted in the churches of the indigenous communities of Checacupe, San Jer6nimo, Carabuco, and Huaro with the spondylus shell in his hand as he baptizes Christ (see figure 5.2]."°° Here, as in the use of gold and silver, an already established European symbolic language could easily be enriched by a

didactic function tailored to the common Andeans and perhaps even hechizeros. But Santiago’s metamorphosis was not limited merely to his attributes. He himself took on even greater stature, which he retains to this day.’°° According to Catholics, Santiago, who in the Old World was Matamoros (“the Moor slayer”), became Mataindios, “the one who kills

idolatrous Indians.” Thus many churches in the southern Andes incorporated statues or images of Santiago, brandishing a sword, on the back of a horse with a Moor or Indian beneath its hooves (see figure 5.3}).!°” Yet according to Andeans, Santiago was Illapa, “god” of thunder.'*®

WW ob Pee ee EN SWB UE (pte ne ON

= — ys f ~My py a WS KB ¥ Re Se 4 SSS DY SS any = ‘. x X wR Say ~ ha fi TS 3 SN

we hi iy ee Go pO DSS A id ce eS Fe IES NA RA Raa

VN I Rey fe oe 2G SOND KY Cs

>Fr/ iy y. oy 7 aciy ie ARY ANA f> aaewa Se Dae tu ye, St ~ s . he \ . Sy \ : x *)\ \\]Bi) ifyoy He. Gy a. Or| wy ie Xi > SSAASTSE™ " ARMA

Lfye if) fb EAPoe R4, fi} f:u= ae “Se CawWA ce } SSR Ta . xIRY » Le y‘\\\ Ne)a, yi Ne y Uf 4 49e een JS 3}

") Ue)] (iia, V4 fp. LN| ee i Ep « Years: : {VAs 4 |MAL Wie | SON Sm A Wend | WS Wate WOie teVAN \ MY feCh . \ oeif/ 2 xnee er fs Se Wipe’ 7 ee oath MY? cNZ } YD no Ss a eee of = pt ee KAS 4 yf i as

a~oaafOa | (aN gm Waele MUSHY VaPSSM SEWR Saree Er)UA ay PU, SSS ee See VO RE tes we ORGIG, IN SE ro) ae > Us as } Parag! £7 ‘a i ys 7

- AtaunCN Rss 7s% Us = aL ORS > Seg, 5 Cri LU SE, al) eeay ; i He a % af feo, — Ee we ey jpccnoy Sa aRN WA AWE: ee AO iv 2 gape iy TUNE: \ 3

AieaTap PR OA SANS ET nas IS Ha ANTUN ORS EY2Ve i, Mie ae | OPTS oh us dae vee y, | — Ds) iy i a Nee (FV a ASIAB I bo ly ie iy if PSNI Z px Bee . cy on = rs ag s t a eis Dh : (ox ie lad 1 i,

FIGURE 5.2. Baptism scene with a spondylus shell taken from the baptistry in the church of Carabuco (ca. late seventeenth century). Carabuco, Bolivia.

‘ 4> ay = a‘| ‘iyp:Pe fy f 4Vy rDK Se

re g° = an - a —— — —— _ = : J4 ; ~Se \ f—so) or aLae > y* 44 Zs}|he \| \goa 4,‘| x at aoR 2. ‘ " : Te ~ ; 7 ey ,~ < } NY > VA, “1 | ea) De * > es Ut ie s | Lala es c jeI s. ~~ 5 . ?=z ; Abt eh pyjRe CO

Att o> | wiki doe

%*se ¥eS ee am po a ys H kine > et>aT et” ~ 7Meh : :+ > SS | ;Yy i> ay >th abt3.he

pi 4\ J iy 2% “24. a4 teow > & pS a | * (> af, oa a ) \ A dl NSS 73% :Gi ALIN SS ny 8 efp ib 4 cv . vi ’ 4 j a . ' ty Ti Bia 5 | So) [) b a | = . , f; ‘ 8 iWe peo > NY / A j > hi a ya SO ee a ae VW sy< 7aZairo lSHtc ae f laa rn > K aOe a) ‘es Ko / - < eTet b . rai. Nile i , ts dl dj f & » i ie . > ™ ; | 5 Di hi e. Py “ ; al : q \ Ee! J x: we " ot Z /

we mae oS a ae > Pe one.” ie far Sie rr Sarre LY =e

Age Vis =e ES : 93 J EEE Gi a

FIGURE 5.3. Santiago “Mataindios” (ca. first half of eighteenth century). Church of Pucyura, Cuzco.

162 THE POWER OF HUACAS

Chucuilla, Catu Ila, Intuiillapa, or, in a contracted version, Illapa, was the one entity who bestowed power on religious specialists and was worshipped as the giver of rain. At first, Catholic elites did not pre-

vent this indigenous assimilation—indeed, they encouraged it. But over the course of the seventeenth century, they realized that the process of assimilation was veering dangerously out of control, and they tried to rein it in. Arriaga forbade Andeans to name their children Santiago in the hopes of stopping Illapa from smoothly riding under the flag of Christendom.’ Nevertheless, Santiago remained the one and only saint during colonial times that shaped the imagination of hechizeros, and he did so via his identification with Illapa. No other saint was similarly adopted by them. Colonial depictions of Saint Cyprian, Saint Anthony the Abbot, and Saint Bartholomew (Saint Thomas) might have indirectly or directly alluded to hechizeros and their communication with demons. But except for the seventeenth-century depiction of Saint Thomas, who replaced Saint Bartholomew in the Jesuit church of Tinta, no context clearly links the saint and the indigenous audience (and establishing a link to hechizeros would obviously be even more difficult). Saint Anthony the Abbot, shown fighting against the demons, served as a warning for Jesuit novices attending the seminary in Cuzco. Saint Cyprian was associated with Spanish sorcerers, but only after the eighteenth century, if not later, did he become a companion of mestizo or indigenous hechizeros or ritual specialists.“° Thus, there was no colonial saint that particularly addressed hechizeros."! Three other artistic conventions may suggest that Catholics made adjustments to conform to the cultural practices of religious specialists: the use of feathers in representations of the host at the moment of consecration, the popular depiction of Saint Thomas and Saint Francis with wings (see figure 5.4], and the employment of alabaster in churches. Feathers and wings may have alluded to Andean beliefs in the power of religious specialists and their rituals. Though chroniclers did not record the connection, the artists may well have been familiar with Andean beliefs about the meaning of feathers and the ability of religious specialists to be “transformed” into other beings, especially birds.“* As visitation records show, Lima’s ecclesiastical elite often were aware that religious specialists believed in the healing properties of white stones—stones that were similar to the piedra Huamanga. But it is impossible to determine whether artists and their masters frequently used alabaster in churches because they too believed in those properties or because they simply admired its aesthetic qualities.’ So far, our hy-

FROM OUTSPOKEN CRITICISM TO CLANDESTINE RESISTANCE 163

140 9 tee

~ = -_ Soi an 2 . 7 ee - 9 (—— “, ~ . ' —_ . | 3 rae : Ba # ;

| ee kts A Fa yogi Sarin ainsyaine rade > ie aa. %< Fe iia i Dias a 7 : >eee wee Gay see en a es Pee 7 ~ —eT bag aneet ey Nos reeee tind ae it ty~4 ae

Se Get a le ee as Sey ele SS oY -- oy as Rae t= 3 Nes . A ce, es ai as a > TE RII a€ & ®:~- Rice as a8 See —OR, Fe St ‘2d oe 2 Ge ae. a a a

~’ ;>eyss; =‘ ¢> MF es >, ts ~ . t*eaas“I ie /, ; i,/ .~. — i «-RS eo=5 —_ e a 5 "ig ad aaa

a > ; . y, + =< i oe : a ? j iat) a), + =”, > Saw .¥ pg Vf aSS ne 5Ce on \Seae IF OS Pay oie a _| =ee =

* a, ie = mn ™~& od = e- > P = ee , oof ‘ er ss ’

ee oS, RR, ee je

Sa,—S “Sp-0"> . a ae. oe a tyae wh; We ty ae: C5 > te ee ss ~ P4 ee Se-Bee wySe / WOR Sy | ty SS. BAF), Pet NS Me > SS oe Sp PKA wo LI aeoh ae >See) oa syse¥LT] 5oe eal ~ > >: ."x SS,NY 4 of if wee 9 :‘ te Cy’ “ f= ifa ; eua7 anSy, Tbha eo aa act 8 SoS & Wie 74 aa ¢ iTS se) e pe te Tt, a—a4 U& - —aGa Zaft Sg ay M L7 AZI iss oe ww a: Ss wg eo4fhee Pd

or | : ? 4 a os en & A OS. eo AO Oe od) te. ay it FIGURE 5.4. Depiction of Saint Francis with wings, in the church of Ayaviri (ca. late seventeenth century). Ayaviri, Peru.

potheses regarding unofficial transfers of knowledge —transmission of what chroniclers, Jesuits, visitators, and priests had learned about religious specialists to artists and their employers—remain on shaky ground.

Despite this uncertainty, it should by now be obvious that assimilation in the Andean-Christian “republic” worked both ways, as the Catholics and the Andean people each borrowed from the other. Why, then, in this glittering world of baroque manifestations, did religious specialists persist in their distrust of Catholic symbols and tangible objects? THE EMERGENCE OF A CLANDESTINE THIRD “REPUBLIC”: THE RELIGIOUS SPECIALISTS’ WORLD

Without a doubt, the life of religious specialists during the seventeenth century was far from idyllic. Most Jesuits reported with self-assertive

conviction on the defenselessness of hechizeros in various regions against each new epidemic, be it typhus, measles, or rubella. Besides its propaganda value in impressing on the public the almost miraculous healing powers of God and the Jesuits, this observation contained some

164 THE POWER OF HUACAS

truth. Religious specialists’ medical knowledge proved effective against malaria and several poisons, but useless against measles and typhus."“*

When European epidemics decimated an ayllu, the elderly and elite members who were the repositories of traditional knowledge “walked away from the life of human beings,” as Jesuits phrased it."*° What hurt

religious specialists’ authority even more than these epidemics were the denunciations by their own people.”° Indirectly or purposefully, the church inserted a wedge into the Andean people—a wedge that some members of indigenous society welcomed. The collaboration of curacas with the Catholic Church often resulted in hechizeros being denounced. Accusations by others who sought to use the visitator to gain tactical advantages in ongoing social conflicts similarly put religious specialists on the defensive. Even religious specialists, perhaps motivated by rivalries as well as the desire to save their own skins, willingly denounced other hechizeros.“’ Francisco Garcia Julcapuma, an indio ladino trom Trujillo, for example, deftly painted the image of himself as a Christian healer while denouncing his colleagues as “true” hechizeros. In the village of Moche, they would suck blood from other people; he had witnessed this with his own eyes.’*® Another hechizero allegedly walked around with a glass of chicha and maize during the night to “perform other kind of sorceries.” Yet a third was a blind and famous hechizera, to whom many turned when some object or other had gone missing. Francisco Garcia Julcapuma concluded, “|A|I] these Indians are hechizeros who worship huacas and possess idols and for the things they do, they are no Christians.”"° He obviously was not of their number. Luis de Paz, a vicar in Trujillo, believed Francisco and set him free. The many new challenges faced by religious specialists during the seventeenth century extended beyond new diseases and denunciations. The Auacas’ (dis)satisfactions were also a source of grave concern, as the Taki Onkoy already testified. Then, fifty years earlier, the huacas’ cries to be remembered had generated pan-Andean resistance. But now religious specialists experienced their huacas’ needs in individual encounters. As the Andean people became Andean-Christians,

the huacas blamed the huacapvillac, the malquipvillac, the libiacpavillac—in short, the religious specialists. In 1650, Fernando Carvachin—as we will see in chapter 6—several times encountered a huaca who reminded him to worship the Sun and other such entities. Huacas continued to enter religious specialists’ dreams, asking for food and recognition. Many inhabitants in the Andes, stigmatized as idolaters,

FROM OUTSPOKEN CRITICISM TO CLANDESTINE RESISTANCE 165

disapproved of Catholicism. Andrés Guaraca, Alonso y Chaupis, Diego Villcachuaga, Pedro Malqui of Concepcion de Chupas, and others argued that their huacas would stop providing potatoes, sheep, and children if their people continued to convert to Catholicism and forgot the old powers.”° The religious specialists of the Cajatambo province deplored that the dead were buried in graveyards around the churches and no longer in their traditional places, the machays.*! Thus, the outward pressure on religious specialists —applied by evan-

gelization and denunciations—met with an inward counterpressure that arose from the logic of Andean religion and the belief in the huacas’ nature. Huacas were annoyed, “enojadas,” when they were not worshipped, and their retaliation could take the form of hardships. With the help of their indigenous clientele, many religious special-

ists withstood all these challenges and continued to be the unofficial authorities in their ayl/us and villages. Indigenous and mestizo people in Lima’s archdiocese and in the provinces searched for a religious specialist’s help when they were stricken by difterent ailments or required their huacas’ protection before they visited Creole Lima or Quito.’*? Andeans also consulted a religious specialist when a treasured item — perhaps another person’s heart—was lost. A religious specialist could modify his or her repertoire to undertake new tasks, such as providing an ayllu protection against the Spaniards—but these were variations on themes familiar for generations before them, as similar tasks were performed under Inca tutelage. To provide protection against Spaniards, the religious specialist (according to Spanish observation) drew on lion’s

hairs, which were believed to empower Indians.*°? During colonial times, the image of Indians fighting against the lion concealed under “Castilla y Le6n” was popular.** Sometimes (albeit rarely), the religious specialist’s clientele expanded to include a Creole or a Spaniard.’ This was even more exceptional in the countryside, though there may well have been many more cases never recorded and thus unknown to us. In essence, over the colonial period, the function of an indigenous ritual,

its “symbolic” composition (as we will see below}, and its ritualistic performance (as we will see in the next chapter) changed little in the highlands.

The informal Andean “republic” that emerged during colonial times—headed by religious specialists and their clientele and structured

by their rituals, with its almost total lack of assimilation to Catholic objects and beliefs—was clandestine.’°° Of course, it was hidden only from the eyes of Catholic priests, missionaries, and visitators. For in-

166 THE POWER OF HUACAS

digenous people, who knew exactly who in their own or neighboring ayllu could ofter healings or the protection of a huaca, religious specialists’ actions were as visible as they had been in the past. Behind the rigorous protective shield of Andean culture, seventeenth-century religious specialists continued to hand down from one generation to the next their traditional knowledge concerning huacas, conopas, yllas, and the properties of maize, coca, villca, and powders. This transfer occurred even in those regions in which visitators entered villages several times per decade. Huarochiri provides a good example.” In 1650, Inés Carua Chumbi from Yauli was accused of instructing her grandchild in hechizerias. Pedro Inga confessed in 1668 that he had learned the old traditions from his grandparents. When asked why he kept up this ancient lore, he replied, for memoria. Indeed, the Andean notion of memoria was a crucial element in the passive and clandestine resistance of many religious specialists. Whereas in early modern Europe historia slowly was transformed into a vehicle that legitimized doctrinal truth, property, or even “progress,” and its explicit ties to Christianity (which produced large folios filled with the manifestations of God’s omnipotence} were forgotten, Andean memory retained its essentially religious nature throughout the colonial period.** Here, an ayllu could survive (let alone prosper) only if it was oriented toward its origins. In the Quechua language, the past is what les in front of one’s eyes, not something hidden behind one’s back. Pedro Inga—and his name suggests the highest authority—believed that because old traditions had been forgotten, his kinship group in Ondores would have no water. Thus, looking straight into the face of past history, not Catholicism, was what ensured the future. In this belief, Pedro Inga was representative of many religious specialists in Lima’s provinces. KEEPING ANDEAN RITUAL MESAS PURE AND MAINTAINING THE POWER OF ANDEAN YLLAS

One response of hechizeros, noted above, was to sacrifice rosaries or Christian images of saints to the huacas, but the question of whether such acts were unusual has not been discussed. Did some religious specialists instead incorporate rosaries and other Christian items into their rituals? An investigation of colonial-era religious specialists’ rituals may provide some hints toward an answer. Although the visitation protocols provide us with only a murky view of rituals or ritualistic performances, our information on the objects that were used in rituals

FROM OUTSPOKEN CRITICISM TO CLANDESTINE RESISTANCE 167

is exceptionally reliable, thanks to the bureaucratic outlook of the visitators and average priests who searched for idols, counted objects, and entered them in lists that should be trusted to inform us of the presence or absence of items employed by religious specialists.’ It is therefore

telling that none of these records for the central and southern highlands testifies to religious specialists’ use of Catholic objects in their rituals. No visitator reports finding images of saints, medallions, the cross, or rosaries in the bags of an hechizero, and no indigenous witness mentions their possible use. At the same time, we know that these items were quite readily available in the Andes.’ The Jesuit Rodrigo de Cabredo reported with great content that indigenous children had

learned to play with makeshift rosaries Judging from the number of rosaries in Guaman Poma’s iconography, by 1615 colonial society in the

countryside was in the secure grip of the Virgin. “Indios christianos” were said to pray on every occasion, “rezar primeramenta a la Santisima Trinidad medio rosario que son: pichica chunga mita muchaycuscayqui Maria|.|”"°* Despite their wide dispersion in Andean society, nowhere

until the late seventeenth century, and specifically in the highland regions not until beyond the colonial period, did Christian symbols replace conopas, maize, coca leaves, fat, shells, and other regionally varied items in religious specialists’ rituals. With respect to their trust in coca leaves, maize, powders, and fat—and thus the symbolic language of the ofterings—the rituals of religious specialists in the central and northern highlands were similar.’°? This resistance to including Catholic objects is astonishing, for religious specialists’ mesas—their collections of specific objects such as coca leaves, conopas, and corncobs—were made up of physical items that bore power. We might therefore reasonably expect that Catholic tangible objects that were likewise presented as being powerful would be included. Even if crosses were not readily available, it would certainly have been easy to fabricate them —and, in fact, crosses were omnipresent. Arriaga reported that he had entered a village where each household had its cross properly hung on the door. He also found hechizeros there.

We thus are left with two questions: Why did this resistance to Catholic symbols exist, and when did it give way? The second question can only be answered inexactly on the basis of available historical

knowledge of indigenous ritual customs from the modern period, owing to the fluidity of customs and the lack of observers over the whole Andean map during the colonial period. Northern and southern

religious specialists diverged with respect to their attitudes toward

168 THE POWER OF HUACAS

Christian symbols in a ritualistic setting (as distinct from invocations of saints and God). By the eighteenth century, northern healing rituals included Catholic symbols such as the cross, the rosary, or a crown of the Virgin.’** In the highlands, in contrast, curanderos continued to ward off Catholic symbols, as is documented by the few visitation protocols from eighteenth-century Cuzco. But even then, as Tschopik found out in Chucuito in the 1940s, Andean religious specialists distrusted Catholic objects.“ With regards to altomisayugs and other religious dignitaries in the southern Andes, pictorial Christian symbols have only very recently entered the mesas for use in their rituals of healing or worship.’ Answering the first question is equally difficult. Two additional layers of Andean idiosyncrasies have to be explored before we can attempt to discern the motives for distrusting Catholic symbols. As the reader may have come to expect, the answer again returns us to the Andean notion of embodiment. Jesuits thought that the images of saints, rosaries, and medallions that they distributed to indigenous society acted as reminders of the new faith. One Indian had believed the cross was powerful— powerful enough to chase away his huaca. How did colonial religious specialists define the corresponding power of the Andean objects used in rituals or viewed as “talismans”? The comparison between Catholic objects and colonial-era yllas (usually powerful stone objects} is instructive. As Sarmiento de Gamboa and others agreed, the Incas had their talismans, their huauquis, which ensured Inca victories.“°’ Once the Incas were gone or disempowered, huauquis allegedly became instruments for love magic. But more important for the Andean world were yllas. In 1609, Gonzalez Holguin explained ylla as “the big or notable bezoar stone, big as an egg, or even bigger, which they carry around for riches and luck.” An ylla was thus a bezoar stone that was associated with riches and luck.’ Bezoar stones are kidney stones from llamas, and especially vicunas. In dictionaries before Gonzalez Holguin’s, the term ylla or illa either did not appear (as in Domingo de Santo Tomas) or was translated as “gift of the Inca elite.”"’ The word yl/a had other specific resonances. It was related to Ilapa,

or Thunder. Polo de Ondegardo had observed that yl/as, after being struck by a lightning bolt, were given to camascas.”° Thunder was (and is} the provider of powers for religious specialists in the high Andes. At the same time, the Cuzco priest Crist6bal de Albornoz established a relationship between yl/la and llamas, referring in his Instrucci6n to

FROM OUTSPOKEN CRITICISM TO CLANDESTINE RESISTANCE 169

> ee Wii ae . ;>i ff PS. 4= Pa.” ¥) = . “4

tee ic | aml 1 anapeecce pen et aE %

= ~~ 2 ~ = . le! | \ “Md oe ‘ < »

ae =. « a SS er re Yen

= ea Xe gh =. BEA * a) a , lS ny pe Ss dies eee Bus ee

- SRR es (RR Res = : =a . = = = - ay ba 5 “~ cas re | ‘ aat re) - : *- waa ald yo @ of i 4 aS Gi ae

* ply caer ee tome “a ite Poh " ae y FIGURE 7.1. Saint Peter, by an anonymous painter, in the Jesuit church of Andahuaylillas (eighteenth century). Saint Peter kneels in front of a cloth from which fall several toads, along with snakes and insects. Andahuaylillas, Peru.

Rimachi Maita, Joseph Anco, and Fernando Guayllas, visited a farm in Santo Tomas de Rondocan, about thirty miles southeast of Cuzco." The village belonged to Hurtado de Mendoza’s parish. Rumors of an Indian woman who was an hechizera, a bruja, living in Santo Tomas de Rondocan, had come to their ears. A sick woman named Maria Petrona had suffered from partial paralysis in her legs and arms. She died even though the priest tried to cure her with “water of sage,” and even though she recited the Credo three times daily. After her death, the six men set out to look for the bruja who had inflicted this illness on Maria Petrona. When they arrived at the dwelling of the supposed bruja, Cathalina Choque, they found only two black stones and two little figures. The visitators began to ask witnesses who knew Choque about her commerce with toads. Her son reported that he had seen his mother with two old ladies, Dona Ursula Nieto and Dona Isabel, approaching a cave where they were keeping a crock that contained toads and a number of herbs. He added that three toads were also hiding under the grinding stone. In contrast, Choque’s daughter and husband denied the presence of any toads. But neighbors whom the visitators approached vouched for the rumors about Choque being a bruja or hechi-

212 THE POWER OF HUACAS

zera. As the recorder noted, there were indeed an unusual number of sick Indians in the little village of Santo Tomas de Rondocan. One man,

for example, declared that his arm had been hurting for eight years, and when he finally went to some unnamed Indian, he was told that he was bewitched. Still other residents had seen a number of toads in Choque’s kitchen. After collecting this information, Mendoza transferred the case to the next higher authority, the “Sr. Provisor y Vicario Gralpara.” At that point, we lose track of Choque’s fate. In this mideighteenth-century case, a Dominican priest in Cuzco was looking for a bruja who, according to other Indians, had inflicted harm on the com-

munity. Among the suspicious elements they pointed to were toads, but the visitator had found none. In another case, thirty years later, another bruja was accused in the parish of Pisac, close to Cuzco."” A man named Joseph Guanaca, a supervisor on an hacienda, was the chief complainant. On September 25,1774, he told the corregidor Pablo Figueroa y Portocarrero his impressions of what was going on in the hacienda of Chaguaitini, denouncing one Francisca Guaman. This woman was suspected of having harmed several Indians from the hacienda. The first charge leveled by Guanaca was connected to events of 1771, when some Indians were branding the hacienda’s cows and the accused offered chicha to the workers. Before handing it over, Guaman put something—nobody knew what—in the liquid. Only one Indian woman was willing to drink it, and she became

terribly sick. This Indian woman later suspected that ground molars of some infidels had been thrown into the chicha and had sickened her. Guanaca went on to complain that in the five years that followed, twenty of his own cows had died, and some indigenous workers suspected that Francisca Guaman had put some hechizerias in his stable. Moreover, Guanaca alleged that in 1773, an Indian man named Melchor

Albarade, from the little town of Puquimaio, visited him and asked if somebody wanted him ill—referring indirectly to the dead cows. Indeed, Albarade said he knew that someone was trying to injure Guanaca, and he knew who it was: Francisca Guaman, the sister of his wife, Antonia Guaman. One night, Antonia had heard fearsome noises in her and Francisca’s house and later had seen Francisca and a female friend flying out of it. Before they left, she had heard both women asking a little doll in the form of a toad whether it was hungry. Since the toad answered yes, they fed it, and then both women rubbed their bodies with some sort of unguent. Albarade told this story to Guanaca

ANDEAN NOTIONS OF NATURE AND HARM 213

to prove that Francisca was responsible for the unnatural death of his cattle.

Guanaca’s report contained further accusations. After he had decided to denounce Francisca Guaman in front of the town’s mayor, and she had somehow learned of his intention, she entered his house and begged him vigorously not to say anything to the “jurists.” But Guanaca, as he proudly said, had remained unmoved. Suddenly Francisca had grabbed his hair and scolded him, bursting with rage; he felt some

prickling in his limbs and let her go. The supervisor then started to interview other Indians of the hacienda, who told him that they were suffering from various sicknesses whose causes they could not identify. This long denunciation ended with the incarceration of Francisca Guaman and her husband in Calca and the confiscation of her sixty sheep, six cows, and four pigs. When Don Gregorio Ibaseta, the ecclesiastical judge, called on the suspects to confess, they denied everything. They suggested that Guanaca was telling these lies because he wanted to blame Francisca for the loss of his cows, which had died from a natural cause. The accused Indian woman also suspected that another Indian man was involved, whose motive for falsely incriminating her was to conceal his own theft of a cow. When Guaman was asked if she possessed a little doll in the form of a toad, she answered that she did not, and also vehemently denied that she had been flying around the area. Another Indian woman, who was also accused of brujeria and hechizerta in the same case, was certain that Guanaca had bribed Albarade in order to present an extra witness. At this point, our record of the case ends. The toad as an instrument of witches and as the carrier of an evil spell, an image that recurs in these glimpses into eighteenth-century

Andean and Catholic mind-sets, had also been a frequent theme in popular early modern European legends."’ Toads often figured in accounts of magical healing and miraculous natural phenomena by authors from Pliny onward.“ In particular, the association of toads with female witches was standard in early modern European literature. Beginning with their earliest writings, European authors in Peru linked toads in the Andes with evil. In his “Errores,” Polo de Ondegardo wrote of hechizeros: There are some hechizeros skilled in preparing portions of herbs and roots with which they kill the one whom they give it. Some herbs and

214 THE POWER OF HUACAS

roots kill some people more rapidly others more slowly—depending on the concoction and the mixture. And some of those who perform similar sorceries are mostly women who for those mixtures use molars, teeth, figures of sheep, hairs, fingernails, living or dead toads, different shells, differently shaped as well as colored heads of animals, little dried animals, many different herbs and roots, and they owned little pots with herbs, ointments, and big spiders. All these pots were sealed with mud.'®

He added that a sick person usually would approach the hechizero to request that the harm inflicted on him or her be undone, but the hechizero ended up killing the sick person instead. Moreover, Guaman Poma de Ayala referred to the corregidor of Lucanas, Martin de Mendoza, who had detected various toads and snakes in the house of Diego Suyca in Santiago de Chipao. Hechizeras like Diego Suyca’s sister used a toad and some venom from a serpent in order to talk to the devil and in order to

poison a person. Hechizeras like her would manipulate toads, raising them (and serpents) in their own houses so that they could hide them underneath the dwellings of some hated enemies."° And it was sermon number 13 of the Third Catechism issued by the Third Council of Lima that admonished the confessing person: “Do you know that for each sin you admit you will vomit ugly demons and toads? And in case you conceal them, they will all catch up with you?” In Catholic sermons, toads thus became synonymous with sins. But the toad was more than a monstrous figment of the Spanish imagination. The Spanish would-be magus in Peru, Diego de la Rosa, who owned a ring that helped him escape disputes and had a piece of paper that enabled him to disappear, admitted to having hidden a skull under the soil; he said that after thirty days, the devil appeared in the skull in the shape of a toad and called on him. And between 1655 and 1656, Anna Bellezo, known as a Spanish hechizera, was held in high esteem by Andeans, Afro-Peruvians, and Spaniards. The Lima Inquisition tribunal convicted her for owning a pot in which the visitators found worms and waxen toads wrapped in paper.

Though these stories might suggest that European conventions were being projected on the Andean world, toads were hardly foreign to Andean cultures or geography. Their meanings before the late seventeenth century were different, however. In his Historia del nuevo mundo, the Jesuit Bernabé Cobo (15821675} referred to a toad that was associated with water. As soon as it

ANDEAN NOTIONS OF NATURE AND HARM) 215

rained, it would start to croak. According to Cobo, this common toad— in Quechua, the hampatu—was at home in the lowlands of Tucuman, where local people venerated it."° More thoroughly than anyone before or after him, Cobo studied Andean nature through the eyes both of a Spaniard and the Amerindians. He traveled throughout the viceroyalty

for decades, searching for natural specimens, and ended his investigation by spending twelve years in Mexico.” In one respect, the archaeological remains agree with Cobo’s findings: they show that several Andean civilizations associated different kinds of toads with water and fertility. Toads molded in ceramics or crafted in stone abounded in the Moche, Tiwanaku, Pukara, and Inca civilizations. In Moche ceramics, toads are depicted either with maize or with coca. From the Moche culture, little turquoise stones in the shape of toads have survived.’*° When Spaniards were looting the oracle of Pachacamac, they took golden figures of toads and melted them into bullion to ship to Spain. But it was

not precolonial coastal cultures alone that held toads in great esteem. Cultures along Lake Titicaca treasured the animal as well. Among the remains of the Pukara civilization is the so-called Thunderbolt stele, which depicts lightning and the chiseled representation of a toad (see figure 7.2}. As Polo de Ondegardo and others noted, the Incas and the Chachapoyans considered lightning the harbinger of water, and therefore offered it mullus as ofterings. The toad is thus again associated with the life-giving element. The nearby Tiwanaku treasured some small toads made out of black stones, though scholars have not explained why. Significantly, these toads carry their own puguio (water fountain) on their backs. To this day, Indians in the southern Andes search the celestial Milky Way, which represents the universal flow of water, for a black toad next to the black llama. The stone of Sayhuite near Abancay, which was carved by Inca stonemasons, shows a toad sitting in a water basin.’** And as we will see in a moment, in a late sixteenth-century Huarochiri myth, a toad came to be stored underneath grinding stones—another hint at its association with fertility. Yet Inca culture—and perhaps other Andean cultures as well— bestowed more than one meaning on toads. Cristobal de Molina and Martin de Murtia gave meaningful hints at the symbolic cosmos of toads in Inca times and perhaps in Andean cosmology. Murta referred to the Haulla Vica festivities in Cuzco during which the Incas followed a distinctive rite before engaging in war.’*? The main priest of Cuzco, the Vallavica, celebrated a solemn sacrifice in which he used the flesh of the black Ilama’s heart valve to prophesy the war’s outcome.’* Be-

"- ¢@ ® ie: SEtS a |;.)2

aie 1 ok ie

if aie Bi oe oe Fy a

hie ¢ f ie | oe

H.4

FIGURE 7.2. Thunderbolt stele, from the Pukara civilization (400 B.C.E.200 C.E.). A toad is chiselled into it. Museo Regional Arqueoldgico de Tiwanaku, Bolivia.

ANDEAN NOTIONS OF NATURE AND HARM 217

sides inspecting the llama’s flesh, the priest gave feathers and, more important, small round and angular stones to the flames. These stones bore engraved depictions of toads as well as of serpents, pumas, and jaguars. While the priest was throwing these stones into the fire (so that they might be taken, literally, to the gods), he cried, “Usachum,” which Murua translated “take away the forces of the huacas of our enemies.”’*° In this Inca ritual, the toad together with the other animals was associated with the idea of “taking away forces,” in this instance by invoking one’s own Auaca to annihilate the powers of the enemy huaca. The symbolic use of the toad in this context can be understood in two different ways. On the one hand, read from the enemy’s perspective, the toad and other animals are thought to inflict harm. Read from the perspective of the Incas, the toad and the other animals offered protection. An Inca cape adorned with hundreds of golden toads probably also evoked a protective aura. The use of the toad’s image thus reveals a general aspect of how symbols were understood in the Andean world. Because a symbol’s meaning always depended on the viewpoint of the one who was “reading” and

using that symbol, it could be either positive or negative. The toad was strongly associated with the threat of poison—indeed, poisonous toads are common throughout the Andes, though Cobo claimed that there were fewer poisonous species there than in Europe.’”° But Molina showed that they could be symbolically linked to ridicule as well as harm. In recounting the Inca ceremonies of Moyucati, which were held in Cuzco in honor of Viracocha, he reported that the slowest Indians had to carry a toad made out of salt on their return from Ollantaytambo to Cuzco.’””” Perhaps the toad was associated with slowness or lameness because its poison can paralyze. Pachacuti, in describing an Inca

initiation rite, and Guaman Poma, in referring to the inhabitants of the Inca zankay, point to a similar association.’** Christians might find

the coexistence of different meanings in one and the same symbolic carrier paradoxical. While it is possible that the toads in the archaeological remains and in the historical-mythical accounts are two distinct species, no such “explanation” is required. As we know from other evidence, many Andean cultures highly esteemed the principle of duality that unites opposing, and thus complementary, entities (even of life, or water, and death). Only when read from the perspective of European logic were the meanings of the toad unacceptably contradictory. A third association for the toad in Inca, southwestern Andean, and even Catholic conceptions in the southern Andes is as representative of

218 THE POWER OF HUACAS

a hallucinogenic experience. In his usual careful fashion, Molina wrote of the Inca belief in a “hell” in which bad souls suffered from hunger and thirst as their food consisted of coal, snakes, and toads.’*” We might be inclined to argue that Molina’s description reveals more about Chris-

tian assumptions than about Inca beliefs (modern Andean myths do contain a concept of the “underworld”). But two pieces of colonial evidence hint that animals, particularly toads, may well be used to refer

indirectly to experiences of the netherworld, induced by ingesting a hallucinogen. Cobo once reported that the healer, who claimed to have sucked toads, snakes, and stones from the body of a sick person, had been in a state of ecstasy. As ethnological evidence suggests, healers in

the north visualize animals in their ecstatic experiences. Those who have drunk ayahuasca sometimes see pumas before their inner eye.’*° The image of hell populated with animals thus may have been not a Christian image but a symbol of a hallucinogenic experience in which the carrier of the poison as well as its effects are depicted. The best colonial testimony for the association of toads with a hallucinogen in certain Andean cultures is contained in the Huarochiri Manuscript. It gives us a riddling account of the son of Pariacaca (the main hero of the whole mythic complex).’'! Pariacaca’s son Huatya Curi is shown to be wiser than the wisest men, wiser than the shamans, and of course wiser

than a would-be wise, rich, and powerful man named Tamta Namca. When Tamta Namcea became ill and indigenous shamans could not find the cause of his malaise,’ only a fox and then the godlike Huatya Curi knew it: Tamta Namca’s wife’s adultery was responsible for his illness. Two snakes and a two-headed toad “eating up” Tamta Namca were the visible signs of the crime. In the process of healing, Huatya Curi killed

the two snakes that were on the roof of his house and tried to kill the two-headed toad underneath the grinding stone, which slipped through his fingers and fled into a nearby spring (pond). There, according to the legend—which Avila believed was true—it existed “to this day.” Avila scribbled in the margins: “ask the name of this spring, and where it is,” because “when people come to that spring, it either makes them disappear, or else drives them crazy.”

It is significant that this two-headed toad under the grinding stone was associated first with sickness and second with “craziness.”!** Inca and colonial Andean cultures held two-headed animals—such as the double-headed snake, or Amaru—and pairs generally (twins, matched black and white stones, and so on} in highest esteem."** The two-headed

toad, like all rarities in nature, was thought to be bestowed with un-

ANDEAN NOTIONS OF NATURE AND HARM) 219

Aa 9, _- 4 }. A : ' :- ,>:)‘.. » "hh

J GF : 7 7 Fy elt he c A 7 Te mye .XY ve Pa {7-_ ; 7| J,| ,.ePr) 4 ,a> ‘, er om? alam ahs | Yo ‘ 6 i pe wer" 4% a Rei ey Ve 7 Te! at ie > 7) as mm Th AS > aA sn ’ : or ‘ a TT “ee*7" \

ie a rae —. epaee We Re eet,Ms |, ; mm. : lo "OR aeae”a en ,. BS 5. ‘ot Ve Meets PEs ae ay e.JJs, EA

te:RS COP 2er aae. my # “ _Pei. 4*3 ’ Ls 4= >| . i| VD 2iJ yreA. ois fs We mh . 1: Vd icy, a i bp a ay

ie) ce mba \te ag Sue. ee “Y ; | \'ta ~ og! . i i aarti YL Saco : Ne. * oe a Mel he 4 \o rr See po if Sime TaL- err ae

ee .

r * rt 7 oe at A i {0 ° ri feas A il Bi ". -|| }3i. :oe = f

| fe

FIGURE 5.1 Relics in the sacristy of the church La Compania, Lima, Peru.

of e ,‘ ih a ’P|. }- :- a: } i hs my, . j at ‘ r 4, a * ¥ ‘i : ie | eh dy — + ;

red is ta ¢e at] 4 ry eae Va . fi J Ry ae - —_—— pt

7 hy rm f La: i | . \ i. seat a i i ail e || *. i : gis a | | i FIGURE 5.2 Baptism scene with a spondylus shell taken from the baptistry in the church of Carabuco (ca. late seventeenth century). Carabuco, Bolivia.

2FFieae = F eae — = + yf: LAAs. 1671,

Bravo de Lagunas y Castilla, Pedro José. Discurso hist6rico juridico del origen, fundacion, re-edificacion, derechos, y exenciones del hospital de San Lazaro de Lima. Edited by Lorenzo de Aparicio y Le6n. Lima: Oficina de los Huerphanos, 1761. Bravo de Paredes y Quinones, Alonso. Sermon en la solemnidad de la Virgen Maria, senora nuestra [...]. Lima: n.p., 1669.

Bredekamp, Horst. Reprdsentation und Bildmagie der Renaissance als Formproblem |. . .]/. Munich: Carl Friedrich von Siemens Stiftung, 1993. Breyn, Jakob. Exoticarum aliarumque minus cognitarum plantarum centuria prima, cum figuris Aeneis summo studio elaboratis. Danzig: David Fridericus Rhetius, 1678.

Brosseder, Claudia. 1m Bann der Sterne: Caspar Peucer, Philipp Melanchthon und andere Wittenberger Astrologen. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2004. Brown, Vincent. The Reaper's Garden: Death and Power in the World of Atlantic Slavery. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008. Browne, Ray B|roadus], ed. Objects of Special Devotion: [Fetishes and] Fetishism in Popular Culture. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green University Popular Press, 1982.

Bruhns, Karen Olsen. Ancient South America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Buc, Philippe. The Dangers of Ritual: Between Early Medieval Texts and Social Scientific Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001. Buck, August, ed. Die okkulten Wissenschaften in der Renaissance. Woltenbitteler Abhandlungen zur Renaissanceforschung 12. Wiesbaden: In Kommission bei Otto HarrassowitzZ, 1992.

Bueno, Cosme. Catdlogo hist6rico y cronologico de los virreyes, y gobernadores, del Peru, con los sucesos mas principales de sus tiempos [. . .]. Lima, 1795. ——. kf] conocimiento de los tiempos: Efeméride del ano de 1783, tercero después del bisiesto; en que van puestos los principales aspectos de la luna con el sol, y con los demas planetas. Calculados para el meridiano de esta muy noble, y muy leal ciudad de Lima, capital, y emporio de esta América meridional. Lima: Imprenta Real Calle de Concha, 1783.

——. Fl conocimiento de los tiempos: Efeméride del ano de 1788. Lima: Ninos Huértfanos, 1788.

——. /Descripcion de las provincias de los obispados y arzobispados del virreinato del Peru]; Descripci6n de las provincias pertenecientes al obispado del Cuzco. Lima: Oficina de la Calle de la Coca, ca. 1764-1778. —_— . “Disertacion fisico experimental sobre la naturaleza del agua, y sus propiedades y continuacion de la disertacion sobre el agua.” In Documentos literarios del Peru colectados y arreglados [. . .], edited by Manuel de Odriozola, 3:295-327. Lima: Aurelio Alfaro, 1872.

——. “Disertacion fisico experimental sobre la naturaleza del aire, y sus propric-

384 THE POWER OF HUACAS

dades por el D. D. Cosme Bueno.” In Documentos literarios del Pertti colectados y arreglados [.. ./, edited by Manuel de Odriozola, 3:329-49. Lima: Aurelio Alfaro, £O7 2.

— . Inoculacion de las viruelas. Lima, 1778. —. Tablas de las declinaciones del sol, calculadas al meridiano de Lima, que pueden servir sin error sensible desde el ano de 1764, hasta el de 1775, inclusive [. . .]. Lima, 1763.

Bujok, Elke. “Africana und Americana im Ficklerschen Inventar der Mtinchner Kunstkammer von 1598.” Mtinchner Beitrdge zur V6lkerkunde 8 (2003): 57-142. Munich: Verlag des Staatlichen Museums ftir Volkerkunde, 2003. Burga, Manuel. Nacimiento de una utopia: Muerte y resurreccion de los incas. 2nd ed. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, 2005. Burgaleta, Claudio M. José de Acosta, S.]. (1540-1600): His Life and Thought. Chicago: Jesuit Way, Loyola Press, 1999. Burger, Richard Llewis]. Chavin and the Origins of Andean Civilization. London: Thames and Hudson, 1992.

——. “The Sacred Center of Chavin de Huantar.” In The Ancient Americas: Art from Sacred Landscapes, edited by Richard F. Townsend, 265-79. Munich: Prestel Verlag, 1992. Burger, Richard Llewis], and Lucy C. Salazar, eds. Machu Picchu: Unveiling the Mystery of the Incas. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004. Burnett, Charles. Magic and Divination in the Middle Ages: Texts and Techniques in the Islamic and Christian Worlds |. . .]. Aldershot: Variorum, 1996.

Bustamente Garcia, Jesus. “Francisco Hernandez, Plinio del Nuevo Mundo: Tradicidn clasica, teoria nominal y sistema terminologico indigena en una obra renacentista.” In Entre dos mundos: Fronteras culturales y agentes mediadores, edited by Berta Ares Queija and Serge Gruzinski, 243-69. Seville: Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos, 1997.

Busto Duthurburu, José Antonio del. La plateria en el Peru: Dos mil anos de arte e historia. Coleccion Enrico Poli. Lima: Bancosur, 1996. Butler, Eliza Mjarian|. The Myth of the Magus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948. Reprint, 1979.

Caceres Chlalco], Efrain. Si crees, los apus te curan: Medicina andina e identidad cultural. Cuzco: Centro de Medicina Andina, 1988. Caceres Olazo [Monroy], |Jorge]| Mariano. “Apuntes sobre el mundo sobrenatural de Llavini.” Allpanchis Phuturinga 2 (1970): 19-33. Cahill, David. “El visitador general Areche y su campana iconoclasta contra la cultura andina.” In Visi6n y simbolos: Del virreinato criollo a la republica peruana, edited by Ramon Mujica Pinilla et al., 85-111. Lima: Banco de Crédito del Peru, 2006.

Calancha, Fray Antonio de la. Crénica moralizada del orden de San Agustin en el Peru [...]. 2 vols. Barcelona: Pedro Lacavalleria, en la calle de la Libreria, 1639. —. Cronicas agustinianas del Peru: Por Antonio de la Calancha y Bernardo de Torres (1639-1653). Edited by Manuel Merino. Madrid: Conseja Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1972. ——. Historia de la Universidad de San Marcos hasta el 15 de julio de 1647. Edited by L. A. Eguiguren. Lima: Imp. de la Tradicion, 1921.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 385

Calderon, Eduardo. Eduardo el Curandero: The Words of a Peruvian Healer. Richmond, CA: North Atlantic Books, 1982. Rev. ed., Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books, 1999.

Calisto, Franz Antonio Josef. Sermon que predic6 en la iglesia catedral de la ciudad de Quito a 4 de agosto del ano de 1783 |. . .]. Quito: n.p., 1783. Calvin, Jean. A Treatise on Relics [. . .]. With an introductory dissertation on the miraculous images, as well as other superstitions of the Roman Catholic and Russo-Greek Churches by Count Walerjan S[Korobohaty] Krasinski. Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1854. Calvo de Sandoval, Francisco. Sermon que predic6 el doctor don Francisco Calvo de Sandoval en la celebre solemnidad a la siempre Virgen Maria santisima senora nuestra |...]. Lima, 1659. Camenictzki, Carlos Ziller. “The Celestial Pilgrimages of Valentin Stansel {16211705), Jesuit Astronomer and Missionary in Brazil.” In The New Science and Jesuit Science: Seventeenth Century Perspectives, edited by Mordechai Feingold, 24970. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 2003. Canizares Esguerra, Jorge. “Iberian Science in the Renaissance: Ignored How Much Longer?” Perspectives on Science 12 (2004): 86-124.

——."“New World, New Stars: Patriotic Astrology and the Invention of Indian and Creole Bodies in Colonial Spanish America, 1600-1650.” American Historical ReVIEW 104 {1999}: 33-68.

—— . “Spanish America: From Baroque to Modern Colonial Science.” In The Cam-

bridge History of Science, vol. 4: Eighteenth-Century Science, edited by Roy Porter, 718-38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. —— . “Whose Centers and Peripheries? Eighteenth-Century Intellectual History in Atlantic Perspective.” In The Atlantic World: Essays on Slavery, Migration, and Imagination, edited by Wim Klooster and Alfred Padula, 148-61. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Prentice Hall, 2005. Carcedo de Mufarech, Paloma, and Luisa Vetter Parodi. “Usos de minerales y metales a través de las cronicas.” In Los incas: Arte y simbolos, edited by Franklin Pease Glarcia] Y|rigoyen], Craig Morris, and Julian Santillana, 167-214. Lima: Banco de Crédito del Pert, 1999. Cardaillac-Hermosilla, Yvette. La magie en Espagne: Morisques et vieux chrétiens aux XVIle et XVIle siécles. Dissertation. Bordeaux. Zaghouan, Tunisia: Fondation Temimi pour la Recherche Scientifique et l’Information (FTERSI], 1996. Cardano, Hieronymus. De subtilitate libri XXI [Nuremberg, 1550] |. . .]. Basel: Sebastianus Henricpetri, 1582. Cardenas, Juan de. Problemas y secretos maravillosos de las Indias (1591). Mexico City: Bibliédfilos Méxicanos, 1965.

Caro Baroja, Julio. Las brujas y su mundo. Madrid: Revista de Occidente, 1961. —— . Vidas mdgicas e Inquisicion. 2 vols. Madrid: Edicién Istmo, 1992. Carrillo, Francisco E. Cronistas que describen la colonia: Las relaciones geograficas: La extirpacion de idolatrtas [. . .]. Lima: Editorial Horizonte, 1990. Carter, William E., José V. Morales, and Mauricio P. Mamani. “Medicinal Use of Coca in Bolivia.” In Health in the Andes, edited by Joseph W{illiam] Bastien and John M. Donahue, 119-51. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association, 1981.

386 THE POWER OF HUACAS

Carvajal, Carlos de. Nuevo beneficio de metales humanos, y regla cierta para hallar el tesoro eucaristico |. . ./. Lima, 1688. Carvajal, Garci Manuel de, and Hernan Rodriguez de Huelva. “Vesitacion de los yndios de Carmona cuyos son los de Atico y Caraveli (1549}.” Revista del Archivo General de la Nacion 4, no. § (1975): 74-80. Casaverde Rojas, Juvenal. “El mundo sobrenatural de una comunidad.” Allpanchis Phuturinga 2 (1970): 121-36.

Caso prodigioso que sucedio6 en la ciudad de Quito el dia treinta de diciembre de 1696 entre las cuatro y cinco horas de la tarde |. . .]. Lima, 1697. Castaneda Delgado, Paulino. “Los delitos de supersticid6n en la Inquisicion de Lima durante el siglo XVII.” Revista de la InquisiciOn 4 (1995): 9-35. Castaneda Delgado, Paulino, and Pilar Hernandez Aparicio. La Inguisicion de Lima. 3 vols. Vol. 1: 1570-1635; vol. 2: 1635-1696; vol. 3: 1697-1820, by René Millar Carvacho. Madrid: Deimos, 1989-98. Castanega, Martin de. Tratado de las supersticiones y hechicerias. Logrono, 1529. Reprint, Madrid: Sociedad de Bibliofilos Espanoles, 1946. Castillo, Juan Joseph de. Tarifa y puntual aprecio, que para el seguro expendio de los medicamentos Galenicos, y Quimicos mas usuales en las oficinas farmacéuticas de este reino, ha mandado formar. Lima, 1756.

Castrillo, Hernando. Historia y magia natural o ciencia de filosofta oculta [. . .]. Madrid: Juan Garcia Infanzon, 1692. Castro de Trelles, Lucila, ed. Relacion de los agustinos de Huamachuco: Relacion de la religion y ritos del Peru hecha por los padres agustinos. Lima, 1560-61. Reprint, Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Pert, 1992. Cavero Carrasco, Ranulfo. Los dioses vencidos: Una lectura antropologica del Taki Ongoy. Ayacucho: Universidad Nacional de San Cristobal de Huamanga, 2001.

Ceballos Gomez, Diana L. Zauberei und Hexerei: Eine Untersuchung magischer Praxen im Neuen K6nigreich Granada. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2000. Cervantes, Fernando. The Devil in the New World: The Impact of Diabolism in New Spain. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994. Céspedes, Antonio de. Sermones varios |... .]. Madrid: Imprenta Real, 1677.

Chandler, James, Arnold I. Davidson, and Harry Harootunian. Questions of Evidence: Proof, Practice, and Persuasion Across the Disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Chaumeil, Jean-Pierre. Voir, savoir, pouvoir: Le chamanisme chez les Yagua du nordest péruvien. Paris: Editions de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 1983.

Chaumeil, Jean-Pierre, Roberto Pineda Camacho, and Jean-Francois Bouchard. Cha-

manismo y sacrificio: Perspectivas arqueologicas y etnoldgicas en sociedades indigenas de América del Sur. Bogota: Fundacion de Investigaciones Arqueoldgicas Nacionales, 2005. Chavez Hualpa, Fabiola. “El uso magico del tabaco en un contexto urbano (Lima).” Antropologica 18 {2000): 67-93.

Chiappe, Mario, Moisés Lemlij, and Luis Millones. Alucinogenos y shamanismo en el Pertti contempordneo. Lima: Ediciones El Virrey, 1985. Chifflet, Jean-Jacques. Pulvis febrifugus orbis Americani |.. .]. |Paris, Antwerp]: n.p., 1653:

BIBLIOGRAPHY 387

Choy, Emilio. “De Santiago Matamoros a Santiago mata-indios.” In [Emilio Choy,]

Antropologia y Historia, vol. 1. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, 1979.

Christian, William A. Local Religion in Sixteenth-Century Spain. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982. Cieza de Leon, Pedro. La cronica del Peru: Primera parte. 1553. Reprint, Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catoélica del Peru, 1984. ———. Descubrimiento y conquista del Peru. Edited by Carmelo Saenz de Santa Maria. Madrid: Historia 16, 1986. Reprint, Madrid: Dastin, 2001. ———. El senorio de los incas. Edited by Manuel Ballesteros. Madrid: Dastin, 2000. Cirac Estopanan, Sebastian. Los procesos de hechicerias en la Inquisicion de Castilla La Nueva [...]. Madrid: Diana {artes graficas), 1942. Ciruelo Sanchez, Pedro. Reprobacion de las supersticiones y hechicerias. Salamanca: Pedro de Casto, 1541. Reprint, edited by Alva V[ernon] Ebersole. Valencia: Ediciones Albatros, 1978. Cisneros, Joseph de. Discurso que en el insigne auto de la fe celebrado en esta real ciudad de Lima |... .]. Lima, 1639. Cisneros, Luis Jaime, and Pedro Guibovich Pérez. “Juan de Espinosa Medrano, un intelectual cuzqueno del seiscientos: Nuevos datos biograficos.” Revista de Indias 48 (1988): 327-47.

Clark, Stuart. Thinking with Demons: The Idea of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Classen, Constance. Inca Cosmology and the Human Body. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1993. Clément, Jean-Pierre. El mercurio peruano, 1790-1795, vol. 1: Estudio. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert, 1997. —— . “Neoescolastica en los Andes a fines del siglo XVIII: El debate sobre la forma de gobierno en la Relacion del Cuzco de Ignacio de Castro (1795).” In Pensamiento

europeo y cultura colonial: La formacion de la cultura iberoaméricana, edited by Karl Kohut and Sonia V. Rose, 163-80. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert, 1997. Clossey, Luke. Salvation and Globalization in the Early Jesuit Missions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Cloudsley, Peter. “La medicina en los Andes.” Antropol6gica 14 (1996): 173-82. Cobo, Bernabé. “Fundacion de Lima, escripta por el padre Bernabé Cobo de la Compania de Jesus: Ano de 1639.” In Bernabé Cobo: Historia del nuevo mundo (1653), 2:279-460. 2 vols. Madrid: Atlas, 1964. ——. Historia del nuevo mundo. 1653. 2 vols. Madrid: Atlas, 1964. La coca andina: Vision indigena de una planta satanizada. Coyoacan, Mexico: Joan Boldo i Climent, Instituto Indigenista Interamericano, 1986. Coello de la Rosa, Alexandre. Espacios de exclusion, espacios de poder: El cercado de Lima colonial (1586-1606). Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, 2006. Colin, Michéle. Le Cuzco 4 la fin du XVIle et au début du XVIIle siécle |. . .]. Caen: Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines / Paris: Institut des Hautes Etudes de [Amérique Latine, 1966. Combés, Isabelle, and Thierry Saignes. Alter ego: Naissance de lidentité chiriguano. Paris: Editions de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 1991. Concepcion Bravo, Maria. “Polo de Ondegardo y Guaman Poma, dos mentalidades

388 THE POWER OF HUACAS

ante un problema: La condicién del indigena en el Pert: del siglo XVI.” In América y la Espana del siglo XVI |. . .]. 2 vols. Vol. 1, 1982; vol. 2, 1983, edited by Fran-

cisco de Solano and Fermin del Pino Diaz, 2:275-89. Madrid: C.S.1L.C. Instituto “Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo,” 1983. Condor-Chava, Felipe, et al. “Idolatrias de los indios wancas.” Inca: Revista Trimestral de Estudios Antropologicos 1 (1923): 651-67.

Condori, Bernabé, and Rosalind Gow. Kay Pacha. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de las Casas,” 1982. Confessionario para los curas de indios |. . .]: Compuesto y traducido en las lenguas quichua, y aymara: Por autoridad del Concilio Provincial de Lima, del ano 1583. Lima: Antonio Ricardo, 1585. Facsimile reprint of the trilingual edition in Doctrina cristiana y catecismo para instruccion de indios. Corpus Hispanorum de Pace 26, no. 2, 191-250. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1985.

Coninck |Coninkius]|, Juan Ramon. Cubus, et sphaera geometrice duplicata. Lima: Josephus de Contreras et Alvarado, 1696. Conrad, Geoftrey W., and Arthur A. Demarest. Religion and Empire: The Dynamics of Aztec and Inca Expansionism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Constituciones de la Universidad Mayor de San Marcos de Lima: Epoca de coloniaje. Lima: La Universidad, 1938. Contreras y Valverde, Vasco de. “Relacion de la ciudad del Cuzco |. . .].” Cuzco, 1649. In Relaciones geogrdaficas de Indias: Peru, by Don Marcos Jiménez de la Espada, edited by José Urbano Martinez Carreras, 2:1-15. Madrid: Atlas, 1965.

Conygius, Antimus |pseud. of Honoré Fabri]. Pulvis Peruvianus vindicatus de ventilatore elusdemque suscepta defensio ab A. Conygio hortatu Germani Poleconii. Rome: Typis heredum Corbelletti, 1655. Cook, Anita G. Wari y Tiwanaku: Entre el estilo y la imagen. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catolica, 1994.

Cook, Anita G., and Elizabeth P. Benson, eds. Ritual Sacrifice in Ancient Peru. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2001. Cook, Noble David. Demographic Collapse: Indian Peru, 1520-1620. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Cordoba Mexia, Pedro de. “Informacion hecha en el Cuzco, por orden del rey y encargo del virrey Martin Enriquez acerca de las costumbres que tenian los incas del Peru, antes de la conquista espanola, en la manera de administrar justicia civil y criminal (1582).” In Gobernantes del Peru: Cartas y papeles, siglo XVI, edited by Roberto Levillier, 9:268-88. Madrid: Juan Pueyo, 1925. Cordy-Collins, Alana. “Blood and the Moon Priestess: Spondylus Shells in Moche Ceremony.” In Ritual Sacrifice in Ancient Peru, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson and Anita G. Cook, 35-55. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2001. Corry, Jennifer M. Perceptions of Magic in Medieval Spanish Literature. Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press, 2005. Cortés Rodriguez, Jorge. Caciques y hechiceros: Huellas en la historia de Mojos. La Paz: Plural Editores, 200s. Cosamaloén Aguilar, Jess A. “Los negros y la ciudad de Lima.” In Lima en el siglo XVI, edited by Susana Aldana Rivera and Laura Gutiérrez Arbult, 227-56. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Pert, Instituto Riva-Agitiecra, 2005.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 389

Costas Arguedas, José Felipe. “La pirwa y su ascendencia mitica.” Folklore Americano 1 (1953): 7-11.

Coutinho, Ignacio. Promptuario espiritual de elogios de los santos |. . .]. Madrid: Imprenta Real, a costa de Francisco Serrano, 1650. Covarrubias Orozco, Sebastian de. Tesoro de la lengua castellana o espanola. 1611. Edited by Ignacio Arellano and Rafael Zafra. Madrid: Iberoamericana, 2006. Cox, Victoria. Guaman Poma de Ayala entre los conceptos andino y europeo de tiempo. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de las Casas,” 2002.

Cruz, Fray Laureano de la. Descripcion de la América Austral o reinos del Pert |... .]. Edited by Julian Heras Diez. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru, Instituto Riva-Aguera, 1999. Cruz, Pablo. “Huacas olvidadas y cerros santos: Apuntes metodoldgicos sobre la cartografia sagrada en los Andes del sur de Bolivia.” Estudios Atacamenos, Arqueologia y Antropologia Surandinas 38 (2009): 55-74. Cuche, Denys. “La mort des dieux africaux et les religions noires au Pérou.” Archives de Sciences Sociales des Religions 43 (1977): 77-93. Cueto, Marcos. “Fuentes para la historia de la ciencia peruana en Lima (1700-1821).”

In La ilustraci6n en América colonial, edited by Diana Arango Soto, Miguel Angel Puig Samper, and Luis Carlos Arboleda, 179-201. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1995.

——. “La historia de la ciencia y la tecnologia en Peru: Una aproximacion bibliografica.” Quipu: Revista Latinoamericana de Historia de las Ciencias y la Tecnologia 4 (1987): 119-47.

—. Saberes andinos: ciencia y tecnologia en Pert. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, 1995. Cummins, Thomas [Bitting Foster]. “From Lies to Truth: Colonial Ekphrasis and the

Act of Crosscultural Translation.” In Reframing the Renaissance: Visual Culture in Europe and Latin America 1450-1650, edited by Claire Farago, 152-74. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995. ——."“The Images in Murtia’s Historia General del Piru: An Art Historical Study.” In The Getty Murua: Essays on the Making of Martin de Murta’s “Historia General del Piru,’ J]. Paul Getty Museum Ms. Ludwig XIII 16, edited by Thomas Blitting] Floster] Cummins and Barbara [Christine] Anderson, 147-73. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2008. —— . “El lenguaje del arte colonial: Imagen, ékfrasis e idolatria.” In Encuentro

internacional de peruanistas, vol 2: Estado de los estudios histérico-sociales sobre el Peru a fines del siglo XX, 23-39. Lima: Universidad de Lima, Fondo de Desarrollo Editorial, 1998. ——. “Let Me See! Reading is For Them: Colonial Andean Images and Objects ‘como es costumbre tener los caciques Senores.’” In Native Traditions in the Postconguest World, edited by Elizabeth Boone and Thomas Cummins, 91-149. Washington, DC: Dumberton Oaks, 1998. —— . "A Tale of Two Cities: Cuzco, Lima, and the Construction of Colonial Representation.” In Converging Cultures: Art and Identity in Spanish America [.. .], edited by Diana Fane, 157-71. New York: Brooklyn Museum, Harry N. Abrams, 1996.

390 THE POWER OF HUACAS

—— . Toasts with the Inca: Andean Abstraction and Colonial Images on Quero Vessels. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002.

—— . “The Uncomfortable Image: Pictures and Words in the Nueva Coronica 1 Buen Gobierno.” In Guaman Poma de Ayala: The Colonial Art of an Andean Author, edited by Rolena Adorno, Tom Cummins, Teresa Gisbert, Maarten van de Guchte, Mercedes Lopez-Baralt, and John V. Murra, 46-60. New York: Americas Society, 1992.

Cummins, Thomas, Gabriela Ramos, Elena Phipps, Juan Carlos Estenssoro Fuchs, Luis Eduardo Wuffarden, and Natalia Majluf. Los incas, reyes del Peru. Lima: Banco de Crédito, 2005.

Cunningham, Graham. Religion and Magic: Approaches and Theories. New York: New York University Press, 1999.

Curatola Petrocchi, Marco. “Adivinacion, oraculos y civilizaci6n andina.” In Los dioses del antiguo Peru, edited by Krysztof Makowski Hanula, William H. Isbell, and Anita G. Cook, 223-45. Lima: Banco de Crédito del Pert, 2001. ——. “La funcion de los oraculos en el imperio inca.” In Adivinacion y ordculos en el mundo andino antiguo, edited by Marco Curatola Petrocchi and Mariusz S. Zidlkowski, 15-69. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, 2008. ———.“Mito y milenarismo en los Andes: Del Taki Ongoy a Inkarri: La vision de un pueblo invicto.” Allpanchis Phuturinga 10 (1977): 65-92. Curatola Petrocchi, Marco, and Mariusz S. Zidlkowski, eds. Adivinacion y oraculos

en el mundo andino antiguo |. . ./. Lima: Instituo Francés de Estudios Andinos, 2008.

Cushner, Nicholas P. Lords of the Land: Sugar, Wine and Jesuit Estates of Coastal Peru, 1600-1767. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1980. Cussen, Celia L. “La fe en la historia: Las vidas de Martin de Porras.” In Al final del camino, edited by Luis Millones and Moisés Lemlij, with the assistance of Dana Caceres, 281-301. Lima: Fondo Editorial SIDEA, 1996.

—. “Fray Martin de Porres and the Religious Imagination of Creole Lima.” PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1996. http://repository.upenn.edu/disserta tions/AAI9636144.

——. “The Search for Idols and Saints in Colonial Peru: Linking Extirpation and Beatification.” Hispanic American Historical Review 85 (2005): 417-48. D’Altroy, Terence N. The Incas. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002. Dammert Bellido, José. “Procesos por supersticiones en la provincia de Cajamarca en la segunda mitad del siglo XVIII.” Allpanchis 20 (1974): 179-99.

Dapper, Olfert. Dapperi Exotici curiosi continuatio: Oder des vielbelesenen Hn. Odoardi Dapperi Americanische Curiositdten |. . .] auffs ktirzeste zusammen getragen von M. J[ohann] C[hristoph] Mdnnling. Frankfurt am Main, Leipzig: Michael Rohrlach, 1718.

—— [also attributed to Arnoldus Montanus]. Die unbekante Neue Welt oder Beschreibung des Welt-teils Amerika, und des Sud-Landes [. . .]. Translated by Johann Christoph Beer. Amsterdam: Jacob van Meurs, 1673. Originally published as De nieuwe en onbekende Weereld of beschryving van America en t Zuid-Land (Amsterdam: Jacob van Meurs, 1671). The Dutch original is attributed to Arnoldus Montanus.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 391

Daston, Lorraine. “Marvellous Facts and Miraculous Evidence in Early Modern Europe.” In Questions of Evidence: Proof, Practice, and Persuasion Across the Disciplines, edited by James Chandler, Arnold I. Davidson, and Harry Harootunian, 243-74. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Daston, Lorraine, and Katharine Park. Wonders and the Order of Nature, 1150-1750. New York: Zone Books, 1998. Davis, Wade. Passage of Darkness: The Ethnobiology of the Haitian Zombie. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988. Dean, Carolyn. A Culture of Stone: Inka Perspectives on Rock. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010. ——. Inka Bodies and the Body of Christ: Corpus Christiin Colonial Cusco, Peru. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999.

——. “The Renewal of Old World Images and the Creation of Colonial Peruvian Visual Culture.” In Converging Cultures: Art e& Identity in Spanish America, edited by Diana Fane, 171-82. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1996.

Dean, Carolyn, and Dana Leibsohn. “Hybridity and Its Discontents: Considering Visual Culture in Colonial Spanish America.” Colonial Latin American Review 12 (2003]: 5-35.

Decoster, Jean-Jacques, ed. Incas e indios cristianos: Elites indigenas e identidades cristianas en los Andes coloniales. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de las Casas,” 2002. Dedenbach-Salazar Saénz, Sabine. “Tradiciones orales andinas: Discurso y literatura.” Bonn, Germany, 1994. http://hss.ulb-uni-bonn.de/diss_online/phil_fak/20 03/dedenbach-salazar_saenz_sabine/teil1. pdf. Deeds, Eric. “De las costumbres antiguas de los naturales del Pirt (ca. 1593-1597).” In Guide to Documentary Sources |. . .], edited by Joanne Pillsbury, 2:170-73. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2008. de la Vega, Garcilaso. Comentarios reales de los incas. Edited by Aurelio Mir6é Quesada Sosa. 2 vols. Caracas: Biblioteca Ayacucho, 1976. 3rd ed., Mexico City: Universidad Inca Garcilaso de la Vega, 2005. ——. Royal Commentaries of the Incas and General History of Peru. 2 vols. Translated with an introduction by Harald Victor Livermore. Foreword by Arnold J. Toynbee. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1966. First paperback edition, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1987. Originally published as Primera parte de los Commentarios Reales |. . .] (Lisbon, 1609); [Second Part:] Historia general del Peru: |. . .] (Cordoba: Por la viudas de Andrés Barrera, y a su costa, 1617). Delgado Aparicio, Luis. La africania en América. Lima: Fondo Editorial del Congreso del Pert, 2000. Printed also in Aguirre, Carlos A., Amador Eusebio Ballumbrosio Guadalupe, and Luis Delgado Aparicio. Lo africano en la cultura criolla, 79-95. Lima: Fondo Editorial del Congreso del Pert, 2000. Delgado de Thays, Carmen. Religién y magia en Tupe (Yauyos). Cuernavaca: Centro Intercultural de Documentaci6n, 1968. Delrio, Martin Antonio. Disquisitionum magicarum libri sex: Quibus Continetur

Accurata Curiosarum Artium, Et Vanarum Superstitionum confutatio, utilis Theologis, Iurisconsultis, Medicis, Philologis / Auctore Martino Delrio Societatis Jesu Presbytero. Mainz: Henningius, 1617.

392 THE POWER OF HUACAS

——— . Disquisitionum magicarum libri sex: Quibus continetur accurata curiosarum artlium, et vanarum superstilionum confutatio |. . .]. Venice: apud Guerilios, 1640.

——. Disquisiltionum magicarum tomus lertius seu methodus iudicum et confessariorum directioni commoda. Louvain: Officina Gerardi Rivii, 1600. Demarest, Arthur A. Viracocha: The Nature and Antiquity of the Andean High God. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 1981.

Diego Calonge, Francisco de. El real jardin botadnico de Madrid. Madrid: Ayuntamiento de Madrid, Madrid Artes Graficas Municipales, 1989. Diez de San Miguel, Garcia. Visita hecha a la provincia de Chucuito |. . .] en el ano 1567. Version paleografica de la visita y una biografia del visitador por Waldemar Espinoza Soriano. Lima: Casa de Cultura del Peru, 1964. Diez de San Miguel y Solier, Nicolas Antonio. La gran fee del centuri6n Espanol [. . .]. Lima: Joseph de Contreras y Alvarado, 1695. Diez Hurtado, Alejandro. Fiestas y cofradias: Asociaciones religiosas e integracion en la historia de la comunidad de Sechura (siglos XVII al XX). Piura, Peru: Centro de Investigacion y Promocion del Campesinado (CIPCA}, 1994. Dillenberger, John. Images and Relics: Theological Perceptions and Visual Images in Sixteenth-Century Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Doctrina christiana y catecismo para instruccion de los indios |.. .]: Y por la misma traducido en las dos lenguas generales de este reyno, quichua, y aymara. Lima: A. Ricardo, 1584-85. Facsimil del texto trilingiie: Doctrina cristiana y catecismo para instruccion de /los}] indios. 2 vols. Vol. 1: Introducci6n: Del genocidio a la promocion del indio. Corpus Hispanorum de Pace 26, no. 1. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1986. Vol. 2: Facsimil del texto trilingtie. Corpus Hispanorum de Pace 26, no. 2. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1985.

Domingo de Santo Tomas, Fray. Léxico quechua |. . ./. Valladolid: Francisco Fernandez de Cérdova, 1560. Edited by Jan Szeminski. Cuzco: Ediciones El Santo Oficio, Convento de Santo Domingo-Qorikancha, 2006. — . Lexicon, 0 Vocabulario de la lengua general del Perti. Valladolid: Francisco Fernandez de Cordova, 1560. Facsimile, with a prologue by Raul Porras Barrenechea, Lima: Edicion del Instituto de Historia de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, 1951.

Donnan, Christopher B. Moche Art and Iconography. Los Angeles: UCLA Latin America Center, University of California, 1976. Dover, Robert V. H., Katharine E. Seibold, and John H. McDowell, eds. Andean Cosmologies Through Time: Persistence and Emergence. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992. Dulanto, Jalh. “Dioses de Pachacamac: El idolo y el templo.” In Los dioses del antiguo Peru, edited by Krysztof Makowski Hanula, Richard Lewis Burger, and Helaine Silvermann, 159-81. Lima: Banco de Crédito del Perti, 2000. Duran, Juan Guillermo. E/ catecismo del III Concilio provincial de Lima y sus complementos pastorales (1584-1585). Buenos Aires: Universidad Catélica Argentina Santa Maria de los Buenos Aires, Facultad de Teologia, 1982.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 393

Durston, Alan. Pastoral Quechua: The History of Christian Translation in Colonial Peru, 1550-1650. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007. Dussel, Enrique. The Invention of the Americas: Eclipse of “the Other” and the Myth of Modernity. New York: Continuum, 1995. Duviols, Pierre. “Camaquen Upani: Un concept animiste des anciens Péruviens.” In Amerikanistische Studien: Estudios Americanistas |. . .], edited by Roswitha Hartmann and Udo Oberem, 1:132-45. 2 vols. St. Augustin: Haus der Volker und Kulturen, Anthropos-Institut, 1978. ——. La destruccion de las religiones andinas: Conquista y colonia. Translated by Albor Maruenda. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México, 1977. Originally pubished as La lutte contre les religions autochtones dans le Pérou colonial: “TExtirpation de lidolatrie”’ entre 1532 et 1660 (Paris and Lima: Institut Francais d’Etudes Andines, 1971). —— . “Huari y Llacuaz.” Revista del Museo Nacional 39 (1973): 153-91.

—— . “La idolatria en cifras: Una relaci6n peruana de 1619.” Colloque d'Etudes Péruviennes 61 {1967}: 87-100.

——. La lutte contre les religions autochtones dans le Pérou colonial: “L’Extirpation de l'idolatrie” entre 1532 et 1660. Paris and Lima: Institut Francais d’Etudes Andines, 1971.

——. “Mestizaje cultural en dos cronistas del incipiente barroco peruano: Santa Cruz Pachacuti y Guaman Poma de Ayala.” In El barroco peruano, edited by Ramon Mujica Pinilla, Pierre Duviols, Teresa Gisbert, Roberto Samanez Argumedo, and Maria Concepcion Garcia Saiz, 59-97. Lima: Banco de Crédito del Pert, 2002.

——. “Une petite chronique retrouvée: ‘Errores, ritos, supersticiones y ceremonias de los indios de la provincia de Chinchaycocha y otras partes del Piru’ (1614).” Journal de la Société des Américanistes 63 (1976): 275-97. ——."“Un procés d’idolatrie. Arequipa, 1671.” Fénix 16 (1966): 198-211. ——. “‘Punchao,’ idolo mayor del Coricancha: Historia y tipologia.” Antropologia Andina 1/2 (1976): 156-84. —_—."La represion del paganismo andino y la expulsion de los moriscos.” Anuario de Estudios Americanos 28 (1971): 201-7. —_—."“La visite des idolatries de Concepcion de Chupas (Pérou, 1614).” Journal de la Société des Américanistes 55, no. 2 (1966): 497-510.

——, ed. Procesos y visitas de idolatrias: Cajatambo, siglo XVI. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, 2003. Duviols, Pierre, Rolena Adorno, and Mercedes Lopez-Baralt. Sobre Waman Puma de Ayala. La Paz: Hisbol, 1987. Eamon, William. Science and the Secrets of Nature: Books of Secrets in Medieval and Early Modern Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994. Ebersole, Alva Vernon. “Pedro Ciruelo y su ‘Reprobacion de hechicerias.’” Nueva Revista Filologica Hispdnica 16 (1962): 430-37. Echanove, Alfonso. “Origen y evolucion de la idea jesuitica de ‘Reducciones’ en las misiones del virreinato del Pert.” Missionalia Hispanica 12-13 (1955-1956): 95-144, 497-540. Echeverri, Juan Alvaro. “Las practicas populares de adivinacion.” Boletin de Antropologia (Argentina) 6 (1987): 211-34.

394 THE POWER OF HUACAS

Eder, Ferencz Xaver |Franz Xaver]. Breve descripcion de las reducciones de mojos.

Translated and edited by Josep M. Barnadas. Cochabamba: Historia Bolliviana, 1985. Originally published as Descriptio Provinciae Moxitarum in Regno Peruano [. . ./ (Budae [Budapest]: Typis Universitatis, 1791]. Eguiguren, Luis Antonio. Historia de la universidad en el siglo XVI. 2 vols. Historia de la Universidad de San Marcos. Vol. 1, pts. 1 and 2. Lima: Imprenta Santa Maria, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, 1951. Eguiluz, Diego de, and Enrique Torres Saldamando. Historia de la misidn de mojos, en la republica de Bolivia, escrita en 1696 por el Diego de Eguiluz: Publicada con varios documentos inéditos referentes d esa mision, biografias y notas por Enrique Torres Saldamando. Lima: n.p., 1884. Eire, Carlos M. N. War Against the Idols: The Reformation of Worship from Erasmus to Calvin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Eliade, Mircea. Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy. Translated by Willard R. Trask. New York: Pantheon Books; London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1964. Originally pubished as Le chamanisme et les techniques archaiques de l’exstase (Paris: Payot, 1951).

Encinas, Diego de. Cedulario indiano: Libro tercio. Estudio e indices por Don Alfonso Garcia Gallo. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispanica, 1946. Espinosa Medrano, Juan de. La novena maravilla nuevamente hallada en los panegiricos sagrados |. . .] |Lima: n.p., n.d. (1650)|. Presentolos |. . .] Augustin Cortez de Cruz |. ..] discipulo del autor que los saca a luz y los imprime a su costa. Valladolid: Joseph de Rueda, 1695. Espinoza Soriano, Waldemar. “Colonias de mitmas multiples en Abancay, siglos XV y XVI.” Revista del Museo Nacional 39 {1973}: 225-99. ——. “Geografia hist6rica de Huamachuco.” Revista Historica § (1971): 5-96. —— . “Los mitmas canar en el reino de Yaro {Pasco}, siglos XV y XVI.” Boletin del Instituto Riva-Agtiero 10 {1975}: 63-82.

Les esprits, lor et le chamane: Musée de lor de Colombie |. . .]. Paris: Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 2000. Esquivel y Navia, Diego de. Noticias cronologicas de la gran ciudad de Cuzco. 2 vols. Edited by Félix Denegri Luna, Horacio Villanueva Urteaga, and César Gutiérrez Munoz. Lima: Fundacion Augusto N. Wiese, Banco Wiese, 1980. Estenssoro Fuchs, Juan Carlos. “La construccion de un mas alla colonial: Hechiceros en Lima (1630-1710).” In Entre dos mundos: Fronteras culturales y agentes mediadores, edited by Berta Ares Queija and Serge Gruzinski, 415-39. Seville: Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1997.

——. Del paganismo a la santidad: La incorporacion de los indios del Peru al catolicismo, 1532-1750. Translated by Gabriela Ramos. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, 2003. ——. “Les pouvoirs de la parole: La prédication au Pérou: De l’évangélisation a l’utopie.” Annales HSS 51, no. 6 (1996): 1225-57.

Eymerich, Nicolaus. Directorium inguisitorum F. Nicolai Eymerici |. . .]. Venice: Marcus Antonius Zalterius, 1607. Fane, Diana, ed. Converging Cultures: Art and Identity in Spanish America. New York: The Brooklyn Museum in association with Harry N. Abrams, 1996.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 395

Fara, Patricia. “Marginalized Practices.” In The Cambridge History of Science, vol. 4: Eighteenth-Century Science, edited by Roy Porter, 485-507. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Farago, Claire J. Reframing the Renaissance: Visual Culture in Europe and Latin America, 1450-1650. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995. Feest, Christian F. “The Collecting of American Indian Artifacts in Europe, 14931750.” In America in European Consciousness, 1493-1750, edited by Karen Ordahl

Kupperman, 324-60. Chapel Hill, NC: Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1995.

———. “Mexico and South America in the European Wunderkammer.” In The Origins of Museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth- and SeventeenthCentury Europe, edited by Oliver Impey and Arthur McGregor, 237-44. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. Feijoo y Montenegro, Benito Jerénimo. Cartas eruditas, y curiosas |. . .]. Nueva edicion corregida y aumentada. 5 vols. Madrid: Blas Roman, 1781. ——. Teatro critico universal, o discursos varias en todo género de materids, para desengano de errores comunes. Madrid: Arrojo [et al.], 1757. Fernandez, Diego. Primera, y segunda parte, de la historia del Peru [. . .]. Seville: Casa de Hernando Diaz, 1571.

Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdés, Gonzalo (1478-1557). De la natural historia de las Indias (Sumario de historia natural des las Indias). Salamanca, 1547. Reprint, edited by Enrique Alvarez Lopez. Madrid: Editorial Summa, 1942. Fernandez Juarez, Gerardo. “‘El banquete aymara’: Aspectos simbolicos de las mesas rituales aymaras.” Revista Andina 23 (1994): 155-89.

——. Entre la repugnancia y la seduccién: Ofrendas complejas en los Andes del sur. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de las Casas,” 1997.

Few, Martha. Women Who Live Evil Lives: Gender, Religion, and the Politics of Power in Colonial Guatemala. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002. Figueroa, Francisco de, and Cristobal de Acuna. Informes de jesuitas en el Amazonas (1660-1684). Iquitos: Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonia Peruana {IIAP}, Centro de Estudios Teolégicos de la Amazonia (CETA\], 1986.

Findlen, Paula. “A Jesuit’s Books in the New World: Athanasius Kircher and His American Readers.” In [Athanasius] Kircher: The Last Man Who Knew Everything, edited by Paula Findlen, 329-65. New York: Routledge, 2004. ——. Possessing Nature: Museums, Collecting, and Scientific Culture in Early Modern Italy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Paperback print, 1996.

Fioravanti, Leonardo. Del compendio de i secreti rationali, dell eccell. medico et cirugico m. Leonardo Fioravanti, libri cinque |. . .]. Venice: Vincenzo Valgrisi, 1564.

Fischer, Edda. “Die ‘Disquisitionum magicarum libri sex’ von Martin Delrio als gegenreformatorische Exempel-Quelle.” Dissertation, Frankfurt am Main, 1975. Fisher, John [Robert]. El Peru borb6nico, 1750-1824. Translated by Javier Flores. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, 2000. Originally published as Bourbon Peru, 1750-1824 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2003). Flint, Valerie. The Rise of Magic in Early Medieval Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991.

396 THE POWER OF HUACAS

Flores, Diego. Preciosa margarita de la vida muerte y gloria de la serenissima Virgen Maria, madre de Dios. Lima: Francisco del Canto, 1611. Flores Araoz, José, Ramon Mujica Pinilla, Luis Eduardo Wuffarden, and Pedro Guibovich Pérez. Santa Rosa de Lima y su tiempo. Lima: Banco de Crédito del Peru, 1999.

Flores Espinoza, Javier F. “Hechiceria e idolatria en Lima colonial {siglo XVII).” In Poder y violencia en los Andes, edited by Henrique Urbano, 53-74. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de las Casas,” 1991. Flores Espinoza, Javier [F.], and Rafael Var6n Gabai, eds. E] hombre y los Andes [. . .]. 3 vols. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru, 2002. Flores Galindo, Alberto. Buscando un inca: Identidad y utopia en los Andes. Mexico: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, Grijalbo, 1993. Flores Ochoa, Jorge Anibal. “Ceremonias religiosas: Continuidad 0 cambio en el sur andino.” In Incas e indios cristianos: Elites indigenas e identidades cristianas en los Andes coloniales, edited by Jean-Jacques Decoster, 459-74. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de las Casas,” 2002. ——. “Classification et dénomination des camélidos sud-americains.” Annales: economies, sociétés, civilisations 33 (1978): 1006-16. ——. “Enqa, Enacaychu, illa y Huya Rumi: Aspectos magico-religiosos entre pastores.” Journal de la Société des Américanistes 64 (1974-76): 245-62. ———.“La missa andina.” In Arqueologia, antropologia e historia de los andes |. . .], edited by Rafael Var6n Gabai and Javier Flores Espinoza, 717-28. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, 1997. ——. “Y estas idolatrias no pudieron ser extirpadas.” Revista Sacsayhuaman del Patronato Departamental de Arqueologia 2 (1972): 195-210. Flores Ochoa, Jorge Anibal, Elizabeth Kuon Arce, and Roberto Samanez Argumendo. Pintura mural en el sur andino. Lima: Banco de Crédito del Pert, 1993.

— . Qeros: Arte Inka en vasos ceremoniales. Lima: Banco de Crédito del Peru, 1998.

Flores Ochoa, Jorge Anibal, Elizabeth Kuon Arce, Roberto Samanez Argumedo, Luis Federico Barreda Murillo, and Catherine Julien. Cuzco: Del mito a la historia. Lima: Banco de Crédito del Pert, 2007. Flores Ochoa, Jorge Anibal, Juan Nunez del Prado Béiar, and Manuel Castillo Farfan, eds. Qero, el ultimo ayllu inka: Homenaje a Oscar Nunez del Prado y a Ia expedicion cientifica de la UNSAAC a la nacion Qero en 1955. 2nd ed. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, UNMS / Cuzco: Instituto Nacional de Cultura, Direccion Regional de Cultura de Cusco, 2005.

Fragoso, Juan. Aromatum, fructuum, et simplicium aliquot medicamentorum ex India utrage, et orientali et occidentali, in Europam delatorum |.. .]. Argentina: Martinus, 1601.

Frame, Mary. “Blood, Fertility, and Transformation: Interwoven Themes in the Paracas Necropolis Embroideries.” In Ritual Sacrifice in Ancient Peru, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson and Anita G[wynn] Cook, 55-92. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2001.

Francisci, Erasmus. Ost- und Westindischer wie auch Sinesischer Lust- und StatsGarten mit einem Vorgesprdch von mancherley lustigen Discursen: in drey Haupt-Theile unterschieden |. . .]. Nuremberg: Endter, 1668.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 397

Fredouille, Jean Claude. “G6tzendienst.” In Reallexikon ftir Antike und Christentum, 1:828-95. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1981. Freudenthal, Herbert. “Agnus Dei.” In Handworterbuch des deutschen Aberglaubens, edited by Hanns Bachtold-Staubli and Eduard Hoffmann-Krayer, 1:215-19. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1927; reprint, 2000. Frézier, Amédée Francois. Relacion del viaje por el mar del sur |. . .]. Translated and with notes and a chronology edited by Miguel A[lberto] Guerin. Caracas: Biblioteca Ayacucho, 1982. Originally published as Relation du voyage de la mer du sud aux cétes du Chily et du Pérou, fait pendant les années 1712, 1713 #1714 [...] (Paris: Jean-Geoftroy Nyon, Etienne Ganeau, Jacque Quillau, 1716). Furlong [Cardiff], Guillermo, S.J. Los jesuitas y la escision del reino de Indias. Buenos Aires: Sebastian de Amorrortu e Hijos, S.A., 1960.

——., Misiones y sus pueblos de Guaranies. Prologue by César Napoleon Ayrault. Buenos Aires: Balmes, 1962.

——. Nicolds Mascardi, S.]., y su carta-relaci6n, 1670. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Theoria, 1963.

Gade, Daniel W. “Tapir Magic in the Andes and Its Shamanic Origins.” Journal of Latin American Lore 21 (2003): 201-20. Ganson, Barbara Anne. “The Evuevi of Paraguay: Adaptive Strategies and Responses to Colonialism, 1528-1811.” The Americas 45 (1989): 461-88. Garcés, Carlos Alberto. Brujas y adivinos en Tucumdn (siglos XVII y XVIII). Pretace by Mary Gibson. San Salvador de Jujuy, Argentina: Universidad Nacional de Jujuy, 1997.

Garcia Cabrera, Juan Carlos. Ofensa a Dios pleitos e injurias, causas de idolatria y hechicerias Cajatambo, siglos XVII-XIX. Cuaderno para la historia de la evangelizacion en América Latina. Vol. 10. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de las Casas,” 1994.

Garcia Canclini, Néstor. Culturas hibridas: Estrategias para entrar y salir de la modernidad. Mexico: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, Grijalbo, 1990. Garcia Miranda, Juan José. “La muerte en la cosmovision andina: Los presagios.” In Al final del camino, edited by Luis Millones and Moisés Lemlij, with the assistance of Dana Caceres, 116-226. Lima: Fondo Editorial SIDEA, 1996.

Gareis, Iris. “Una bucolica andina: Curanderos y brujos en la costa norte del Pert (siglo XVIII).” In En el nombre del Senor: Shamanes, demonios y curanderos del norte del Peru, edited by Moisés Lemlij and Luis Millones, 211-30. Lima: Seminario Interdisciplinario de Estudios Andinos, 1994. ———. “Extirpacion de idolatrias e Inquisicion en el virreinato del Pert.” Boletin del Instituto Riva-Agtiero 16 (1989): 55-74. ——. “Religion popular y etnicidad: La poblacion indigena de Lima colonial.” Allpanchis 23 (1992): 117-43.

——. Religiése Spezialisten des zentralen Andengebietes zur Zeit der Inka und wdhrend der spanischen Kolonialherrschaft. Hohenschaftlarn: K. Renner, 1987.

—. “Repression and Cultural Change: The ‘Extirpation of Idolatry’ in Colonial Peru.” In Spiritual Encounters: Interactions Between Christianity and Native Religions in Colonial America, edited by Nicholas Griffiths and Fernando Cervantes, 230-55. Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press, 1999.

398 THE POWER OF HUACAS

Garofalo, Leo J. “Conjuring with Coca and the Inca: The Andeanization of Lima’s Afro-Peruvian Ritual Specialists, 1580-1690.” The Americas 63 {2006}: 53-80.

Garrett, David T. Shadows of Empire: The Indian Nobility of Cuzco, 1750-1825. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Garrosa Resina, Antonio. Magia y supersticion en la literatura castellana medieval. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid, 1987. Gasca, Pedro de la. Descripcién del Peru (1553): Texto original castellano y version latina coetdnea. Translated and edited by J. M. Barnadas. Caracas: Universidad Catolica “Andres Bello,” Instituto de Investigaciones Hist6ricas, 1976. Giersz, Milosz, Krysztof Makowski, and Patrycja Przadka. EJ mundo sobrenatural mochica: Imagenes escultoricas de las deidades antropomorfas en el Museo Arqueologico Rafael Larco Herrera. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru, 2005.

Ginzburg, Carlo. Ecstasies: Deciphering the Witches’ Sabbath. Translated by Raymond Rosenthal. New York: Penguin Books, 1991. Originally published as Storia Notturna: Una decifrazione del sabba (Torino: Einaudi, 1989). ——. “The European Rediscovery of Shamans.” London Review of Books (January 28, 1993): 9-11.

—— .. “G6tzen und Abbilder: Die Wirkungsgeschichte eines Origenes-Textes.” In Holzaugen, 144-67. Berlin: Wagenbach, 1999.

——. Holzaugen: Uber Nahe und Distanz. Translated by Renate Heimbucher. Berlin: Wagenbach, 1999. Originally published as Occhiacci di legno: Nove riflessioni sulla distanza (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1998). —— . The Night Battles: Witchcraft and Agrarian Cults in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Translated by John and Anne Tedeschi. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983. Originally published as J benandanti: Stregoneria e culti agrari tra cinquecento e seicento (Torino: Einaudi, 1966). ——. “Reprdasentation: Das Wort, die Vorstellung, der Gegenstand.” In Holzaugen, 97-120. Berlin: Wagenbach, 1999. ——. Wooden Eyes: Nine Reflections on Distance. Translated by Martin Ryle and Kate Soper. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001. Originally published as Occhiacci di legno: Nove riflessioni sulla distanza (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1998).

Girard, René. Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World. Translated by Stephen Bann and Michael Metteer. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987. Originally published as Des choses cachées depuis la fondation du monde (Paris: Grasset, 1978).

Gisbert, Teresa. “Angeles y dioses en Copacabana.” In Argueologia, antropologia e historia de los Andes |. . .], edited by Rafael Var6n Gabai and Javier Flores Espinoza, 617-43. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, 1997. ——. “El cielo y el infierno en el mundo virreinal del sur andino.” In Barroco y fuentes de la diversidad cultural: Memoria del I] Encuentro Internacional sobre barroco |. . .], edited by Norma Campos Vera, 35-49. La Paz: Viceministerio de Cultura, Union Latina, UNESCO, 2004. ——. “Del Cusco a Potosi: La religiosidad del sur andino.” In El barroco peruano, vol. 2, edited by Ram6n Mujica Pinilla, Tom Cummins, Fernando R. de la Flor, Ricardo Estabridis, Teresa Gisbert, Sabine MacCormack, Scarlett O’Phelan Godoy, and Enrique Luis Tord, 61-94. Lima: Banco de Credito del Peru, 2003.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 399

——. Iconografia y mitos indigenas en el arte. La Paz: Gisbert, 1980. ——."“La muerte en el arte virreinal andino.” In Al final del camino, edited by Luis Millones and Moisés Lemlij, with Dana Caceres, 102-16. Lima: Fondo Editorial SIDEA, 1996.

—— .“Los otros en el mundo virreinal andino.” In Los Andes: Cincuenta anos después (1953-2003) |... .], edited by Ana Maria Lorandi, Carmen Salazar-Soler, and Nathan Wachtel, 53-71. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Pert, 2003. ———. “Pachacamac y los dioses del Collao.” Historia y Cultura 17 (1990): 105-21. —. FE] paratso de los pdjaros parlantes: La imagen del otro en la cultura andina. La Paz: Plural Ed., Universidad Nuestra Senora de La Paz, 1999. Gisbert, Teresa, and José de Mesa. Historia de la pintura cuzquena. 2 vols. Lima: Fundacién A. N. Wiese, 1982. Gisbert, Teresa, Santiago Sebastian Lopez, and José de Mesa Figueroa, eds. Summa artis: Historia general del arte. Vols. XXVIII y XXIX: Arte iberoamericano desde la colonizacion a la independencia, primera y segunda partes. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, 1985.

Gisbert, Teresa, Silvia Arze, and Martha Cajias. Arte textil y mundo andino. La Paz: Gisbert y Cia, 1987.

Glass-Coffin, Bonnie. “The Emergence of the Modern Mesa: African Influence and Syncretism Revisited.” In Mesas and Cosmologies in the Central Andes, edited by Douglas Sharon. San Diego: San Diego Museum of Man, 2006. Compare http:// tribes.tribe.net/diy_magic_and_metaphysics_fetish/thread/be3f16b8-8c68-4c8b -b4f8-3813f26aaf34 (February 18, 2013).

——. “Engendering Peruvian Shamanism through Time: Insights from Ethnohistory and Ethnography.” Ethnohistory 46 {1999}: 205-38. ——— . “El pacto diabélico y la identidad cultural en el norte del Pert.” Revista Andina 35 (2002): 129-45.

Glave, Luis Miguel. “The ‘Republic of Indians’ in Revolt (ca. 1680-1790)}.” In The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas, vol. 3: South America, part 2, edited by Stuart B. Schwartz and Frank Salomon, 503-58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Goldstein, Paul $. Andean Diaspora: The Tiwanaku Colonies and the Origins of South American Empire. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2005. Golte, Jiirgen. Los dioses de Sipdn: Las aventuras del dios Quismique y su ayudante Mutrrup. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, 1993. —— . Los dioses de Sipan, vol. 2: La rebelion contra el dios Sol. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, 1994. Gomez Rivas, Leon. El virrey del Peri don Francisco de Toledo. Madrid: Instituto Provincial de Investigaciones y Estudios Toledanos, 1994. Gonzales Pujana, Laura, ed. El libro del cabildo de la ciudad del Cuzco. Introduction by Guillermo Lohmann Villena. Lima: Instituto Riva-Atigero, 1982. Gonzales Sanchez, Carlos Alberto. “Emigrantes y comercio de libros en el virreinato del Pert: Dos libreros limenos del siglo XVII.” Hist6rica 21 (1997): 171-206. Gonzalez Carré, Enrique, Jaime Urrutia Ceruti, and Jorge Lévano Pena, eds. Ayacucho: San Juan de la frontera de Huamanga. Lima: Banco de Crédito del Pert, 1997.

Gonzalez Holguin, Diego. Vocabulario de la lengua general de todo el Peru llamada

400 THE POWER OF HUACAS

lengua gquichua, 6 del inca (1608). Edicion facsimilar de la version de 1952, incl. addenda. 3rd ed., edited by Ramiro Matos Mendieta. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, 1989. Gonzalez Obreg6én, Luis, ed. Procesos de indios idélatras y hechiceros |. . .]. Mexico City: Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores, Tip. Guerrero Hnos, 1912. Gorman, Michael John. “Between the Demonic and the Miraculous: Athanasius Kircher and the Baroque Culture of Machines.” In The Great Art of Knowing: The Baroque Encyclopedia of Athanasius Kircher |. . .], edited by Daniel Stolzenberg, 59-71. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Libraries, 2001. Gose, Peter. Invaders as Ancestors: On the Intercultural Making and Unmaking of Spanish Colonialism in the Andes. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008.

——. “Oracles: Divine Kingship, and Political Representation in the Inka State.” Ethnohistory 43 (1996): 1-32.

Gow, David. “The Roles of Christ and Inkarri in Andean Religion.” Journal of Latin American Lore 6 {1980}: 279-98.

Gracia Boix, Rafael. Brujas y hechiceras de Andalucia. Cordoba: Real Academia de Sciencias, Bellas Letras y Nobles Artes de Cérdoba, 1991. Graf, Fritz. Magic in the Ancient World. Translated by Franklin Philip. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. Originally written as La magie dans I’antiquité gréco-romaine: Idéologie et pratique (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1994). Grafton, Anthony T. “Der Magus und seine Geschichte(n].” In Der Magus: Seine Ursprtinge und seine Geschichte in verschiedenen Kulturen, edited by Anthony Grafton and Moshe Idel, 1-26. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2001. Granada, Fray Luis de. Introduccion del simbolo de Ia fe. 4 vols. Edited by Alvargo Huerga and Jesus Garcia Trapiello. Madrid: Fundacion Universitaria Espanola, 1996.

Greer, Allan, and Jodi Bilinkoff, eds. Colonial Saints: Discovering the Holy in the Americas, 1500-1800. New York: Routledge, 2003. Grifiths, Nicholas. “Andean Curanderos and Their Repressors: The Persecution of Native Healing in Late Seventeenth- and Early Eighteenth-Century Peru.” In Spiritual Encounters: Interactions Between Christianity and Native Religions in Colonial America, edited by Nicholas Griffiths and Fernando Cervantes, 185-98. Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press, 1999. ———. The Cross and the Serpent: Religious Repression and Resurgence in Colonial Peru. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1996. ——. La cruz y la serpiente: La represion y el resurgimiento religioso en el Peru colonial. Translation of The Cross and the Serpent by Carlos Balinas Pérez. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Cat6élica del Pert, 1998.

—. Sacred Dialogues: Christianity and Native Religions in the Colonial Americas, 1492-1700. |Morrisville, NC; Milton Keynes: Lightning Source UK]: Lulu.com, 2006. Grifiths, Nicholas, and Fernando Cervantes, eds. Spiritual Encounters: Interactions Between Christianity and Native Religions in Colonial America. Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press, 1999. Gruzinski, Serge. The Mestizo Mind: The Intellectual Dynamics of Colonization

BIBLIOGRAPHY 401

and Globalization. Translated by Deke Dusinberre. New York: Routledge, 2002. Originally published as La pensée métisse (Paris: Fayard, 1999). ——. La colonisation de limaginaire: Sociétés indigénes et occidentalisation dans le Mexique espagnol, X VIe-XVIIle siécle. Paris: Gallimard, 1988. ———. Les quatre parties du monde: Histoire d’une mondialisation. Paris: Editions de la Martiniére, 2004. Gruzinski, Serge, and Carmen Bernard. Histoire du Nouveau Monde, vol. 2: Les métissages. Paris: Fayard, 1993.

Guaman Poma de Ayala, Felipe. Nueva corénica y buen gobierno. 3 vols. Edited by Franklin Pease Glarcia] Y[rigoyen|. New ed., Lima: Fondo de Cultura Economica, 2005.

Guazzo, Francesco Maria. Compendium Maleficarum: Collected in Three Books from Many Sources |. ../. Edited with notes by Montague Summers and translated by E. A. Ashwin. London: John Rodker, 1929. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1988. Originally published as Compendium Maleficarum: In tres libros distinctum ex pluribus authoribus |. . .] (Mediolani [Milan]: Haeredes August, Tradati, Bernardinus Lantonus, 1608).

Guibovich Pérez, Pedro. Censura, libros e Inquisicién en el Peru colonial, 15701754. Seville: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos, 2003. ———. “Crist6bal de Albornoz y el Taki Onqoy.” Historica 2 (1991): 205-36.

— . La Inquisicion y la censura de libros en el Peru virreinal (1570-1813). Lima: Fondo Editorial de Congreso del Pert, 2000. ——. “Nota preliminar al personaje historico y los documentos.” In E/ retorno de las huacas: Estudios y documentos sobre el Taki Ongoy, siglo XVI, edited by Luis Millones and Sara Kastro-Clarén, 23-40. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos: Sociedad Peruana de Psicoanalisis, 1990. ——. “Proyecto colonial y control ideologico: El establecimiento de la Inquisici6n en el Pert.” Apuntes 35 (1994): 109-26.

Guiley, Rosemary Ellen. The Encyclopedia of Witches and Witchcraft. New York: Facts on File, 19809.

Guillén Guillén, Edmundo. Versién inca de la conguista. Lima: Editorial Milla Batres, 1974.

Gutiérrez Arbulu, Laura. “Indice de la seccion hechicerias e idolatrias del archivo Arzobispal de Lima.” In Catolicismo y extirpacion de idolatrias, siglos XVIXVITT: Charcas, Chile, México, Peru |. . .], edited by Gabriela Ramos and Henrique [Osvaldo] Urbano, 105-37. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de las Casas,” 1993.

———., ed. Lima en el siglo XVI. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catélica del Pert, 2005.

Gutiérrez Brockington, Lolita. Blacks, Indians, and Spaniards in the Eastern Andes: Reclaiming the Forgotten in Colonial Mizque, 1550-1782. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2006. Gyarmati, Janos. Clay Shamans and Stone Jaguars: The Ancient Art of Ecuador |. . .]. Exhibition catalog. Translated by Rachel Nemeslaki and Magdaléna Seleanu. Budapest: Néprajzi Muzeum (Museum of Ethnography), 200s.

402 THE POWER OF HUACAS

Haakman, Anton. I/ mondo sotterraneo di Athanasius Kircher. Milan: Garzanti, 1995.

Hampe Martinez, Teodoro. “Apuntes para una biografia del licenciado Polo de Ondegardo.” Revista Historica 35 {1985-86}: 81-115.

—. Cultura barroca y extirpacion de idolatrias: La biblioteca de Francisco de Avila (1648). Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de las Casas,” 1996.

——. “The Diffusion of Books and Ideas in Colonial Peru: A Study of Private Libraries in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.” Hispanic American Historical Review 73 (1992): 211-33.

——.“Inquisicion y sociedad en el Perti colonial, 1570-1820 (Una lectura critica de la bibliografia reciente).” Revista Interamericana de Bibliografia 45 (1995): 115-36. ——.“E] trasfondo personal de la ‘extirpacion’: La carrera y la formacion de Francisco de Avila y Fernando de Avendano.” Colonial Latin American Review 8 {1999}: 91-111.

Hanke, Lewis, and Celso Rodriguez, eds. Los virreyes espanoles en América durante el gobierno de la casa de Austria: Peru. Vol. 1 {of 7). Madrid: Ediciones Atlas, 1978. Harkness, Deborah E. John Dee’s Conversations with Angels: Cabala, Alchemy, and the End of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Harris, Steven J. “Jesuit Scientific Activity in Overseas Mission, 1540-1773.” Isis 96 (2005): 71-79.

Harrison, Regina. “Pérez Bocanegra’s Ritual Formulario: Khipu Knots and Confession.” In Narrative Threads |.. .], edited by Jeffrey Quilter and Gary Urton, 266-93. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002. —— . “The Theology of Concupiscence: Spanish-Quechua Confessional Manuals in the Andes.” In Coded Encounters |. . .J, edited by Francisco Xavier CevallosCandau, Jeffrey A. Cole, Nina M. Scott, and Nicomedes Suarez-Aratiz, 135-50. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1994. Hemming, John. The Conquest of the Incas. London: Macmillan, 1970. Rev. ed., Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1983. Henningsen, Gustav. The Witches’ Advocate: Basque Witchcraft and the Spanish Inquisition (1609-1614). Reno: University of Nevada Press, 1980. Heras, Julian. Aporte de los franciscanos a la evangelizacion del Peru. Lima: Provincia Misionera de San Francisco Solano, 1992. ——. “Bio-bibliografico de Luis Oré.” Revista Hist6rica 29 {1966}: 173-92. ——. Los franciscanos y las misiones populares en el Peru. Madrid: Cisneros, 1983. Hernandez Astete, Francisco. Los incas y el poder de sus ancestros. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Pert, 2012. Hernandez Principe, Rodrigo. “Mitologia andina: Idolatrias en Recuay (1617).” Edited by Carlos A. Romero. Inca: Revista Trimestral de Estudios Antropologicos 1 [1923]: 25-78.

Herrera, Alonso. Cuestiones evangélicas del adviento, y santos |...]. Lima: n.p, 1642. Herrera, Fernando de. Oracién panegyrica a la beatificacién de la beata Rosa de S. Maria |. ..]. Lima: n.p., 1672. Herrera, Fortunato L. “Nomenclatura indigena de las plantas: Flora Cuzcoensis.” Inca: Revista Trimestral de Estudios Antropologicos 1 (1923): 607-23.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 403

——. “Plantas que curan y plantas que matan de la flora del departamento del Cuzco.” Revista del Museo Nacional 9 (1940): 73-128. Herrera Vasquez, Leonardo, ed. La medicina tradicional en el norte del Perti. Cajamarca: DAS, 1994.

Herzog, Tamar. Defining Nations: Immigrants and Citizens in Early Modern Spain and Spanish America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003. Hidalgo L., Jorge, and Jorge Victor Diaz M. “Cartas del Obispo de Arequipa sobre los indios del Corregimiento de Arica; 1620-1638: Cuatro documentos inéditos.” Chungara: Revista de Antropologia Chilena 15 (1985): 77-97.

Hill, Jonathan [David]. “Shamanizing the State in Venezuela.” Journal of Latin American Lore 21 (2003): 163-77.

—— , ed. Rethinking History and Myth: Indigenous South American Perspectives on the Past. Urbana, Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1988. Hocquenghem, Anne Marie. Iconografita mochica. 2nd ed. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Pert, 1987. Honton, Diego de. Sermon que se predico en Ia fiesta del Patrocinio de la Virgen Santissima Maria Senora Nuestra |...]. Lima: n.p., 1662. Hoyo, Joseph del, ed. Relaci6n completa y exacta del auto ptiblico de fe que se celebro

en esta ciudad de Lima a 20 de diziembre de 1694: Adjunto otro procedente del ano de 1693 [.. .]. Lima: Imprenta Real, Joseph de Contreras y Alvarado, 1695. Huanca L., Tomas. El yatiri en la comunidad Aymara. La Paz: Ediciones CADA (Centro Andino de Desarrollo Agropecuario}, 1989. Huarochiri Manuscript. See Salomon, Frank [Loewen], and George L. Urioste, eds. Huarte de San Juan, Juan. Examen de ingenios para las ciencias |. . .]. Baeza Montoya, 1575, 1594. Reprint, edited by Estéban Torre. Madrid: Editora Nacional, 1977. Huonder, Anton, S.J. Deutsche Jesuitenmissiondre des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts: Ein Beitrag zur Missionsgeschichte und zur deutschen Biographie. Freiburg: Herder, 1899.

Hyland, Sabine. Gods of the Andes: An Early Jesuit Account of Inca Religion and Andean Christianity. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2011. ——. The Jesuit and the Incas: The Extraordinary Life of Padre Blas Valera, S.J. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003. ——. The Quito Manuscript: An Inca History Preserved by Fernando de Montesinos. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007. Iglesias [Palacios], Genny. Hierbas medicinales de los quichuas del Napo: Enfermedades femeninas y enfermedades del “susto.” Quito: Ediciones Abya-Yala, 1986. Los incas y el antiguo Pertti: 3000 anos de historia |. . .]. 2 vols. Edited by Sociedad Estatal para la Exposici6n Universal de Sevilla, 1992. Madrid: Sociedad Estatal Quinto Centenario |. . .| / Barcelona: Lunwerg, D.L., 1991. Institoris, Heinrich, and Jakob Sprenger. Malleus Maleficarum: Kommentar zur Wiedergabe des Erstdrucks von 1487 |...) by André Schnyder. G6ppingen: Kimmerle Verlag, 1993. Inventario de la biblioteca de los jesuitas. Appendice num. 1 al catalogo general de la Biblioteca de la Universita del Cuzco. Edited by Biblioteca de los Jesuitas. Cuzco: H. G. Rozas, 1938.

“Inventario de la botica de los Jesuitas.” Revista Universitaria del Cuzco 40 (1951): 105-35.

404 THE POWER OF HUACAS

Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, ed. The Word Made Image: Religion, Art, and Architecture in Spain and Spanish America, 1500-1600. Boston: Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, 1998. Isbell, William Hlarris]. Mummies and Mortuary Monuments: A Postprocessual Prehistory of Central Andean Social Organization. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1997.

Isbell, William Hlarris], and Helaine Silverman, eds. Andean Archaeology. 3 vols. Vol. 1: Variations in Sociopolitical Organizations; vol. 2: Art, Landscape, and Society; vol. 3: North and South. New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London: Kluwer Academic / Plenum, 2002/2006. Itier, César. “Las cartas en quechua de Cotahuasi: El pensamiento politico de un cacique de inicios del siglo XVII.” In Mascaras, tretas y rodeos del discurso colonial, edited by Bernard Lavallé, 41-71. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, 2005.

——. “Discurso ritual prehispanico y manipulaci6n misionera: La ‘oracidén de Manco Capac al senor del cielo y tierra’ de la relaci6n de Santa Cruz Pachacuti.” Bulletin de l'Institut Francais d’Etudes Andines 21 (1992): 177-96.

—— . “Las fuentes quechuas coloniales y la etnohistoria: El ejemplo de la relacidn de Pachacuti.” In Saberes y memorias en los Andes: |. . .], edited by Thérése Bouysse-Cassagne, 93-101. Paris: Institut des Hautes Etudes de l’Amérique Latine / Lima: Institut Francais d’Etudes Andines, 1997. ——. El hijo de oso: La literatura oral quechua de Ia region del Cuzco. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, 2007.

Itier, César, Pierre Duviols, and Tom Zuidema. “Juan de Santa Cruz PachacutiYamqui Salcamaygua en debate.” In Saberes y memorias en los Andes [.. .], edited by Thérése Bouysse-Cassagne, 91-154. Paris: Institut des Hautes Etudes de l’Amérique Latine / Lima: Institut Francais d’Etudes Andines, 1997. Iwasaki Cauti, Fernando. “Fray Martin de Porras: Santo, ensalmador y sacamuelas.” Colonial Latin American Review 3 (1994): 159-84. ——. Inquisiciones Peruanas |.. .]. Lima: Peisa, 1996. —_——. “Vidas de santos y santas vidas: Hagiografias reales e imaginarias en Lima colonial.” Anuario de Estudios Americanos 51 (1994): 47-64. Joralemon, Donald, and Douglas [Gregory] Sharon. Sorcery and Shamanism: Curanderos and Clients in Northern Peru. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1993. Juan [y Santicilia|, Jorge, and Antonio de Ulloa |y de la Torre-Guiral]. Noticias secretas de América, sobre el estado naval, militar, y politico de los reynos del Peru y provincias de Quito, Costas de Nueva Granada y Chile |. . .]. 2 vols. in 1 book. Edited by David Barry. London: R. Taylor, 1826. Julien, Catherine [Jean]. Die Inka. Munich: C. H. Beck, 2001.

— . Hatungolla: A View of Inca Rule from the Lake Titicaca Region. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.

——. Reading Inca History. lowa City: University of lowa Press, 2000. Kagan, Richard L. Lucretia’s Dreams: Politics and Prophecy in Sixteenth-Century Spain. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. Karant-Nunn, Susan C. The Reformation of Ritual: An Interpretation of Early Modern Germany. London: Routledge, 1997.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 405

Kauffmann Doig, Federico. Historia y arte del Perti antiguo. 6 vols. Lima: PEISA, La Republica, Gloria, 2002. Kaulicke, Peter. Memoria y muerte en el Pert antiguo. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catoélica del Peru, 2000 |2001]. Keitt, Andrew. “Religious Enthusiasm, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Disenchantment of the World.” Journal of the History of Ideas 65 (2004): 231-50. Kircher, Athanasius. Mundus subterraneus, in XII libros digestus |. . .]. 2 vols. Amsterdam: Joannes Janssonius & Elizeus Weyerstraten, 1664-65. —— . Oedipus Aegyptiacus: Hoc est Universalis Hieroglyphicae veterum doctrinae temporum iniuria abolitae instauratio |. ..].3 vols. in 4 books. Rome: Vitalis Mascardi, 1652-5455]. Klaiber, Jeffrey L. Los jesuitas en América Latina, 1549-2000: |...]. Lima: Fondo Editorial Universidad Antonio Ruiz de Montoya, 2007. Klein, Herbert S. La esclavitud africana en América Latina y el Caribe. Translated by Gracicla Sanchez Albornoz. Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1986. Originally published as African Slavery in Latin America and the Caribbean (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971; reprint, 1986). Kolata, Alan L. The Tiwanaku: Portrait of an Andean Civilization. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1993.

—— , ed. Tiwanaku and Its Hinterland: Archaeology and Paleoecology of an Andean Civilization, vol. 2: Urban and Rural Archaeology. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 2003. Kolata, Alan (L.), and Carlos Ponce Sanginés. “Tiwanaku: The City at the Center.” In The Ancient Americas: Art from Sacred Landscapes, edited by Richard F. Townsend, 317-33. Munich: Prestel, 1992. Kramer, Roswitha.”...ex ultimo angulo orbis: Atanasio Kircher y el Nuevo Mundo.” In Pensamiento europeo y cultural colonial, edited by Karl Kohut and Sonia V. Rose, 320-77. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert, 1997. Kristeller, Paul Oskar. Die Philosophie des Marsilio Ficino. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 1972.

Kubler, George. “The Quechua in the Colonial World.” In Handbook of South American Indians, vol. 2: The Andean Civilizations, edited by Julian Hlaynes|] Steward, 331-410. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, 1946. New ed., New York: Cooper Square Publishers, 1963.

Kuznar, Lawrence. “An Introduction to Andean Religious Ethnoarchaelogy: Preliminary Results and Future Directions.” Ethnoarchaeology of Andean South America (Ann Arbor) 4 (2001): 38-66. Labarta, Ana. “Supersticiones moriscas.” Awrdg 5-6 (1982-83): 161-90.

Landin Carrasco, Amancio. Vida y viajes de Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa |. . .]. Madrid: Instituto Hist6rico de Marina, 1945. Lane Fox, Robin. Pagans and Christians. New York: Knopf, 1987. Langdon, Esther Jean Matteson, and Gerhard Baer, eds. Portals of Power: Shamanism in South America. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1992.

Langue, Frédérique, and Carmen Salazar-Soler. Dictionnaire des termes miniers en usage en Amérique espagnole (XVIe-XIXe siécle) (Diccionario de términos

406 THE POWER OF HUACAS

mineros para la América espanola [siglos XVI-XIX]). Paris: Ed. Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1993. Lanning, John Tate. Academic Culture in the Spanish Colonies. London: Oxford University Press, 1940. —— . “The Illicit Practice of Medicine in the Spanish Empire in America.” In Ho-

menaje a don José Marta de la Pena y Camara, edited by Ernest J. Burrus and George P. Hammond, 141-79. Madrid: Ediciones José Porrtia Turanzas, 1969.

——. “The Reception of the Enlightenment in Latin America.” In Latin America and the Enlightenment, edited by Arthur P. Whitaker, 71-93. 2nd ed. Ithaca, NY: Great Seal Books, 1961.

Laplantine, Francois, and Alexis Nouss. Le métissage: Un exposé pour comprendte, un essai pour réfléchir. Paris: Flammarion, 1997. Lara, Jesus. Tragedia del fin de Atawallpa (Spanish translation of Atau Wallpaj puchukakuyninpa wankan). Buenos Aires: Ediciones del Sol, 1989. Larco, Laura. Mas alld de los encantos: Documentos hist6ricos y etnografia contempordnea sobre extirpacion de idolatrias en Trujillo, siglos XVIII-XX. Preface by Luis Millones. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, 2008. Larco Hoyle, Rafael. Los mochicas. 2 vols. Lima: Museo Arqueoldégico Rafael Larco Herrera, 2001. Larson, Brooke, and Olivia Harris, with Enrique Tandeter, eds. Ethnicity, Markets, and Migration in the Andes |.. .]. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1995. Las Casas, Bartolomé de. Las antiguas gentes del Peru, con anotaciones y concordancias. Edited by Horacio H. Urteaga. Lima: Libreria e Imprenta Gil, 1939.

—. Historia de las Indias. Edited by Agustin Millares Carlo and Lewis Hanke. 3 vols. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Econémica, 1951. 3rd. ed., Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica, 1992.

Lastres, Juan B. Historia de la medicina peruana, vol. 2 {of 3): La medicina en el virreinato. Lima: Imprenta Santa Maria, 1951. —_—.“E] pensamiento cientifico-natural en el Pertia fines del siglo XVIII.” Revista Universitaria del Cuzco 42 (1953): 89-101.

Laurencich Minelli, Laura, and Paulina Numhauser, eds. Sublevando el virreinato: Documentos contestatarios a la historiografia tradicional del Peru colonial. Quito: Abya Yala, 2007. Lavalle, José Antonio de, and Rosario de Lavalle de Cardenas, eds., with Sara Acevedo Basurto, Mario Benavides, and Luis Jaime Castillo Butters. Tejidos milenarios del Peru [Ancient Peruvian textiles]. Lima: Integra AFP, 1999. Lavallé, Bernard. “La cuestion del origen de los indios en el virreinato del Peru: Teorias y practica colonial (siglos XVI y XVII}.” In El hombre y los Andes |. . .], 3 vols., edited by Javier Flores Espinoza and Rafael Varon Gabai, 1:409-21. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Cato6lica del Pert, 2002.

Lavallée, Daniele. Les représentations animales dans la céramique mochica. Paris: Institut d’Ethnologie, 1970. Laval Manriquez, Enrique. Botica de los jesuitas de Santiago. Santiago: Asociacion Chilena de Asistencia Social, 1953. Laviana Cuetos, Maria Luisa. Brujas y curanderas de la colonia. Guaranda, Ecuador: Universidad Estatal de Bolivar / Quito: Centro para el Desarrollo Social, 1996.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 407

Lavina, Javier. “Afromexicanos, curanderos heterodoxos y brujos.” Boletin Americanistd 49 (1999): 197-210.

Lea, Henry Charles. A History of the Inquisition of Spain. 4 vols. London: Macmillan, 1906-7. Reprint, New York: American Scholar Publications, AMS Press, 1966. L’Ecluse, Charles de. Exoticorum libri decem [. . .]. Leiden: Ex Officina Plantiniana Raphelengii, 1605. Ledezma, Domingo. “Una legitimacién imaginativa del Nuevo Mundo: La historia naturae, maxime peregrinae del jesuita Juan Eusebio Nieremberg.” In El saber de los jesuitas, historias naturales y el Nuevo Mundo, edited by Luis Millones Figueroa and Domingo Ledezma, 53-84. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert, 2005. Ledezma, Domingo, and Luis Millones Figueroa. “Introduccion: Los jesuitas y el conocimiento de la naturaleza americana.” In El saber de los jesuitas, historias

naturales y el Nuevo Mundo, edited by Luis Millones Figueroa and Domingo Ledezma, 9-26. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert, 2005. Le Goff, Jacques. “Church Time and Merchant Time in the Middle Ages.” Social Science Information 9 {1970}: 151-67.

Lemlij, Moisés, and Luis Millones, with Dana Caceres, eds. Historia, memoria y ficci6n. Lima: Seminario Interdisciplinario de Estudios Andinos, 1996. Leonard, Irving A. “Best Sellers of the Lima Book Trade, 1583.” Hispanic American Historical Review 22 (1942): 5-33. ———. “On the Cuzco Book Trade, 1606.” Hispanic Review 9 (1941): 359-75.

Leon Fernandez, Dino. Evangelizacio6n y control social a la doctrina de Nuestra Senora de la Limpia, Purftsima e Immaculada Concepcion de Canta, siglos XVI y XVII. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, 2009. Leon Pinelo, Antonio de. Epitome de la biblioteca oriental, y occidental, ndutica y geogrdfica |. ..]. 3 vols. Madrid: Abad, 1737-38.

—_—. El paraiso en el nuevo mundo |.. .]. 2 vols. Edited, with the Comité del IV Centenario del Descubrimiento del Amazonas, by Rati Porras Barrenechea. Lima: Imprenta Torres Aguirre, 1943. Leén Pinelo, Diego de. Semblanza de la Universidad de San Marcos (1648). Translated from the Latin by Luis Antonio Eguiguren. Lima: Talleres de la Empr. Graf. T. Scheuch, 1949.

Levillicr, Roberto, ed. Gobernantes del Peru: Cartas y papeles, siglo XVI: Documentos del Archivo de Indias. 14 vols. Vol. 5, 1924; vol. 8, 1925. Madrid: Juan Pueyo, Sucesores de Rivadeneyra, 1921-26. Libro de visita de que emprendio el ilmo. Sr. Dr. Dn Gregorio de Molleda y cleerque, [...] de donde salioé para la provincia de Huamanchuco desde el 5 de julio de 1747; al 18 de noviembre de 1747. Manuscript in ATT.

Lisi, Francesco Leonardo. El tercer concilio limense y la aculturacion de los indigenas sudamericanos |... .]. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, 1990. Lizarraga, Reginaldo de. Descripci6n del Peru, Tucumdn, Rio de la Plata y Chile. Edited by Ignacio Ballesteros. Madrid: Historia 16, 1986. Originally published as Descripcion y poblacion de las Indias |ca. 1594]. Llano y Zapata, José Eusebio de. Carta o diario |. . .]. Madrid: Imprenta de Juan de Zuniga, 1748.

——. Higiasticon, o verdadero modo de conservar la salud [.. .]. Lima: n.p., 1744.

408 THE POWER OF HUACAS

——. Memorias histo6rico, fisicas, critico, apologéticas de la América meridional. Edited by Ricardo Ramirez Castaneda, Antonio Garrido Aranda, Luis Millones Figueroa, Victor Peralta, and Charles Walker. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, 2005. —— . Observacion diaria critico-hist6rico-metheorologica |. . .]. Lima: n.p., 1748.

——. Preliminar y cartas que preceden al tomo I de las memorias histo6ricophysicas, critico apologéticas de la América meridional. Cadiz: Of. de D. Pedro Gomez de Requéna, 1759.

——. “Resoluci6n physico-mathematica: Sobre la formacio6n de los cometas y efectos |. . .|.” In Obras varias de don Joseph Eusebio de Llano y Zapata, 17431748. Lima: n.p., n.d. Loaysa, Fray Rodrigo de. “Memorial de las cosas del Pirti tocantes a los indios (1586).”

In Colecci6n de documentos inéditos para la historia de Espana. Vol. 94, edited by Feliciano Ramirez de Arellano Marqués de la Fuensanta del Valle, José Sancho Rayon, and Francisco de Zabalburu, 592-601. Madrid: M. Ginesta Hermanos, 1889. Lockhart, James Marvin. Spanish Peru, 1532-1560: A Colonial Society. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1968. Lohmann Villena, Guillermo, ed. El gran canciller de las Indias: Antonio de Leén Pinelo. Seville: Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos, 1953. —— . “El licenciado Juan Polo de Ondegardo: Notas de archivos y bibliotecas.” In El hombre y los Andes |. . .]. 3 vols. Edited by Javier Flores Espinoza and Rafael Varon Gabai, 1:319-25. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru, 2002. —— . “Ojeada sobre la ensenanza de la medicina y los médicos en Lima a fines del siglo XVII.” In Juan del Valle y Caviedes: Obra completa, edited by Maria Leticia Caceres, Luis Jaime Cisneros, and Guillermo Lohmann Villena, 879-909. Lima: Banco de Crédito del Pert, 1990. ——. Los regidores perpetuos del cabildo de Lima (1535-1821) [.. .]. 2 vols. Seville: Excma. Diputacion Provincial de Sevilla, 1983. Lopez, Francisco, S.J. El suefo de Joseph en el viaje de los exc.os SS.es Duques de la Palata, principes de Massa, Virreyes del Peru, Chile y Tierra firme |. . .]. Lima: por Luis de Lyra en la Imprenta de Manuel de los Oliuos, 1681. ——. Sermon historico y panegirico de Nuestra Senora del Pilar. Lima, 1683.

—. Sermon moral y panegirico: Predicado en el primero dia del celebre y prodigioso Novenari del apostol del Oriente S. Francisco Xavier. Lima, 1684. Lopez, Gregorio, S.J. Discurso exornativo del glorioso patron de las Espanas Santiago [. . .]. Lima, 1636.

——. Tesoro de medicinas, para diversas enfermedades: |. ..]. 3rd ed. Madrid: Imprenta de Musica, 1708.

Lopez de Gomara, Francisco. Historia general de las Indias (1553): “Hispania Vitrix” cuya segunda parte corresponde a la conquista de Meéjico |. . .]. Edited by Emiliano M. Aguilera. 2 vols. Barcelona: Editorial Iberia, 1954. Lépez de los Rios, José. “El Purgatorio,’ “El Juicio Final,” “El Infierno” y “La Gloria’:

Restauracio6n de cuatro lienzos monumentales, serie de “Las Postrimerias”: Templo de Carabuco. La Paz: Ministerio Desarrollo Econ6émico, Viceministerio de Cultura, 2005. Lozoya, Xavier. “Historia natural y herbolario medicinal en el siglo XVI en América.” In Historia social de las ciencias en América Latina, edited by Juan José Saldana,

BIBLIOGRAPHY 409

119-51. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional de México, Coordinacion de Humanidades, 1996.

Luna Obregon, Julio. Efigenia, la negra santa: Culto religioso de los descendientes africanos en el valle de Canete, Sabino Canas, gestor de la tradicion afroandina. Lima: Ediciones Centro de Articulacién y Desarrollo Juvenil “Mundo de Ebano,” Centro de Desarrollo de la Mujer Negra Peruana, 2005. Lupo, Allesandro. “Sintesis controvertidas: Consideraciones en torno a los limites del concepto de sincretismo.” Revista de Antropologia Social § (1996): 11-37.

MacCormack, Sabine. “Art in a Missionary Context: Images from Europe and the Andes in the Church of Andahuaylillas Near Cuzco.” In The Word Made Image: Religion, Art, and Architecture in Spain and Spanish America, 1500-1600, edited by Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, 103-26. Boston, MA: Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, 1908. ——. “Demons, Imagination, and the Inkas.” In New World Encounters, edited by Stephen Greenblatt, 101-27. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. ———. “Ethnography in South America: The First Two Hundred Years.” In The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas, vol. 3: South America, edited by Frank Salomon and Stuart B. Schwartz, part 1, 96-188. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

—. “From the Sun to the Virgin of Copacabana.” Representations 8 (1984): 30-60. ——. “El gobierno de la republica cristiana.” In El barroco peruano, vol. 2, edited by Ramon Mujica Pinilla et al., 217-49. Lima: Banco de Crédito del Pert, 2003. —— . “Gods, Demons, and Idols in the Andes.” Journal of the History of Ideas 67 (2.006): 623-47.

—— . “Grammar and Virtue: The Formulation of a Cultural and Missionary Program by the Jesuits in Early Colonial Peru.” In The Jesuits, vol. 2: Cultures, Sciences, and Arts, 1540-1773, edited by John O’Malley, Gauvin Alexander Bailey, Steven Harris, and Frank Kennedy, 576-601. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006.

———. “History, Historical Record, and Ceremonial Action: Incas and Spaniards in Cuzco.” In Society for Comparative Studies in Society and History 43 (2001): 329-63.

——. “Limits of Understanding: Perceptions of Greco-Roman and Amerindian Paganism in Early Modern Europe.” In America in European Consciousness, 1493-1750, edited by Karen Ordahl Kupperman, 79-129. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995. ———. On the Wings of Time: Rome, the Incas, Spain, and Peru. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007. ——. “Religion and Society in Inca and Spanish Peru.” In The Colonial Andes: Tapestries and Silverwork, 1530-1830, edited by Elena Phipps, Johanna Hecht, and Cristina Esteras Martin, 101-13. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2004.

—. Religion in the Andes: Vision and Imagination in Early Colonial Peru. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991. —— .“Time, Space, and Ritual Action: The Inka and Christian Calendars in Early Peru.” In Native Traditions in the Postconquest World |. . .], edited by Elizabeth |Hill] Boone and Thomas |B. F.] Cummins, 295-334. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1998.

410 THE POWER OF HUACAS

Macera, Pablo. “El arte mural cuzqueno, siglos XVI-XX.” Apuntes 4 (1975): 59-114. ——. Mojos y chiquitos, 1768-18 20. Vol. 1. Lima: Seminario de Historia Rural Andina, 1988.

Magnus, Olaus. Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus;: Description of the Northern Peoples, Rome, 1555. 3 vols. Translated by Peter Fisher and Humphrey Higgens and edited by Peter Foote. London: Hakluyt Society, 1996-98. Originally published as Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus |. . .]({Rome: G. M. de Viottis, 1555).

Major, Johann Daniel. Vorstellung etlicher Kunst- und Naturalien Kammern in America und Asia. Kiel: Joachim Reumann, 1674. Makowski Hanula, Krysztof. “La figura del ‘oficiante’ en la iconografia mochica: ;Shaman o sacerdote?” In En el nombre del Senor: Shamanes, demonios y curanderos del norte del Peru, edited by Moisés Lemlij and Luis Millones, 52-101. Lima: Seminario Interdisciplinario de Estudios Andinos, 1994.

——. “Los seres radiantes, el aguila y el buho: La imagen de la divinidad en la cultura mochica (siglos II-VIII D.C.).” In Imdgenes y mitos: Ensayos sobre las artes figurativas en los Andes prehispdnicos, edited by Krzysztof Makowski, Ivan Amaro, and Max Hernandez, 13-114. Lima: Australis S.A., Casa Editorial, 1996. Malaga Medina, Alejandro. La evangelizacion del Peru, siglo XVI. Lima: Editorial y Productora Grafica Nuevo Mundo, 1992. —_—. “Las reducciones en el Pert (1532-1600).” Historia y Cultura 8 (1974): 141-72.

Maldonado, Joseph. Sermon en la solemnidad del glorioso patriarca San Joseph esposo de la Virgen |. . .]. Lima, 1652.

Manarelli, Maria Emma. “Fragmentos para una historia posible: Escritura/critica/ cuerpo en una beata del siglo XVII.” In Historia, memoria y ficcion, edited by Luis Millones and Moisés Lemlij, 266-80. Lima: Seminario Interdisciplinario de Estudios Andinos, 1996. ——. “Inquisicién y mujeres: Las hechiceras en el Pert durante el siglo XVII.” Revista Andina 3 (1985): 141-55. Mannheim, Bruce. The Language of the Inka Since the European Invasion. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1991.

—— . “Pérez Bocanegra, Juan (?-1645).” In Guide to Documentary Sources [. . .], edited by Joanne Pillsbury, 3:516-19. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2008.

Maravall, José Antonio. Culture of the Baroque: Analysis of a Historical Structure |. . .]. Translated by Terry Cochran. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press / Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986. Originally published as La cultura del barroco (Barcelona: Ariel, 1975).

——. Estudios de historia del pensamiento espanol. 3 vols. Vol. 1 [4th ed.|: Edad media; vol. 2 |2nd ed.|: La epoca del Renacimiento; vol. 3 |3rd ed.|: El siglo del barroco. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispanica, 2001. Mariategui, Javier. “Martin de Porras: Precursor de la medicina integral.” In Lo africano en la cultura criolla, edited by Carlos A. Aguirre, Amador Eusebio Ballumbrosio Guadalupe, and Luis Delgado Aparicio, 39-63. Lima: Fondo Editorial del Congreso del Peru, 2000. Mariscotti de Gorlitz, Ana Maria. Pachamama santa tierra: Contribucion al estudio de la religidn autéctona en los Andes centro-meridionales. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1978.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 411

——. "La posicion del Senor de los fenémenos meteoroldgicos en los panteones regionales de los Andes centrales.” Historia y Cultura 6 (1972): 207-15. Martin, A[ustin] Lynn. Plague? Jesuit Accounts of Epidemic Disease in the Sixteenth Century. Kirskville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1996. Martin, Luis. The Intellectual Conquest of Peru: The Jesuit College of San Pablo, 1568-1767. New York: Fordham University Press, 1968. — . “The Peruvian Indian Through Jesuit Eyes: The Case of José de Acosta and Pablo José de Arriaga.” In The Jesuit Tradition in Education and Missions: A 450Year Perspective, edited by Christopher [Key] Chapple, 205-15. Scranton, PA: University of Scranton Press, 1993. Martinez, Enrico. Repertorio de los tiempos e historia natural de esta Nueva Espana (México 1606). Edited by Francisco de la Masa and Francisco Gonzales de Cossio. Mexico: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, 1991. Martinez, Gabriel. Una mesa ritual en Sucre: aproximaciones semioticas al ritual andino. La Paz: Hisbol, 1987. Martinez C., José Luis. “;Cémo recordar? La construccion de las memorias andinas coloniales (siglos XVI y XVII}.” In Sobre los incas, edited by Liliana Regalado de Hurtado and Francisco Hernandez Astete, 191-228. Lima: Instituto Riva-Agtero, D011

——. Gente de la tierra de guerra: Los lipes en las tradiciones andinas y el imaginario colonial. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru, 2011.

Martinez Companon y Bujanda, Baltasar Jaime. Trujillo del Peru. Facsimile edition, Biblioteca de Palacio Real de Madrid. Vol. 1. Madrid: Ediciones de Cultura Hispanica del Centro Iberoamericano de Cooperacion, 1985. Marzal, Manuel Mlaria]. “Acosta, José de (1540-1600).” In Guide to Documentary Sources, edited by Joanne Pillsbury, 2:11-15. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2008.

——. La transformacion religiosa peruana. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru, 1983.

—. La utopia posible: Indios y jesuitas en la América colonial (1549-1767). 2 vols. Vol. 1: Brasil, Pert, Paraguay y Nuevo Reino; vol. 2: Chile, Quito, Nueva Espana y Nueva Francia. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru, 1992, 1994.

Mastrilo Duran, Nicolas, S.J. Sermon en el otavario, que la ilustrissima religion de redemptores celebro a la canonizacion de su primero fundador y patriarca San Pedro Nolasco. Lima: G. de Contreras, 1632. Masuda, Shozo, Izumi Shimada, and Craig Morris, eds. Andean Ecology and Civiliza-

tion: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Andean Ecological Complementarity. Papers from Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Symposium g1. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1985. Mateos, Francisco, S.J. “Un misionero naturalista: El P. Bernabé Cobo {1580-1657}.” Missionalia Hispanica 13 (1956): 255-315.

——., ed. Historia general de la Compania de Jestis en la provincia del Peru, cronica anonima de 1600 [...]. 2 vols. Vol 1: Historia general y del colegio de Lima; vol. 2: Relacion de colegios y misiones. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Instituto Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo, 1944.

412 THE POWER OF HUACAS

Matienzo, Juan de. Gobierno del Peru. 1567. Reprint, edited by Guillermo Lohmann Villena. Paris: Institut Francais d’Etudes Andines, 1967. Maxwell-Stuart, Pieter] G. Witchcraft in Europe and the New World, 1400-1800. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, New York: Palgrave, 2001. Mazzotti, José Antonio. “Fernando de Valverde y los monstruos andinos: Criollismo mistico en el peregrinaje a Copacabana.” In La formacion de la cultura virreinal, vol. 2 (siglo XVII), edited by Karl Kohut and Sonia V. Rose, 439-55. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert, 2004. McKnight, Kathryn Joy. “En su tierra lo aprendié: An African Curandero’s Defense before the Cartagena Inquisition.” Colonial Latin American Review 12 (2003): 63-84.

McPheeters, Diean| W{illiam]. “The Distinguished Peruvian Scholar Cosme Bueno, 1711-1798.” The Hispanic American Historical Review 35 (1955]: 484-91.

Medina, Bernardo de. Vida prodigiosa del venerable siervo de Dios Fr. Martin de Porras [.. .]. Lima: Iuan de Queuedo y Zarate, 1673. Medina, José Toribio. Historia del tribunal de la Inquisicion de Lima (1569-1820). 2 vols. Santiago de Chile: Gutenberg, 1887. 2nd ed., Santiago de Chile: Fondo Historico y Bibliografico José Toribio Medina, 1956. ———. Historia del tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisici6n de Cartagena de las Indias. Santiago de Chile: Elzeviriana, 1899. ———. Historia del tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisicion en Chile. Vol. 1. Santiago de Chile: Ercilla, 1890.

—. La imprenta en Bogota y la Inquisici6n en Cartagena de Indias. Bogota: Biblioteca Nacional de Colombia, Editorial ABC, 1952.

—— . La imprenta en Lima (1584-1824). 4 vols. [and Adiciones a la imprenta en Lima, 2 vols.|. Santiago de Chile: Impreso y grabado en casa del autor, 1904-7. Reprint, Santiago de Chile: Fondo Hist6rico y Bibliografico José Toribio Medina, 1966.

Megged, Amos. Exporting the Catholic Reformation: Local Religion in EarlyColonial Mexico. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996.

—— .“Magic, Popular Medicine and Gender in Seventeenth-Century Mexico: The Case of Isabel de Montoya.” Social History 19 (1994): 189-207.

Meiklejohn, Norman. La iglesia y los lupagas de Chucuito durante la colonia |. . .]. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de las Casas,” 1988. Originally published as The Church and the Lupaga of Chucuito in the Colonial Period: Christianization or Evangelization, 2 vols. (Chucuito: Instituto de Estudios Aymaras, 1984). —— . “Juli y los jesuitas, 1576-1578.” Instituto de Estudios Aymaras 2, no. 6 (1979): 1=32.

Meléndez, Juan. Tesoros verdaderos de las Indias en la historia de la gran provincia de San Juan Bautista del Peru |. . ./. 3 vols. Rome: Tinassio, 1681-82. Mello-Souza, Laura de. “Bruxaria em tres tempos: O saba entre a Europa, a Africae a América.” In Passeurs, mediadores culturales y agentes de la primera globalizacidn en el mundo ibérico, siglos X VI-XIX, edited by Scarlett O’Phelan Godoy and Carmen Salazar-Soler, 181-96. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, 2005. Menghi, Girolamo. Compendio dellarte essorcistica |. . .]. Bologna: Giovanni Rossi / Macerata: Sebastiano Martellini, [1576] 1580.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 413

———. Daemonastix seu adversus daemones et maleficos universi operis ad usum praeserlim exorcistarum concinnati tomus tertius |. ..]. Heinrich Institoris and Jakob Sprenger. Malleus maleficarum, vol. 3. Lyon: Claudius Bourgeat, 1669. —_— . Flagellum daemonum |. . .]. Bologna: Giovanni Rossi / Macerata: Sebastiano Martellini, 1580. Mesa, José de, and José R. Correa R. “La iglesia de la Compania en Trujillo.” Arte y Arqueologta 8-9 (1982-83): 55-66.

Mesa, José de, and Teresa Gisbert. Historia de la pintura cuzquena. Prologue by Guillermo Lohmann Villena. 2 vols. Lima: Fundacién Augusto N. Wiese, Banco Wiese, 1982.

——. Holguin y la pintura virreinal en Bolivia. 2nd ed. La Paz: Libreria Editorial Juventud, 1977 [1956].

——. Los angeles de Calamarca. La Paz: Compania Boliviana de Seguros, 1983. Métraux, Alfred. Religions et magies indiennes dAmérique du Sud. Paris: Gallimard, 1967.

Mignolo, Walter D. “Commentary to José de Acosta’s Historia natural y moral de las Indias: Occidentalism, the Modern/Colonial World, and the Colonial Difference.” In José de Acosta: Natural and Moral History of the Indies, edited by Jane E. Mangan, 451-518. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2002.

——. The Darker Side of the Renaissance: Literacy, Territoriality, and Colonization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995. Milanesio, Pedro José, S.J. El santo mas amable la delicia y el encanto de el orbe [. . .]. Quito, 1761.

Milla Batres, Carlos. Diccionario hist6rico y biogrdfico del Peru, siglos XV-XX. 9 vols. Lima: Milla Batres, 1986. Millar Carvacho, René. “El archivo del Santo Oficio de Lima y la documentaci6n inquisitorial existente en Chile.” Revista de la Inquisici6n 6 (1997): 101-16. —— . “La Inquisici6n de Lima y la circulacion de libros prohibidos {1700-1820).” Revista de Indias 44 (1984): 415-44. —_——. Inguisicion y sociedad en el virreinato peruano: Estudios sobre el tribunal de la Inquisicion de Lima. Santiago de Chile: Instituto de Historia, Ediciones Universidad Catélica de Chile, 1998. Milla Villena, Carlos. Ayni: Semiotica andina de los espacios sagrados. Lima: Universidad Particular San Martin de Porres, Facultad de Ingenieria y Arquitectura, 2003.

Millones, Luis. “El culto a las imagenes sagradas: Religiosidad popular en el norte del Pert.” In Encuentro internacional de Peruanistas: Estado de los estudios historico-sociales sobre el Peru a fines del siglo XX, 1:27-43. 2 vols. Lima: Universidad de Lima, Fondo de Desarrollo Editorial, 1998.

—."“Los hechizos del Pert, continuidad y cambio en las religiones andinas, siglos XVI-XVIII: Proyecto ‘Ideologia Andina.’” Cielo Abierto 5, no. 15 (1981): 3-14.

———. Mesianismo e idolatria en los Andes centrales. Buenos Aires: Fundaci6n Simon Rodriguez, Editorial Biblos, 19809.

—— . “El pleito contra Don Juan Vazquez, curandero de Cajamarca, 1710: Un estudio revelador.” Colonial Latin American Historical Review 11 (2002): 407-33. ——. “Religion and Power in the Andes: Idolatrous Curacas of the Central Sierra.” Ethnohistory 26 (1979): 243-63.

414 THE POWER OF HUACAS

——.“Shamanismo y politica en el Pert colonial: Los curacas de Ayacucho.” Historica 8 {1984}: 131-49.

Millones, Luis, Tomoeda Hiroyasu, and Takahiro Kato. Dioses y demonios del Cuzco. Lima: Fondo Editorial del Congreso de la Republica, 2001. Millones, Luis, and Moisés Lemlij, with Dana Caceres, eds. En el nombre del Senor: Shamanes, demonios y curanderos del norte del Peru. Lima: Biblioteca Peruana de Psicoanalisis, 1994. Millones, Luis, and Renata Mayer. La fauna sagrada de Huarochiri. Historia Andina 39. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, 2012.

Millones Figueroa, Luis. “La historia natural del padre Bernabé Cobo: Algunas claves para su lectura.” Colonial Latin American Historical Review 12 (2003): 85-97.

——. “La intcligensia jesuita y la naturaleza del Nuevo Mundo.” In El saber de los Jesuitas, historias naturales y el Nuevo Mundo |. . .], edited by Luis Millones Figueroa and Domingo Ledezma, 27-52. Madrid: Iberoamericana; Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert, 2005. Millones Figueroa, Luis, and Domingo Ledezma, eds. El saber de los jesuitas, historias naturales y el Nuevo Mundo [.. .]. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert, 2005. Mills, Kenneth. “Especialistas en rituales y resistencia cultural en la region norcentral del Pert, 1646-1672.” In En el nombre del Senor: Shamanes, demonios y curanderos del norte del Peru, edited by Luis Millones and Moisés Lemlij, 148-84. Lima: Biblioteca Peruana de Psicoanalisis, 1994. —— . Idolatry and Its Enemies: Colonial Andean Religion and Extirpation, 16401750. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997. ——.. “The Naturalization of Andean Christianities.” In The Cambridge History of Christianity, vol. 6: Reform and Expansion, edited by R. Po-Chia Hsia, 504-35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Mogrovejo, Toribio Alfonso de. “Diario de la segunda visita pastoral que hizo de su Arquididcesis |. . .|.” Revista del Archivo Nacional 1 (1920): 227-78 and 2 (1921): 37-78.

Molina, Cristobal de (Chile} [attributed also to Bartolomé de Segovia]. “Relacion de muchas cosas acaescidas en el Perti (1553}.” In Cronicas peruanas de intéres indigena |...], edited by Francisco Esteve Barba, 57-95. Madrid: Ediciones Atlas, 1968. Molina, Cristobal de (Cuzco}. “Relacién de las fabulas y ritos de los incas.” In Fabulas

y mitos de los incas, edited by Henrique Urbano and Pierre Duviols, 6-134. Madrid: Historia 16, 1989.

Molina, Juan Ignacio. Compendio de la historia geografica, natural y civil del Reyno de Chile |. . .]. 2 vols. Madrid: Antonio de Sancha, 1788-95. Monardes, Nicolas. La historia medicinal de las cosas que se traen de nuestras Indias occidentales (1565-1574). Facsimile reprint of the edition from Seville, “casa de Fernando Diaz, 1580.” Edited by José Maria Lopez Pinero. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo, 1989. Monguio, Luis. “La ilustracion peruana y el indio.” América Indigena 45 (1985): 343-55.

Monter, [Edward] William. Frontiers of Heresy: The Spanish Inquisition from the Basque Lands to Sicily. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. ——. Ritual, Myth, and Magic in Early Modern Europe. Brighton: Harvester, 1983.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 415

Montesinos, Fernando de. Auto de la fe celebrado en Lima a 23. de enero de 1639 [...]. Madrid: Imprenta del Reyno, 1640. Monumenta peruana. 6 vols., 1565-99. Reprint, edited by Antonio de Egana. Rome: Monumenta Historica Societatis Iesu, 1954-74. Vol. 7: 1600-02, edited by Antonio

de Egana and Enrique Fernandez. Rome: Monumenta Historica Societatis Iesu, 1981. Vol. 8: 1603-04, edited by Enrique Fernandez. Rome: Monumenta Historica Societatis Iesu, 1986.

Morner, Magnus. Actividades politicas y econdmicas de los jesuitas en el Rio de la Plata: La era de los Habsburgos. Translated by Doris Dittrich de Halperin. Buenos Aires: Paidés, 1968. Originally published as The Political and Economic Activilies of the Jesuits in the La Plata Region: The Hapsburg Era (Stockholm: Iberoamerikanska Biblioteket och Inst., 1953). —— . The Andean Past: Land, Societies, and Conflicts. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985.

—. Race Mixture in the History of Latin America. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1967.

——. “The Role of the Jesuits in the Transfer of Secular Baroque Culture to the Rio de la Plata Region.” In The Jesuits: Cultures, Sciencies, and the Arts, 15401773, edited by John W. O’Malley, Gauvin Alexander Bailey, Steven J. Harris, and Frank T. Kennedy, 305-16. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999. Morote Best, Efrain. “El degollador (Nakagq).” Tradicion (Cuzco) 4 (1951-52): 67-91. ——. “Dios, la Virgen y los santos.” Tradici6n (Cuzco) 5 (1953): 76-104.

Moscardo, Lodovico. Note overo memorie del museo di Lodovico Moscardo [.. .]. Padua: Paolo Frambotto, 1656. Moseley, Michael E. The Incas and Their Ancestors: The Archaeology of Peru. Rev. ed. London: Thames and Hudson, 2001. Mugaburu, Josephe de, and Francisco de Mugaburu. Diario de Lima, 1640-1694: Cronica de la época colonial. 2 vols. Edited by Horacio H. Urteaga and Carlos A. Romero. Lima: Imprenta y Libreria Sanmarti, 1917-18. Mujica Pinilla, Ramon. Angeles apécrifos en la América virreinal. Lima: Fondo de Cultura Economica, Instituto de Estudios Tradicionales, 1992.

—— . “Arte e identidad: las raices culturales del barroco peruano.” In El barroco peruano, by Ramon Mujica Pinilla et al., 1-57. Lima: Banco de Crédito del Peru, 2002.

———. “Fl arte y los sermones.” In El barroco peruano, by Ramon Mujica Pinilla et al., 219-314. Lima: Banco de Crédito del Peru, 2002. —— .. “Christ Child of Huanca.” In The Arts in Latin America, 1492-1820, catalog for exhibition organized by Joseph Rishel and Suzanne Stratton-Pruitt, 298. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 2006.

——. “Diego Quispe Tito: The Last Judgment.” In The Arts in Latin America, 1492-1820, catalog for exhibition organized by Joseph J. Rishel and Suzanne L. Stratton-Pruitt, 425. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 2006. —— .“’Dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres’: La cultura clasica en una procesion sanmarquina de 1656.” In La tradici6n clasica en el Peru virreinal, edited by Teodoro Hampe Martinez, 191-219. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, 1999.

416 THE POWER OF HUACAS

——. “Hell in the Andes: The Last Judgement in the Art of Viceregal Peru.” In Contested Visions in the Spanish Colonial World, edited by Nona Katzew, 177-201. Los Angeles: County Museum of Art / New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2011.

—— . “Tdentidades alegéricas: Lecturas iconograficas del barroco al neoclasico.” In El barroco peruano, edited by Ramon Mujica Pinilla et al., 2:258-320. Lima: Banco de Crédito del Pert, 2003.

—. Las plumas del sol y los angeles de la conquista / Feathers of the Sun and Angels of the Conquest [. . .]. Parallel Spanish and English. Lima: Banco de Crédito del Peru, 2004. — . Rosa Limensis: Mistica politica e iconografia en torno a la patrona de América. Lima: Fondo de Cultura Economica, Banco Central de Reserva del Peru, 2001. ——. “Three-Faced Trinity.” In The Arts in Latin America, 1492-1820, catalog for exhibition organized by Joseph J. Rishel and Suzanne L. Stratton-Pruitt, 392. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 2006. Mujica Pinilla, Ramon, David A. Brading, Teresa Gisbert de Mesa, Natalia Majluf, Charles F. Walker, Luis Eduardo Wuffarden, Victor Manuel Peralta Ruiz, David Cahill, and Scarlett O’Phelan Godoy. Visi6n y stmbolos del virreinato criollo a la republica peruana. Lima: Banco de Crédito, 2006. Mujica Pinilla, Ramon, Tom Cummins, Fernando R. de la Flor, Ricardo Estabridis, Teresa Gisbert, Sabine MacCormack, Scarlett O’Phelan Godoy, and Enrique Luis Tord. El barroco peruano, vol. 2. Lima: Banco de Crédito del Pert, 2003. Mujica Pinilla, Ramon, Pierre Duviols, Teresa Gisbert, Roberto Samanez Argumedo, and Maria Concepcion Garcia Saiz. El barroco peruano, vol. 1. Lima: Banco de Crédito del Peru, 2002. Miller, Thomas, and Helga Miiller-Herborn. Kinder der Mitte: Die Qero-Indianer. Gottingen: Lamuv, 1993.

Mulsow, Martin. Moderne aus dem Untergrund: Radikale Frtthaufkldrung in Deutschland 1680-1720. Hamburg: Meiner, 2002. Munoz, Alonso. Sermon en la solemne octava del capitulo provincial del Cuzco. Lima, 1628.

Murra, John Viictor]. El mundo andino: Poblacién, medio ambiente y economia. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, 2002. —_—.“E]l trafico de mullu en la costa del Pacifico.” In E] mundo andino: Poblacion, medio ambiente y economia, by John V. Murra, 171-81. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, 2002.

Murtia, Martin de. Cédice Murtia: Historia y genealogia de los reyes incas del Peru [. . .]. 2 vols. Edited by Juan M[{anuel] Ossio A[cuna]. Vol. 1: Commentary; vol. 2, facsimile reprint of the sixteenth-century manuscript. Madrid: Testimonio Compania Editorial, 2004. ——. Historia general del Peru. Edited by Manuel Ballesteros [Gaibrois]. Madrid: Historia 16, 1987.

Museo Larco: Tesoros del antiguo Pert. Edited by Asociacion Rafael Larco Hoyle. Lima: Cecosami Prepensa, 2010. Museo Pedro de Osma. Parallel Spanish and English text by Pedro Gjurinovic Canevaro. 1995. New ed., Lima: Fundacion Pedro de Osma Gildemeister, Fundaci6n Angélica de Osma Gildemeister, 2004.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 417

Nagel, Petra. Die Bedeutung der ‘Disquisitionum magicarum libri sex’ von Martin Delrio fiir das Verfahren in Hexenprozessen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1995.

Navarrete, Maria Cristina. Prdcticas religiosas de los negros en la colonia: Cartagena, siglo XVII. Santiago de Cali: Universidad del Valle, Editorial Facultad de Humanidades, 1995. Negro [Tua], Sandra, and Manuel Maria] Marzal. Esclavitud, economia y evangelizacion: Las haciendas jesuitas en la América virreynal. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Pert, 2005. ——. Un reino en la frontera: Las misiones jesuitas en la América colonial. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Pert / Quito: Ediciones Abya Yala, 1999. Newall, Venetia. The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Magic. London: Hamlyn, 1974. Nieremberg, Juan Eusebio. Curiosa, y oculta filosofia |. . .]. Alcala: Imprenta de Maria Fernandez, acosta de Juan Antonio Bonet, 1649. —— . Historia naturae, maxime peregrinae libris XVI distincta |. ..]. Antwerp: Balthasar Moretus, 1635. ———. The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine. Translated by G. A. Williamson. New York: New York University Press, 1965. Noack, Karoline. “Catalina Rodriguez, ‘hechicera y alcahueta’ de Trujillo: La cultura popular urbana del siglo XVI.” In Pasiones y desencuentros en Ia cultura andina, edited by Hiroyasu Tomoeda and Luis Millones, 43-69. Lima: Fondo Editorial del Congreso de la Republica, 2005. Nova Vulgata Bibliorum sacrorum editio. 2nd ed. without changes. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1986. Novena a la Virgen de las Lagrimas nombrada nuestra Senora del Aviso [. . .]. Lima, 1690.

Numhauser, Paulina. Mujeres indias y senores de la coca: Potosi y Cuzco en el siglo XVI. Madrid: Catedra, 2005. Nunez del Prado Béjar, Juan Victor. “El mundo sobrenatural de los quechuas del sur del Pert) a través de la comunidad de Cotabamba.” Allpanchis Phuturinga 2 (1970): 57-119; reprinted in Misiones Extranjeras (Madrid) 24 (1974): 669-717. ——. “El nuevo paradigma: Una vision antropologica.” Manuscript. Cuzco: CBC, Cuzco, 2003.

Nunez del Prado [Castro], Oscar, and William Foote Whyte. Kuyo Chico: Applied Anthropology in an Indian Community. Translated by Lucy Whyte Russo and Richard Russo. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973. Originally published as Un ensayo de integracion de la poblacién campesina: El caso de Kuyo Chico (Cuzco) (Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, 1970). Obando, Balthasar de. Libro que el Rmo. Fray Balthasar de Obando compuso, siendo

Obispo de la ciudad imperial del Rno. de Chile religioso del convento de Sto. Domingo, Ano de 1605 |. . .J. Manuscript. 1605.

Ocampo, Baltasar de. “Descripcion y sucesos histéricos de la provincia de Vilcabamba (post 1572).” In Juicio de limites entre el Pert y Bolivia, vol. 7: Vilcabamba,

edited by Victor Manuel Matrtua, 306-44. Barcelona: Imprenta de Henrich y Comp., 1906. Ocana, Diego de. A través de la América del Sur. Edited by Arturo Alvarez. Madrid: Historia 16, 1987.

Oesterreicher, Wulf. “Las otras Indias: Estrategias de cristianizaci6n en América y

418 THE POWER OF HUACAS

en Europa, la lingtiistica misionera y el estatus del Latin.” In Estudios ofrecidos al Profesor José Jesus de Bustos Tovar, edited by José Luis Gir6n Alconchel and J. Javier Herrero Ruiz de Loizaga, 421-38. Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 2003.

Olea, Nicolao de. Summa tripartita scholasticae pilosophiae: Sive cursus philosophicus triennalis in logicam, physicam, et metaphysicam Aristotelis. Lima, 1694.

Olmo Pintado, Margarita del. “La historia natural en la ‘Historia del Nuevo Mundo’ del P. Cobo.” Revista de Indias 52 (1992): 795-823.

Olsen Bruhns, Karen. Ancient South America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

O'Malley, John W\illiam], Gauvin Alexander Bailey, Steven J. Harris, and Frank T. Kennedy, eds. The Jesuits: Cultures, Sciences, and the Arts, 1540-1773. 2 vols. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999, 2006.

O’Neill, Charles E[dwards], and Joaquin Maria Dominguez. Diccionario hist6rico de la Compania de Jesus: Biogrdafico-temdatico, vol. 3: Infante de SantiagoPiatkiewicz. Rome: Institutum Historicum S.I. / Madrid: Universidad Pontificia Comillas, 2001.

Ordahl Kupperman, Karen, ed. America in European Consciousness, 1493-1750. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1995. Oré, Luis Jeronimo de. Relacion de la vida y milagros de San Francisco Solano. Edited by Noble David Cook. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catoélica del Pert, 1998.

—— . Rituale, seu manuale Peruanum, et forma brevis administrandi apud Indos sacrosancta Baptismi, Poenitentiae, Eucharistiae; matrimonij, et extremae unctionis Sacramenta |...]. |Span., Lat., Quichua, Aymara]. Naples: Ilacobus Carlinus & Costantinus Vitalis, 1607. ——. Symbolo catholico indiano. Lima: Antonio Ricardo, 1598. Facsimile reprint, edited by Antonine Tibesar, O.F.M. Lima: Australis, 1992. Orta, Garcia de. Aromatum, et simplicium aliquot medicamentorum apud Indos nascentium historia [.. .]/. Antwerp: Christophorus Plantinus, Joannes Morctus, [1567] 1574.

Ortiz de Zuniga, Inigo. Visita de la provincia de Leon de Huanuco en 1562. 2 vols. Version paleografica by Domingo Angulo, Marie Helmer, and Felipe Marquez Abanto. Edited by John V. Murra. Huanuco: Universidad Nacional Hermilio Valdizan, Facultad de Letras y Educacion, 1967, 1972. Osende, Victorino. Vida sobrenatural del beato Martin de Porres. Lima: Imprenta Artistica, 1917.

Osorio, Alejandra Bletilde]. “El Callejon de la Soledad: Vectors of Cultural Hybridity

in Seventeenth-Century Lima.” In Spiritual Encounters: Interactions between Christianity and Native Religions in Colonial America, edited by Nicholas Griffiths and Fernando Cervantes, 198-229. Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press, 1999. Osorio Romero, Ignacio. La luz imaginaria: Epistolario de Atanasio Kircher con los novohispanos. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México, 1993. Pablos, Hernando. “Relaci6n que envio a amandar su magestad se hiziese desta ciudad de cuenca y de toda su provincia. 1582.” In [Don Marcos Jiménez de la Espada. | Relaciones geogrdaficas de Indias. Peru. Vol. 2. Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles 184, edited by José Urbano Martinez Carreras, 268-73. Madrid: Atlas, 1965.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 419

Pachacuti Yamqui Salcamaygua, Juan de Santa Cruz. “Relaci6n de antigtiedades deste reyno del Pirt.” In Tres relaciones de antigtiedades peruanas, edited by Don Marcos Jiménez de la Espada, 229-328. Madrid: Imprenta y Fundacion de M. Tello, 1879.

Pachtler, Georg] M[ichael], S.J., ed. Ratio studiorum et institutiones scholasticae Societatis Jesu [.. .], vol. 2: Ratio studiorum ann. 1586, 1599, 1832. Berlin: Hofmann & Co, 1887. Reprint, Osnabrtick: Biblio Verlag, 1968. Palma, Ricardo. Anales de la Inquisicién de Lima. 3rd ed. Madrid: Ricardo Fé, 1897. Pardo, Luis A. “Huanacauri: El santuario maximo de la incanidad.” Revista Universitaria del Cuzco 20 (1981): 238-53.

Pardo Tomas, José. Oviedo, Monardes, Herndndez: El tesoro natural de América: Colonialismo y ciencia en el siglo XVI |. . .]. Madrid: Nivola, 2002. Parejas Moreno, Alcides J. “La influencia centroeuropea en Chiquitos: El padre Schmid.” Anuario de la Academia Boliviana de Historia Eclesidstica 5 (1999): 139-46.

Paulli, Simon. Quadripartitum botanicum de simplicium medicamentorum facultatibus |. . .]. Argentorati (Strasbourg): Daniel Paulli, 1667. P’axsi Limachi, Rufino. Medicina natural: Medicina andina y popular. Qullasuyu, La Paz: Mundo Aymara, 1983. Pease Glarcia] Y|rigoyen]|, Franklin. Las croénicas y los Andes. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catoélica del Pert, Instituto Riva-Agtiero, 1995. —— .“Curacas coloniales: Riqueza y actitudes.” Revista de Indias 48 (1988): 87-107.

———. Del Tawantinsuyu a la historia del Peru. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, 1978.

—— . El pensamiento mitico. San Isidro, Lima: Mosca Azul, Francisco Campod6nico F., 1982.

———.“E] Principe de Esquilache y una relacion sobre la extirpacion de la idolatria.” Cuadernos del Seminario de Historia (Instituto Riva Agtiero) 7, no. 9 (1968): 81-92. ——. “Topicos sobre los incas en Martin de Murua.” Historia y Cultura 21 {199192): 57-79.

——. Los ultimos incas del Cuzco. 5th ed. Lima: Instituto Nacional de Cultura, 2004.

—— _, ed. “Documentos sobre Chucuito.” Historia y Cultura 4 (1970): 5-48. Pease Glarcia] Y[rigoyen], Franklin, Craig Morris, and Julian I. Santillana. The Incas: Art and Symbols / Los incas: Arte y simbolos. Lima: Banco de Crédito del Peru, 1999.

Pedersen, Duncan. “Curanderos, divinidades, santos y doctores.” In La medicina tradicional en sistemas formales de salud |. . .], edited by Lisbeth van der Hoogte, Carles Roersch, and José Maria Tawares de Andrade, 53-85. Cuzco: Centro de Medicina Andina, 1989.

Pena Montenegro, Alonso de la. [tinerario para pdroccos de indios (1668). Edicion critica por Carlos Baciero, M. Corrales, J. M. Garcia Anoveros y F. Maseda. 2 vols. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1995, 1996. Pena Prado, Mariano. La fundacion de la Universidad Mayor de San Marcos de Lima. Lima: Ediciones “Minerva,” Universidad, 1938. Peralta Barnuevo Rocha y Benavides, Pedro José de. El conocimiento de los tiempos: Efeméride del ano de 1727 |. . .]. Lima, 1727.

420 THE POWER OF HUACAS

Peralta Ruiz, Victor Manuel, and Charles Frederick Walker. “Viajeros naturalistas, cientificos y dibujantes: De la ilustraci6n al costumbrismo en las artes (siglos XVIII y XIX).” In Vision y simbolos: Del virreinato criollo a la Republica Peruana, edited by Ramon Mujica Pinilla, David A. Brading, Scarlett O’Phelan Godoy, David Cahill, Natalia Majluf, Victor Manuel Peralta Ruiz, Charles Frederick Walker, Luis Eduardo Wuftarden Revilla, and Teresa Gisbert de Mesa, 243-73. Lima: Banco de Crédito del Peru, 2006. Pereira, Benito, S.J. De magia, de observatione somniorum et de divinatione astrologica. Libri tres. Adversus fallaces et superstitiosas artes. Cologne: Iloannes Gymnicus (Johann Gymnich], 1612. Pérez, Joseph. Cronica de la Inquisici6n en Espana. Barcelona: Ediciones Martinez Roca, 2002.

Pérez Bocanegra, Juan. Ritual formulario |. . .]. Spanish and Quechua. Lima: Geronymo de Contreras, 1631. Pérez Fernandez, Isacio, O.P. E] Anonimo de Yucay frente a Bartolomé de Las Casas. Estudio y edicion critica del Parecer de Yucay, an6nimo (Valle de Yucay, 16 de marzo de 1571). Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de las Casas,” 1995.

Pérez Gollan, José Antonio, and Inés Gordillo. “Vilca/Uturuncu: Hacia una arqueologia del uso de alucinégenos en las sociedades prehispanicas de los Andes del sur.” Cuicuilco: Revista de la Escuela Nacional de Antropologia e Historia 1 (1994): 95-140.

Pérez Gonzalez, Lilia. “Algunas consideraciones sobre el ‘Sacamantecas’ y el ‘Chupasangres’.” Papeles de Son Armandans 23 (1961): 18.

Pérez Villanueva, Joaquin, and Bartolomé Escandell Bonet, eds. Historia de la Inquisicion en Espana y América. 3 vols. Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, Centro de Estudios Inquisitoriales, 1984-2000. Perry, Mary Elizabeth, and Anne Jlessie] Cruz, eds. Cultural Encounters: The Impact of the Inquisition in Spain and the New World. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991.

Peru durch die Jahrtausende: Kunst und Kultur im Lande der Inka. Ausstellungskatalog Villa Hiigel Recklinghausen: Verlag Aurel Bongers, 1984. Peru: Fe y arte en el Virreynato. Exhibition catalog. Texts by Celso Pastor de la Torre and Luis Enrique Tord. Cordova: Publicaciones Obra Social y Cultural CajaSur, 1999.

Pert indigena y virreinal |. . .]. Edited by Sociedad Estatal para la Acci6n Cultural Exterior. Madrid, Barcelona, Lima: SEACEX, 2004. Peucer, Caspar. Commentarius de praecipuis generibus divinationum, in quo a pro-

phetiis autoritate divina traditis, # a Physicis coniecturis, discernuntur artes & imposturae Diabolicae, atque observationes nalae ex superstitione |. . .]. Wittenberg: 1560; Wittenberg: Hans Lufft, 1572; Wittenberg: J. Schwertel, 1576; Wittenberg: Hans Lufft, 1580; Zerbst: Buonaventura Faber, 1591; Frankfurt am Main: Apud Claudium Marnium & haeredes Ioann. Aubrii, 1607.

Phipps, Elena. “Garments and Identity in the Colonial Andes.” In The Colonial Andes: Tapestries and Silverwork, 1530-1830, by Elena Phipps, Johanna Hecht, and Cristina Esteras Martin, 17-39. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2004.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 421

Phipps, Elena, Johanna Hecht, and Cristina Esteras Martin. The Colonial Andes: Tapestries and Silverwork, 1530-1830. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2004.

Picinelli, Filippo. Mondo simbolico |. . ./. Milan: Stampatore Archepiscopale, Francesco Mognaga, 1653 (imprint date: 1654).

Pictschmann, Richard. La ‘Historia indica’ de Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa. Nota preliminar de Alberto Tauro. Translated by Federico Schwab. Revised by Ernesto More. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, 1964. Originally published as Geschichte des Inkareiches von Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa (Berlin: Weidmann, 1906).

Pillsbury, Joanne, ed. Guide to Documentary Sources for Andean Studies, 15301900. 3 vols. Edited in collaboration with the Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2008. ——. Moche Art and Archaeology in Ancient Peru. Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art / New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001. Pimentel, Juan. “The Iberian Vision: Science and Empire in the Framework of a Universal Monarchy, 1500-1800.” In Nature and Empire: Science and the Colonial Enterprise, edited by Roy MacLeod, 17-30. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Pingree, David. “The Diffusion of Arabic Magical Texts in Western Europe.” In La diffusione delle scienze islamiche nel medioevo europeo: Roma, 2-4 ottobre 198 4, convegno internazionale, edited by Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Fondazione Leone Caetani e dall’Universita di Roma La Sapienza, Facolta di lettre, Dipartimento di studi orientali, 57-102. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1987.

Pino Diaz, Fermin del, ed. Dos mundos, dos culturas o de la historia (natural y moral) entre Espana y el Peru |. . .]. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert; Madrid: Iberoamericana, 2004. Piso, Willem |Piso, Gulielmus]. De indiae utriusque re naturali et medica libri quatuordecim, quorum contenta pagina sequens exhibet. Amsterdam: Lowijs and Daniel Elzevier, 1658.

Pizarro, Francisco. Testimonio: Documentos oficiales, cartas y escritos varios |. . .]. Edited by Guillermo Lohmann Villena. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1986.

Pizarro, Pedro. Relacién del descubrimiento y conquista de los reinos del Pert. Edited by Guillermo Lohmann Villena. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catoélica del Peru, 1978.

Platt, Tristan. “The Alchemy of Modernity: Alonso Barba’s Copper Cauldrons and the Independence of Bolivian Metallurgy (1790-1890).” Journal of Latin American Studies 32 (2000): 1-54.

—— .“Espejos y maiz: Temas de la estructura simbolica andina.” Cuadernos de Investigacion (La Paz) 10 {1976}: 1-30.

—— . “From the Island’s Point of View: Warfare and Transformation in an Andean Vertical Archipelago.” Journal de la Société des Américanistes 95, no. 2 (2009): 33-70.

——."The Sound of Light: Emergent Communication through Quechua Shamanic

422 THE POWER OF HUACAS

Dialogue.” In Creating Context in Andean Cultures, edited by Rosaleen HowardMalverde, 196-229. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. —_——. “Symmetries en miroir: Le concept de yanantin chez les Macha de Bolivie.” Annales HSS 5-6 (1978): 1081-107.

—_— . “Writing, Shamanism, and Identity, or Voices from Abya-Yala.” History Workshop Journal 34 (1992): 132-41.

Platt, Tristan, Thérése Bouysse-Cassagne, and Olivia Harris, with the spirit of Thierry Saignes, eds. Qaragara-Charka: Mallku, inka y rey en la provincia de Charcas (siglos XV-X VII): Historia antropologica de una confederaci6n aymara. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos / La Paz: Plural, 2006.

Plaza, Manuel. “Ni dioses ni demonios: Pensamiento y vida en las reducciones jesuitas de mojos (siglos X VII-XVIII).” Anuario de la Academia Boliviana de Historia Eclesidstica § {1990}: 223-32. Plinius Caecilius Secundus, Gaius. Natural History in Ten Volumes. Vol. 2. The Loeb Classical Library, 330. Translated by Hlarris] Rackham. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967.

Polia Meconi, Mario. La cosmovision religiosa andina en los documentos inéditos del archivo romano de la Compania de Jestis (1581-1752). Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Pert, 1999.

—. Las lagunas de los encantos: Medicina tradicional andina del Peru septentrional. Piura: Central Peruana de Servicios, Club Grau, 1988. ——.“La mesa curanderil y la cosmologia andina.” Antropologica 13 (1995): 23-53.

—. La sangre del condor: Chamanes de los Andes. Lima: Fondo Editorial del Congreso del Peru, 2001. —_—— . “Siete cartas inéditas del archivo romano de la Compania de Jestis (1611-1613): Huacas, mitos y ritos andinos.” Antropologica 14 {1996}: 209-59. Polia Meconi, Mario, and Fabiola Chavez Hualpa. “Ministros menores del culto, sha-

manes y curanderos en las fuentes espanoles de los siglos XVI-XVII.” Antropol6gica 12 (1994): 7-48.

Polo de Ondegardo, |Juan]. “Del linaje de los ingas y como conquistaron (1571).” In Jnformaciones acerca de Ia religion, 4:45-95, 139. Lima: Sanmarti, 1917. —— . “De los errores y supersticiones de los indios, sacadas del tratado y averigua-

cion que hizo el Licenciado Polo.” In Informaciones acerca de la religion y gobierno de los incas (1571) seguidas de las instrucciones de los Concilios de Lima. 2 vols. Notas biograficas y concordancias de los textos de Horacio H. Urteaga, biografia de Polo de Ondegardo de Carlos Alberto Romero. Coleccion de libros y documentos referentes a la historia del Pert, vol. 3-4, 3:3-208. Lima: Sanmarti, 1916.

——. “Instruccion contra las ceremonias y ritos que usan los indios.” In Doctrina cristiana y catecismo para instruccion de los indios. 2 vols. Vol. 1: Introduccion: Del genocidio a la promocion del indio. Corpus Hispanorum de Pace 26, no. 1, 253-83. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1986. — . “Relacion de los adoratorios de los indios en los cuatro caminos (ceques} que salian del Cuzco (1571).” In Informaciones acerca de Ia religion, 4:3-45. Lima: Sanmarti, 1917.

Ponce Leiva, Pilar, ed. Relaciones hist6rico-geograficas de la Audiencia de Quito: Siglos XVI-XIX. 2 vols. Vol. 1: Siglo XVI, vol. 2: Siglos XVII-XIX. Foreword by

BIBLIOGRAPHY 423

Pilar Ponce Leiva and Francisco de Solano. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Centro de Estudios Hist6ricos, 1991, 1992. Porras Barrenechea, Raul, ed. Cartas del Perti (1524-1543) |. . .]. Lima: Sociedad de Biblidfilos Peruanos, 1959.

— . Los cronistas del Peru (1528-1650) y otros ensayos. Foreword by Franklin Pease Garcia Yrigoyen. Bibliography by Félix Alvarez Brun and Graciela Sanchez Cerro; revised, enlarged and actualized by Oswaldo Holguin Callo. Lima: Banco de Crédito del Peru, 1986. Porta, Giambattista della [Della Porta, Giovanni Battista]. Magiae naturalis, sive de miraculis rerum naturalium, libri LIT. Naples: Matthias Cancer, 1558; Antwerp: Ex officina Christophori Plantini [Christoffel Plantijn], 1561; Antwerp: Joannes Steelsius, 1562.

Prado, Pablo de. Directorio espiritual en la lengua espanola, y quichua general del inga. Lima: Jorge Lopez de Herrera, 1641. Presta, Ana Maria, and Catherine Julien. “Polo Ondegardo (ca. 1520-1575).” In Guide to Documentary Sources [.. .], edited by Joanne Pillsbury, 3:529-35. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2008.

Prieto, Andrés. Missionary Scientists: Jesuit Science in Spanish South America. Nashville, KY: Vanderbilt University Press, 2011.

Protimus, Melippus |pseud. of Vopiscus Fortunatus Plemp]. Anlimus Conyegtius, Peruviani Pulveris febrifugi defensor repulsus a Melippo Protimo Belga. Antwerp: n.p., 1655.

Protzen, Jean-Pierre. Inca Architecture and Construction at Ollantaytambo. With Original Drawings by Robert Batson. New York: Oxtord University Press, 1993. Puente Luna, José Carlos de la. Los curacas hechiceros de Jauja: Batallas mdgicas y legales en el Peru colonial. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Pert, 2007. Pulgar Vidal, Javier. Geografia del Peru: Las ocho regiones naturales, la regionalizacidn transversal, la microregionalizacion. 9th ed. Lima: PEISA, 1987. Querejazu, Pedro, ed. Las misiones jesuiticas de Chiquitos. La Paz: Fundacion BHN, Linea Editorial, La Papelera, 1995. Quezada, Noemi. Enfermedad y maleficio: El curandero en el México colonial. 2nd ed. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Antropologicas, 2000. Quilter, Jeffrey. Treasures of the Andes: The Glories of Inca and Pre-Columbian South America. London: Duncan Baird, 2005.

Quintana, Agustin de. Oraci6n panegirica en la solemnidad de nuestro serdfico padre S. Francisco. Lima, 1660.

Quiroga, Pedro de. Libro intitulado coloquios de la verdad, trata de las causas e inconvenientes que impiden la doctrina e conversion de los indos de los reinos del Piru [. . .]. Edited by |Eusebio-|Julian Zarco|-Bacas y| Cuevas. Seville: Tip. Zarzuela, 1922.

Rabi Chara, Miguel. “La proteccion de la salud.” In Lima en el siglo XVI, edited by Susana Aldana Rivera and Laura Gutiérrez Arbulu, 365-455. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Pert, 2005. Ramirez, Juan Andrés. “La novena al Senor de Qoyllur Rit’i.” Allpanchis Phuturinga 1 {1969}: 61-88.

424 THE POWER OF HUACAS

Ramirez, Susan Elizabeth. “From People to Place and Back Again: Back Translation as Decentering: An Andean Case Study.” Ethnohistory 53, no. 2 (2006): 355-81. —— . The World Upside Down: Cross-Cultural Contact and Conflict in SixteenthCentury Peru. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996. Ramos, Gabriela. Muerte y conversion en los Andes: Lima y Cuzco, 1532-1670. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, 2010. —— . “Politica eclesiastica, cultura e historia.” Colonial Latin American Review 11 (2002): 139-45.

—— .. “Politica eclesiastica y la extirpacion de la idolatria: Discursos y silencias en torno al Taqui Oncoy.” Revista Andina 19 (1992): 147-69.

—— . “El tribunal de la Inquisici6n en el Pert, 1605-1666: Un estudio social.” Cuadernos para la Historia de la Evangelizacién en América Latina 3 (1988): 93-127.

———., ed. La venida del reino: Religién, evangelizacion y cultura en América. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Regionales “Bartolomé de las Casas,” 1994. Ramos, Gabriela, and Henrique [Osvaldo] Urbano, eds. Catolicismo y extirpaci6n de idolatrias, siglos XVI-X VIII: Charcas, Chile, México, Peru |. . .]. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Regionales “Bartolomé de las Casas,” 1993.

Ramos Gavilan, Alonso. Historia del santuario de Nuestra Senora de Copacabana. Edited by Ignacio Prado Pastor. Lima: Edici6n Ignacio Prado Pastor, 1988. Originally published as Historia del celebre santuario de Nuestra Senora de Copacabana, y sus milagros e invencion de la Cruz de Carabuco (Lima: Geronimo Contreras, 1621).

Randall, Robert. “Del tiempo y del rio: El ciclo de la historia y la energia en la cosmologia incaica.” Boletin de Lima §4 (1987): 69-94. ——. “Los dos vasos: Cosmovision y politica de la embriaguez desde el inkanato hasta la colonia.” In Borrachera y memoria: La experiencia de lo sagrado en los Andes, edited by Thierry Saignes, 73-112. La Paz: Hisbol / Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, 1993. —— . “Qoyllur Rit’i, an Inca Fiesta of the Pleiades: Reflections on Time and Space in the Andean World.” Bulletin de l'Institut Francais d’Etudes Andines 9 (1982): 37-81.

Rappaport, Joanne. “Imagining Andean Colonial Culture.” Ethnohistory 49 (2002): 687-701.

—_—. The Politics of Memory: Native Historical Interpretation in the Colombian Andes. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998. Recopilacion de leyes de los reynos de las Indias. 3 vols. Madrid: Por la vidua de D. Joaquin Ibarra, 1791. 4th ed. Madrid: Consejo de la Hispanidad, 1943.

Redden, Andrew. Diabolism in Colonial Peru, 1560-1750. London: Pickering and Chatto, 2008. Regalado de Hurtado, Liliana. “En torno a las confesiones prehispanicas a partir de un memorial del siglo XVI.” In Sobre los incas, edited by Liliana Regalado de Hurtado and Francisco Hernandez Astete, 229-53. Lima: Instituto Riva-Agtiero, 2011.

——. Flinca Titu Cusi Yupanqui y su tiempo: Los incas de Vilcabamba y los primeros cuarenta anos del dominio espanol. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catoélica del Pert, 1997.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 425

Reglamento general de la Universidad Nacional de San Marcos. Lima: ImprentaC. A. Castrill6n, 19209.

Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo. Goldwork and Shamanism: An Iconographic Study of the Gold Museum of the Banco de la Republica, Colombia. Edited by Benjamin Villegas. Revision of the English text by Jimmy Weiskopf. Bogota: Villegas Editores, 2005. Reinhard, Johan. Machu Picchu: The Sacred Center. Lima: Nuevas Imagenes, 1991. 2nd ed., Cuzco: Instituto Machu Picchu, 2002. 4th rev. ed., Machu Picchu: Exploring an Ancient Sacred Center, Los Angeles: University of California, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, 2007. Relacion cierta y auténtica de un milagro, que la divina majestad de Dios N. Senor se digno de obrar con el Capitan Don Pedro de Tapia y Peralta vecino de la ciudad del Cuzco mudo, y paralitico por tiempo de mas de dos anos |. . .]. Lima, 1692. Relacion de la salud milagrosa, que dio el bienaventurado Stanislao Kostka, novicio de la Compania de Jesus, a otro novicio de la misma Compania, en la casa de probacion de San Antonio Abad de la ciudad de Lima [. . .]. Madrid: n.p., 1674. Relacion de los agustinos. See Castro de Trelles, Lucila. René Moreno, Gabriel. Catalogo del archivo de mojos y chiquitos. Santiago de Chile: Impr. Gutenberg, 1888. 2nd ed., La Paz: Libereria Editorial Juventud, 1973. Resines |Llorente], Luis. Catecismo del sacromonte y doctrina christiana de fray Pedro de Feria: Conversion y evangelizacién de moriscos e indios. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 2002. Reverter-Pezet, Guillermo. Las cofradias en el virreynato del Peru. Lima: G. ReverterPezet, 1985.

Ribadeneyra, Pedro de. Bibliotheca scriptorum Societatis Iesu: Post excusum anno 1608 catalogum R.P. Petri Ribadeneirae Societatis eiusdem theologi; nunc hoc

nouo apparatu librorum ad annum reparatae salutis 1642 editorum concinnata [...]. Edited by Philippe Alegambe. Antwerp: Ioannes Meursius, 1643. ——. Obras escogidas del padre Pedro de Rivadeneira de la Compania de Jestis: Con una noticia de su vida y juicio critico de sus ecritos |. . .]. Edited by Vicente de la Fuente. Madrid: M. Rivadencyra, 1868. Ricard Lanata, Xavier. Ladrones de sombra: El universo religioso de los pastores del Ausangate {Andes surperuanos). Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, 2.007.

Riero, Fray Alonso de. Oy ha de ser: Resolucion cristiana. Lima, 1694. Risse, Guenter B. “Medicine in New Spain.” In Medicine in the New World: New

Spain, New France, and New England, edited by Ronald L. Numbers, 12-64. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1987.

——. “Transcending Cultural Barriers: The European Reception of Medicinal Plants from the Americas.” In Botanical Drugs of the Americas in the Old and New Worlds: [.. .] | Amerikanische pflanzliche Arzneien in der Alten und Neuen Welt: [. . .], edited by Wolfgang-Hagen Hein, 31-43. Stuttgart: Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, 1984. Riviére, Gilles. “Lik’ichiri y kharisiri, a proposito de las representaciones del otro en la sociedad aymara.” Bulletin de l'Institut Francais d’Etudes Andines 20 (1996):

53-0.

426 THE POWER OF HUACAS

——. “Quadripartition et ideologie dans les communautes aymaras de carangas (Bolivie).” Bulletin de l'Institut Francais d'Etudes Andines 7, no. 3-4 (1983): 41-62.

Rivilla Bonet y Pueyo, José de [also attributed to Pedro José de Peralta Barnuevo Rocha y Benavides]. Desvios de la naturaleza o tratado de el origen de los monstros [.. .]. Lima: Imprenta Real, por Joseph de Contreras y Alvarado, 169s. Robin Azevedo, Valérie. “La petrificacidn de los antiguos en Chumbivilcas (Cuzco, Pert): De la wanka prehispanica al actual ramadero.” Revista Espanola de Antropologia Americana 40 (2010): 219-38. Robles, Lucas de. Serm6n del dulcisimo nombre de Marta que predico en Ia catedral de la ciudad del Cuzco [.. .]. Lima, 1653. Rocca Torres, Luis. “Dimensiones de la interculturalidad afroandino.” In Africanos y pueblos originarios: Relaciones interculturales en el drea andina. Publication of the Conference “Dialogo Intercultural: Afrodescendientes e Indigenas, 19-21 October 2006, Chiclayo el Taller,” edited by Sonia Arteaga Munoz and Luis Rocca Torres, 15-46. Chiclayo: Museo Afroperuano / Quito: UNESCO-Quito, 2007. Rocha, Diego Andrés. Brevis paraphrasis apocalypsis S. Joannis Apost. et evangelistae |. . .]. Lima, 1653.

—. Cara al exc.mo Senor Don Baltazar de la Cueva, Conde del Castellar, Marques de Malagon, Virrey, gobernador, y capitan general de los reynos del Peru, Tierrafirme, y Chile. Lima, 1675. ———.. Tratado unico y singular del origen de los indios del Peru, Méjico, Santa Fe y Chile. Lima: Imprenta de Manuel de los Olivos, por loseph de Contrera, 1681. Reprint, Coleccién de Libros Raros 0 Curiosos que Tratan de América, 3-4. 2 vols. Madrid: Cayetano Garcia, Imp. de Tomas Minuesa, 1891. Rodriguez Carracido, José. El P. José de Acosta y su importancia en Ia literatura cientifica espanola. Madrid: Sucesores de Rivadeneyra, 1899. Rodriguez Fernandez, Francisco. Sermones al milagroso aviso que dio a la ciudad de los reyes la serenisima reyna de los cielos Maria. Lima, 1688. Rodriguez Garcia, Margarita. “La interpretacion de la historia andina en la obra del licenciado Polo de Ondegardo.” In Ciencia, economia y politica en Hispanoameé-

rica colonial, edited by Antonio Gutiérrez Escudero and Ana Isabel Martinez Ortega, 369-78. Seville: Escuela de Estudios Hispanoamericanos, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 2000. Rodriguez Garrido, José A. “La defensa del tomismo por Espinosa Medrano en el Cuzco colonial.” In Pensamiento europeo y cultura colonial, edited by Karl Kohut and Sonia V. Rose, 115-36. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert, 1997. Roelas, Ignacio de las. Admirable vida, y virtudes herdicas del venerable y penitente padre Andres Nunez de la Compania de Jesus. Lima, 1672. Roel Pineda, Josafath. “Creencias y practicas religiosas en la provincia de Chumbivilcas.” Historia y Cultura 2 {1966}: 25-32. Rogers, Francis Millet]. The University of San Marcos in Lima, Peru. Lima: Talleres de la Imprenta de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, 1961. Rojas, Carlos. Hierbas y plantas medicinales: Las hierbas y plantas mds utilizadas. Madrid: Libertarias / Prodhufi, Distribuidora Antonio L. Mateos, 1997. Romero Romero, Catalina. “Tres bibliotecas jesuitas en pueblos de misién: Buenavista, Paila y Santa Rosa, en la region de moxos.” Revista de Indias 52 (1992): 889-921.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 427

Ronan, Charles E[dward]. Juan Ignacio Molina: The World’s Window on Chile |. . .]. New York: Lang, 2002. Ronan, Charles E[dward], and Walter Hanisch |Espindola]. Epistolario de Juan Ignacio Molina. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Universitaria, 1979. Roper, Lyndal. Oedipus and the Devil: Witchcraft, Sexuality, and Religion in Early Modern Europe. London: Routledge, 1994. ——. Witch Craze: Terror and Fantasy in Baroque Germany. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004. Rosales, Diego de. Historia general del reino de Chile, Flandes Indiano. Seleccion, prdlogo y notas de Alfonso Calderén. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Universitaria, [19692].

Résing, Ina. Der Blitz: Drohung und Berufung, Glaube und Ritual in den Anden Boliviens. Munich: Trickster Verlag, 1990.

——. White, Grey and Black: Kallawaya Healing Rituals. Translated by Jane Miller. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert, 2010. Rossi, Ino, ed. The Logic of Culture: Advances in Structural Theory and Methods. London: Tavistock, 1982. Rostworowski de Diez Canseco, Maria. Costa peruana prehispdnica: Pré6logo a Conflicts over Coca Fields in Sixteenth-Century Peru. 3rd corrected and enlarged edition. Obras completas, vol. 3. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, 2004. Origi-

nally published in Conflicts over Coca Fields in Sixteenth-Century Peru (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropolgy, 1988).

— . Historia del Tahuantinsuyu. 2nd ed. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, 1999; reprint, 2002. ———. History of the Inca Realm. Translated by Harry B. Iceland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Originally published as Historia del Tahuantinsuyu (Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, 1988).

—. Pachacamac y el Senor de los Milagros: Una trayectoria milenaria. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, 1992. ——. “Un supuesto romance aclarado gracias a un caso de hechiceria—1547.” In

Historia, memoria y ficcién, edited by Moisés Lemlij and Luis Millones, with Dana Caceres, 259-65. Lima: Seminario Interdisciplinario de Estudios Andinos, 1996.

Rotschuh, Karl Eduard. Jatromagie: Begriff, Merkmale, Motive, Systematik. Rheinisch-Westfalische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vortrage 225. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1978. Rowe, John H[owland]. “An Account of the Shrines of Ancient Cuzco.” Naupa Pacha 17 (1979): 1-80.

——. “La constitucion inca del Cuzco.” Hist6érica 9 (1985): 35-73.

——. “Inca Culture at the Time of the Spanish Conquest.” In Handbook of South American Indians, vol. 2: The Andean Civilizations, edited by Julian H. Steward, 183-330. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1946. Reprint, New York: Cooper Square Publishers, 1963.

—. An Introduction to the Archaeology of Cuzco [...]. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum, 1944. —_— . “La mentira literaria en la obra de Martin de Murta.” In Libro de homenaje a

428 THE POWER OF HUACAS

Aurelio Miro Quesada Sosa, edited by Estuardo Nunez H., 2:753-61. 2 vols. Lima: Tall. Graf. P. L. Villanueva, 1987. ——. “Religién e imperio en el Pert antiguo.” Antropologia Andina 1, no. 2 {1976}: 5-13.

—— ., ed. “Un memorial del gobierno de los incas del ano 1551.” Revista Peruana de Cultura 9-10 (1966): 27-39. Rowland, Ingrid D[rake]. The Ecstatic Journey: Athanasius Kircher in Baroque Rome. Chicago: Special Collections, University of Chicago Library, 2000. Roxas, Alonso de. Sermon [. . .J: A las honras de Mariana de Jesus, Virgen [lustre en virtudes, y santidad. Lima, 1646. Roxas, Pedro de. Exhortaci6n panegirica, y moral en las rogativas, que hizo la Real Audiencia, y ciudad de autio por los terremotos que ha padecido la ciudad de los reyes Lima: Predicola en 6. de Diciembre de 1687 el sexto dia del novenario en la catedral de Quito. Lima, 1689. Rubio de Aunon, Dicgo Morzillo. Serm6n panegyrico que en las solemnes fiestas que consagro esta Santa Metropolitana Iglesia de Lima por la canonizacion de su grande arzobispo Santo Thoribio Alfonso Mogrovejo |. . ./. Lima, 1729. Ruel, Jean. De natura stirpium, libri tres. Basel: Hieronymus Frobenius et Nicolaus Episcopius, 1537.

Ruggiero, Ettore de, ed. Catdlogo del Museo Kircheriano. Part 1. Rome: Salviucci, 1878.

Ruiz de Montoya, Antonio. La conquista espiritual del Paraguay, hecha por los religiosos de la Compania de Jestis en las provincias de Paraguay, Parana, Uruguay y Tape. Coleccion Historia, no. 33. Asuncion: Editorial El Lector, 1996. Ruiz de Pardo, Carmen. Joya del arte colonial Cuzqueno: Catalogo iconogrdfico de la iglesia de Huanoquite. Lima: Carmen Ruiz de Pardo, 2004. Ruiz Lé6pez, Hipolito. Memoria sobre la legitima Calaguala y otras dos raices que con el mismo nombre nos vienen de la América meridional |. . .]. Madrid: Imprenta de D. José del Collado, 1805. — . Relacion historica del viaje, que hizo a los reynos del Pertti y Chile el botdnico D. Hipélito Ruiz en el ano de 1777 hasta el de 1788, en cuya €poca regreso a Madrid. 2 vols. Edited by Jaime Jaramillo-Arango. 2nd. ed. Madrid: Academia de Sciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales de Madrid, 1952. Sacchini, Francesco. Historiae Societatis Jesu pars quarta sive Everhardus. Rome: Domenico Manelfi, 1652. ——.. Historiae Societatis Jesu pars tertia sive Borgia. Rome: Manelfo Manelf, 1649.

Saignes, Thierry, ed. Los Andes orientales: Historia de un olvido. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, 1985.

— . Borrachera y memoria: La experiencia de lo sagrado en los Andes. La Paz, Hisbol, Lima: Instuto Francés de Estudios Andinos, 1993. —— . “‘Tdolatrie sans extirpateur’: Chamanisme et religion dans les Andes orientales, Pelechuco, 1747.” In Cultures et sociétés: Andes et Méso-Amérique [. . .], edited by Raquel Thiercelin, 2:711-31. 2 vols. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l'Université de Provence, 1991.

Sainz Ollero, Héctor, Holios Sainz Ollero, Francisco Suarez Cardona, and Miguel Vasquez de Castro Ontanon. José Sanchez Labrador y los naturalistas jesuitas del

BIBLIOGRAPHY 429

Rio de la Plata: |. . .]. Madrid: Ministerio de Obras Publicas y Urbanismo, Centro de Publicaciones, 1989. Salazar-Soler, Carmen. “Alvaro Alonso Barba: Teorias de la antigtiedad, alquimia y creencias prehispanicas en las ciencias de la tierra en el Nuevo Mundo.” In Entre dos mundos: Fronteras culturales y agentes mediadores, edited by Berta Ares Queija and Serge Gruzinski, 269-99. Seville: Escuela de Estudios HispanoAmericanos, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1997. ——. “Las huacas y el conocimiento cientifico en el siglo XVI: A propésito del descubrimiento de las minas de Potosi.” In Saberes y memorias en los Andes, edited by Thérése Bouysse-Cassagne, 237-59. Paris: Institut des Hautes Etudes de l’‘Amérique Latine, 1997.

—— . “El Pishtaku entre los campesinos y los mineros de Huancavelica.” Bulletin de l'Institut Francais d’Etudes Andines 20 (1991): 7-22. —— . “Plinio historiador de entonces, profeta de ahora: La antigtiedad y las ciencias de la tierra en el virreynato del Peru (siglo XVI e inicios del XVII).” In La formacion de la cultura virreinal, vol. 1: La etapa inicial, edited by Karl Kohut and Sonia V. Rose, 345-75. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert, 2000. Saldana, Juan José. “Cross Cultural Diffusion of Science: Latin America.” Cuadernos de Quipu 2 {1987}: 33-57.

——, ed. Historia social de las ciencias en América Latina. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Coordinacién de Humanidades—Coordinacion de la Investigacion Cientifica, M. A. Porrua, 1996. Salduendo, Franxisco Xavier, S.J. Los siete dngeles del Apocalipsis en siete sermones de los siete miércoles de Quaresma, que predico en Ia iglesia catedral de Lima. Lima, 1695.

Salinas y Cordoba, Buenaventura de. Memorial de las historias del Nuevo Mundo, Piru. Lima, 1631. Con introduccion de Luis E[duardo] Valcarcel y un estudio sobre el autor de Warren L Cook. Edited by Instituto de Etnologia y Arqueologia de la

Facultad de Letras de la Universidad Mayor de San Marcos. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, 1957. Salles-Reese, Veronica. From Viracocha to the Virgin of Copacabana: Representation of the Sacred at Lake Titicaca. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1997. Sallmann, Jean-Michel, Serge Gruzinski, Antoinette Molinié Fioravanti, and Carmen

Salazar. Visions indiennes, visions baroques: Les métissages de l'inconscient. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1992. Salomon, Frank [Loewen]. “Avila, Francisco de (ca. 1573-1647).” In Guide to Documentary Sources |. . .]/, edited by Joanne Pillsbury, 2:58-—64. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2008. ——. “How the Huacas Were: The Language of Substance and Transformation in the Huarochiri Quechua Manuscript.” Res 33 (1998): 7-17. ——. “Shamanism and Politics in Late-Colonial Ecuador.” American Ethnologist 10 {1983}: 413-27.

Salomon, Frank [Loewen], and Stuart B. Schwartz, eds. Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas, vol. 3, pt. 1: South America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Salomon, Frank |Loewen], and George L. Urioste, eds. The Huarochiri Manuscript: A

430 THE POWER OF HUACAS

Testament of Ancient and Colonial Andean Religion |compiled by Francisco de Avila, ca. 1598]. Translation from the Quechua by Frank Salomon and George L. Urioste. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1991. Sanchez, Ana. Amancebados, hechiceros y rebeldes (Chancay siglo XVII) |. . .]. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de las Casas,” 1991. ——. “Mentalidad popular frente a ideologia oficial: El] Santo Oficio en Lima y los casos de hechiceria {siglo XVII)}.” In Poder y violencia en los Andes, by Henrique Urbano, edited by Mirko Lauer, 33-35. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de las Casas,” 1991. ———. “‘E] talisman del diablo’: La Inquisicion frente al consumo de coca (Lima, siglo XVII).” Revista de la Inquisici6n 6 (1997): 139-62.

Sanchez Bella, Ismael. “El gobierno del Peru, 1556-1564.” In Anuario de Estudios Americanos, 17:407-524. Seville: Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos, 1958. Sanchez Canton, Francisco Javier, ed. Inventarios reales: Bienes muebles que pertenecieron a Felipe IT. Archivo Documental Espanol 11. 2 vols. Madrid: Real Academia de Historia, 1956, 1959.

Sanchez-Concha Barrios, Rafael. Santos y santidad en el Pert virreinal. Prologue by Guillermo Lohmann Villena and preface by Bertrand de Margerie. Lima: Vida y Espiritualidad, 2003. San Pedro, Fray Juan de. La persecucion del demonio: Cronica de los primeros agustinos en el norte del Pert (1560). Manuscrito del Archivo de Indias, transcribed by Eric E. Deeds. Introduction by Teresa von Ronzelen. Estudios preliminares by Luis Millones, John R. Topic, and José L. Gonzalez. Malaga: Ed. Algazara, 1992. Santillan, Hernando de. “Relacion del origen, descendencia, politica y gobierno de los incas.” In Tres relaciones de antigtiedades peruanas, edited by Marcos Jiménez de la Espada, 1-133. Madrid: Imprenta y Fundicion de M. Tello, 1879. Sarabia Viejo, [Maria] Justina, and Isabel Arenas Frutos, eds. Europa e Iberoamérica: Cinco siglos de intercambios |. . .]. 3 vols. Vol. 2, Seville: Asociacion de Historiadores Latinoamericanistas Europeos, 1992. Sarmiento, Ernesto. El arte virreinal en Lima. Lima: Editorial Arica, [1971]. Sarmiento de Gamboa, Pedro. Historia de los incas. Madrid: Miraguano Ediciones, Ediciones Polifemo, 1988.

——. History of the Incas. Translated by Clements Rlobert] Markham. Cambridge: Hakluyt Society, 1907. Reprint, Mineola, NY: Dover, 1999. Originally published as Historia general Hamada indica— Historia de los incas |1572). ——. The History of the Incas. Translated and edited by Brian S. Bauer and Vania Smith. Introduction by Brian S. Bauer and Jean-Jacques Decoster. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2007. Originally published as Historia general llamada indica— Historia de los Incas |1572).

——. Narratives of the Voyages of Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa to the Straits of Magellan. Translated and edited by Clements R. Markham. London: Hakluyt Society, 1895. Originally published as Viage al estrecho de Magallanes por el capitan Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa en los anos de 1579 y 1580, y noticia de la expedici6n que después hizo para poblarle. Edited by Bernardo de Iriarte. |Madrid: Imprenta Real de la Gazeta, 1768]. Sauer, Jonathan D. “Changing Perception and Exploitation of New World Plants in

BIBLIOGRAPHY 431

Europe, 1492-1800.” In First Images of America: The Impact of the New World on the Old, edited by Fredi Chiappelli, Michael J[/ohn] Blridgman] Allan, Robert Llouis] Benson, and Allen Benson, 2:813-30. 2 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976. Schafer, Peter, and Hans Glerhard] Kippenberg, eds. Envisioning Magic: A Princeton Seminar and Symposium. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997.

Schenone, Hector. Iconografia del arte colonial: Los santos. 2 vols. Buenos Aires: Fundacion Tarea, 1992. Schiebinger, Londa L., and Claudia Swan, eds. Colonial Botany: Science, Commerce, and Politics in the Early Modern World. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005. ——. “Focus: Colonial Science: Forum Introduction: The European Colonial Science Complex.” Isis 96 (2005): 52-55. Schindler, Helmut. The Norbert Mayrock Art Collection from Ancient Peru. Munich: Staatliches Museum ftir Volkerkunde, 2000. English edition of Die Kunstsammlung Norbert Mayrock aus Alt-Peru (Munich: Staatliches Museum ftir V6lkerkunde, 2000). Schindler, Helmut, and Franz Xaver Faust. “Relaciones interétnicas de los curanderos en el suroccidente colombiano.” Antropol6gica 18 (2000): 281-94. Schott, Kaspar, S.J. Physica curiosa, sive Mirabilia naturae et artis, libris XII comprehensa |...]. 2nd ed. Nuremberg, Wurzburg: Johann Andreas Endter, Wolfgang Endter, Johann Jobst Hertz, 1667.

—. Technica curiosa, sive mirabilia artis, libris XI comprehensa [. . .]. Nuremberg, Wurzburg: Johann Andreas Endter, Wolfgang Endter, Johann Jobst Hertz, 1664.

——. Thaumaturgus physicus sive magiae universalis naturae et artis pars IV et ultima, in VIII libros digesta [. . .]. Frankfurt am Main, Wurzburg: Johann Gottfried Sch6nwetter, 1659. Schroeder, HJenry] J/oseph], ed. Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent: Original Text with English Translations. St. Louis: Herder Book Co., 1955.

Schwartz, Stuart B., and Frank Salomon. “New Peoples and New Kinds of People: Adaptation, Readjustment, and Ethnogenesis in South American Indigenous Societies (Colonial Era).” In The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas, vol. 3: South America, pt. 2, edited by Stuart B. Schwartz and Frank Salomon, 443-501. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Scribner, Robert W. “The Reformation, Popular Magic, and the ‘Disenchantment of the World.’” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 23 (1993): 475-94. Seiner Lizaraga, Lizardo. Historia de los sismos en el Peru: Catalogo, siglos XV-XVII. Lima: Universidad de Lima, Fondo Editorial, 2009. Selwyn, Jennifer D. A Paradise Inhabited by Devils: The Jesuits’ Civilizing Mission in Early Modern Naples. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004. Sevilla, Isidor de. Etimologias: Version castellana total, por vez primera, e introducciones particulares de don Luts Cortés y G6ngora. Madrid: Talleres Graficos Montana, 1951.

Sharon, Douglas [Gregory]. Wizard of the Four Winds: A Shaman’s Story. New York: Free Press, 1978.

432 THE POWER OF HUACAS

Sharon, Douglas Glregory|, and Richard Cowan. Eduardo the Healer: Motion Picture, written and produced by Douglas G[regory] Sharon and Richard Cowan. Oakland, CA, 1978.

Sheehan, Jonathan. “Introduction: Thinking About Idols in Early Modern Europe.” Journal of the History of Ideas 67, no. 4 {2006}: 561-69.

——. “Temple and Tabernacle: The Place of Religion in Early Modern England.” In Making Knowledge in Early Modern Europe: Practices, Objects, and Texts, 1400-1800, edited by Pamela H. Smith and Benjamin Schmidt, 248-72. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007. Shimada, Izumi. Cultura sicdn: Dios, riqueza y poder en la costa norte del Pertti. Con la colaboracion de Jorge Montenegro, Yutaka Yoshii, and Elmer Atalaya. Lima: Fundacion del Banco Continental para el Fomento de la Educacion y la Cultura, Edubanco, 1995.

Las siete partidas del rey Don Alfonso el Sabio: Cotejadas con varios cédices anttguos por la Real Academia de la Historia. [Alfonso X, rey de Castilla y de Leon; 1221-1284]. 3 vols. Madrid: Imprenta Real, 1807. Facsimile reprint, Madrid: Ediciones Atlas, 1972.

Los siglos de oro en los virreinatos de América, 1550-1700 |. . .]. Edited by Museo de América, Madrid, and Joaquin Bérchez. Madrid: Sociedad Estatal para la Conmemoracion de los Centenarios de Felipe II y Carlos V, 2000. Silverblatt, Irene Marsha. “El arma de la hechiceria.” In Mujeres invadidas: La sangre de la conquista de América, edited by Verona Stolke, 121-71. Madrid: Horas y Horas, 1993.

——."“The Evolution of Witchcraft and the Meaning of Healing in Colonial Andean Society.” Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry 7 (1983): 413-27. ———. Modern Inguisitions: Peru and the Colonial Origins of the Civilized World. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004.

—. Moon, Sun, and Witches: Gender Ideologies and Class in Inca and Colonial Peru. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987.

——. “Political Memories and Colonizing Symbols: Santiago and the Mountain Gods of Colonial Peru.” In Rethinking History and Myth: Indigenous South American Perspectives on the Past, edited by Jonathan Dfavid] Hill, 174-94. Urbana, Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1988. Silverman, Helaine, and Donald A[llen] Proulx. The Nasca. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002.

—— . “Representacion grafica del mito Inkarri: Los tejidos Q’ero.” Boletin de Lima 48 {1986}: 59-71.

Siracusano, Gabriela. El poder de los colores: De lo material a lo simbélico en las practicas culturales andinas, siglos XVI-X VIII. Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Economica de Argentina, 2005. Smith, Pamela H., and Paula Findlen. Merchants and Marvels: Commerce, Science, and Art in Early Modern Europe. New York: Routledge, 2002. Solis, Antonio de. Tesoro de la iglesia Catélica [. . .]. Lima: Impresso por Iorge Lopez de Herrera, 1650.

Solominos D’Ardois, German. “Francisco Hernandez in New Spain.” In History of Latin American Civilization: Sources and Interpretations, vol. 1: The Colonial Experience, edited by Lewis Hanke, 402-6. London: Methuen, 1969.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 433

Soto Arango, Diana, Miguel Angel Puig Samper, and Luis Carlos Arboleda, eds. La ilustracion en América colonial: Bibliografia critica. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1995. Sotomayor, Joseph Delgadillo de. Arte de predicar: Preceptos de San Pedro Chrysologo [. . .]. Lima, 1676.

Spalding, Karen. Huarochiri: An Andean Society under Inca and Spanish Rule. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1984. Splendiani, Anna Maria, José Enrique Sanchez Bohoérquez, and Emma Cecilia Luque

de Salazar, eds. Cincuenta anos de Inguisicion en el tribunal de Cartagena de Indias, 1610-1660. 4 vols. Santafé de Bogota: Centro Editorial Javeriano, Instituto Colombiano de Cultura Hispanica, 1997. Stanish, Charles. Ancient Titicaca: The Evolution of Complex Society in Southern Peru and Northern Bolivia. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2.003.

Stavig, Ward. Amor y violencia sexual: Valores indigenas en la sociedad colonial. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos; Tampa: University of South Florida, 1996. Steele, Paul Rlichard], and Catherine J. Allen. Handbook of Inca Mythology. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio, 2004. Stephenson, Marcia. “From Marvelous Antidote to the Poison of Idolatry: The Transatlantic Role of Andean Bezoar Stones during the Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Century.” In Hispanic American Historical Review 90, no. 1 (2010): 3-39.

Stern, Steve. Peru’s Indian Peoples and the Challenge of Spanish Conquest: Huamanga to 1640. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1982. —— .“E] Taki Ongoy y la sociedad andina (Huamanga, siglo XVI).” Allpanchis Phuturingad 16, no. 19 (1982): 49-77.

—— _, ed. Resistance, Rebellion, and Consciousness in the Andean Peasant World, 18th to 20th Centuries. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987. Steward, Julian H. “Medical Practices of the Inca and Earlier Central Andean Civilizations.” In Handbook of South American Indians, vol. 2: The Andean Civilizations, edited by Julian H. Steward, 621-43. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1946. New ed., New York: Cooper Square, 1963. Stobart, Henry. Music and the Poetics of Production in the Bolivian Andes. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006. Stoyanov, Yuri P. “Der Magier als Haresiarch in der mittelalterlichen orthodoxen Haresiologie.” In Der Magus: Seine Ursprtinge und seine Geschichte in ver-

schiedenen Kulturen, edited by Anthony T. Grafton and Moshe Idel, 27-64. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2001.

Stratton-Pruitt, Suzanne L., ed. The Virgin, Saints, and Angels: South American Paintings, 1600-1825, from the Thoma Collection |. . ./. Stanford, CA: Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Center for Visual Arts at Stanford University, in association with SKIRA, Milan, 2006.

Suardo, Juan Antonio. Diario de Lima (1629-1634). 2 vols. Lima: Universidad Catoélica del Pert, Instituto de Investigaciones Hist6ricas, 1936. Szeminski, Jan. “Acerca de las posibilidades de encontrar huellas de una larga tradicidn hist6érica en las fuentes del siglo XVI y XVII.” In Los Andes: Cincuenta anos después (1953-2003) |. . .], edited by Ana Maria Lorandi, Carmen Salazar-Soler, and Nathan Wachtel, 317-39. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Pert, 2003.

434 THE POWER OF HUACAS

——. Un kuraca, un dios y una historia: “Relacion de antigtiedades de este reyno del Piru” por don Juan Santa Cruz Pachacuti Yamqui Salca Maygua. Bucnos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Seccion Antropologia Social (ICA}, Facultad de Filosofia y Letras, UBA/MLAL, 1987.

Tambiah, Stanley Jeyaraja. “Form and Meaning of Magical Acts.” In A Reader in the Anthropology of Religion, edited by Michael Lambek, 340-57. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002.

Tardieu, Jean-Pierre. Le nouveau David et la réforme du Pérou: L’affaire Maria Pizarro-Francisco de la Cruz (1571-1596). Bordeaux: Maison des Pays Ibériques, 1992.

Taussig, Michael. “Folk Healing and the Structure of Conquest in Southwestern Colombia.” Journal of Latin American Lore 6 {1980}: 217-78.

——. Shamanism, Colonialism, and the Wild Man: A Study in Terror and Healing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986. Tavarez, David. The Invisible War: Indigenous Devotions, Discipline, and Dissent in Colonial Mexico. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2011. Taylor, Gerald. “Camay, Camac et Camasca dans le manuscrit quechua de Huarochiri.” Journal de la Société des Américanistes 64 (1974-76): 231-44. ———. “Curas y zorros en la tradicion oral Quechua.” Museo del Oro 16 (1986): 59-65.

—. Sermones y ejemplos: Antologia bilingtie castellano-quechua—siglo XVII /...]. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, 2002. —— . “Supay.” Amerindia § (1980): 47-63.

—. La tradicién oral quechua de Chachapoyas. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, 1996. —— , ed. Ritos y tradiciones de Huarochirt: Manuscrito quechua de comienzos del siglo XV. Colonial-era narratives compiled by Francisco de Avila, ca. 1598. Version paleografica, interpretacion fonologica y traduccion al castellano by Gerald Taylor. Estudio biografico sobre Francisco de Avila by Antonio Acosta. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, 1987. Title of the Quechua manuscript is Runa, yndio, Niscap Machoncuna faupa pacha. Taylor, William B. Magistrates of the Sacred: Priests and Parishioners in EighteenthCentury Mexico. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996. Taylor, William B., and Franklin Pease Glarcia]| Y[rigoyen], eds. Violence, Resistance, and Survival in the Americas: Native Americans and the Legacy of Conquest. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994. Tejado Fernandez, Manuel. Aspectos de la vida social en Cartagena de Indias durante el seiscientos. Seville: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Escucla de Estudios Hispano-Americanos, 1954. Tello, Julio C. “Wira Cocha.” Inca: Revista Trimestral de Estudios Antropologicos 1 (1923}: 583-605.

Ten, Antonio E. “Ciencia e ilustracion en la Universidad de Lima.” Asclepio (Madrid) 41 (1988): 187-221.

Tercero cathecismo y exposicion de la doctrina christiana, por sermones [.. ./. Lima: Antonio Ricardo, 1585. Facsimile reprint of the trilingual edition in Doctrina christiana y catecismo para instrucci6n de indios. Corpus Hispanorum de Pace 26, No. 2, 333-777. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1985.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 435

Tertullian. De idololatria. Critical text edition. Translated and edited by J. H. Waszink and J.C. M. van Winden. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987. Theodorus, Jacobus. Eicones plantarum seu stirpium |...]. Edited by Nikolaus Basse. Frankfurt am Main: Basse, 1590. Thesaurus secretorum curiosorum [.. .]. Coloniae Allobrogum [Cologny (Geneva)]: Sumptibus Socictatis, 1709. Thiercelin [Mejias], Raquel. Cultures et sociétés—Andes et Méso-Amérique: Mélanges en hommage a Pierre Duviols. 2 vols. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence, Service des Publications, 1991. Thomas, Keith. Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century England. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971. Reprint, New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Thornton, John Klelly]. Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World, 1400-1680. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. —— . “On the Trail of Voodoo: African Christianity in Africa and the Americas.” The Americas 44 (1988): 261-78.

Thurneysser zum Thurn, Leonhardt. Historia sive descriptio plantarum tam domesticarum quam exoticarum |.. .]. Cologne: Apud Ioannem Gymnicum, 1587. Todorov, Tzvetan. Cruce de culturas y mestizaje cultural. Translated by Antonio Desmonts. Madrid: Ediciones Jucar, 1988. Originally published as Le croisement des cultures (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1986). Toledo, Francisco de. “Las informaciones del virrey sobre los incas.” In Don Francisco de Toledo, supremo organizador del Peru: Su vida, su obra (1515-1582), vol. 2: Sus informaciones sobre los incas (1570-1572), edited by Roberto Levillier, 3-204. Buenos Aires and Madrid: Espasa-Calpa, S.A., 1940. —_—. “Libro de la visita géneral del virrey Don Francisco de Toledo, 1570-1575.” Revista Historica 7 {1924}: 115-216.

Tomoeda, Hiroyasu. “Curanderos urbanos: Salud y ritual en el Cuzco contemporaneo.” In El Qosgo |... ./, edited by Hiroyasu Tomoeda and Jorge A. Flores Ochoa, 189-98. |Tokyo]: Ministerio de Educaciéon del Jap6; Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Andinos Cuzco, 1992. —_— .“Estética del ritual andino.” In Dioses y demonios del Cuzco, edited by Hiroyasu Tomoeda, Luis Millones, and Takahiro Kato, 189-219. Lima: Fondo Editorial del Congreso de la Republica, 2001. Tomoeda, Hiroyasu, Tatsuhiko Fujii, and Luis Millones, eds. Entre dios y el diablo:

Magia y poder en la costa norte del Peru. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, 2004. Torquemada, Antonio de. Giardino de fiori curiosi, in forma di dialogo; diviso in sei trattati [.. .]. Venice: Altobello Salicato. Alla libreria della tortezza, 1590. Originally published as Jardin de flores curiosas |. . .] (Salamanca: Juan Baptista de Terranova, 1570).

Torreblanca Villalpando, Francisco. Daemonologia sive de magia naturali, daemo-

niaca, licita et illicita, deque aperta et occulta interventione et invocatione daemonis libri quatuor |. . .J. Mainz |Moguntia]: Sch6nwetter, 1623. Torres, Constantino M. “Iconografia Tiwanaku en lo parafernalia inhalatoria de los Andes Centro-Sur.” In Boletin de Arqueologia PUCP, part 2, edited by Peter Kau-

436 THE POWER OF HUACAS

licke and William H. Isbell, 427-54. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru, 2001, Torres Bollo, Diego de, S.J. Relatione breve |. . .] circa il frutto che si raccoglie con gli Indiani di quel Regno [.. .]/. Rome: L. Zannetti, 1603. Torres della Pina, José, ed. Mestizo del renacimiento al barroco andino. Lima: Impuso Empresa de Servicios, 2008.

——. Plata: Transformacion en el arte precolombino del Peru. Lima: Patronato Plata del Pert, 2000. Torres Rubio, Diego de. Arte, y vocabulario de la lengua quichua general de Ios indios de el Peru |. ..]. New edition. Lima: Imprenta de la Plazuela de San Christoval, 1754.

———. Arte de la lengua quichua (Lima, 1619). Con las adiciones que hizo Juan de Figueredo. Prélogo y biografias de los autores mencionados de Luis A. Pardo. Edited by Luis A. Pardo and Carlos Galimberti Miranda. Cuzco: Editorial H. G. Rozas, 1963.

Torres Saldamando, Enrique. Los antiguos jesuitas del Peru: Biografias y apuntes para su historia. Lima: lmprenta Liberal, 1882. Trabulse, Elias. Historia de la ciencia en México: Estudios y textos. Vol. 1 {siglo XVI): La aparicion de un nuevo mundo; vol. 2 {siglo XVII}: El claroscuro de la ciencia mexicana del siglo barroco. Mexico: Conacyt, Fondo de Cultura Econémica, 1983, 1984.

Treutlein, Theodore E. “The Jesuit Missionary in the Role of Physician.” MidAmerica 22 (1940): 120-41.

Tschopik, Harry. Magia en Chucuito: Los aymara del Peru. Translated by Rosalia Avalos de Matos. Mexico City: Instituto Indigenista Interamericano, 1968. Originally published as The Aymara of Chucuito, Peru, vol. 1: Magic (New York: American Museum of Natural History, 1951}.

Ulloa |y de la Torre-Guiral], Antonio de. Noticias americanas: Entretenimientos phisicos-historicos, sobre la América meridional, y la septentrianal [sic] oriental |. ..]. Madrid: Imprenta de Don Francisco Manuel de Mena, 1772. Urbano, Henrique [Osvaldo], ed. Mito y simbolismo en los Andes: La figura y la palabra. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de las Casas,” 1993.

— . Poder y violencia en los Andes. Edited by Mirko Lauer. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de las Casas,” 1991.

—. Wiracocha y Ayar: Héroes y funciones en las sociedades andinas. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de las Casas,” 1981.

Urteaga, Horacio H., ed. Los cronistas de la conquista |. . .]. Paris: Desclée, de Brouwer, 1938.

Urton, Gary, ed. Animal Myths and Metaphors in South America. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1985. ——. Inca Myths: The Legendary Past. Austin: University of Texas Press; London: British Museum Press, 1999. Valcarcel, Carlos Daniel. Historia de la Universidad de San Marcos (1551-1980). Caracas: Academia Nacional de la Historia, 1981. Valdés, José Manuel. Vida admirable del bienaventurado Martin de Porres |. . .]. 4th ed. Reimpresa de Manuel I. Hernandez. Lima: Lumen, 1938.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 437

Valdizan, Hermilio. Apuntes para la bibliografia médica peruana. Lima: Imprenta Americana, 1928.

——. Historia de la medicina peruana. Lima: Ediciones Hora del Hombre, 1944. Valdizan, Hermilio, and Angel Maldonado. La medicina popular peruana: Contribucion al folklore médico del Pert. 3 vols. Lima: Imprenta Torres Aguirre, 1922. Valdizan Gamio, José. Historia naval del Peru. Prologo por Luis E. Valcarcel. 5 vols. Lima: Ministerio de Marina, Direcci6n General de Intereses Maritimos, 1980 [1981]-1993.

Valera, Blas. “Relacién de las costumbres antiguas de los naturales del Piru.” In Tres

relaciones de antigtiedades peruanas, edited by Marcos Jiménez de la Espada, 136-227. Madrid: Imprenta y Fundicion de M. Tello, 1879.

Valero Garcia, Pilar. La Universidad de Salamanca en la época de Carlos V. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 1988. Vallée, Lionel. “El discurso mitico de Santa Cruz Pachacuti Yamqui.” Allpanchis Phuturinga 12 {1983}: 103-27.

Valverde, José Luis, and José A. Pérez Romero. Drogas americanas en fuentes de escritores franciscanos y dominicos. Granada: Universidad de Granada, 1988. van de Guchte, Maarten. Carving the World: Inca Monumental Sculpture and Landscape. PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1990. ——. “Invention and Assimilation: European Engravings as Models for the Drawings of Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala.” In Guaman Poma de Ayala: The Colonial Art of an Andean Author, edited by Rolena Adorno, Tom Cummins, Teresa Gisbert, Maarten van de Guchte, Mercedes L6pez-Baralt, and John V. Murra, 92-109. New York: Americas Society, 1992. Vargas Machuca, Francisco de. Médicos discursos, y prdctica de curar el sarampion, y el fatal morbo |... .]/. Lima: Joseph de Contreras y Alvarado, 1694.

Vargas Machuca, Juan de. Prodigio milagroso del Occidente: El Nino crédito de Pisco, y admiracion de Lima, Francisco [de Soto] en el nombre, en el habito, y en la humilidad, milagro de la gracia, y novedad de la naturaleza. Lima, 1667. Vargas Ugarte, Rubén. El beato Martin de Porras. Buenos Aires: Casa Editoria “Coni,” 1949.

——. Historia de la Compania de Jestis en el Peru. 4 vols. Vol. 2: 1621-99; vol. 4: 1703-67. Burgos: Imprenta de Aldecoa, 1963-65.

— . Historia de la iglesia en el Peru. 5 vols. Burgos: Imprenta de Aldecoa; Lima: Imprenta Santa Maria, 1953-62. ——. Historia del Colegio y Universidad de San Ignacio de Loyola de la ciudad del Cuzco (1600). Texts of Antonio de Vega Loaiza and others. Lima: Talleres de la Compania de Impr. y Publ., Enrique Bustamante y Ballivian, sucesor, 1948. ——. Historia del culto de Maria en Iberoamérica y de sus imdgenes y santuarios mds celebrados. 2 vols. 3rd ed. Madrid: Talleres Graficos Jura, San Lorenzo, 1956. ———. Historia del Santo Cristo de los Milagros. Lima: Editorial Lumen, 1949.

—. Historia general del Peru. 6 vols. Vol. 1: El descrubimiento y la conquista (1524-1550); vol. 2: Virreinato (1551-1596); vol. 3: Virreinato (1596-1689). Lima: Carlos Milla Batres, 1966. —_—— . Impresos peruanos: 1651-1699. Vol. 3. Lima: Editorial San Marcos, 1954. ——. Los jesuitas del Pertti (1568-1767). Lima: n.p., 1941.

438 THE POWER OF HUACAS

——. Los jesuitas del Peru y el arte. Lima: Talleres Iberia Offset, Libreria e Impr. Gil, 1963.

—_—.. Jesuitas peruanos desterrados a Italia. Lima: La Prensa, [1934]. 2nd ed., Lima: n.p., 1967.

——. Relaciones de viajes (siglos XVI, XVII y XVIII). Lima: Instituto de Investigaciones Historicas, 1947. —— ., ed. Concilios limenses (1551-1772). Vol. 1 (of 3). Lima: Tipografia Peruana, 1951.

Varon Gabai, Rafael. “El Taki Onqoy: Las raices andinas de un fendmeno colonial.” In El retorno de las huacas: Estudios y documentos sobre el Taki Ongoy, siglo XVI, edited by Luis Millones and Sara Castro-Klarén, 331-405. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, Sociedad Peruana de Psicoandalisis, 1990. Vega, Alonso de la. Las religiones del Peru [.. .]. N.p., 1704.

Vega Bazan, Estanislao de. Testimonio auténtico de una idolatria muy sutil, que el demonio habia introducido entre los indios de las provincias [sic] de Conchucos, y Guamalies |. . .]. Lima, 1656. Vega |Loaiza], Antonio de. Historia o enarracion de las cosas sucedidas en este colegio del Cuzco destos reynos del Peru desde su fundacién hasta hoy primero de noviembre dia de todos santos ano de 1600 (1620). Vols. 1 and 3 are included and edited in Historia del Colegio y Universidad de San Ignacio de Loyola de la ciudad del Cuzco, with introduction and notes by Rubén Vargas Ugarte, S.J., 1-126. Lima: Talleres de la Compania de Impr. y Publ., Enrique Bustamante y Ballivian, sucesor, 1948.

Vera e nuova relatione: Dun grandissimo mostro apparso nella citta di Quito in India adi 20. di Febbraio 1628: Tradotta dalla Spagniola in Italiana. Florence, [1628].

Vickers, Brian. “Analogy versus Identity: The Rejection of Occult Symbolism, 15801680.” In Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance, edited by Brian Vickers, 95-163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Vidal Ortega, Antonino. “Entre la necesidad y el temor: Negros y mulatos en Carta-

gena de Indias a comienzos del siglo XVII.” In Negros, mulatos, zambaigos: Derroteros africanos en los mundos ibéricos [. . ./, edited by Berta Ares Queija and Alessandro Stella, 89-104. Seville: Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 2000. Vilchis [Reyes], Jaime A., and Victoria Arias |Roca], eds. Ciencia y técnica entre Viejo y Nuevo Mundo: Siglos XV-XVIII. Barcelona, Madrid: Lunwerg Editores, 1992. Villabona, Fray Antonio de. Sermon del SS. Sacramento del altar, predicado en la santa iglesia catedral de la ciudad del Cuzco |. . .]. Lima, 1658. Villagomez |y Vevanco], Pedro de. Carta pastoral de exortacion e instrucci6n contra las idolatrias de los indios del arzobispado de Lima |. . ./. Lima: por Jorge Lopez de Herrera, 1649.

—.. Exorlaciones e instruccion acerca de las idolatrias de los indios del arzobispado de Lima |. . .]. Edited by Carlos A{lberto] Romero and Horacio H. Urteaga. Lima: Sanmarti, 1919. Villanueva Urteaga, Horacio, ed. Cuzco 1689 [documentos]: Informes de los pdrrocos al Obispo Mollinedo; Economia y sociedad en el sur andino. Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de las Casas,” 1982.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 439

——. Fundacion de la Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad. Cuzco: Editorial de la Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cuzco, 1987. ——. Historia del Colegio Nacional de Ciencias del Cuzco. Cuzco: Asociacion de Profesores del Colegio Nacional de Ciencias del Cuzco, Editorial Garcilaso, 1956. —— .“EF] testamento y la biblioteca de Ignacio de Castro.” Revista del Archivo General de la Nacion 2 (1974): 155-65. Villarejo, Avencio. Los agustinos en el Pert (1548). Lima: Ed. “Ausonia S. A.,” 1965.

Villena, Enrique de. Arte cisoria, 6 tratado del arte del cortar del cuchillo, que escrivid Don Henrique de Aragon, Marques de Villena: la da a Luz. Madrid: Marin, 1766. Vocabulario y phrasis en la lengua general de los indios del Peru, Llamada quichua y enla lengua espanola |...]. [Impreso] por Antonio Ricardo. Ano de M.D.L.XXXVI. 5th ed. Edited by Guillermo Escobar Risco. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, 1951.

Volger, Gisela, and Karin von Welck, eds. Rausch und Realitét: Drogen im Kulturvergleich. Mit einem Vorwort von René Ké6nig. 3 vols. Reinbeck bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1982. von Bracara, Martin [Martinus Bracarensis]. Martin von Bracara’s Schrift De correc-

tione Rusticorum |. ..] mit Anmerkungen begleitet und mit einer Abhandlung liber dieselbe sowie tiber Martins Leben und tibrige Schriften eingeleitet von C/arl] Plaul] Caspari. Edited by Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft zu Christiania. Christiania: Malling, 1883. Wachtel, Nathan. La Foi du souvenir: Labyrinthes marranes. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 2001.

—. Gods and Vampires: Return to Chipaya. Translated by Carol Volk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Originally published as Dieux et vampires: Retour a Chipaya (Paris: Ed. du Seuil, 1992). ——. “Men of the Water: The Uru Problem (Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries}.” In Anthropological History of Andean Polities, edited by John V. Murra, Nathan Wachtel, and Jacques Revel, 283-310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

——. “Nota sobre el problema de las identidades colectivas en los Andes meridionales.” In Arqueologia, antropologia e historia en los Andes: Homenaje a Maria Rostorowski, edited by Rafael Var6n Gabai and Javier Flores Espinoza, 677-90. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, 1997. —_—. Le retour des ancétres: Les Indiens Urus de Bolivie XXe-XVIe siécle: Essai d’histore régressive. Paris: Gallimard, 1990. — . La vision des vaincus: Les Indiens du Pérou devant la Conquéte espagnole, 1530-1570. Paris: Gallimard, 1971. Wachtel, Nathan, John V. Murra, and Jacques Revel, eds. Anthropological History of Andean Polities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Walcott Emmart, Emily, ed. [Martin de la Cruz: Libellus de medicinalibus Indorum herbis] The Badianus manuscript (Codex Barberini, Latin 241) Vatican Library; an Aztec herbal of 1552. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 1940. Walker, Charles F. Shaky Colonialism: The 1746 Earthquake-Tsunami in Lima, Peru, and Its Long Aftermath. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008.

440 THE POWER OF HUACAS

——. Smoldering Ashes: Cuzco and the Creation of Republican Peru, 1780-1840. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999. Wandel, Lee Palmer. Voracious Idols and Violent Hands: Iconoclasm in Reformation Zurich, Strasbourg, and Basel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Warren, Adam. Medicine and Politics in Colonial Peru: Population Growth and the Bourbon Reforms. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010. Waxman, Samuel Montefiore. “Chapters on Magic in Spanish Literature.” Revue Hispanique 38 (1916): 325-463.

Weidner, Johann Leonhard [his pseudonym: Gratianus Leosthenes Salicetus]. Elixir Jesuiticum sive Quinta essentia Jesuitarum |. ..].|Amsterdam? Arnheim?], 1645. Weismantel, Mary. Cholas and Pishtacos: Stories of Race and Sex in the Andes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. Whitaker, Arthur P|reston]|, ed. Latin America in the Enlightenment. 2nd ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1961. Wicki, Josef, S.J. “Die miscellanea epistolarum des P. Athanasius Kircher S.J. in missionarischer Sicht.” Euntes Docete: Commentaria Urbaniana 21 (1968): 221-54. Wier, Johannes [Johannes (or Johann) Weyer]. Witches, Devils, and Doctors in the Renaissance: Johann Weyer: De praestigiis daemonum. Translated by John [R.] Shea. Foreword by John |J.| Weber. Edited by George Mora and Benjamin Kohl, with collaborators Eric Middlefort and Helen Bacon. Binghamton, NY: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, 1991. Originally published as De praestigiis daemonum, et incantationibus, ac veneficiis, libri V (Basel: Johannes Oporin, 1563).

Wightman, Ann Miargaret]. Indigenous Migration and Social Change: the Forasteros of Cuzco, 1570-1720. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1990. Wilbert, Johannes. “Gaukler Schamanen der Waro.” In Amerikanistische Studien. Estudios Americanistas. Festschrift fir Hermann Trimborn anldfslich seines 75. Geburtstages. Libro Jubilar en homenaje a Hermann Trimborn con motivo de su septuagésimo quinto aniversario. Vol. 1 (of 2), edited by Roswitha Hartmann and Udo Oberem, 294-99. St. Augustin: Haus der Vélker und Kulturen, Anthropos Institut, 1978. Witekind, Hermann [his pseudonym: Augustin Lercheimer von Steinfelden]. Christlich Bedencken und Erinnerung von Zauberey |. . .]. Speyer: Bernhart Albin, 1597. Wittich, Johann. Bericht von den wunderbaren Bezoardischen Steinen |. . .]. Leipzig: Hans Steinmanns Erben, 1589; Leipzig: Michael Lantzenberger, 1592; Arnstadt: Typis Voegelinianis; 1601; Heidelberg: Typis Voegelinianis, 1612. Wittkower, Rudolf. Allegorie und der Wandel der Symbole in Antike und Renaissance. Translated by Benjamin Schwarz. Cologne: DuMont, (1983, 1996) 2002. Originally published as Allegory and the Migration of Symbols (London: Thames and Hudson, 1977). Wood, Stephanie [Gail]. Transcending Conquest: Nahua Views of Spanish Colonial Mexico. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2003. Wuftarden, Luis Eduardo. “Avatares del ‘bello ideal’: Modernismo clasicista versus tradiciones barrocas en Lima, 1750-1825.” In Visidn y simbolos del virreinato criollo a la republica peruana, by Ramon Mujica Pinilla et al., 113-59. Lima: Banco de Crédito, 2006.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 441

Xerez, Francisco de. Verdadera relacion de la conquista del Peru. Edited by Maria Concepcion Bravo Guerreira. Madrid: Historia 16, 1985; 2nd ed., 1988. Yaranga Valderrama, Abdon. “Taki Ongo ou la vision des vaincus au XVIIe siécle.” In Les mentalités dans la Péninsule Ibérique et en Amérique Latine aux XVIe et XVIle siécles: Histoire et problématique |. . .], 149-79. Tours: Publications de l'Université de Tours, 1978. Young-Sanchez, Margaret, ed. Tiwanaku: Ancestors of the Inca |... .]. Denver: Denver Art Museum / Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2004. Yupanqui, Diego de Castro, Titu Cussi. Instruccion al licenciado don Lope Garcta de Castro (1570): Inca Titu Cusi Yupangui. Estudio preliminar. Edited by Liliana Regalado de Hurtado, paleogratia by Deolinda Villa E., and indices by Juan Dejo B. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catoélica del Pert, 1992. Zahn, Johannes. Specula physico-mathematico-historica notabilium ac mirabilium sciendorum |. . .]. 3 vols. Nuremberg: Johann Christoph Lochner—Johann Leonhard Knorz, 1696.

Zambelli, Paola. The Speculum Astronomiae and its Enigma: Astrology, Theology, and Science in Albertus Magnus and His contemporaries. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992.

Zarate, Agustin de. Historia del descubrimiento y conquista del Perti. Anvers: Martin Nucio, 1555. Reprint, edited by Franklin Pease Glarcia] Y{rigoyen] and Teodoro Hampe Martinez. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru, 1995. Zevallos Quinones, Jorge. “La visita de Ferrenafe (Lambayeque) in 1568.” Historia y Cultura 9 (1975): 155-78.

Zidlkowski, Mariusz S. “Los wakakuna de los cusquenos.” In Los dioses del antiguo Peru, 2:269-303. Lima: Banco de Crédito del Pert, 2001. Zorilla Eguren, Javier. “El hombre andino y su relacién magico-religiosa con la coca.” In La coca andina: Vision indigena de una planta satanizada, 147-60. Coyoacan, Mexico City: Joan Boldé i Climent, Instituto Indigenista Interamericano, 1986. Includes material originally published in América Indigena 38, no. 4 (1978). Zuidema, [Reiner] Tom. E/ calendario inca: Tiempo y espacio en la organizacion ritual del Cuzco: La idea del pasado. Lima: Fondo Editorial del Congreso del Peru; 3010:

——. The Ceque System of Cuzco: The Social Organization of the Capital of the Inca. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964.

—. Inca Civilization in Cuzco. Translated by Jean-Jacques Decoster. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1990. Originally published as La civilisation inca au Cuzco (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1986).

——. “The Lion in the City: Symbols of Transition in Cuzco.” Journal of Latin American Lore 9 (1983): 39-100.

——. “The Lion in the City: Royal Symbols of Transition in Cuzco.” In Animal Myths and Metaphors in South America, edited by Gary Urton, 183-251. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1985. ——. “Mito e historia en el antiguo Pert.” Allpanchis Phuturinga 10 (1977): 15-52. ———. “Myth and History in Ancient Peru.” In The Logic of Culture: Advances in Structural Theory and Methods, edited by Ino Rossi, 150-75. South Hadley, MA: J. F. Bergin Publishers; London: Tavistock Publications, 1982.

442 THE POWER OF HUACAS

——. “La parenté et le culte des ancestres dans trois communautés péruviennes: Un compte rendu de 1622 par Hernandez Principe.” In Signes et Langages des Amérigues, Recherches amérindiennes au Quebec 3 (1973): 129-145.

——. “El puente del rio Apurimac y el origen mitico de la Villca (Anadenanthera colubrina)}.” In Amerikanistische Studien: Estudios Americanistas [.. .], edited by Roswitha Hartmann and Udo Oberem, 2:322-34. 2 vols. St. Augustin: Haus der Volker und Kulturen, Anthropos Institut, 1979. ———. “The Tairona of Ancient Colombia.” In The Ancient Americas: Art from Sacred Landscapes, edited by Richard F. Townsend, 245-58. Chicago: Art Institute / Munich: Prestel Verlag, 1992. —— . “El ushnu.” Revista de la Universidad Complutense 28 (1979): 317-62. Zupanov, Ines G. Disputed Mission: Jesuit Experiments and Brahmanical Knowledge in Seventeenth-Century India. New Delhi, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

INDEX

Abarca, Antonia de, 131, 227 ancestors, 22, 71, 102, 108, 110, 170, 188.

absolution, 120 See also mallquis

Acosta, José de: on demons, 16, 17; on Anco, Joseph, 211 the might of hechizeros, 24, 25, 196; Andagua, 229 on Tupac Amaru, 29, 59; on confes- Andahuaylas, 50 sions, 41, 42, 43, 44; arrival in Peru, Andahuaylillas, 210, 211 49, 65; on “speaking idols,” 105; on Andean and Incan canon of sins, 11, 38, ministers of the devil, 117, 256; on in- 39, 41 doctrination, 135; on poisons, 148;0n Andean-Christian dialogue, 3, 100, 192, indigenous rituals, 152; on Christian 250, 255, 257, 259, 264, 267, 268

symbols, 159; on coca, 240 Andean-Christian transcultural dynam-

actions, 254 ICS, 14, 267

advocates of the Indians, 192, 232, 252 Andean commoners, 4, §, 12, 137, 151, 175,

Afro-Peruvian concepts of maleficio, 176, 180, 182; assimilations, 155, 158,

206, 266 229, 266; beliefs in maleficio, 193,

Afro-Peruvian ritual specialists, 2, 224, 228, 230. See also assimilations 227; on Incas and coca, 225. See also Andean concept of fertility, 6, 72, 173,

interactions 175, 176, 220, 241, 257, 267; and mounagnus dei amulets, 147, 148 tains, 24; and huadcas, 83, 85, 86; ParaAgrippa von Nettesheim, 187 cas, 90; huacangui, 96; and mall-

Aguado, Teresa de, 206 quis, 142; and yllas, 169, 171; and

Aguardiente, 7, 225 conopas, 170 Aji, 51 Andean concept of harm, 192, 193, 197, alabaster (piedra Huamanga), 162, 170, 200, 221, 222, 228, 266

189, 241 Andean concept of nature, 3, 6, 12,

Albarade, Melchor, 212 192, 193, 259, 260, 262, 268. See also Albornoz, Cristobal de, 18, 50, 51, 53, 168, Andean concept of embodiment

225,226, 261 Andean concept of sickness or health,

alchemist, 234, 236, 237 3,6, 14, 68, 96, 176, 257, 259, 265; in

alchemy, 246 Inca times, 11, 38, 39, 40, 41; and

Aldadado, Gerénimo, 246 sacred geography, 13; Taki Onkoy, Aldrovandi, Ulisse, 241 50, 52, 75, 76, 77; distinction between

Almagro, Diego de, 29 Spanish and Andean sicknesses, 182; Altamirano, Diego Francisco, 153, 157 dissatisfaction of hudcas, 261; hope

Altomisayugq, 100, 168, 173, 260 in health, 267 Alvarez, Bartolomé, 105, 106 Andean concept of social harmony, 3, 6

Amaru, 94 Andean concept of the coexistence of

Amauta, 1, 137 cultures, 3, 6, 14, 76, 258, 259, 260,

Amazonian cultures, 88 263, 265; Taki Onkoy, 53; during the Amazon region, 7, 87, 145 seventeenth century, 154, 156, 158

Ammann, Paul, 200 Andean concept of the embodiment of

444 THE POWER OF HUACAS

powers, 3, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 141, 157, 206; agers of virtues, 260; their integra-

Huayna Capac, 70; and distrust in tion of Catholic objects in rituals,

Catholic objects, 173; and Andean 262 objects, 183; as cultural parameter, Andean symbols, 6, 257, 261, 271

259, 260, 261, 262, 265 angels, 106, 127. See also Andean objects Andean concepts of human powers, 15 and birds, bezoar stones, coca, the

Andean cosmology, 174, 215 color white, fat, huacanquis, stones, Andean diagnosis and therapy of sick- villca, yllas

nesses, 183 animism, 70

Andean dualities, 96, 128, 141 Antarqul, 61, 62

Andean figurines, 140, 204 Anti, 36

Andean herbal knowledge, 22, 238 Antidotes, 202, 222, 241, 242, 262. See

Andean memory, 70, 97, 99, 166, 259, also contrahierba, villca 260; death without commemoration, antiquarianism, 192, 253, 270

97, 265; memory of the Incas, 191 Antisuyo, 36

Andean myths, 6 ape, 131

Andean notion of the holy, 70, 75, 76, Apollo, 104 146, 253, 259, 260, 262. See also Apus, 76, 96, 128, 173, 268 Andean notion of embodiment Areche, José Antonio de, 230 Andean notions about transformation, Arequipa, 14, 130, 132, 133, 149, 256, 264;

12, 96 during the eighteenth century, 229,

Andean objects/instruments, 5, 255, 257, 230)931 260, 267, 271. See also coca, cuys, Arriaga, Pablo José de, 18, 43, 113, 116,

feathers, maize, plants, powders, 117, 118, 121, 124, 200; on the extirpa-

sebo, stones, toads, yllas tion of idolatry, 119, 127; on the casa

Andean practices, 267 Santa CruZ, 123; aS visitator, 124; on Andean religious specialists, 2, 3, 8, hierarchical classification of sor13, 23, 29, 32, 40, 44, 98, 112, 128; as cerers, 124; on Lima’s discourse on priests, 1; as heirs of the Inca, 49, magic, 125; on chupadores, 126, 261; 256; and Christianity as a problem, on gestures, 143; on rosaries, 153; his

68, 76; their communication with own archacological search, 157; on huacas, 83, 249, 257; and the powers assimilation, 159; on Santiago, 162; of birds, 85, 87, 91; concept of the on evil spells, 203, 204; on huacanAndean religious specialist, 86; and Quis, 226, 227; ON Coca, 240; On ac-

wind, 108; in the seventeenth cen- tions, 255 tury, 136; their resistance toward Asnaran, Maria Isidora, 122 Catholic objects, 137, 153, 154, 166, assimilations, 7, 8, 9, 13, 229, 258, 262, 167, 171, 173, 261, 265; on assimilation 264, 266, 271 toward Christianity, 155, 156, 261; astrologer, talismanic, 236, 237. See also

their invocation of saints and God, Sarmiento de Gamboa 172, 173; as diviner, specialist in fer- astrology, 246

tility, and healer, 177, 257; trust in Asuncion, 230 Inca power, 181; and the color white, | Atacama desert, 87, 223

189; their changing role and func- Atahualpa, 29, 59; conflict with Huastion, 192, 254, 257, 262; as healers of Car, 195 maleficios, 193, 206; as herbalists, Atavillos Altos, 196 198; of the high Andes, 254; as man- Atuncar, Domingo, 231

INDEX 445

Audiencia of Chile, 9 Bellezo, Anna, 214 Audiencia of Lima, 9, 56, 205 Bermudez de la Torre y Solier, Pedro Audiencia of Quito, 9, 104, 132, 226; José, 246 during the eighteenth century, 14, Bertonio, Ludovico, 43, 104, 139 130, 194, 207, 210, 229, 231, 236, 256, bezoar stones, 6, 168, 169, 241, 242, 270

258, 264 birds, 12, 28, 80; condor, 35, 81, 83, 92,

Augustine, 16, 21, 42 130, 206, 226, 230; swift, 81, 83;

Augustinians, 35, 105, 137, 255 falcon, 81, 83; their veneration in Augustinians of Huamachuco, 17, 18, 77, the Andes, 87; feathers, 88, 175, 183,

171, 188, 201, 202 217, 227; birds and healers, 88; owls,

Aullagas, 105 88; in Amazonian cultures, 88;

Auquivinan, Jer6nimo, 190 hummingbirds, 89; macaws, 89; flaAurai Punanqui, Constancia, 170 mingos, 89; connection with plants, auto-da-fé, 113, 114, 116, 117, 121, 131, 235, go, 91; birds as symbol of life, 91, 102

236 Bisselius, Johannes, 241

Avendano, Fernando de, 43, 113, 117, 125, Bitti, Bernardo, 134 127, 129, 132, 134, 136; on representa- Blas Valera, 39, 41, 62, 139, 223 tion, 141; on miracles, 144; as visi- blood, 17, 52, 75, 77, 125, 126, 164, 176, 203,

tator, 204 249

Avila, Francisco de, 85, 106, 113, 114, bocado, 197, 221. See also poisons 115, 117, 118, 130, 132, 142, 176, 239; on Bodin, Jean, 204

representation, 141; on worship of Boerhaave, Hermann, 251 statues, 147; on worship of huacas, Borgia, Francisco, 63 158; destruction of huacas, 180; on Borracheras, 19, 127, 203 a spring in the Huarochiri district, Botero, Giovanni di, 109 218; on extirpation of idolatry, 256 Boyle, Robert, 251

Ayahuasca, 87, 218 Bracamonte, Didacus, 63

Ayar Auca, 69, 95 bruja, 206, 211, 212. See also witches Ayar Uchu, 69, 95 Bueno, Cosme, 245, 247, 250, 252, 270

Ayaviti, 177 butterflies, 69, 75 Ayllu, 7, 39, 71, 92, 100, 122, 139, 176, 180,

260; and huacas, 75,76, 92; and pros- Cabredo, Rodrigo de, 31, 136, 143, 145,

perity, 102; protection against Span- 146, 167 iards, 165; and figurines, 204 Caceres, Antonio, 128, 129

Ayni, 102, 193 Cacha, 36

Cajamarca, 14, 29, 132, 229, 230, 232, 264

Bacon, Francis, 195, 198, 240, 247 Cajatambo, 44, 133, 165, 184, 185, 206

Badiano, Juan, 199 Calancha, Antonio de la, 23, 24, 25, 222,

Balbue, Catalina, 205 241, 242

Baldung, Hans, 68 Camac, Juan, 177 Bandier,© Sar. 933.934 545,926 947, Camaquen, 100

243, 268 Camascas, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 137, 260;

Barzana, Alonso de, 30, 62, 63 powers of a camasca, 87, 102, 103

Basaquillo, Lorenzo, 210 Campeche, 178

Basse, Nikolaus, 200 Canares, 90, 226 Bauhin, Caspar, 200 Caquiaviri, 135

beans, 84, 189, 209 Carabuco, 27, 28, 30, 33, 35, 38, 135, 160,

446 THE POWER OF HUACAS

161; image of hell, 26, 27, 43, 44, 134; Christian concept of representation

CrOSS, 34, 35, 38, 130, 144 versus Andean concept of embodi-

Cardenas, Juan de, 196 ment, 3, 70, 137, 141

Caribbean, 199, 205, 219, 225, 261 Christian concept of the holy, 4

Cartagena, 131, 227 Christian concept of the natural, the Carua Chumbi, Inés, 128, 173 supernatural, and the preternatural, Carvachin, Hernando, 179 3, 85, 86, 101, 108, 174, 247, 253, 254, casa Santa Cruz, prison, 116, 122, 123, 133 260, 263; Critique of, 270 Castanega, Martin de, 17, 22, 23, 79, 126, Christian cross, 74, 145, 149, 168

159, 199 Christian God, 24, 36, 42, 50, 61, 63, 68,

Castrillo, Hernando, 237, 241, 243, 244, 74, 91,104; power to resurrect, 77;

269 omnipotence, 85, 159, 166; in the dis-

Castro, Don Diego de, 137 course on extirpation of idolatry, 121,

Catacaos, Juliana, 205 127; in Andean perception, 136; his Catequil, 71, 72, 77 power!s, 143, 147, 149, 152; in nature, Catholic confessor as medical doctor, 159; in Andean invocations, 168, 171,

42, 172, 173; miraculous intervention,

Catholic discourse about representation 248, 249, 258 versus embodiment, 137, 138,139,140, Christian images, 4, 152

146, 173 Chucuito, 31, 33, 168

Catholic images, 43, 46, 50, 127, 134, 135, Chumbi, Juana, 172

138, 140, 168, 266 Chumbiconu, Maria, 121 Catholic objects, 142, 146, 150, 258 Chumbivilca, 133, 208

Catholic orthodoxy, 36, 268, 269 Chumbu Julla, Maria, 121

Chancas, 71, 109 Chumiguaman, Xristoval, 182

Chancay culture, 204 Chunchos, 238

Chanchan, Maria, 184 Chupaca, 205, 206 Charcas, 9, 33, 48, 105, 236 chupadores, 125, 126. See pishtacu

Charimango, 23, 24, 85 Chuquiabo, 24

Charles V, 48 Chuquisaca, 24, 34, 48

170 30%. 351

Chaupij Loraz Chaupi, Hernando, 142, Cieza de Le6én, Pedro, 17, 18, 92, 188, 200,

Chavin, 71, 87, 90, 155, 259 Ciruelo, Pedro, 22, 23, 56, 199

Checacupe, 160 Cisneros, Gregorio de, 140, 153

chest, 69 Cisneros y Mendoza, Don Francisco de,

chicha, 7, 74, 78, 203, 212, 225; sprin- 2.05 kling, 45, 176; spilling, 115; with civil authorities, 21, 47, 55, 56, 207, 256, mollo, 160; as Andean offerings, 175, 258, 264 184; in use by Andean religious spe- civil legislation against hechizeros, 56

cialists, 177, 180, 183 Clavius, Christoph, 238

Chiclayo, 111 coast, 258, 261; coastal-highland divide,

Chiriguanos, 48 266 chiromancer, 236, 237 Cobo, Bernabé, 19, 125, 129, 189, 203, 214, chiromancy, 187 215, 217, 218; On COCA, 239, 240, 241; Choque, Catalina, 211 on bezoar stones, 241; as natural sci-

Choque, Isabel, 180 entist, 243, 244, 270

Christian apocalypse, 219 coca leaves, 74, 84, 118, 130, 146, 170, 173,

INDEX 447

175, 176, 185, 206; in use by Spanish, Coyllas, 29, 89, 188

Creole, and Afro-Peruvian ritual craziness, 218, 219 specialists, 193, 227, 228; tiedtofigu- Creole, mestizo and mulatto forms of

rines, 205; in use by Andean reli- hechizeria, 10, 131, 150, 268 gious specialists, 209; coca sellers, Creole experts, 239 236; Creole and European interest Creole lands, 150

In coca, 239, 240 Creole nationhood, 231

Cocobola, Luisa, 206 Creole ritual specialists, 2, 192, 268. Colegio de San Pablo, 150 See also Spanish ritual specialists collas, 28, 39, 141 Creole society, 15, 65, 149, 150, 270 Collasuyo, 28, 35, 226 cross of Pachacamac, 144 colonial libraries, 5, 114, 144, 244, 246, cross of Santa Cruz de la Sierra, 144

256 Cruz, Fray Francisco de la, 60, 64, 65

color black, 130, 187, 205, 215 Cruz, Martin de la, 199

color blue, 186 cultural parameters, 259, 265, 267 colored objects, 187 Cuni Raya, 81, 90 colored powders, 7, 84, 146, 175, 183, 184, Curdcdas, 29, 53, 118, 119, 164

187, 228, 230; blowing of powders, Cuys, 84, 118, 176, 183; white cuys, 184,

102,407; 225 189

color red, 187 Cuzco, 5, 9, 43, 69, 89, 94, 104, 130, 133, color white, 84, 130, 162, 183, 184, 186, 208; eighteenth century, 14, 229, 232, 188, 189, 266; white powder, 172; and 264; Inca identity, 28; Jesuit mission,

Inca heritage, 190 31, 256; Inca heritage, 40, 194; Tupac color yellow, 186, 188 Amaru, 48, 57; Albornoz, 50; Juan de

Concepcién de Chupas, 43 Luna, 54 Conchuco, 133

confession, 5, 115, 132, 135; private, 5; Dahomey, 205, 225 public, 5, 120, 124; false confession, Dario, Lucan;-i152 38; Jesuits on confession, 38, 42; dis- death, 42, 49, 52, 68, 69, 76, 82, 88, 98,

similation in confession, 38; absti- 102, 148; signs of death, 45; Huayna

nence from confession, 39 Capac’s, 75, 97; liberation from confessional manuals, 17, 45, 46, 139, 156 death, 156; as caused by maleficio,

confessions, 26, 35, 41 306; 011, 931

confessor, 1, 266. See also ychuris Delrio, Martin, 22, 120, 129, 132, 204, confraternities/cofradias, 133, 158, 266 236, 245, 247; and Avila, 114, 116, 117

Coninck, Juan Ramon, 244, 245 demonic magicians, 117, 199 conopdas, 140, 141, 145, 169, 176; symbolic demons, 11, 22, 23, 24, 25, 34, 64, 65, 78,

link with fertility, 170 101, 132, 194; devil, 12, 16, 38, 55, 61, 85, contrahierba, 202, 222, 223, 224. See 86, 125, 130, 201, 233, 249; Cieza on

also antidotes demons, 18; Murtia on demons, 21;

Contreras, Ana Maria de, 131 communication with Andean reliconversion, 12, 35, 38, 46, $9, 72, 97, 134, gious specialists, 105, 106, 111, 115,

144, 153, 192 202; hechizeros and demons, 106,

Cordova, Maria de, 131 129, 243, 247, 260; pacts with the

Coroza, 121, 131 devil, 122, 133; cross against demons, Council of Trent, 35, 268 146; and hallucinogens, 203; and

Coyallu, 80 coca, 240; and statues, 245; demonic

448 THE POWER OF HUACAS

actions, 254; satanic omnipresence, types, 113; and notions of maleficio,

263; demonic magic, 270 193, 200, 230 destruction, 6, 71, 72, 75, 76, 98, 141 European discourse on fabricating figu-

dialectical process, 3, 254, 255, 257 rines and on inflicting harm, 6, 204 Diez de Betanzos, Juan, 18, 139, 140 European discourse on magic, 3, 7, 12,

Dioscorides, 241 14, 17, 18, 105, 110, 257, 263, 268; and discourse on Creole, Afro-Peruvian, and its legal heritage, 20; and erudite

mixed-raced hechizeros, 128 magic, 22; and Delrio, 112, 143; and discourse on hechizeria, 5, 13, 14, 20, 23, maleficio, 224; distinction between

267. See also hechizeria natural, demonic, and technical disempowerment of Andean healers, magic, 269, 270

192, European magi, 25, 85, 86, 110, 117, 187,

divination, 19, 62, 79, 111, 183, 184, 203, 188, 236, 244

505,015, 957 Eusevio de la Pena, Thomas, 210

diviner, 1, 28, 111. See also Andean reli- evangelization, 142, 143, 238, 257

gious specialists, spiders, beans, evil harm/evil sorcery, 14, 194, 201, 208,

coca leaves, dreams, maize 210, 228, 230, 258, 260

dog, 92, 179, 188 exorcism, 38, 64, 74, 79, 142, 144 dogmatizadores, 56, 57, 256, 258 extirpation of idolatry, 2, 50, 108, 113, Domingo de Santo Tomas, 30, 64, 139, 113,120; 1395.957

168 Eymerich, Nicolaus, 114, 117, 119, 120, 121

Dominicans, 19, 31, 33, 64, 256

Don Rupaichahua, 123 fat, 5, 6; body fat, 49, 52, 75, 77, 125, 126; dreams, 1, 36, 83, 125, 130, 164 as instrument of Andean religious drugs, 238. See also herbs specialists, 128, 170, 167, 171, 175, 181, drum, 18, 26, 44, 45, 115 183, 185, 205, 206; as symbol of life,

Durer, Albrecht, 68, 130 170; and yllas, 173; as symbol of luck, 171; applied to figures, 205; and sus-

earthquakes in Lima, 63, 235, 247, 248 picion of maleficio, 200, 201, 202,

eclipse, 63 203, 204; toads and lizards wrapped Eguiluz, Diego de, 133 in fat, 209 elm tree, 108 fears, 23, 24, 25, 258, 259; Spanish ones, Enlightenment ideas, 270 Andean ones, 263 epidemics, 68, 69, 76, 149, 163, 164 Feijoo y Montenegro, Benito, 250

erudite magic, 21, 22, 233 felines, 71, 84, 307 Escalante, Tadeo, 220 Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdés, Gonzalo,

Esmeraldas, 207 126

ethnic conflict, 229 Ferrenafe, 223

ethnographers, 256, 270 Ficino, Marsilio, 187, 188 Eucharist, 138, 142, 143 Figueroa y Portocarrero, Pablo, 212 European botanists, 199, 239 First Council of Lima, 56, 122, 198 European cabinets of curiosity, 242 Flores, Juan, 183 European demonology, 78, 79, 258, 263; Florez, Garpan, 130 critique of, 14, 232, 250, 251; and in- flute, 26, 44, 290

sanity, 38; during the seventeenth flying beings, 90, 92 century, 86, 128, 132, 133; different fox, 92, 218

INDEX 449

Franciscans, 19, 137, 159, 198, 200, 238, hampicoc, hambicamayo, 196, 222

243, 269; in Ocopa, 2.46 Hanan Pacha, 92 Fray Francisco de Salamanca, 219 Hapinunos, 33, 93

Frézier, Amédée, 149, 241 Hapsburgs, 88

frog, 219 harp, 44

healers/curanderos, 111, 168, 185, 200,

Galileo Galilei, 251 210, 218, 234, 257, 258, 266. See also gap between theory and practice, 255 Andean religious specialists Garcia Julcapuma, Francisco, 164, 171, hechizerta, 2, 54, 124, 229, 231, 260;

189 Jesuits and hechizeria, 10, 31, 256;

Garcilaso de la Vega, 195, 196, 251 concept of, 11; in the eighteenth

Gaxa Guaman, Diego, 187 century, 264 goat, 130, 131 hechizeros/sorcerers, 1, 31, 67, 100, 208, gold and silver, 159 243, 254, 256; as devil worshippers, Gonzales, Augustina, 205 106, 111, 256, 263; equation with the Gonzalez Holguin, Diego, 30, 36, 21, 139, heretic, 113, 117, 128, 132, 133; separa-

168, 197, 225 tion from the rest of the population,

Granero de Avalos, Alonso Ramirez, 33 132; as semi-crypto Protestants, 139;

Guaman, Francisca, 212, 213 denunciations, 164, 172, 257, 262;

Guaman, Francisco, 206 from Chachapoyas, 196; as evil sor-

Guaman, Marcelo, 226 cerers, 198, 202

Guaman Poma de Ayala, Felipe, 18, 28, hell, 26, 30, 135, 218, 258, 263; depiction 35 36, 37; 51, 107; 1415170; 202,901770n1 in the Monastery of La Merced, 219;

the execution of Tupac Amaru, 57, depiction in Huaro, 220 58; on Huayna Capac’s death, 97, 98, herbalist, 1, 171, 185, 197, 198, 199, 221, 238

102; on chupadores, 126; on images herbs, 84, 208, 222, 227, 252; Inca knowl-

of the Last Judgement, 134; on dis- edge of herbs, 194, 222, 224 tribution of devotional objects, 153; heresy, 42, 117, 132, 233, 234, 237 on the hampicocs, 196, 197; on inter- Hernandez, Bartolomé, 63

action between hechizeros and de- Hernandez, Francisco, 199, 241 mons, 203; on toads, 214, 261; on the Hernandez Principe, Rodrigo, 153 vacanquis, 225; picture of a hechi- Herrera, Luis Fernandez de, 172 zera, 227; 0n Inca Topa Yupanqui, hierba mate or hierba de Paraguay, 242,

249 252

Guaman Vilca, Pedro, 208 homogenous society, 231

gudandacos, 241 hospital San Bartholomew, 248 Guanico, Maria, 121, 176, 177, 190 hospital Santa Ana, 122, 123, 235

Guaranis, 48, 245 huacanquis, 226, 227

Guayllas, Fernando, 211 huacas, 6, 8, 12, 217, 259; Andean belief

Guerrero, Lobo, 118, 238 in huacas, 14, 257, 268; and demons, Gutiérrez de Logrono, 236, 237 17; their relation to “sin,” 41, 44; and the Taki Onkoy, 50, 52; local huacas,

hairs, 197, 201, 205, 208, 209, 210, 230, 71, 75, 77; destroyed huacas, 77; relics

555 of, 78; resurrection of huacas, 79;

hallucinogens, 6 (spiritual flight, 87], their powers, 84, 87, 89, 92, 102; and OX, 204, 218, 510, 2910, 323, 228, 961 transformation, 101; and commemo-

450 THE POWER OF HUACAS

ration, 103, 187, 260, 265; as appa- Inca Pachacuti Yupanqui, 28, 96, 109, 110 ritions, 130, 136, 164, 179; wrath of, Incas as guarantors of health and pro-

186; enemy huaca, 217; neglect of viders of fertility, 13, 186, 190 huacas, 221; and harm, 228; venera- Inca Tawantinsuyo, 8, 36, 139, 155, 195 tion during the eighteenth century, Inca Titu Cusi Yupanqui, 49, 137, 223 231; and treasures, 236; and chewing Inca Tupac Yupanqui, 62, 249 coca leaves, 239; as guardians, 257; Indian-Christian Catechism, 74, 214

as incorporated powers, 259 indigenous medicinal knowledge, 239

Huacho, 44 indoctrination, 133 Huainacota, 246 indulgence, 248

Huallallo Carvincho, 94 Inga, Pedro, 190 Huamali, 133 Inka Tupac Amaru, U1, 29, 48, 49, 53, 57, Huamanga, 53, 69, 131, 133, 170, 256 58, 59, 61, 121 Huamantanga, 122, 123, 175, 179, 182, Inquisition, 5, 51, 60, 64, 110, 114, 128, 132,

226 188, 210, 233, 234, 236; and erudite

Huanacauri, 95 magic, 237

Huanuco, 133 interactions between Afro-Peruvian, Huaraz, 133, 221 Creole, and Andean religious speHuarmey, 206 clalists,- 13,15 191, 199, 394-954; 263,

Huaro, 135, 160 268; on COCA, 241

Huarochiri, 31, 80, 114, 115, 133, 170, 175, intra-Andean religious conflicts, 71

208, 210, 219, 239 invocations of the saints, 8, 168 Huarochiri Manuscript, 4, 71, 80, 85, 90,

93, 94, 215, 218 jaguar, 217

Huaugquis, 140, 168 Jesuit church in Cuzco, 42

Huran, Pablo, 130 Jesuit missions, 11, 12, 41, 47, 49, 62, 66, Hurtado de Mendoza, Luis, 210, 211 126, 133, 134, 152; scientific interests, 238, 245, 256, 264; persecutions, 258;

Ibaseta, Gregorio, 213 on Lake Titicaca, 30, 31, 33, 38; in idolatrous dancing and drinking, 93 Paraguay, 31, 238, 245 idolatry, 22, 38, 41, 47, 192, 230, 232, 243, Jesuit network, 243 254, 263; definition, 2,16,19; ancient Jesuit pharmacy, 222 idolatry, 104; Toledo’s vision, 53 Jesuits, 4, 5, 23, 31, 35, 41, 255, 256; orgaidols, 5, 12, 108, 133, 172; burning of, 121 nization of the order, 15, 19; on con-

Ulapa, lightning and thunder, 71, 94, fessions, 26, 41, 257; on Andean sins, 160, 162, 168, 215, 258, 262, 268; 44; On missionary strategies, 46; and powers bestowed on Andean reli- “speaking idols” 105, 108; their belief

gious specialists, 82, 83 in powerful objects and images, 146; Inca and prophesies, 109 language of symbols, 158; on hechiInca culture, 71, 72, 87, 140, 215 zeros as confessors, 192; on hechiInca Huayna Capac, 68, 69, 70, 72, 81, 97, zeros as curanderos, 192; interest in

163,202 nature, 14, 192, 237, 245, 258, 264; as

Inca Mayta Capac, 68, 194, 195 experts on nature, 228, 232, 239, 241,

Inca notions of sin, 38, 40 242, 243; in view by Bandier, 233,

Inca officials, 202 252; interest in materia médica, 238;

Inca Orcon, 141 as true religious specialists, 238; on

INDEX 451

bezoar-stones, 241; on miracles, 249; — Luna, Juan de, 54, 55, 62

disempowering Andean religious Lupacas, 28, 30 specialists, 258; as healers, 258

Juan de la Cruz, 178 Maca, 129 Juli, 36; 31,°33,.164, 133, 155, 189,107, 249, Maca Calla, 85

256 Macuychauca, Marcelo, 208

Junin, 183, 189, 224 Magdalena, Martha, 121 magnet, 143, 227, 228

Kallawaya, 28, 100, 171 Magnus, Olaus, 219 Karishiri, 126 maize, 84, 129, 146, 189, 205, 208; maize

Kay Pacha, 92 cake, 178, 183. See also zanko (sanco);, Kircher, Athanasius, 238, 241, 243, 244, zara Mama, 204 245, 270; tinerarlum exstalicum, maleficio, 19, 126, 129, 191, 205, 206, 220,

246; on technical magic, 14, 232; 222, 228, 229; Jesuit suspicion, 133; reception of, 247, 248, 250, 251, 270 changing concepts and practices of

Kostka, Stanislao, 249 maleficio, 192, 193, 194, 261, 264, 266;

Kuti, 197 suspected acts of maleficio, 209, 223; European concept of remedy, 224; in

Lake Titicaca, 27, 33, 35, 47, 148, 215 Pisac, 230

Laraos, 232 mallquis, 71, 124, 187, 257

Lartaun, Sebastian de, 51 Malqui, Francisco, 180, 186 Las Casas, Bartolomé de, 64 Mama Huaco, 111 Laureano de Mena, José, 236 Manchay, 80, 91

Lauxa, 118 Manco Capac, 69, 95, 101

law of nature, 233, 234, 237, 251 Manco Inca Yupanqui, 29

layca, 1, 21, 28, 197, 202 Mangas, 182, 183 L’Ecluse, Charles, 200, 239, 241 Manrique, Michaela, 207 Leon Pinelo, Antonio de, 244 Marcelo, Marcos, 231, 232 Leon y Becerra, Antonio de, 132 Maria de la “O”, 231

Libiac, 119, 124, 164, 206 Martinez Companon, Baltasar Jaime, Lima, 2, 5, 9, 30, 105, 114, 149, 232, 234, 231 256; archdiocese, 11, 12, 47, 104, 111, Martinez Guerra, Don Antonio, 205

£10, 133. 104 29 O56 Mascardi, Nicolas, 244, 245 llamas, 41, 175, 183, 189, 202, 215, 217,241; Mastrillo Duran, Nicolas, 242

llama blood, 175 materia médica, 193, 199, 238 Llano y Zapata, José Eusebio de, 245, Matienzo, Juan de, 53, 240

247, 248, 249, 250, 252 Mayguanco, 190

Loaysa, Jer6nimo de, 60 Medici, 88

logic of Andean culture/religion/ Medina, Phelipe de, 133 rituals, 10, 25, 97, 137, 165, 182, 190, melancholy, 38, 222, 2.41

257, 259, 263, 265, 266, 268 Mendoca, Fray Pedro de, 237

Lopez, Luis, 62, 63, 64, 65 Mendoza, Martin de, 214 Lopez de Haro, Antonio, 59 Menghi, Girolamo, 144 Lépez de los Rios, José, 26, 27, 38 Mercedarians, 19, 246; library in Cuzco, love magic, 131, 143, 168, 187, 193, 224, 246

996, 327.958 Merlin, 18

452 THE POWER OF HUACAS

2.66 269

Mesas, 6, 7, 8, 111, 137, 153, 166, 167, 225, natural magic, 60, 108, 238, 247, 257, 268,

Mestizaje, 154, 264 natural philosophy, 143, 192, 232, 242,

Mestizos, 15, 26, 146, 148 243, 246

Mexico, 16, 77, 88, 110, 196, 199, 227, 236, natural spheres, 3

269 nature, indoctrination of, 132

Micaela, Maria, 206 Nazca, 88, 140, 154

miracles, 258, 260 necromancy/necromancer, 21, 48, 60, 61, miracle-working statues, 249, 250 62,79; 50; 236;.237 mirrors, 60, 109, 110, 111; as a symbol for Nicolas, Juan, 177

the immaculate conception, 111 Nieremberg, Eusebius, 238, 241, 243, Moche culture, 71, 87, 223; and birds, 88, 244, 247 91; mirrors, 110; village of Moche, Nieto, Ursula, 211

164; toads, 215 Noboa, Bernardo de, 170, 183

Mojos, 133, 145, 153, 238, 256 non-human/superhuman powers, 79, Molina, Cristobal de, 18, 39, 40, 41, 49, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 92, 100, 101, 175 51, 52, 53, 109, 141, 215; on the Taki Nuestra Senora de la Misericordia, 248 Onkoy, 78, 79; on lightning, 82; on Nuestra Senora de la Soledad, 248 feather headdresses, 89; on expelling sickness, 182; on Inca connoisseurs occult qualities, 244, 247, 260, 269

of herbs, 194; on fire in Inca cul- ocean, 131 ture, 202; on Moyucati, 217; on the Oc6n, Juan Alonso de, 132 huilcas, 223; on huacanquis, 226 Olaba, Mariana de, 131

Monardes, Nicolas, 199, 241 Olivera, Luis de, 49 Monastery of la Merced, 219 Ollala, Maria, 130 Montesinos, Fernando de, 227 Ollantaytambo, 217

Moquegua, 149 Omasyuos, 28, 30, 33, 34, 148

Moscoso y Peralta, Manuel, 230 Ondores, 190

mosquitoes, 226 opium, 203

mountains as sacred entities, 24, 175. order of the Christinos, 235

See also apus Oré, Luis Jeronimo de, 46, 223

Mugaburu, José de, 235, 236 Osma Jaraycejo, Pedro de, 199 Mulattos, 10, 12, 57, 131, 205, 207, 248, Our Lady of Cocharcas, 144, 156

261, 268 Oyon, 135

Mullu, 53, 120, 160, 215. See also shells

multicolored, 114, 186 Pacariscas, 71

Murillo Otalora, Bernabé, 248 Pachacamac, 72, 144, 204, 215 Murua, Martin de, 21, 62, 80, 196, 201, Pachacuti Yamqui Salcamaygua, Juan 202, 215; Galvin Manuscript, 57, 188, de Santa Cruz, 28, 33, 68, 69, 70, 93, 227; on evil harm, 203; on waxen fig- 95, 195, 217; on the battle against the

ures, 204, 261; on huacanquis, 227; Chancas, 96

on love magic, 227 Pallas, Ger6nimo, 126 Paracas culture, 87, 88, 90, 91

native plants, 5, 23, 90, 91, 120, 194, 195, Paracelsus, 187

198, 200. See also poisons Pararin, 221 natural experience, 23, 198, 233, 244; of Paria Caca, 85, 94

indigenous people, 269 Parinacochas, 50

INDEX 453

passion fruit, 159 Pope Clemens XII, 248 Patino, Francisco, 132 Potosi, 48, 105, 131, 157, 240, 251 Paucar, Hernando, 106, 113, 114, 115, 116, primordial wisdom in the New World

117 and in Europe, 269 Paz, Juan de, 206 prisons, 32, 33, 53, 55, 122, 136, 156, 196, Pena Montenegro, Alonso de la, 21, 144, 197, 210. See also casa Santa Cruz

204, 210, 261 Pucara, 72, 93, 215, 216

penance, 39, 135 Pucyura, 161

Perez Bocanegra, Juan, 46, 171, 227 puma, 125, 130, 217

periphery, 229, 231, 232 Punchao, $7, 59, 130 persecution of Andean religious spe- punishment of Andean religious speCla lists; 13, 14113, 139,,.990:.957358, cialists, 5, 113, 118, 132, 213 263. See also extirpation of idolatry puppets, 8, 197, 201, 206, 208, 228, 261;

persecution of Spanish, Creole and piercing of, 14 Afro-Peruvian ritual specialists, purgatory, 43, 135 5, 214, 261, 268

Petrona, Maria, 211 Qero, 26, 27, 184, 196 Philip II, 31, 47, 61, 63, 110, 114, 269 Qoricancha, 28, 61, 71, 95, 140, 202

physical abnormalities, 83 Quijano Bevellos, Pedro de, 179

Picinelli, Filippo, 159 quinine, 242

pierced objects, 201, 204, 205, 228, 266. Quinones, Ramirez de, 59

See also toads Quinti, 189

Pikillagta, 204 quipucamayocs, 45, 75, 108, 109, 194, 195

pirates, 199, 2.35 Quispe Tito, Dicgo, 220 Pishtacu, 77, 126 racial bias, 206, 207 Pisac, 212, 230

Pizarro, Francisco, 29, 68 Ramos Gavilan, Alonso, 21, 28, 34, 143,

Pizarro, Maria, 64 147

Planes, Jeronimo, 38 Ratio studiorum, 244

Plateaus, Jakob, 200 redefinition of indigenous sins, 30, 45;

Pliny, 143, 213 veneration of Jlallahua, 45; keeping poisons/lethal plants, 194, 198, 205, 217, a pirva, 45; sprinkling the sun, 45; 220, 221, 222, 223, 228. applied to owl’s song or a dog’s yowl as a sign

Andean objects, 262; Acosta, 148; of death, 45 Murtia, 196; Gonzales Holguin, 197; re-education, 47, 132, 133, 200, 258

Augustinians, 202 Reformation, trauma of, 263

Polo de Ondegardo, Juan, 38, 39, 41, 62, relics, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 153, 233 79, 89, 124, 140, 213, 215, 227; on fly- Remon, Alonso, 227

ing hechizeros, 80, 91; on camascas, republics, three different ones: Creole 82; on Andean sins, 46; on lightning, Catholic, Andean-Christian, 82; on divination, 83; on sacrifice, 84; Andean, 151, 154, 163, 165, 262 on trade with shells, 160; on yl/as, resistance against Christian evangeliza168; on expelling sickness, 182; used tion, 8, 9, 13, 142 by Cobo, 243; and Castanega, 17, 18 Rimachi Maita, Antonio, 210

Pomachumbi, Maria, 122 rituals of healing, 170, 177, 179, 180,

Pomacocha, 189 181, 182, 184, 190, 203, 205, 231, 257; Pomponazzi, Pictro, 235 connections with huacas, 183, 185;

454 THE POWER OF HUACAS

dependence of human beings on Santo Domingo de Cochalaraos, 172

huacas, 190 Santo Tomas de Rondocan, 211, 212

river, 40, 121, 142, 146, 176, 181, 182, 184, Sarmiento de Gamboa, Pedro, 18, 47,

194, 206 48, 49, 59, 64, 160, 195, 237; on Inca

Rome, 62, 63, 64, 124, 243 Pachacuti, 109, 110; on flying hechiRosa, Diego de la, 187, 214, 236 zeros, 82; his astrology, 60; on Inca

Rosa Pinto, Juan, 207 kings, 60; on Antarqui, 61,62, 79; on rosaries, 127, 150, 152, 153, 154, 156, 166, transformation into stones, 93, 95;

167, 168 and mirrors, 110; on representation,

Ruiz de Portillo, Hieronymus, 62, 63 140; on fire in Inca culture, 202; on huacanquis, 226

Sabaya, 105 Sarmiento de Vivero, Juan, 121, 123, 172, sacred geography, 13, 76, 96, 98, 175, 176, 175, 180, 186

179, 180 Sayhuite, 99, 215

sacrifices by Andean religious special- scholasticism, 224, 232, 270; antiists, 17, 39, 41, 51, 83, 84, 115, 128, 140, scholastic movement, 252

153 Schott, Caspar, 238, 241, 243, 244, 246,

Sacsayhuaman, 22, 63, 99, 249, 251 250, 251 Sahagun, Bernardino de, 199 Second Council of Lima, 33, 56, 198, 240 Saint Anthony the Abbot, 162 secular clergy, 5, 19, 50, 113, 144 Saint Bartholomew, 36, 37, 155, 162 seeds, 91, 208, 209

Saint Cyprian, 162 Senor de los Milagros, 248, 249 Saint Francis, 162, 163 Seville, 4, 148, 235 Saint Ignatius, 136, 146, 147, 153; his shells, 89, 160, 167, 183, 187, 208. See also

handwriting, 142, 147 mullu Saint Rose, 149 Siete partidas, 204 Saint Thomas, 34, 36, 252 silk, 115, 205

Saint worship, 133, 155, 157 silver, 17, 57, 109, 115, 156, 159, 160, 170,

Salombrini, Agustin, 222, 238, 240 209, 176, 242

Sanchez Labrador, José, 245 simulacrum, 203, 204, 205 San Francisco de Caxamarquilla, 184 Sinchi Roca Inca, 36 San Francisco de Mangas, 142, 170 slavery, 205

Sania, Maria, 172 smoke, 7, 225

San Jeronimo, 160 snakes, 38, 130, 203, 205, 214, 218, 221, San Lorenzo de Quinti, 184 230; double-headed Amaru, 218 san Marcos University, 64, 113, 115 social harmony, 231

San Martin de Porres, 149, 207 Solis de Quinti, Pedro, 121 San Pedro cactus, 84, 87, 88, 203 Solomon Islands, 61 Santa Cruz de la Sierra, 9, 144, 147, 157 Solso, Juan, 205 Santa Maria de Pena de Francia, 188 sorcery, 2, 16, 205. See also hechizeria,

Santa Rosa de Ocopa, 246 maleficio

Santiago, 83, 160, 177, 178, 206, 258, 262, Sor Juana, 246

268. See also Illapa Sosa, Maria, 236

Santiago de Cercado, 31 Spain, 20, 21, 23, 50, 55, 56, 148, 149, 199 Santiago de Chile, 114, 238, 256 Spanish medical doctors, 199

Santiago de Chipao, 214 Spanish ritual specialists, 2, 224, 227. Santiago “Mataindios” 160, 161, 188 See also interactions

INDEX 455

speaking statues, 245 Third Council of Lima, 17, 49, 67, 106, spiders, 1, 84, 111, 177, 214 111, 122, 124, 138, 150, 200, 256; on

Spinoza, Baruch, 235 confession, 214; on coca, 240 spirits, 8. See also aguardiente Thomas Aquinas, 2, 16, 22

spiritual flights, 87 threads spun to the left, 221, 292, 341 spondylus shell, 160, 161, 168. See also Titu Cusi Yupanqui, 49, 223

mullu, shells Tiwanaku, 71, 72, 73, 87, 93, 155, 215, 223 Stansel, Valentin, 246 toads, 8, 14, 86, 201, 203, 206, 208, 212,

stars/comets, 245 215, 217, 233; association with harm,

statue of Apollo, 245 252, 261; pierced toads, 205, 206, 208, stones, 12, 22, 203, 208, 252 {see also 209, 210; in European thought, 213; transformation and Andean con- Andean association with water, 214, cept of embodiment); house of stone, 215, 228, 261; poisonous toads, 217; 69, 97; and embodiment, 97, 99; as two-headed, 218; depiction of, 219, symbol of the sacred, 98, 175; and 220; in the hands of Spanish and “life,” 100, 102; and demons, 101; Afro-Peruvian ritual specialists, 261 and memory, 102, “speaking” stones tobacco, 7, 8, 205, 225, 230

as talking demons, 106; as healing Toledo, Garcia de, 64 objects, 183; the highest level of Toribio de Mogrovejo, Alfonso de, 149

powers, 260 Torreblanca Villalpando, Francisco,

Suarez Grande, Ygnacio, 210 204, 224 sun, 108, 188, 202, 268 Torres Rubio, Diego de, 31

supernatural spheres/powers, 3, 249. Torres y Zuniga, Diego, 208, 209 See also Christian concept of the transcultural processes, 192, 193, 194,

natural 200, 205, 259, 262, 267

superstition, 2, 16, 19, 44, 47, 131, 231,254 transformation, 70, 90, 91, 92, 263; of

Surichaca, Sebastiana, 205, 206 hudcas, 92; in stones, 93, 94

Suyca, Diego, 214 transubstantiation, 138 Suyo o Cargua, Alvira, 121 treasures, 2.36

sympathetic magic, 8, 13, 14, 192, 193, Tree of Diana, 246

201, 203, 206, 254, 261, 265 "Erion: 164. 936;.931- 939, 996-937, 252, 263; during the eighteenth

Tairona, 87 century, 111, 122, 130, 132

Taki Onkoy, 11, 13, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, Tucuman, 145, 147, 152, 215, 256

54, 59, 62, 75, 77, 97, 98, 164; and Tulla de Otavalo, Juan de, 207

camascas, 82; on resurrection of Tumbes, 29 huacas, 85; and an Andean notion Tunupa, 33, 35, 36, 93, 95, 97, 98, 155 of sickness, 125, 185; on fat, 181; on

juxtaposition of two cultures, 182, Ukhu Pacha, 71, 92 258, 265; pan-Andean resistance, 257. Ulloa, Antonio de, 253

talking images/objects, 249 Ulloa, Martin de, 233

Tambo Tocco, 28 umo/humu, 21, 28, 202

Tanedor, Santiago, 207 underworld, 104, 127, 218 technical magic, 232, 246, 249, 250, 251, SONY 345° 73 74. 268, 269, 270

teeth, 172, 175, 208, 214 Valerte, Sebastian, 133 textiles, 175, 176, 177, 181, 190 vallavica, 1, 215

456 THE POWER OF HUACAS

Vallejo, Ana, 131 Virgen de Guadalupe de Pacasmayo, 156 Vandera, Beatriz de la, 131 Virgen de Pomata, 156 Vargas, Luisa de, 131 Virgin Mary, 130, 143, 144, 155, 167, 168,

Vega, Maria de la, 205 181, 233

veneration of ancestors/mummies, visitators, ecclesiastical, 23, 116, 118, 22,108, 170, 188. See also ancestors, 119, 19.0,.191,2196,,19,7, 134,172,307.

mallquis destruction of idols, 175, 176; civil

Vergara, Alonso Ramirez de, 35 visitators, 53

Viceroy Conde de Lemos, 237 voodoo practices, 205 Viceroy Conde de Nieva, 60 Viceroy Conde de Santisteban y de la Wari culture, 69, 71, 88, 89, 110, 140

Cueva, 233, 234, 238, 245 waxen figures, 197, 201, 203, 204, 2.06, Viceroy Don Carmine Nicolao Carac- 208, 228. See also puppets

ciolo, 246 weeping statues/objects, 247, 248, 249

Viceroy Esquilache, 132, 232 whistle, 208

Viceroy Marqués de Montesclaros, 114, Wier, Johannes, 204

116 wind, 92, 100, 108

Viceroy Toledo, Francisco de, 11, 29, 31, witches, 12, 16, 21, 23, 86, 119, 122, 125,

47, 48, 114, 237, 242; on hechizeros, 126, 128, 129, 230; flights of witches, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 62, 256; on Tupac 79, 80; in Trujillo, 130; brujerias, 205,

Amaru, 60; and the Jesuits, 63 206, 213, 263; their association with

ViCunadS, 241 toads, 213

Vilaoma, 28, 39, 188 WOrmMs, 24, 52, 56, 201, 214, 221, 244 Vilasante, Antonio de, 199

Vilca Guaman, Pedro, 122 Yaijayauri, Lorengo, 184 Vilcabamba, 29, 48, 49, 59, 223 Yautan, 119, 183, 190, 221

Vilcashuaman, 71 Ychuris, 1, 35, 38, 39, 41, 44, 192, 255 Villagomez, Pedro de, 42, 46, 113, 117, Ylario Chumbivilca, Juan, 208 119, 121, 122, 124, 127, 129, 206; on yllas, 5, 6, 84, 140, 141, 144, 146, 166, 175,

hechizeros as incarnation of the 177; tied to fertility, 145; Gonzalez demonic, 127, 128; as bishop of Are- Holguin, 168; Villago6mez, 169; use quipa, 132; on rosaries, 152; on be- by Andean religious specialists, 170,

zoars, 169; list of sins, 169; on hua- 171, 205 canquis, 227; on the persecution of Yoruba, 205 curanderos, 200 vilca/villca, 41, 84, 87, 203, 222, 223, Zahn, Johannes, 238, 241, 243, 246, 248

54 Zambrago, Urbano, 197

Viracocha, 17, 28, 33, 40, 90, 141, 217; Zambrano, Manuel, 210 Ymaymana Viracocha, 194, 198 zanco (sanco}, 40, 84, 183

Virgen de Cayma, 156 zankay, 196, 217

Virgen de Copacabana, 35, 147, 156, 249 Zuniga, Joannes de, 49, 65