Cloth and Its Functions in the Inca State1

JOHN V. MURRA
I Yale University

EARS of full-time devotion have been lavished by some students on the

Y description and analysis of the variety and technical excellence of Andean
textiles. As Junius Bird, the leading modern student of the craft, has indicated,
“some of them rank high among the finest fabrics ever produced.”2 Andean in-
terest in cloth can be documented archeologically to have endured for millen-
nia, long before the coming of the Inca. Recent ethnohistoric studies show that
this extraordinary imagination in creating a multiplicity of fabrics was func-
tionally matched by the many unexpected political and religious contexts in
which cloth was used.
The major textile fibers spun and woven in ancient Peru were cotton in the
lowlands and the wool of llamas in the Andes. Cotton is found in some of the
earliest strata (pre-2000 B.C.), long before the appearance of maize on the
Coast. Its twining and later weaving reached excellence very early,8 and
throughout coastal history it remained the important fiber; Bird goes so far as
to say that the whole “Peruvian textile craft is based on the use of cotton and
not on wool or any other fiber.”4 It is unfortunate that our 16th century
ethnohistorical sources said so little about cotton cultivation, and it is curious
that coastal ceramics, which so frequently illustrate cultivated plants and
fruits, rarely if ever show cotton.6
I n the mountains, archeology tells us little, since textiles do not keep well
in Andean conditions; this fact sometimes leads to neglect of the cultural signif-
icance and technical quality of highland fabrics, so evident from the chronicles.
Although the excavations of August0 Cardicha show that azcchenidae had been
hunted for many thousands of years, it has been impossible so far to date the
beginning of llama domestication. Judging by llamas as represented on pottery
and by sacrificed llama burials found on the Coast as early as Cupisnique times,
we can assume that these animals were already domesticated by 1000 B.C.
Bird suggests that a growing interest in wool by coastal weavers was possibly
the major incentive for the domestication of auchenidae,’ but a t the present
stage of highland studies, the taming of the guanaco and alpaca by those who
had hunted them for 5,000 years and who first cultivated the potato is still a
possibility.
In time, the use of wool increased even on the Coast and i t became wide-
spread with Inca expansion,8 but apparently it had not penetrated everywhere,
even in the highlands. Santillsn reported in the 1560’s that some highlanders
carried burdens on their backs as they had no llamas, and even in very cold
country their clothes were woven “like a net” from maguey fibers.@Garcilaso
7 10
[MURRA] Cloth i n the Inca State 711
de la Vega also points to regions where maguey thread was woven into cloth,
as wool and cotton were lacking.1° Although neither source localizes these re-
gions, tradition recorded by modern folkloric research describes some of the
early inhabitants of the Callej6n de Huyalas as Karapishtu, maguey leaf
wearers.“ H u a m h Poma, the 17th century Andean petitioner to the king of
Spain, who reports and illustrates an ingenious four-stage evolutionary se-
quence for highland cultures, claimed that before people learned to weave they
went through a period when they were dressed in “leaves” and later, through
another period, wrapped in furs.12 While the wool of alpacas and vicuiias may
have been used even before domestication, it was in Inca times that llama-
herding was deliberately expanded through the use of mitmaq colonists, in
much the same way as the state encouraged the cultivation of maize.la
The most systematic historical description of Inca looms and classification
of fabrics has been given us by C0b0.l~Although each fabric, weaving, or
ornamenting technique must have had its own name, the chroniclers were
content with a dual classification: 1) awasqa, the cloth produced for domestic
purposes, which was rather rough, indifferently colored and thick,16 and 2)
kumpi, a finer fabric, woven on a different loom. All early observers agreed
that kumpi blankets and clothes were wonderfully soft, “like silk,” frequently
dyed in gay colors or ornamented with feathers or shell beads. The weave was
smooth and continuous, “no thread could be seen.”l8 Comparisons in those
early days of the invasion were all unfavorable to European manufactures;
only 18 years later Cieza speaks of it as a lost treasure.”
Clothing was not tailored but left the looms virtually fully fashioned.18 The
most detailed ethnohistoric description of peasant clothing appears in C0b0.l~
According to Cieza there were no status differences in the tailoring of gar-
ments but only in the cloth and ornamentation used.20This is easily noted in
the quality of archeological textiles, since some graves display elegant new
garments which must have required considerable expenditure of time and
effort, while others were buried in worn ordinary clothes. Ethnic and re-
gional differences in clothing are predictable but cannot be documented from
the sources beyond the variety of llawto, headdresses, the hairdo, and fre-
quently the type of cranial deformation.21
There is a standard, much quoted portrait of the never idle Andean peas-
ant woman spinning endlessly as she stood, sat, or even walked.22She spun the
thread and made most of the cloth in which she dressed herself and her family
and took the spindle into her grave as a symbol of womanly activity.
I n practice, the sexual division of labor was less rigidly defined. Spinning
and weaving skills were learned in childhood by both girls and boys. While
wives and mothers were expected to tend to their families’ clothing needs, all
those who were ‘(exempted” from the mitta labor services-old men and
cripples and children-helped out by spinning and making rope, weaving
sacks and (‘rough stuff” according to strength and ability.23Modern ethnologic
research confirms this impression: both sexes weave, but different fabrics.
Specilized craftsmen tended to be, and still are,
712 American Anthropologist [64, 1962
I n the Andes, all households had claims to community fibers, from which
the women wove cloth : “this wool was distributed from the community; to
everyone whatever he needed for his clothes and those of his wives and child-
ren. . . . ”26 However, not all village communities had their own alpacas or
cotton fields. I n that case the housewives got their fibers through trade and
barter. Idigo Ortiz’ wonderfully detailed description of HuAnuco village life in
1562 records various transactions: potatoes and charki for cotton, peppers for
~ 0 0 1 . ~ Still,
6 to say that claims could be made on community resources is a
formal statement hiding the shortage of functional data on the provenience of
the lowland peasant woman’s raw materials for weaving. Although we seem to
know so much about textiles from coastal archeology, we know very little of
cotton growing practices and the economics of cotton; it would be interesting
to know where the coastal households and villages got the cotton for their own
use. Perhaps each village had its own cotton patch, corresponding to the high-
land village herd; this seems to be suggested by Ortiz’ material from Hurinuco;
at Machque he found a cotton field “which is all of these Indians” and a t
Huanacabra there was a hamlet which was settled “communally to cultivate
the cottonfields nearby.”27 But Ortiz was talking of a highland area where
cotton cultivation is precarious and rare, and, in this case, most likely enforced
by European exactions. On the coast, our studies of land tenures28would sug-
gest that irrigated lands and thus cotton fields were subject to a variety of
rights and claims which may not have operated for food crops and pastures in
the highlands.
The uses to which textiles were put by the Andean peasant family should
not be taken for granted. People do have to keep warm a t 10,000 feet, and
clothes are always important psychologically and ornamentally, but in the
Andes the functions of cloth went far beyond such universals. It emerges as
the main ceremonial good and, on the personal level, the preferred gift, high-
lighting all crisis points in the life cycle and providing otherwise unavailable
insights to the reciprocal relations of kinfolk.
Shortly after the child was weaned he was given a new name a t a feast to
which many relatives, lineal and affinal, were invited. An “uncle” acted as
sponsor and cut the first lock from the child’s hair. The relatives followed: all
who sheared hair were expected t o offer gifts, Polo enumerates silver, cloth,
wool, cotton, and “other things.” Garcilaso states that some brought clothes
while others gave weapons.2e
Initiation came at puberty for girls and a t 14 or 15 for boys. The latter
were issued a wura, a 1oinclothiYoven for the occasion by their mothers. This
public loin-girding was known as warachikoy. Receiving new clothes woven
with magic precautions and wearing them ceremonially was an important part
of the change in status, but details of it for the peasantry have been neglected
by the chroniclers who have concentrated on the initiation of the young from
the royal lineages. An inkling into the kind of detail we are missing comes from
modern ethnology: as late as the 1920’s in the Quiquijana area, near Cuzco,
pairs of youths would race ceremonially, their clothing fancy and new from
MURRA] Cloth ha the Inca State 713
head to foot.’O Special clothes are still woven and all garments ceremonially
washed for the young man assuming religious office today on the island of
Taquile, in Lake Titicaca.sl
While most chroniclers and modern commentators have accepted some
version of the story that marriage depended on royal sanction, late 17th
century sources like R o m h , Morlia and Poma indicated that at the peasant,
a y l h level marriage took place on local initiative with textile bride-wealth
presented by the groom and his kin. RomiLn had mentioned llamas, but Morlia
argued that only sefiores, lords, could offer these beasts; peasant marriages were
preceded by gifts of food, guinea pigs, and ~ 1 0 t hOne
. ~ ~of the qualifications of a
desirable wife was her ability to weave, and we are told that the several
wives of a prominent man would compete as to who could “embroider a better
blanket .”a3
Of all life’s crises and their association with cloth, death is the best docu-
mented in archeology, the chronicles, and in ethnology. Polo points out that
the dead were dressed in new clothes, with additional garments placed in the
grave along with sandals, bags, and headdresses.% This was not only an Inca
custom, but a pan-Andean preference, going back thousands of years. Coastal
archeology, which has a t its disposal a fuller statement of the culture due to the
marvelous preservation of all remains in the desert, reveals that the dead were
wrapped in numerous layers of cloth. Confirming Polo’s observation, many
mummies enclosed scores of garments, some of them diminutive in size and
woven especially as mortuary offerings.% Yacovleff and his associates have
tried to calculate the amount of cotton needed to make a single mummy’s
shroud from Paracas: it measured about 300 square yards and we are told that
this size was not unique; it required the product of more than two irrigated
acres planted to cotton. How many woman-hours of spinning and weaving
time were involved is incalculable.
The wake and burial took as long as eight days; according to Morlia, the
mourners wore special clothing. They took the garments of the deceased on a
tour of the places where he dwelled. The widow and other relatives of the de-
ceased went to wash the clothes a t a specific place a t the river bank or irriga-
tion ditch. At periodic intervals, and annually in November-December,
“anniversaries” were celebrated with new offerings of food, drink, and cloth-
ing.% The anniversary gifts were needed because the souls were wandering
about and in need of food and clothes.a7
Recent ethnological work by Nliiiez del Prado and Morote Best clarifies the
identification of person with clothing, while confirming the utility of checking
the chronicles against modern ethnology: within eight days after death, the
relatives of the deceased, accompanied by their friends, amidst drinking and
singing, should wash every single piece of the dead man’s clothing, since the
soul would return and complain if one garment remained unwashed.88 If an
item is carried away by the water during the ceremonial washing, the soul will
sorrow a t the place the garment gets caught in the river; to find and release it
the crowd follows the weeping sounds until the garment is located.88
7 14 American Anthropologist [64, 1962
Peasant and ethnic community worship in the Inca state has never been
adequately studied, since no European bothered to describe it in the early dec-
ades after the invasion. Only a t the beginning of the 17th century when idol-
burners like Avila, Arriaga, Teruel, or Alborn6z report on their vandalism do
we get a hint of what local, ethnic religion may have been like, as contrasted
with the activities of the state church. Arriaga, for example, is proud of having
brought back to Lima and burned 600 “idols, many of them with their clothes
and ornaments and very curious kumpi blankets.” They also burned the mallqi,
bones of “ancestors who were sons of the local shrines . . . dressed in costly
feather or kumpi If the ancestor was a woman, her shrine included
her spindle and a handful of cotton. These tools had to be protected in case of
an eclipse when a comet was believed to threaten the moon (also thought of as
a woman). The spindles were in danger of turning into vipers, the looms into
“bears and tigers.”41
Sacrifices are another measure of a culture’s values. Santillh tells us that
the main offerings of the Inca were cloth and llamas, both of which were
burned.42Cob0 says that the offering of fine cloth “was no less common and
esteemed (than the llamas), as there was hardly any important sacrifice in
which it did not enter.”43 Some of these garments were male, others female;
some were life size, others miniature, like those burned in offering to Pacha-
mama, Mother Earth. Cob0 copied Polo’s information that a t Mantocalla,
near Cuzco, wooden reproductions of corncobs, dressed like men or women,
were used to feed the sacrificial pyre on which llamas were burned a t maize
shucking time.”
The economics of such offerings and sacrifices needs further clarification.
Local shrines had access to lands and herds, and many of the textiles sacrificed
were the product of labor invested by the community on such fields. There
may also have been minor offerings in kind from the household economy of the
believers, but this is uncertain.
Recent research has emphasized not only the contrast between the peasant
community and the Inca state, but also the intermediary role of the ethnic
ruler, the k o r a k ~He
. ~ ~was, a t the lower echelons, so frequently a member of
the community, his authority and expectations reinforced by so many kinship
ties and obligations, that the weaving contributions to the koraka partake of
the reciprocity arrangements which functioned a t all levels of village eco-
nomic life. As we would expect, access to cloth is frequently mentioned among
a koraka’s privileges. The fullest, if still sketchy, picture of his weaving claims
emerges from Iiiigo Ortiz’ questionnaire^.^^
The Hu&nucokoraka had automatic access to community wool and cotton,
but the report takes this for granted and does not elaborate. I t emphasizes in-
stead his claims to labor, by enumerating that he “received” shirts and
sandals, headdresses and carrying bags, woven for him by “his Indians.”
Some of the garments were woven by women, others by men, and they did it,
according to Ortiz’ formula, when “he begged them.” Neither the minka, nor
MURRA] Cloth in the Iraca State 715
mitta reciprocal services are mentioned in this context, nor do we know who
“his Indians” were who wove when “begged”-they may have been ordinary
villagers whose ties to the koraka were “reciprocal,” or retainers like one
Liquira, who devoted full time to the service of Chuchuyaure, the lord of
Yachas, or even his several wives, whom the Europeans, ignoring polygyny,
called women “de s e r ~ i c i o . ”Some
~ ~ clarification is gained from the testimony
of Polo and Falc6n: it is true, claimed the first, that the chiefs, “received”
much cloth, but the weavers were their own Falcbn, quite independ-
ently, recorded somewhat later two contradictory versions: the koraka insisted
that before 1532 they had “received” cloth, while the peasants interviewed
denied it. Falc6n thought that both told the truth: cloth, which was needed by
the lord for varied purposes, was mainly woven for him by his many wives, but
as the invaders had prohibited polygyny, there was in the 1570’s a shortage of
“working All sources agree that the weaving was done with the
koraka’s fibers.
There is less ambiguity when we come to peasant-state relations as ex-
pressed in cloth. I n Inca thinking there were two main economic obligations
which the citizen had toward the state, and to each of them corresponded an
enduring pre-Incaic right guaranteeing subsistence and traditional self-suffi-
ciency to the peasant community; a right which the Inca found convenient to
respect :
Obligation to work the crown and-Right to continue to plant and har-
church lands. vest one’s own crops on ayllu lands.
Obligation to weave cloth for crown-Right to wool or cotton from commu-
and church needs. nity stocks for the making of one’s own
clothes.
This Andean definition of equivalence between weaving and food produc-
tion as the peasantry’s main obligations to the crown is confirmed by two in-
dependent but contemporaneous statements about tasks considered impor-
tant enough by the state to give “the Indians time off.” Polo indicates that
such time off was granted only to work the peasant lands and to weave the
family clothes; otherwise they were always kept busy “with one task or an-
other.”b’J Sarmiento is even more rigid and specific: only three months were
“granted the Indians” and all the rest of the time was spent working for the
Sun, the shrines, and the king; of the three months, one was for plowing and
sowing, one for harvesting, and a third, “in the summer,” for fiestas and “in
order that they spin and weave for themselves.”61 We need not accept as
accurate the actual work schedules reported; what matters are the implicit
priorities; these are confirmed by later Andean writers. Garcilaso is categorical :
the compulsory “tribute” consisted in delivering food from Inca lands and
cloth from Inca ~ 0 0 1 . 6Salcamayhua
~ describes one of the kings as “a friend of
cultivated fields and cloth making.”b3
Much as the koraka had to provide the fibers which were worked up for
716 American Anthropologist [64, 1962
him as cloth, the Inca state did not expect the peasantry to use its own raw
materials for the weaving mitta. As Polo put it: “no Indian contributed (to
the state) the cloth woven for his own garments from the wool given him by
the ~ o m m u n i t y . ” ~ ~
Such Andean continuity between the weaving obligations to the koraka
and to the state is then confused by another statement of Polo’s: “they were
inspected to see if they had made it into cloth and they punished the careless
.
and thus all went around dressed. . . ”66 Why would inspection be necessary
to enforce the making of one’s OWNclothes? Polo said, to insure that people went
around dressed; but this was just the perennial European preoccupation with
the nakedness of “savages.” All Andean peoples wore clothes for the simple
reason that it was cold, and archeology tells us they did so long before the
Incas, not to mention the difficulties of setting up a bureaucratic system large
enough for so much “inspection and punishment.” Given the compulsory na-
ture of the allotment (“they never took into account if the person receiving
wool already had some from his own llamas . . , ”6e), Polo’s threat of “in-
spection” most likely refers to issues of state fibers made routinely to the
housewife to be woven into garments for state purposes.
However, such distribution of state fibers to the citizenry does contribute
to a misunderstanding of the Inca economy which has haunted Inca studies
since the 1570’s. Andean chroniclers like Blas Valera, in their nostalgia for
ancient rights which contrasted so visibly with European exactions, interpret
such compulsory issues of state wool and cotton as a welfare feature by a
“diligent paler familiae.”67 There were “welfare” measures in the Inca state,
but they consisted in the pre-Incaic reciprocal duties and privileges incum-
bent on ayllu members.
The amount to be woven by each household is a matter of some contro-
versy. Cieza claims that each household owed one blanket per year and each
person, one shirt.b8Three of our sources, on the other hand, insist that there
was no limit or account, “they simply wove what they were ordered to weave
and were always at it.”6@Interestingly enough, two of these very same sources
insist elsewhere, somewhat like Cieza, that each household owed only one
garment per year.BOThey may be confusing different sets of obligations-one
garment to the state, a uniform, verifiable quantity; an unspecified amount
for the koraka, since this obligation was governed by tradition and local
reciprocities.“
In searching for an understanding of such a high interest in cloth, so
obvious in both archeological remains and ethnohistoric reports, it may be use-
ful to parallel our study of the functional aspects of cloth in the peasant village
with a survey of its uses by the state.
At this level, we have some quantitative impressions. At the time of the
European invasion, state warehouses were located throughout the kingdom,
and virtually every eyewitness has indicated his amazement at their number
and size. Some contained food, others weapons and ornaments or tools, but the
 Cloth i n the Inca Stale 717
startling and peculiarly Andean aspect was the large number holding wool and
cotton, cloth and garments.
Among the eyewitnesses of the invasion, Xerez reports that in Caxamarca
there were houses filled to the ceiling with clothes tied into bundles. Even
after “the Christians took all they wanted,” no dent was made in the pile.6a
“There was so much cloth of wool and cotton that it seemed to me that many
ships could have been filled with them.”” As Pizarro’s army progressed across
the Inca realm, similar stores were found at Xauxa and in Cuzco. I n the cap-
ital, it was “incredible” to see the number of separate warehouses filled with
wool, rope, cloth both fine and rough, garments of many kinds, feathers, and
sandals. Pedro Pizarro mused some 40 years later about what he had seen as a
youth: “I could not say about the warehouses I saw, of cloth and all kinds of
garments which were made and used in this kingdom, as there was no time to
see it, nor sense to understand so many things.’lM
Later chroniclers added some information on the bookkeeping procedures
by which the state administration kept track of all these textiles which had
been “tributed” by the people or woven by the state’s own craftsmen. Cieza
reports that in each provincial capital there were khipo kamayoq who took care
of all accounts, including textile matters. A t Maracavilca in Xauxa, Cieza
located one “gentleman,” Guacarapora by name, who had kept full records of
everything looted from the warehouse in his charge, including cloth, in the 18
years which had elapsed since the invasion.&
One gathers from the chroniclers that the army and warfare were major
consumers of fabrics. The military on the move expected to find clothes,
blankets, and tent-making equipment on their route. R o m h was told that
such warehouses were located close to the frontiers, where battles were ex-
pected.“ Poma reports that young men of 18 to 20, who acted as the army’s
carriers and messengers, would be issued some hominy and thick clothes as “a
great gift.’lB7Soldiers who had distinguished themselves in battle were given
cloth, and Estete was told that the vast storehouses of “new clothing” found
at Atawalpa’s encampment at Caxamarca were to be issued to his armies on
his formal accession to the throne.Es
Even the royal kin were susceptible to offers of textiles. During the recon-
quest of Ecuador by Wayna Qapaq, the king was confronted with a rebellion of
his relatives who resented the unprecedented gifts and privileges granted to the
Kafiari, an incipient standing army. Sarmiento reports that the king soothed
his rebel relatives with clothes and food, in that order.’e In Salcamayhua’s in-
dependent report of the same incident, the king had to offer “for grabs” much
cloth and food and other, unnamed, valuable things.’O The much debated his-
torical sequence of Montesinos may be imaginary, but his account that, during
the reign of one Titu YuDanqui, the soldiers rebelled because they were hungry
and had not received the two suits of clothing owed them annually, has a
culturally authentic ring. “The king ordered the granaries repaired and the
clothing mitta revived”; only then were the soldiers satisfied.’l
718 A mericalz A lzthropologist [64, 1962
There are other ways of indicating the extraordinary attachment displayed
by the army toward cloth. I n describing the occupation of Xauxa by the
Europeans, P. Sancho says that general Quizquiz’ retreating army burned a t
least one and maybe several warehouses full of “many clothes and maize,” in
that order.’* I n describing the same events, Zdrate tells us that when Quizquiz
had to withdraw suddenly, he left behind 15,000 llamas and 4,000 prisoners,
but burned all of the cloth which he could not carry.78The enemy was not de-
prived of the men (who, according to Garcilaso, joined the European army) or
of llamas, but of cloth. . . . To the north, in Ecuador, Atawalpa’s lieutenant,
Rumiiiawi, retreating before Sebastidn de Benalcdzar’s invaders, similarly
burned down a room-full of fine cloth kept there since Wayna Qapaq’s time.”
When Pedro de Valdivia invaded Chile in 1541 he found that orders had
reached the local population from Inca resistance headquarters to: “hide the
gold, as we were coming for no other reason. . . to burn the food and the
cloth... . The execution was letter-perfect; they ate the llamas, pulled up all
.
the cotton, burned the wool, their own clothing , , and the sowed
None of these attitudes can be understood as matter-of-fact clothing or
ornamental needs. Here archeology is more helpful than the chronicles, since
we find evidence of the magico-military importance of cloth back in Mochica
times, two thousand years ago. Battle scenes painted on North Coast pottery
show prisoners being undressed and their clothes carried off by the victor.76
These attitudes endured beyond the fall of the Inca state: during the civil wars
among the Europeans, their Andean troops believed that the enemy could be
harmed or killed by getting hold of his clothes and using them to dressan
effigy which was hanged and spat upon.77 When the Almagristas lost the
battle of Salinas, the Indians who accompanied both armies proceeded to un-
dress the dead and even the w0unded.7~Titu Cusi claims that during Manco
Inca’s withdrawal to resistance headquarters a t Vilcabamba, in the 1540’s, a
skirmish took place in the highlands; even if the nature of the battle was dis-
torted, his statement that the victorious Indians took all the Europeans’
clothes79is likely to reflect cultural norms. More than two centuries later, in
1781, the European dead were undressed during the Indian rebellions which
culminated in the siege of Cuzco and La Paz.ao
Feather-ornamented cloth seems to have had a special association with
soldiers and war. The feathers collected by children while herding were used in
kumpi and “other military and imperial needs.”*l In describing the military
warehouses which he saw in the fortress near Cuzco, P. Sancho reports one con-
taining 100,000 dried birds whose feathers were used for clothing. Thesen-
tences preceding and following this account discuss military stores.82 Salca-
mayhua, whose historical accuracy is doubtful, but whose sense of appropriate
apparel, being unselfconscious, should be good, states that when Yawar Wakaq
expected war, he ordered the preparation of feather garments and of armor.*a
Mitmaq colonists, who sometimes acted as frontier guards, were “paid” in
feathers as well as clothes.
Any commodity so highly valued is bound to acquire rank and class conno-
MURRA] Cloth in the Inca State 719
tations. The king had certain fabrics reserved for his use alone and his shirts
are reported to have been very delicate, embroidered with gold and silver,
ornamented with feathers, and sometimes made of such rare fibers as bat hair.
Morda claims to have handled a royal garment so delicately made that it
fitted into the hollow of his hand.@
The main insignia of royalty was a red wool fringe which fell over the king’s
forehead and was sewn onto his headdress. Kings were quite fastidious and
changed their clothing frequently. Morda and Garcilaso tell us that royalty
gave away their discarded apparel, but P. Pizarro claims to have seen hampers
which contained all of Atawalpa’s used clothing, along with the bones and
corn cobs he had gnawed on.%This is credible as we know from P. Sancho, an-
other and independent witness of the invasion, that the mummies of deceased
kings kept “everything”-not only vessels used for eating, but all hair, nail
parings, and clothes.86
The court, the royal lineages, and the state church shared in the status con-
sumption and display of textiles. The initiation rites of royal youths are well
described by Cristdbal de Molina: the ceremony lasted most of the month of
November, but spinning and weaving preparations by the women-folk in the
initiate’s immediate family began in September.*’ At each step of this pro-
tracted initiation, the candidate changed clothes, and each garment was a gift
from a particular relative, a ceremonial obligation expressing and strengthen-
ing kin ties. The colors, the fabrics used, the ornamentation, all had some rela-
tion with the legendary history of the 12 royal panakas.
Royal marriages shared in this symbolic use of textiles. I n the Cuzco area
the Inca himself sometimes solemnized the weddings of his kin. He ordered
enough clothes to be brought from the warehouse and gave each bride and
groom two suits of clothing, food, and llamas.88 Morda is the only source to
give us a fairly detailed description of a king’s marriage. The Inca took a rich
cloth and a tupu-pin to his bride and told her that “in the same way as she
would be mistress of that cloth, so she would lord over all things, just as he
did.” On presenting the bride with the fabric, he asked her to put it on and in
return she offered him a garment woven by her own hands. After the wedding
they went to the royal quarters, through streets “paved” with colored and
feathered cloth. Among the grants made on this occasion by the king to his
court were fabrics of all kinds according to status, also llamas and wool, even
lands and servants.8B
Like life crises, religious activities are easier to document a t the state
level; the associations of church and cloth were manifold. Some of the images of
Sun or Thunder were made of thick blankets, so tightly packed that the “idol”
could stand by itself; others were made of gold and dressed in vestments of gold
thread and wool. Most of the time the statues sat hidden behind a kumpi cur-
tain of the finest and “subtlest” kind. On great holidays the images were
brought out on the shoulders of priests and placed in public on a small seat,
smothered in feather blankets.g0 Pirwa, the first legendary human who had
been sent by the Creator “to guard the Inca dynasty,” is recorded to have
720 American Anthropologist [64, 1962
stood watch over their clothes, “treasures,” and warehouses in that order.g1
The ceremonial state calendar included many sacrifices, when fabrics as
well as llamas were offered and burned. At Zithuwa time, in September, when
illness was driven out by washing it down the river, the priests threw into the
water eviscerated llamas, much cloth of all colors, coca leaf, and flowers.02Dur-
ing Camay, in December-January, when 10 llamas were sacrificed for the
king’s health, each royal lineage (parcialidad) contributed 10 garments of very
fine red and white cloth to be burned in honor of the Sun, Moon, Thunder,
Wiraqocha, and Earth Mother.Oa At Mayocati, on the 19th day of the same
month, multi-colored clothes, feathers, llamas, flowers, and the ashes of the
whole year’s sacrifices were again thrown in the to be carried off into the
Amazon.
Many of these sacrifices were made from the warehouses of the church, the
several shrines, and sometimes even from those of the state. It is unfortu-
nately impossible to determine what sacrifices were made from which ware-
house; apparently such deities as the Sun or Thunder had their own stores.gK
The extraordinary value placed on cloth by Andean cultures and the exis-
tence of class differences allowed the manipulative use of this commodity in a
variety of political and social contexts. We saw above the compulsory nature
of peasant weaving for their koraka and for the state. The koraka, in turn, pro-
vided “gifts” for the Cuzco representatives, including clothes, from the popu-
lations to be enumerated and administered.O6 When Wayna Qapaq passed
through Xauxa and organized one of the many wakes for his mother, he was
impressed with gifts of fine cloth so well worked “that the king himself dressed
in it.”07
Since traditional reciprocity was the model for Inca state revenues, an
ideologic attempt was made to complement such massive textile exactions
through a redistributive policy which exalted the institutionalized generosity of
the crown. The simple fact that a fine cloth like tokapu or kumpi had come to
be defined as a royal privilege meant that grants of it were highly valued by the
recipient, to the point that unauthorized wear of vicuila cloth is reported to
have been a capital offense.g8On important state occasions, like accession to
the throne or a t the death of a king, when large crowds gathered a t Cuzco, the
crown distributed among those attending as many as 1,000llamas, women, the
right to be borne in litters and, inevitably, ~ 1 0 t h . ~ ~
Everybody from a humble peasant working for his koraka t o a lofty royal
prince who was being removed from the succession race “considered themselves
well rewarded” by a grant of garments, particularly if these had belonged to
the chief or the king.loOAnybody who had carried “tribute” or an idol or had
come to Cuzco on an official errand was given something “in return,’’ depend-
ing on status, but always including cloth.lol Sons of koraka, who were hostages
in Cuzco, had their exile sweetened by grants of clothes from the royal ward-
robe which they sent home, a sign of royal pleasure.lm
Administrators leaving Cuzco for the provinces, and local koraka deserving
M URRA] Cloth in the Inca State 721
the king’s favor, could count on grants of many kinds, including “women and
servants,” but always cloth.’O* One of Wayna Qapaq’s sons, Waman, who had
done well a t some administrative task, was granted “as a great favor” a gold
threaded shirt. The same source alleges that a W m u , the highest regional ad-
ministrator, would get land, 2 “rich” shirts, 300 cloths of kumpi and Upi; even
the officials in charge of the king’s clothes were rewarded with fabrics.lM Con-
versely, those officials guilty of crimes against the state lost their “estate”
(kazienda), their servants, and their c1oth.lm There is nothing strange in the
political use of prestige objects; the novelty consists in discovering that, in the
Andean area, the artifact of greatest prestige and thus the most useful in power
relations was cloth.
Exchanges of cloth were an integral part of diplomatic and military nego-
tiations. When young Yawar Wakaq was held captive by the Anta, his father,
Inca Roka, sent the kidnappers cloth as well as an offer of ritual kinship.’0BI n
the early days of his succession dispute with Waskhar, Atawalpa sent his royal
brother a delegation with a gift of clothing; “taking the clothes which his
brother sent him, Waskhar threw them in the fire and said: my brother must
think that we do not have this kind of cloth around here or he wants to cover
his deceit with it. . . .”lu7
When an area was incorporated into the kingdom, the new citizens were
.
granted “clothes to wear . . which among them is highly valued,” according
to Blas Valera.lo8 The local deity was included among the beneficiaries: in
Huarochiri, Pariacaca received cloth of all kinds from the king.lo8 Some rec-
iprocity prevailed: once defeated, the coastal king of Chimd sent the con-
queror cloth, shell beads, and 20 girls.110Sometime after the campaign was
terminated, the king himself appeared in the dress of the local inhabitants,
<‘muchto their great pleasure.”’ll
Understanding the functions of cloth in such a military context may lead to
a major new insight into Inca economic and political organization. The sources
quoted hint strongly of the compulsory nature of these “gifts” of cloth to con-
quered ethnic groups. Several chroniclers, and particularly Garcilaso, have
been greatly impressed with what they see as a campaign of peaceful penetra-
tion, the paradox of the gift-laden conqueror. They see in this a further example
of the “generosity” of the Inca state.
There is another way of viewing such ceremonial gifts to the vanquished, a t
the moment of their defeat: the compulsory issue of culturally valued commodi-
ties in a society without money and relatively small markets11ecan be viewed
as the initial pump-priming step in a dependent relationship, since the “gen-
erosity” of the conqueror obligates one to reciprocate, to deliver on a regular,
periodic basis, the results of one’s workmanship to the Cuzco warehouses.
To the Andean peasant, the Inca “gift” could be stated as doubly valu-
able: as cloth and as a crown grant. The state was doubly served: the supply of
cloth was ensured and the onerous nature of the weaving mitta could be
phrased in terms of culturally sanctioned reciprocity. But one can also see in
7 22 A merican A nthropol ogist [64, 19621
this textile “gift” the issuing of Inca citizenship papers, a coercive and yet
symbolic reiteration of the peasant’s obligations to the state, of his conquered
status.
A primary source of state revenues, an annual chore among peasant obliga-
tions, a common sacrificial offering, cloth could also serve a t different times
and occasions as a status symbol or a token of enforced citizenship, as burial
furniture, bride-wealth, or armistice sealer. No political, military, social, or re-
ligious event was complete without textiles being volunteered or bestowed,
burned, exchanged, or sacrified. I n time, weaving became a growing state
burden on the peasant household, a major occupational specialty, and eventu-
ally a factor in the emergence of retainer craft groups like the aklla, the weaving
women, a social category inconsistent with the prevailing Cuzco claim that
services to the state were no more than peasant reciprocity writ large.”*
NOTES
(The dates in square brackets following the names of 16th and 17th century authors refer
to the year of first publication or writing; the second, modern date refers to the edition used by
the writer for the present article.)
1 Earlier versions of this paper were read at the Boston meeting of the American Anthro-
pological Association in 1955 and at the 2nd Congress of Peruvian History in Lima in 1958. The
research was aided by a faculty fellowship from Vassar College and a grant-in-aid from the Social
Science Research Council.
3 Bennett and Bird 1949:256. See also Lila O’Neale, who felt that “on their primitive looms
they produced extraordinarily fine textures, and in addition they had imagination, ingenuity and
technical proficiency to develop unknown numbers of simple and complex weave variants. Design
and color harmonies exhibit a confident sense of proportion which never fails to arouse admira-
tion” (1949: 105).
Carri6n Cachot 1931; Bennett 1946:29.
Bennett and Bird 1949:258; Bird 1952:20; 1954:3. There is an excellent summary of techni-
cal information on Andean textiles by Bird (Bennett and Bird 1949:256-93); see also his bibliog-
raphy (pp. 304-6) and Bird (1954). The latter’s discussion, based on archeological data dealt
mostly with coastal fabrics; my own, relying heavily on ethno-historic material, is mostly about
highland woolens.
6 Yacovleff and Herrera 1934:257.
8 Cardich 1958.
Bennett and Bird 1949:260; Bird 1954:3.
8 See, for example, in Pachacamac where cotton was six to eight times more abundant than
wool and the latter was found concentrated in the strata with Inca pottery (Bennett and Bird
1949: 275). Elsewhere, Bird utilizes proportions of wool within a textile complex as age indicator:
Paracas-Necropolis is likely to have been earlier than Nazca A or B, since it had less wool (Bird
1952: 21).
Santillh [1563-64], ch. 64; 1927:61.
9
Garcilaso [1604], bk. 8, ch. 13; 1943: 183.
lo
Angeles Caballero 1955:44-45.
la Poma [1615], 1936:48-56.
l* Murra 1960:400.
14 Cob0 [1653], bk. 14, ch. 11; 1956:258-59. The dictionary of GonzBlez Holguh [1608],
(1952) is another early reference to Quechua phrases on weaving and weavers (see pp. 17, 67,
84,270). For modern studies of weaves and looms see O’Neale and Kroeber (1930), O’Neale and
Clark (1948), Bird (Bennett and Bird 1949), O’Neale (1949), and Bird (1954).
MURRA] Cloth in the Inca State 723
16 However, from Gonzalez Holguh’s dictionary we learn that ahua was the weave of the
cloth, ahuani, to weave, and ahuuc, the weaver, without any implications of quality (pp. 17-18).
In modern Cuzco Quechua, cloth is awuy (Morote Best 1951:119).
Pedro Pizarro [1572], 1844:272.
l7 Cieza [1550],bk. 1, ch. 94; 1862:439. See also Gonzalez Holguh [1608], 1952:67.
O’Neale 1949: 106; Bird 1954: 15.
Cob0 [1653], bk. 14, ch. 2; 1956:238-39. See also the systematic, modem discussion of
Inca clothing by Rowe (1946:233-35).
*O Cieza [lSSO], bk. 2, ch. 19; 1943:73.

l1 Pedro Pizarro [1572], 1844:222; MorGa [1590], bk. 3, chs. 11 and 33; 1946: 187,242; Salca-
mayhua [1613 ?I, 1927:144.
*I M o r k [1590], bk. 3, ch. 29; 1946:233; Garcilaso [1604], bk. 4, ch. 13; 1943:202; Cob0
[1653],bk. 14, ch. 11; 1956:258.
28 X6rez [1534], 1853:330; Santillh [1563-641, ch. 52; 1927:43; Polo [1571], 1916c:131;
JimCnez de la Espada, 1881-1897, vol. 2:69; Poma [1615], 1936:199 [201], 207 [209], 216 (2181,
218 [220],220 [222], 222 [224];Cob0 [1653],bk. 11, ch. 7; 1956:22.
24 Morote Best 1951:119.

Polo [1571], 1916c:66.

M Ortiz [1562], 1920:42; 1956:305; 1957:318, 326.
Ortiz [1562], 1925:228; 1955:195.
In Murra 1956: ch. 2, “Land Tenures.”
Polo [1561], 1940:181 and [1567], 1916b:2Wl; Garcilaso [1604], bk. 4, ch. 11; 1943: 199;
Gonzalez Holguh [1608], 1952:323; Arriaga [1621],ch. 6; 1920:58.
10 Mu& 1926: 15.
Matos 1958:201.
a Romdn [1575],bk. 2, ch. 10; 1897:330; Monla [1590],bk. 3, ch. 33; 1946:240; Po- [1615],
1936237.
a ibidem.
Polo [1559], 1916a:8 and [1567], 1916b:194. Within the next 90 years these lines were
copied by Acosta, M o r k , and Cobo. See also Poma (16151, 1936:290 [292]and 194 [196].
a O’Neale 1935:247.
a Yacovleff and Muelle 1932:48; 1933:73, 78; Bird 1954:45,55.
87 Monla [1590],bk. 3, chs. 51,52; 1946:287,290. Poma [1615], 1936:297 [299]; Cob0 [16531,

bk. 13, ch. 3; 1956: 154.

as Nfiiiez del Prado 1952:9; Morote Best 1951: 151.
ao Cavero 1955:155.
40 Arriaga [1621],chs. 1, 2 and 9; 1920:5,25,98.

41 Montesinos [1644],bk. 2, ch. 8; 1882:48-49.

4r Santillln [1563-641, chs. 27 and 102; 1927:29,95.
Cob0 [1653],bk. 13, ch. 22; 1956:203.
44 Cob0 [1653], bk. 13, ch. 14; 1956: 176.
(6 Rowe 1955, 1957; Ncfiez Anavitarte 1955; Moore 1958.
(8 Ortiz [1562J, 1920:28, 41; 1955:205, 208; 1956:44, 304; 1957:318,326.

47 Ortiz [1562], 1957:318, 326.

Polo [1561], 1940:141.
do Falc6n [ca. 15801, 1918: 154.
60 Polo [1561J, 1940:14&41; [1571], 1916c:131.

6l Sarmiento [1572], 1943: 117-18.

62 Garcilaso [1604],bk. 5, ch. 6; 1943:234-35.
sa Salcamayhua [1613 TI, 1927:147.
64 Polo [1571], 1916c: 127. See also [1561], 1940: 136 and 178. Thirty years after the invasion,
the peasants in the Huhuco area still remembered that the Inca crown had issued them the wool
to be woven for the state warehouses and contrasted this with European exactions which insisted
724 American Anthropologist [64, 1962
on peasants providing their own cotton, which they did not even grow but had to trade for
(Orti2 [1562], 1920:30, 3940, 158-59; 1957:302-3.)
M Polo [1571], 1916c:66 and 65.
Polo (15711, 1916c:66.
67 Blas Valera in Garcilaso [l604], bk. 5, ch. 12; 1943:248. See also Garcilaso himself
(1943:240): “there was wool to be given out to the vassals every two years and to the korakas in
general so they would make clothes for themselves and for their wives and children and the man
. .
in charge of ten households took care to check if they were dressed . .” See also Polo [1561],
1940: 135-36; 147-48; [1571], 1916c: 128-29 and Monh [1590], bk. 3, ch. 29; 1946: 187.
68 Cieza [ISSO],bk. 2, ch. 18; 1943:69.
SQCastroand Ortega [lSS8], 1936:244; Polo [1561], 1940:165 and [1571], 1916~66,127;
SantillLn [1563-64], ch. 41; 1927:38-39.
60 Castro and Ortega, ibid. Compare SantillBn [1563-641, ch. 52 with ch. 73; 1927:43 with 68.
a1 See also the indignant post-European protest of Poma [1615], 1936:495 [499], 497 [Sol],
526 [530], 896 19101 and drawings, 564 [578], 654 [668].
@* X6rez [1534], 1853:334.
en Estete [1535], 1918:f. 8v.
M Pedro Pizarro [1572], 1&14:272. See also Polo [1561], 1940:156.
Cieza [lSSO], bk. 2, ch. 12; 1943:41-42.
RomLn [lS75], bk. 3, ch. 12; 1897:203.
6’ Poma [1615], 1936:203 [ZOS].
68 Estete [1535], 1918:f. 8.
M Sarmiento [1572],1943:126.
’OSalcamayhua [1613 71, 1927:213-14. See also Cabello Valboa [1586], bk. 3, ch. 21;
1951:375-76.
71 Montesinos [1644], bk. 2, ch. 10; 1882:58.
n P. Sancho [1534], ch. 4; 1917:141. See also letter to the king from the cabildo of Xauxa
[1534], 1941.
1 ZBrate [1555], bk. 2, ch. 12; 1853:483. See also Garcilaso [1617], bk. 2, ch. 14; 1919-20:67.
74 Zhrate [1555],bk. 2, ch. 9; 1853:481.
76 See the letter from Valdivia to Hernando Pizarro [1545], 18%:84.
76 Muelle 1936: 76.
77 Morfia [1590], bk. 3, ch. 58; 1946:306.
78 ZBrate [1555],bk. 2, ch. 11; 1853:491. See also Garcilaso’s version [1617], bk. 3, ch. 18;
1919-20: 67.
70 Titu Cusi [ca. 1569],1916:83.
80 Villaneuva 1948: 75.
Poma [1615], 1936:207 [ZOS].
P.Sancho [1535],ch. 17; 1917~194.
88 Salcamayhua (1613 ?], 1927:174,190.

M M o r b [1590], bk. 3, ch. 21; 1946:216.

Pedro Pizarro [1572], 1844:250-51; Morda 115901, bk. 3, ch. 1; 1946: 155; Garcilaso [1604],
bk. 6, ch. 1; 1943:8.
8 P. Sancho [1535], chs. 17 and 19; 1917:195, 200.
87 Molina “de Cuzco” [1575], 1943:46.
88 Betanzos [1551],ch. 13; 1880:87.

Mortm (15901, bk. 3, ch. 30; 1946:235-36.

O0 Pedro Pizarro [1572], 1844:265; Cob0 [1653], bk. 13, ch. 5; 1956:157-58.
Jesuita An6nimo (Blas Valera ?) [1590 ?], ch. 1; 1945:4.
Q2 Betanzos [1551]ch. 15; 1880: 104; Molina “de CUZCO” [lS75], 1943:46.
0s Cob0 (16531,bk. 13,ch. 26; 1956:213.
Moliia “de Cuzco” [1575], 1943:64-65.
96 Poma [1615], 1936:265 [267].
90 Sarmiento [1572], 1943:88.
MURRA] Cloth in the Inca State 725
97Cob0 [1653], bk. 12, ch. 16; 1956:89.
95Garcilaso [1604], bk. 6, ch. 6; 1943:ZO.
99 Cabello Valboa [1586], bk. 3, ch. 20; 1951:359; Mortia [1590], bk. 3, ch. 44;1946:266;
Salcamayhua [1613 ?], 1927: 194; Cob0 [1653], bk. 12, ch. 6; 1956:69.
100 Cabello Valboa [1586], bk. 2, ch. 20;1951: 197.
101 Falc6n [ca. 15801, 1918: 153-54. See also excellent description in Cob0 [1653], bk. 12, ch.
30; 1956: 125.
Garcilaso [1604], bk. 7, ch. 2; 1943:90.
Molina “de Cuzco” [1575], 1943:46.
lMM o d a [1590],bk. 3, chs.5 and 29; 1946: 171-72,233.
106 Castro and Ortega [lSSS], 1936:242.
1M Sarmiento [1572], 1943:61-62.
lo7 Cabello Valboa 115861, bk. 3, ch. 26; 1951:408, 413.
lo* In Garcilaso [1604], bk. 5, ch. 12; 1943:247.
lo9 Avila [1608], ch. 19; 1942:f. 84r.
110 Vaca de Castro [1554 I], 1920: 16.
ll1 Cieza [lSSO], bk. 2, chs. 52 and 56; 1943: 199, 210.
111 Murra (1956:ch. 7, “Markets and Trade”). The possibility of cloth having functioned as a
kind of currency should be considered some day when functional data on Andean economics are
more widely available (see O’Neale 1949:lOZ). For Mesoamerican data see Anne C. Chapman
(Polanyi, Arensberg and Pearson 1957: 127) and Garibay (1961:29,43,63,111,119,121,123, 151
and particularly 175-78).
11* Murra 1956:ch. 8, “From Corvb to Retainership.”

REFERENCES CITED
ANGELES CABALLERO, CESARA.
1955 Folklore de Huaylas. Archivos Peruanos de Folklore, Vol. 1, No. 1. Lima.
ARRIAGA, PABLOJosd DE
..
1920 Extirpacidn de la idofatrla en el Perti . [1621]. Colecci6n de libros y docurnentos
referentes a la historia del Perti, serie 11, vol. 1. Lima.
AVILA, FRANCISCO DE, ed.
1942 De priscorum Huaruchiriensium ... [1608]. Bibliothecae Nationalis Matritensis
edidit Hippolytus Galante. Madrid.
BENNETT,WENDELL C.
1946 The archaeology of the central Andes. Handbook of South American Indians,
Vol. 2. Washington.
BENNETT,WENDELL C. and J u m s BIRD
1949 Andean culture history. American Museum of Natural History, Handbook No. 5
New York.
BETANZOS, JUAN DE
1880 Suma y narraci6n de 10s Incas ... [1551]. Biblioteca Hispano-Ultramarina, Vol. 5,
Madrid.
BIRD,J u m s
1952 Fechas de radiocarbono para Sud America. Revista del Museo Nacional, Vol. 21.
Lima.
1954 Paracas fabrics and Nazca needlework. Textile Museum, Washington, D.C.
CABELLO VALBOA, MIGUEL
1951 Miscelhea AntCtica [1586]. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Instituto
de Etnologla, Lima.
CARDICH,AUGUSTO
1958 Los yacimientos de Lauricocha. Centro Argentino de Estudios Prehist6ricos.
Buenos Aires.
c A a a r 6 N CACHOT, bBECA
1931 La indumentaria en la antigua cultura de Paracas. Wm:Kocha, Vol. 1, No. 1. Lima.
726 American Anthropologist [64, 1962
CASTRO, CRIST6BAL DE, and DrPGO ORTEGA MOaEJ6N
1936 Relaci6n y declaraci6n del mod0 que en este Valle de Chincha . .. [lSSS].Herman
Trimborn, ed. Quellen zw Kulturgeschichte des praekolumbischen Amerika. Studien
zur Kulturkunde. Vol. 3. Stuttgart.
CAVERO, LUISE.
1955 Rito funerario: el Pichqa. Archivos Peruanos de Folklore, Vol. 1, No. 1. Lima.
CIEZA DE LE6N, PEDRO
1862 Primera parte de la crdnica del Perti ... [ISSO].Biblioteca de Autores Espaflolea,
Historiadores Primitivos de Indias, Vol. 2. Madrid.
1943 Segunda parte de la cr6nica del Pefi ... [1550].A. M. Salas, ed. Buenos Aires.
COBO,BERNAB~
1956 Historia del Nuevo Mundo [1653].Biblioteca de Autores Espafloles, Vols. 91-92.
Madrid.
ESTETE,MIGIJEL DE
1918 Noticia del Perh [1535].Boleth de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Estudios Hiat6ricos
Americanos. Vol. 1, No. 3.Quito.
FALC6N, FRANCISCO
1918 Representacidn hecha en Concilio Provincial. .. [ca. 15801. Colecci6n de libros y
documentos referentes a la historia del Perti, serie I, Vol. 11. Lima.
GARCILASO DE LA VEGA,“El Inca”
..
1943 Primera parte de 10s Comentarios Reales . [1604].Angel Rosenblatt, ed. Buenos
Aires.
. .
1919-20 Historia general del Perd , [1617].Coleccidn de libros y documentos referentes
a la historia del Perti, serie I, Vol. 3.Lima.
GARIBAY K., ANGELMARIA, ed.
1961 Vida econdmica de Tenochtitlan. Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de Mdxico,
Instituto de Historia, Seminario de Cultura Nkhuatl. Mtxico.
GONZALEZ HOLGU~N, DIEGO
1952 Vocabulario de la lengua general de todo el Perk [1608]. Universidad Nacional
Mayor de San .Marcos, Instituto de Historia. Lima.
JESUITA AN~NIMO (Blas Valera 7)
. .
1945 Relaci6n de las costumbres antiguas , [I590 ?] Pequefios Grandes Libros de
Historia Americana. Lima.
JWXNEZ DE LA ESPADA, MARCOS, ed.
1881-97. Relaciones Geogrkficas de Indias. 4 volumes. Madrid.
MATOS,Josd
1958 La estructura econ6mica de una comunidad Andina. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima.
MOLINA“DE CUZCO”, CRIST6BAL
1943 Relaci6n de las fkbulas y ritos de 10s Incas [1575].Los Pequefios Grandes Libros de
Historia Americana. Lima.
MONTESINOS, FERNANDO DE
1882 Memorias Antiguas historiales y pollticas del Perti [1644].Coleccidn de Libros
Espafioles Raros y Curiosos, Vol. 16.Madrid.
MOORE,SALLY FALK
1958 Power and property in Inca Peru. New York, Columbia University Press.
MOROTEBEST,EFRA~N
1951 La vivienda campesina de Sallaq. Tradici611, Nos. 7-10.Cuzco.
MOR~JA, MARTINDE
1946 Historia y genealogfa real de 10s Reyes Inca . .. [1590]. Constantino Bayle, ed.
Madrid.
MUELLE,JORGE C.
1936 Chalchalcha-un anhlisis de 10s dibujos Muchik. Revista del Museo Nacional, Vol.
4. Lima.
MURRA] Cloth in the Inca State 727
Mufiz, CESARA.
1926 Del folklore indfgena. Revista Univershria, Vol. 16, No. 52. Cuzco.
MURRA,JOHN V.
1956 The economic organization of the Inca state. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Chicago.
1960 Rite and crop in the Inca state. In Culture in history, essays in honor of Paul Radin,
Stanley Diamond, ed. Columbia University Press.
NWEZANAVITARTE,CARLOS
1955 El cacicazgo como supervivencia “exlavista-patriarcal” en el seno de la sociedad
colonial. Cuzco.
N 6 h Z DEL PRADO, OSCAR
1952 La vida i la muerte en Chinchero. Cuzco.
O’NEALE, LILAM.
1935 Pequeiias prendas ceremoniales de Paracas. Revista del Museo Nacional, Vol. 4,
No. 2. Lima.
1949 Weaving. Handbook of South American Indians, Vol. 5. Washington D.C.
O’NEALE,LILAand A. L. KROEBER
1930 Textile periods of ancient Peru: I. University of California Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 28, Berkeley.
O’NEALE,LILAand B. J. CLARK
1948 Textile periods of ancient Peru: 111. University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 40.Berkeley.
ORTIZDE Z~S~IGA, IRIGO
. ..
1920 to date Visita , , a 10s Yachos y Chupachos, en Huhuco . Revista del Archivo
Nacional. Lima.
PIZARRO, PEDRO
1844 Relaci6n del dexubrimiento y conquista de 10s reynos del Perd . . . [1572].Colecci6n
de documentos inCditos para la historia de Espaiia, Vol. 5. Madrid.
POLANYI, KARL,CONRAD M. ARENSBERGand HARRYW. PEARSON
1957 Trade and market in the early empires. Glencoe, Illinois, the Free Press.
POLODE ONDEGARDO, JUAN
.
1916a Errores y supersticiones . , [1559]. Colecci6n de Libros y Documentos referentes a
la Historia del Perti, sene I, vol. 3. Lima.
1916b Instrucci6n contra las ceremonias y ritos ... [1567]. Coleccidn de Libros y Docu-
mentos referentes a la Historia del Perd, sene I, Vol. 3. Lima.
1916c Relaci6n de 10s fundamentos acerca del notable dano que resulta de no guardar a
10s indios sus fueros . . . [1571]. Colecci6n de Libros y Documentos referentes a la
Historia del Perti, serie I, Vol. 3. Lima.
1940 Informe .. , a1 licenciado Briviesca de Mufiatones (15611. Revista Histbrica, Vol.
13. Lima.
P o u DE AYALA,GUAM~N
1936 Nueva cor6Nca y buen gobierno [1615]. Institut d’Ethnologie. Paris.
ROMANY ZAMORA,JER~NIMO
1897 Repcblicas de Indias [1575]. Colecci6n de libros raros y curiosos que tratan de
Amkrica, Vols. 13-14. Madrid.
ROWE,JOHN HOWLAND
1946 Inca culture at the time of the Spanish conquest. Handbook of South American
Indians. Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.
1955 Movimiento nadonal Inca del siglo XVIII. Revista Universitaria, No. 107. C u m .
1957 The Incas under Spanish colonial institutions. Hispano-American Historical Review,
Vol. 37, No. 2.
SALCAMAYHUA, JUAN DE STACRUZPACHACUTI YAMQUI
.
1927 Relaci6n de antiguedades deste reyno del Pirti . . [ca. 16131. Colecci6n de Libros y
Documentos referentes a la Historia del P e d , serie 11,Vol. 9. Lima.
728 A merican Anthropologist (64,19621
SANCHO DE LA HOZ, PEDRO
1917 Relacibn de lo sucedido en la conquieta ..
, [1535]. Colecci6n de Libros y Docu-
mentos referentes a la Historia del Per& sene I, Vol. 5. Lima.
SANTILL~,
HEBNAMH)DE
..
1927 Relaci6n del origen, descendencia, polltica y gobierno de 10s Incas , [1563-641.
Coleccl6n de Libros y Documentos referentes a la Historia del Per$ serie 11, Vol.
9.Lima.
SARMIENTODE GAMBOA, PEDRO
1943 Historia I n d i a [1572].Biblioteca Emece. Buenos Aires.
TITOCusr YUPANQUI
..
1916 Relaci6n de la conquista del PerG . [ca. 15651.Coleccidn de Libros y Documentos
referentes a la Historia del PerG, sene I, Vol. 2. Lima.
VACA DE CASTRO
1920 Discurso sobre la descendencia y gobierno de 10s Incas ... [1544 ?I. Colecci6n de
Libros y Documentos referentes a la Historia del Peh. Serie 11,Vol. 3.Lima.
VALDMA, PEDEO DE
1896 Letter to Hernando Pizarro [1541].In J. T. Medina’s Colecci6n de Documentos
InHtos para la Historia de Chile, Vol. VIII. Santiago.
VALERA,B m
1943 see Garcilaso, 1943.
VILLANUEVA, HORACIO
1948 Los padres betlemitas del Cuzco y la rebelibn de Tupaj Amaru. Revista del Insti-
tuto y Museo Arqueol6gic0, No. 12. Cuzco.
XATJXA, TEE C M O OF
1941 Letter to the King [1534].Revista Histbrica, Lima.
XBREZ,FRANCISCO DE
..
1853 Verdadera relaci6n de la conquista del Per6 , [1534].Biblioteca de Autores
Espafloles, Vol. 26. Madrid.
YACOVLEFF, EUGENIO and FORTUNATO HERRERA
1934 El Mundo Vegetal de 10s Antiguos Peruanos. Revista del Museo Nacional, Vol. 3,
No. 3. Lima.
YACOVLEFF, EUGENIO and JORGEC. MUELLE
1932 Una exploraci6n en Cerro Colorado. Revista del Museo Nacional, Vol. 1, No. 2.
Lima.
1934 Un fardo funerario de Paracas. Revista del Museo Nacional, Vol. 3,No. 1-2. Lima.
Z h A T E , AGUST~N DE
1853 Historia del descubrimiento y conquista de la provincia del PerG ...[1555].
Bihlioteca de Autores Espailoles, Vol. 26. Madrid.