Andean Past Volume 10 Article 12 4-15-2012 Inca Storage and Accounting Facilities at Pachacamac Peter Eeckhout Universite Libre de Bruxelles, [email protected]Follow this and additional works at: hps://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/andean_past is Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Andean Past by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Eeckhout, Peter (2012) "Inca Storage and Accounting Facilities at Pachacamac," Andean Past: Vol. 10 , Article 12. Available at: hps://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/andean_past/vol10/iss1/12
Transcript
Andean Past
Volume 10 Article 12
4-15-2012
Inca Storage and Accounting Facilities atPachacamacPeter EeckhoutUniversite Libre de Bruxelles, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/andean_past
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Andean Past by anauthorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Recommended CitationEeckhout, Peter (2012) "Inca Storage and Accounting Facilities at Pachacamac," Andean Past: Vol. 10 , Article 12.Available at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/andean_past/vol10/iss1/12
INCA STORAGE AND ACCOUNTING FACILITIES AT PACHACAMAC
Peter EeckhoutUniversité Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
. . . Our best data on Inca storage come from thePeruvian Central Highlands where, as it seemsclear, storage was unusually important. However,we need more intensive work in other areas inorder for a more complete and comparativeperspective to emerge (Morris 1992a: xiii).
INTRODUCTION
The work of Craig Morris on the Incas’economy and storage system represents animportant stage in our understanding of theirgreat Andean empire (Morris 1967, 1986,1992b; Morris and Santillana 1978; Morris andThompson 1985; among others). Morris’sthought and approaches do not apply only to thesites and regions where he, himself, worked, butalso to other sites, as he stressed. Specifically, hisinsights are relevant to the Andean coast wherethe evidence for storage is very different fromthat found in the highlands. There are a fewpublished studies of Inca storage at sites on thePacific coast, including Farfán in the Jequete-peque Valley (Mackey 2006), Chiquitoy Viejoin the Chicama Valley (Conrad 1977), Incawasiin the Cañete Valley (Hyslop 1985), La Cen-tinela in the Chincha Valley (Morris and San-tillana 2007), and Tambo Colorado in the PiscoValley (Hyslop 1984:108-11), but there isnothing comparable to the work on the subjectaccomplished at highland sites like HuánucoPampa (Morris and Thompson 1985), HatunXauxa (D’Altroy 1992; D’Altroy and Hastorf1984), and Pumpu (Matos 1994), among others(LeVine, editor 1992).
In this article I present information on thefinds and contexts of quipus and collcas (Quech-ua for storehouses, also spelled qollqas) at thesite of Pachacamac, on Peru’s central coast. FirstI describe a series of collcas, focusing on thedifferences between the coast and the highlandsin the design of storehouses, their number, andcapacity. Work in the northern portion of thesite has led to the discovery of a probable Incastorage system, a building designated StructureE8, described in this article. Several quipus havebeen found in this building, as they have been inother contexts at the site. My interpretation ofthese finds in light of the general framework ofInca imperial political and economic organiza-tion suggests that Pachacamac was controlledindirectly by the Incas, who used the site not asa state administrative center, but as a local one.They concentrated their efforts on developingfacilities related to the god for whom the site isnamed, and for large scale pilgrimage.
Pachacamac, at the mouth of the LurínRiver, was one of the most important sites of theInca empire (D’Altroy 2002; Eeckhout 1998,1999:410-417, 469-474, 2004a; Hyslop1990:255-61; Moseley 1992:185; Rowe 1946:191, 1963; Uhle 1903). It is, thus, interesting tosee how storage was managed there, but, some-what surprisingly, up to now there has been nowork focused specifically on that subject. Never-theless, one can see Inca traces in, among otherthings, the presence of storehouse complexes, aswell as of artifacts related to accounting andrecording (quipus or khipus and yupanas). In thisarticle I put down on paper data and thoughts
ANDEAN PAST 10 (2012): 213-239.
ANDEAN PAST 10 (2012) - 214
relevant to the role of storage and accountingfacilities in the Inca imperial economic organiza-tion as seen in the light of the general achieve-ments and specific finds made by the YchsmaProject.1
Evidence of quipus has been found duringseveral field seasons at Pachacamac, and we cannow identify a series of collcas whose number,design, and location allow us to understand theways the Incas controlled the site. The data,although preliminary, suggest that in the eyes ofthe Inca, Pachacamac was a major site bothsymbolically and in strategic terms, but one thatwas not as important, perhaps, in economicterms.
STORAGE IN THE INCA IMPERIAL ECONOMIC
ORGANIZATION
The collcas served to warehouse variouskinds of goods (c.f. D’Altroy 2002:284; Huay-cochea 1994; LeVine, editor 1992). These goodssupported various goals, including maintenanceof imperial armies on the march, maintenance ofworkers serving in the mit’a, redistribution tolocal residents during banquets and fiestas, andprovision for difficult times such as after badharvests. According to Timothy Earle (1992:333), the possible, mutually non-exclusive, functions of Inca storage were to support subsis-tence maintenance, to serve as distributionfacilities, and to be instruments of institutionalfinance. D’Altroy and Earle (1985) argue thatthis latter aspect is the most important one forunderstanding imperial organization, whichneeded resources to maintain itself and develop,but which did not have an advanced marketsystem. The mobilization by the state of a por-
tion of basic products extracted from the localeconomy allowed it to sustain those who workedfor the state (Earle 1992:334). Naturally, thissystem required adequate logistics, includingstorage facilities on a large scale, as well aswidespread economic control (ibid.).
Craig Morris, after studying the collcas ofHuánuco Pampa, concluded that their form(circular or rectilinear in plan) may have had arelationship to their contents. Above all, he2
demonstrated the high degree of elaboration ofthese storehouses, which were equipped withventilation systems and other features to ensurethe best possible preservation of the perishableproducts they contained (Morris and Thompson1985:97-107). He also emphasized that a crucialfactor for effective storage was the location ofcollcas in high places with relatively low temper-atures and constant winds (Morris 1992b: 254-256). This later consideration explains why thesites with the largest number of collcas are foundabove 3300 m.a.s.l.
The Inca state incentivized the movement ofproducts to concentrate them at specific sites.For example, at the site of Cotapachi, in theCochabamba Valleys of Bolivia, collcas occupiedapproximately 140 hectares. They stood in rowsand added up to about three thousand units forthe stockpiling of maize produced in the area(Pereira 2011). Nevertheless, this site is notassociated with other facilities except for domes-tic ones, and is integrated into the Qapaq Ñan,the Inca highway system, via a secondary road(Snead 1992:92). Sometimes collca complexesare dozens of kilometers away from the mostproductive agricultural zones, as is the case withHuánuco Pampa (Earle 1992:332).
These aspects of the Inca economy havebeen understood since the beginning of the
El Proyecto Ychsma (Université Libre de Bruxelles,1
Belgium and Instituto Nacional de Cultura del Perú, nowthe Ministerio de Cultura) began in 1999 in order toclarify the function, development, and influence of thesite of Pachacamac during the Late Intermediate Periodand the Late Horizon.
This suggestion has not been confirmed at Hatun Jauja2
by D’Altroy (2002:284).
215 - Eeckhout: Inca Storage at Pachacamac
Spanish conquest. In the case of Pachacamac,the earliest accounts mention its economic andpolitical arrangements. In January 1533, Her-nando Pizarro arrived in the area and revealedthat “In all the plains and beyond, tribute is notpaid to Cusco, but to the mosque” (Pizarro3
1872 [1533]:123). This quotation reflects thedecentralized organization of the Inca empire asdescribed above. As various authors have em-phasized, Cusco, in contrast to other ancientimperial capitals such as Rome, did not have alarge population (Pärssinen 2003:131-139).Therefore, it was not necessary to bring vast quantities of goods from the various parts of theempire, but only that which was sufficient for afew thousand Cusqueños, who also obtainedmany of their resources in the nuclear area(Bauer 2004). In summary, the Incas developedan economic policy based on the control of aportion of the resources and labor of the diverseparts of their territory (D’Altroy 2002:268-286).This is evident from the presence of the famoustambos and administrative centers, as well asfrom transformations imposed on pre-existingsites. These latter settlements reveal three traitsdirectly related to the imperial economy andlogistics: storehouses, the presence of officialfunctionaries, and access to the Qapaq Ñan. Aswe will see, all three traits are found at Pacha-camac.
FIELD DATA ON STORAGE FACILITIES AT
PACHACAMAC
The studies on storage by Morris, and others,focus mostly on the highland collcas which areformally different from the storehouses found atsites on the coast, and in the lower portions ofthe coastal valleys. It is sufficient to mention theexample of Chan Chan, whose storehouses are
found within its Chimu ciudadelas (large royalpalaces) and upper elite compounds (Kolata1990), and not outside the city, as with numer-ous highland examples. The coastal storehousesdiffer in their access system, which is not via lowdoors, as in the mountains, but via their roofs,using stairs or ladders. Coastal storehouse4
dimensions vary greatly, and, in general, theindividual coastal storage systems are larger thanexamples from the sierra. This is true of Pacha-camac, where we have several examples ofstorehouses pertaining to the Late IntermediatePeriod and the Late Horizon (Table 1).
Building Period N ofo
collcas
Estimated
m2Estimated storage
capacity m *3
P1
P2
P3A
P3B
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10-TC
P11
P12A
P12B
P13
P14
P15
P16
ToS
Acllawasi
A1-A2
E8
LIP
LIP
LIP
LIP
LIP
LIP
LIP
LIP
LIP
LIP
LH
LIP
LIP
LIP
LH
LIP
LIP
/
LH
LH
LH
LH
26
21
4
4
12
10
17
5
/
4
12
3
16
6
4
4
6
5
15
12
35
20
650
725
120
90
300
115
1225
500
200
600
20
625
455
200
180
80
100
765
225
2100
625
1300
1450
240
180
600
230
2450
1000
400
1200
40
1250
910
400
360
160
200
1530
450
4200
1250
Totals
*Volumes are structure volumes to roofline, based on an estimatedaverage height of two meters as determined by excavation. Structurevolumes do not take into account accommodations for packaging.
Table 1. Storage facilities at Pachacamac
Storehouses dating from the Late Intermedi-ate Period are systematically associated withlarger buildings, such as the pyramids with ramp(Figures 1, 2). In formal terms, all are orthogo-nal, generally square in plan, sunken, and closely
In the early sixteenth century many Spanish writers3
referred to important Amerindian religious structures asmosques (mezquitas), conflating Islam with other non-Christian religions.
At Chan Chan access to storehouses is through a4
central door at floor level (c.f. Moseley and Mackey1974).
ANDEAN PAST 10 (2012) - 216
associated with private sections of their sites.That is, access was controlled by the chiefinhabitants of the pyramids, as is demonstratedby the buildings’ internal systems of movement(Eeckhout 2003). This differs a great deal fromthe Inca pattern, in which the storehouses stoodbeyond their sites’ centers, usually on a heightwith fresh air. Highland collcas do not exhibitevidence of access as restricted as that of coastalones. The capacity of the Pachacamac storagesystem is relatively restricted. At any rate, it doesnot compare with the hundreds of collcas atHuánuco Pampa, for example, even though bothsites are comparable in size and importance(compare Snead 1992:68, table 3-2).5
These two specific characteristics, the lowernumber of storehouses, and the restricted access,suggest that storage at Pachacamac representeda select portion of goods intended for consump-tion, possibly reserved for a specific segment ofthe population, who took precautions in lookingafter it. This model fits a general pre-Inca pat-tern, marked by a concentration of staple prod-ucts in the domestic unit, while storehousesproper were reserved for luxury objects, associ-ated with elite structures (Earle 1992:340). Thispattern at Pachacamac also shows that themanagement of storehouses was not in thehands of a force extending over the entire site,but, instead, was divided among different groups,each based at one of the several pyramids withramp (Eeckhout 2004b). The data presented in
Table 1 reveals that, during the Late Intermedi-ate Period, each pyramid had its own stores,which varied a great deal in terms of numberand capacity. These depended on the form ofpolitical and economic control exerted by theYchsma chiefdom. According to the model Ipropose on the basis of field-work data, thepyramids are the palaces of curacas, the localleaders, who divided surplus production andtook part of it for their own benefit, storing it intheir pyramids. Not all the pyramids functionedat the same time. Instead, each one was occu-pied for one or two generations between thefourteenth and fifteenth centuries C.E. by anelite hierarchy reflected in the sizes of the build-ings, and defined through excavation and radio-carbon dates as ongoing research from theYchsma Project suggests.
What did the storehouses contain? It mustbe emphasized that for Pachacamac Pyramid 3,the most complete example studied by the Ychs-ma Project, excavations confirmed that thepremises had been completely emptied (Eeck-hout 1999:128-192, 2004b). Nevertheless, inone of the buried areas in Plaza 2 we foundcorn-cobs offered as conopas, which may suggest6
the way the area was used (Eeckhout and Farfán2001). Régulo Franco Jordán has had moresuccess, encountering corn-cobs, gourds, andchilli peppers in the main storerooms of Pyramid2. It appears that these were roofed to protectthem from wind and insects (Franco 1993:17-18). The stratigraphy of the contents shows thatthe storehouses were not always used to keep thesame type of product, and it is probable that theyserved totally different ends. For example, therewas a layer of camelid excrement in a buriedperipheral area (ibid: 72) and there were scratchmarks made by dog claws on the walls of one ofthe structures near the platform (Paredes
In the highlands, many fields produce only one crop a5
year (c.f. Mitchell 1991:71-73) and many must be leftfallow for long periods. This makes storage a greater necessity in the highlands than it is on the coast. On thecoast, in Inca and early colonial times, most fields couldbe planted twice a year with maize and othercultivars(Cieza 1962 [1553]: Chapter 66, p. 193), as theyare at present. On the coast it is easier than in thehighlands to fertilize using fish and/or guano, and fish andshellfish are generally available all year for humanconsumption. Another crop and another supply ofprotein are always available soon (Monica Barnes,personal communication, August 2011).
These are special natural items chosen for their unusual6
size or form. They were considered to be sacred and usedas propitiatory offerings.
217 - Eeckhout: Inca Storage at Pachacamac
1988:50), allowing us to think that these struc-tures served to confine animals. Paredes (ibid.:54) concludes, nevertheless, that Pyramid 2appears to have been dedicated mainly to thestoring of chilli, present in several depositsassociated with the building.
It is certain that Pachacamac has beenintensively robbed since the beginning of theSpanish conquest and it is most probable thatonly minimal traces remain of the produce itsstorehouses may once have contained. This iswithout considering the valuable goods (textiles,various artifacts, etc.) that were probably alsokept in them. Furthermore, given that almost allthe pyramids were abandoned over the course ofthe Late Intermediate Period, it is logical thatone no longer encounters anything in the store-houses. In reality we are confronting a situationlike that of the palaces of Chan Chan, whosestorehouses were also all found to be empty (Day1982:60). The Lurín Valley has also sufferedfrom plundering, but on a smaller scale.
Certain local palaces functioned under Incaauthority, therefore forming the second hierar-chical level in the chiefdom, and, thus, probablyretained a good part of their privileges (Eeck-hout 2008a). Likewise, excavation of a pyramidwith ramp at the site of Pampa de las Flores inthe lower Lurín Valley confirms indisputably therole of storage attributed to buried structures,because maize was encountered in situ (Eeck-hout 1999:289-90). At the nearby site of Tijer-ales B, Bonavia (1965:91-92) found raw cottonin a roofed storehouse of the South Pyramid.This evidence suggests that perishable goods(such as food products) were stored, but, per-haps, so were other consumable goods (such aswool, cotton, and ordinary ceramics), prestigegoods (fine clothing, imported products, deco-rated ceramics, etc.) and/or products of ritualvalue (coca, chicha, etc.). In summary, every-thing was stored that was necessary for the dailylife of curacas, for their office, for the exercise of
their authority, and for the maintenance of theirpersonnel.
For the Late Horizon one clearly observesthat there was a drastic change in the distribu-tion of storehouses at Pachacamac. During thistime none of the pyramids with ramp was beingused as the residences of the local elite, with twoexceptions, P10 (Tauri Chumpi) and P13. I willreturn to those below. The other pyramidsserved as campsites for pilgrims, and they werequickly reused as burial chambers (Eeckhout2010a). When the site was conquered by theIncas, Topa Inka Yupanqui undertook manytransformations there (Patterson 1983). Thesechanges were motivated, among other reasons,by the desire to make the site a pilgrimage centerat the imperial level (Eeckhout 2008b). ThePlaza of the Pilgrims (Plaza de los Peregrinos),the Temple of the Sun (Templo del Sol), andthe House of the Chosen Women (Casa de lasMamaconas or Acllawasi) were built in areaspreviously occupied by local constructions. Asfor storehouses, a series of structures exists onthe platforms of the Temple of the Sun that,from their design, could have served as collcas,but their present state of conservation does notpermit much to be said about this (Franco1996). There are, as well, some probable store-houses associated with the Acllawasi (Tello2009), but, according to our observations, theInca storage systems observable today are con-centrated in two places: the vicinity of the Plazaof the Pilgrims, especially at structures A1-A2,and in the northern sector of the site, where weidentified a very unusual structure, designatedE8.
The A1 compound is north of the Plaza ofthe Pilgrims, and consists of a series of plazas,patios, rooms, and sunken structures standingon several levels (Figure 3). It is an importantbuilding complex probably related to the con-duct of ceremonial activities and to offeringsbrought by pilgrims. This part of Pachacamac
ANDEAN PAST 10 (2012) - 218
has not been excavated, but surface clearancerevealed architectural evidence suggestingstorage functions, such as rows of sunken roomswith means of access control. The absence ofexcavation data from this compound makes itdifficult to assign it a chronological position.Nevertheless, there is evidence relating it to theLate Horizon, for example, an aryballos found inthe corner of one of the compound’s rooms(Figure 4). In addition, both the A1 compoundand its neighbor A2 are clearly associated withthe Plaza of the Pilgrims, which excavation hasdemonstrated to have been constructed in Incatimes (Eeckhout and Farfán 2003; Shimada et al.2004; Uhle 1903).
Structure E8 is in the E section (barrio) ofPachacamac, that is, at the extreme north of thesite (Figure 5). It is an isolated structure, but onethat is associated with circulation routes ofwhich only traces remain, including a wall to theeast topped with a path, and a trace of a streetor passage to the west. Although partially de-stroyed by the old Panamerican Highway andthe present concrete wall that delimits themonumental portion of the site, the principalcomponents of E8 are preserved, and its generalform can be reconstructed, as is illustrated bythe isometric plan we made on the basis of fielddata. It has a generally rectilinear form andappears to have been completely surrounded bya two meter wide wall, with access in the south-west. It consists basically of two parts: a largepatio, eighty by sixty meters, associated with aseries of buried chambers with square plans, laidout in two parallel rows of ten units each alongthe south wall of the patio. A room to the frontand center of the units can also be observed. Wewill return to this later. The two rows of buriedstructures are arranged in steps. That is, the rownearer the patio is lower than the other. Accord-ing to the observable evidence, access to theserooms was achieved via paths atop walls. Theform and design of the rooms is very similar tocoastal type storehouses. We have not yet had
an opportunity to excavate the rows of rooms tocheck our hypothesis, but we have been able toexcavate the front room at the edge of the patio,although not as carefully as we would haveliked. However, during the course of cleaningthe room in front of the rows of chambers, weencountered a series of finds that I will describebelow.
The front room is small and rectangular witha single entrance opening upon the patio (Figure6). One notices upon entering a division of theinternal space into two parts, perhaps a vestibulewith a small adjacent portion fitted with alateral platform or bench. Although it wasalready plundered, cleaning the room to Floor 1revealed some very instructive finds. The first isa small wooden cup finely decorated with anincised maize plant motif, a very frequent designin Inca iconography (Figure 7). This designsuggests that the object probably served fordrinking chicha, a practice related to fiestas andceremonies for the majority of people, and todaily consumption for certain privileged classessuch as curacas and high state functionaries(Bray 2003).
Second, we encountered lying on the floorand broken into several dozen pieces, a ceramicobject that we reconstructed. The process ofrestoration was somewhat difficult because theobject weighs about ten kilograms and has amost unusual form. It is basically a cube withseveral appendages and a round central hole(Figure 8). Two of the appendages show foursmall holes, perhaps designed to suspend orattach thin cords while quipu knots were beingtied (see below). Its dark orange paste is veryhomogeneous. The piece is painted white anddoes not show marks of burning, nor traces ofany contents. We do not know its purpose.Perhaps it served as some sort of model. Anotherpossibility is that it was used to keep quipus(compare Flores et al. 2007:243, figure 34),something suggested by the find I describe next.
219 - Eeckhout: Inca Storage at Pachacamac
FIELD DATA ON ACCOUNTING FACILITIES
AT PACHACAMAC
The third remarkable find from the prelimi-nary excavations of the front room of StructureE8 is a collection of quipus found lying on thefloor, spread over the platform, and on thebroken floor between the room and the en-trance. Unfortunately, the several masses ofquipu have decomposed, possibly because of rainor because of some other liquid thrown overthem (Figure 9). Together with Kusi Colonna-Preti, the conservator of the Ychsma Project, Iam studying the possibility of restoring them, or,at least, separating them, but this would be avery delicate operation. Nevertheless, we hopeto recover significant objective data (number,position, and type of knots) so that these quipuscan be used for scientific purposes. On the basisof field observations, we can already say that wefound at least nine quipus, apparently all of finecotton cords, the majority a natural white color.We cannot discount the possibility that thereare more quipus, because some bundles of cordsmight incorporate more examples. Some of thequipus, at least, have colored knots.
Quipu H24A, found on the surface of theplatform, is one of the most deteriorated. Never-theless it has headers and cords of differentcolors, beige, violet, and possibly brown (thelatter perhaps due to the liquid that caused itsdecomposition). Quipu H24I was found rolledup like a hank of yarn, has white cords, and isassociated with a cane and remains of a plain-weave textile with some selvage visible. QuipuH24J is another quipu in bad condition, also rolled like a hank of yarn. It is brown, blue, andviolet. Quipu H24K is another packet of de-composing, dark brown quipus with knots. Thiswas found in the central part of the structurebetween the west wall and the bench. Theseartifacts are, themselves, associated with thebench and Floor 1.
The doubled and wrapped quipus resemblethe manner in which quipucamayoqkuna (keep-ers of quipu records) retained their quipus(Ascher and Ascher 1981:33). The quipuspreviously found at Pachacamac by AlbertoBueno in Structure B7 are famous, and he gavethe building the name “House of the Quipus”(Casa de los Quipus; Bueno 1990). Neverthe-less, the context seems different from that whichI have just described, because the quipus discov-ered by Bueno were hidden in a pit lined byadobes and covered with layers of earth, sand,and late archaeological debris. Bueno (ibid.:100) explains that the 34 quipus, enclosed in apacket formed by the hide of a young deer “werecompletely mixed up, tangled, and withoutorder. It would appear that everything was veryrapid, the placement within the hide, securingthe packet, depositing it to hide it, and so on.”7
We can assume that the owners of the quipus inStructure B7 did not want their precious objectsto suffer the same fate as those of E8.
Another quipu find was made in an intrusivecollective tomb from the Late Horizon/Transi-tion Period at Pachacamac Pyramid 3 (Eeckhoutand Farfán 2001:40). This artifact was found infragments, all made of white cotton (Figure 10).Unfortunately, the repeated plundering of itscontext does not allow the suggestion of morethan what is immediately obvious; that is, thatthe quipu was part of a set of funerary objects.
Finally, there is a very well preserved quipufrom Pachacamac that is now in the collectionsof the Vatican Museum in Rome (vidi 2002).Franco (1993:82; 1998) also reported the find ofa quipu in Sector 4 of Pyramid 2, but it is notdescribed or illustrated.
The original quotation reads: [Los quipus] “estaban7
completamente revueltos, enredados y sin ordén.Pareceria que todo fue muy rapido: la colocación dentrodel pellejo, su asegurado, la deposición para ocultarlos,etc.”
ANDEAN PAST 10 (2012) - 220
The association of collcas and quipus appearsto be generally quite coherent, because thereports of quipus being used as accountingregisters are numerous, with that of GuamanPoma being the most widely distributed (Gua-man Poma 1989 [c. 1615]:309, 336, 338). Allspecialists agree that the Inca registry system wasdecimal (Urton 1997, 2003). This can be seen inquipu structure, but can also be noted in othermedia. It is worth emphasizing that quipusserved to register, while other implements, calledyupanas, aided simple calculations (addition,subtraction, and multiplication). These instru-ments are based on a principle similar to that ofthe abacus, which consists of a certain numberof beads set on rods, each one of which indicatesa number. In the case of the ancient Peruvianabacus, small stones or seeds were used insteadof beads, and they were not placed on rods, butwere put into compartments carved into tabletsof wood or stone, with each compartment hav-ing a particular assigned value. Some yupanaswere very elaborate and sometimes have beencompared or confused with architectural mod-els. Others are very simple (Radicati 1990). AsHenry Wassén emphasized (1990:218), “We donot need to think that a Peruvian abacus hadinevitably to be made of a more or less solidmaterial like stone, wood, etc. It is quite proba-ble that sometimes they consisted of nothingmore than the form of an abacus drawn rapidlyin the sand, or on a piece of cloth, etc., and thefinal result was knotted into a quipu.” 8
This perhaps explains why, in spite of theirfrequent use, yupanas are relatively rare in thearchaeological record. Because of this, it isworth emphasizing a find made outside Pacha-
camac’s Pyramid 11 in 2008 (Figure 11). Thisstone artifact is a parallelepiped, 37.5 centime-ters long. It was found in a layer of fill with laterubbish. Five faces have been made in a crudemanner, while the last has a series of twentyround depressions carved in two parallel lines often units each. Although out of context, theobject’s design makes one think of a yupana,with its depressions forming the compartments.Also, the fact that the depression numbertwenty attracts attention because, for one thing,that is the average number in old yupanas, and,for another, twenty corresponds to the design ofStructure E8 described above. I do not mean tomake a direct connection between this artifactand Structure E8, but, rather, to underline thefact that they are both based on a similar struc-tural logic associated with the decimal systemand with duality or bipartition. In this sense, Ishare the thoughts of Gary Urton when he saysthat “Dual organization and the decimal systemof numeration, which . . . were central principlesin Inkaic (Quechua) administrative organiza-tion, are seen to have been not only compatiblebut complementary principles of organization”(Urton 1997:216).
INTERPRETATION OF FIELD DATA FROM
PACHACAMAC
So far as Structure E8 is concerned, thepresence of a group of quipus, of an artifactpossibly used to keep them, of a decoratedwooden kero, and the general context, lead tothe conclusion that this room was occupied by afunctionary who dedicated himself to the admin-istration of the goods that arrived in the build-ing, strategically located at the edge of themonumental zone. The goods left in the patio,perhaps by llama caravans (which would explainthe width of the access point), were recorded,and later kept in the nearby storage chambers. Itwould be very interesting to check this hypothe-ses with systematic excavations in the variousparts of the structure. To make a comparison I
The original quotation reads: “No hay que imaginar que8
un ábaco peruano tuviese que ser invariablement de unmaterial mas o menos sólido como piedra, madera, etc. Esmuy probable que a veces consistiese nada mas que de lafigura de un ábaco delineada rapidamente sobre la arena,o sobre un pedazo de tela, etc., y el resultado finalanudado en el khipu.”
221 - Eeckhout: Inca Storage at Pachacamac
should state that Valdez (1996:42) has formu-lated the same hypothesis on the basis of a quipufind near the storehouses at Tambo Viejo in theAcarí Valley. The architectural layout of Struc-ture E8 has many similarities with the Incastorehouses of Tambo Viejo, or with the greatstorehouse of Quebrada de la Vaca, in thevicinity of Chala, on the south coast of Peru,studied by Francis A. Riddell and DorothyMenzel in 1954 (Riddel 2007) and, later, byHermann Trimborn (1988:129). Valdez (1996:41) emphasizes that the storehouses at TamboViejo are a mixture of Inca and local forms, andthat their homogeneous sizes facilitate theadministration of accounts of the products theycontained. The storehouses of Tambo Viejowere found to be completely empty (ibid.), butnot far from this site, at the complex calledRodadero, Riddell and Menzel recovered quanti-ties of textiles probably from collcas in use duringInca times to store the goods produced by localmit’as (Katterman and Riddell 1994). Excava-tions at Quebrada de la Vaca revealed onlyplant remains such as algarrobo seeds, chilli,corn-cobs, and quinoa seeds (Trimborn 1988:41). According to Riddell, “The RectangularStorage Area [at Quebrada de la Vaca] certainlyserved as a storage facility, but it also may havebeen used for ritual activities . . .” (Riddell 2007:183). Riddell mentions three other sites withsimilar configurations in the Chala area: LaCaleta, Parara Depósito, and Chala Viejo Anti-guo (ibid.: 183-184). Unfortunately, Riddell didnot publish plans, but only a photo and briefdescriptions. Nevertheless, it is interesting thatthe same pattern reoccurs, a quadrilateral enclo-sure with a single entrance and rows of store-houses on one side. The overall dimensions arealso similar (Table 2).
Site Compound
size
Number of
collcas
Reference
Pachacamac-E8 80 x 60 m 20 See this paper,
passim
Tambo Viejo 60 x 40 m 7 Valdez 1996:40
Quebrada de
la Vaca
45 x 30 m 16 Trimborn 1998:
129
La Caleta 30 x 30 m Undetermined Riddell 2007:183
Parara Depósito 40 x 20 m Undetermined Riddell 2007:184
Chala Viejo
Antiguo
Not
mentioned
Undetermined Riddell 2007:184
Table 2. Comparisons of some coastal storage compounds
Perhaps this is a coastal collca model, relatedto the particular Inca form of management inthese regions, inspired by local models. Forexample, one’s attention is drawn to the config-uration of the storehouse complex associatedwith Pyramid 6 at Pachacamac, dating to theLate Intermediate Period, in which two rows offive sunken, quadrilateral chambers are associ-ated with a fore-chamber and a rectangularpatio (Figure 12).
We have seen that during the Late Interme-diate Period storehouses at Pachacamac wereassociated with the pyramids with ramp, not allof which had been in use simultaneously. Bycontrast, in the Late Horizon, all storage facili-ties functioned at the same time. For this reason,it appears somewhat artificial to compare theglobal storage capacity of the site before andduring the Inca occupation. Nevertheless, thiscomparison is instructive and we make it herefor heuristic purposes. If we add together thecapacity of all the collcas used during the LateIntermediate Period, we arrive at a total of 9,270cubic meters, while the total for the Late Hori-zon is 7,830 cubic meters. Remembering previ-ously expressed caveats, we can make variousdeductions. First, the total global storage capac-ity of the two periods is almost equal, whichsuggests that in reality capacity was augmentedin the Late Horizon relative to the Late Interme-
ANDEAN PAST 10 (2012) - 222
diate Period, because it was concentrated duringa shorter time. Secondly, the distribution of thecollcas changed completely and it is very reveal-ing in terms of the Incas’ management of the siteand its region. The complexes and sectors inwhich one finds storehouses are, on one hand,closely related to ceremonial and religiousaspects of the site (Temple of the Sun, House ofthe Chosen Women, Structure A1-A2, andPyramid 13), and with state management on theother hand (Structure E8 and Pyramid 10/TauriChumpi).
It is logical to suppose that the storehousesassociated with the Temple of the Sun arededicated to the solar cult, and that the Aclla-wasi, as is well known, had its own resources forthe acllas and the lunar cult (Tello 2009). Struc-tures A1-A2 and P13 stand on the sides of thePlaza of the Pilgrims constructed by the Incas toreceive the large processions organized through-out the empire to celebrate the Pachacamacoracle (Eeckhout 2008b) and heal the sick(Eeckhout 2010b). It is known that the pilgrimsbrought many offerings, and also that a substan-tial infrastructure was necessary to house them.The number of collcas in A1-A2 correspondsperfectly to these necessities. Pyramid 13, strate-gically located near the entrance of the Plaza,and with various access points to it, perhapshoused an important priest. Relevant to thishypothesis, early Spanish accounts mention twosupreme officials at Pachacamac during the Incaregime: the high priest of the temple and thegovernor or tucrikuk (Xerez 1965 [1534]:87).The latter has been identified as an individualnamed Tauri Chumpi, and for that reason thestructure excavated by Alberto Bueno in thenorthern portion of Pachacamac has beennamed “The Palace of Tauri Chumpi” (Palaciode Tauri Chumpi; Bueno 1974/75). All authorsagree that this building can be assigned to theLate Horizon, being, in fact, the probable resi-dence of the secular head of the site.
This brings me naturally to the portion ofthe collcas dedicated to state administration,those that are located, with good reason, in thesame palace of the tucrikuk (for his personal use,for the use of his personal, for the needs of hisoffice, etc.), and in Structure E8, in the sameneighborhood, probably near an entrance thatno longer exists. There, that portion of theproducts of the fields and other local resourcesrequisitioned by Incas were received. It is inter-esting to note that the storehouses of StructureE8 were associated with a large patio, which,perhaps, served to receive people during thebanquets and redistribution ceremonies thatwere part of the exercise of Inca power (Pease1992:15-24, 1999). Perhaps this large patio alsoserved to house the camelid caravans thatbrought goods to the site. No doubt these hy-potheses can be tested with excavation.
Apart from storehouses and the presence ofofficial functionaries, access to the Qapaq Ñanis another recurrent characteristic of the logis-tics of Inca state installations. We have an eye-witness account from the earliest days of theSpanish conquest concerning Pachacamac.Hernando Pizarro left Cajamarca towards theend of 1532, arriving at the site at the end ofJanuary 1533. He remained for a month, andfrom there he proceeded to Jauja and Cusco(Pizarro 1872 [1533]). He was accompanied byimportant Inca imperial officials, who took himalong the roads and to the tambos that werefound all along the highway (Guillén 1974:157-160). This has been amply documented byarchaeology, and almost the entire length of theQapaq Ñan from Pachacamac to Jauja has beenidentified. It is interesting to emphasize in thisrespect that parts of the Inca road, or at least itsroute, have been reused up to the present day(Hyslop 1984, 1990; La Torre and Caja 2005).
223 - Eeckhout: Inca Storage at Pachacamac
THE ROLE OF COASTAL STORAGE FACILITIES
IN THE INCA POLITICAL ECONOMY
The new finds presented in this article helpus to understand the specifics of Inca strategyand logistics in the coastal area. Above all onemust emphasize the relative increase of storagecapacity at Pachacamac under Inca rule. Thiscan only be explained by three possible factors.The first is that the Incas may have concen-trated at Pachacamac tribute coming from alarger area and more distant territory than thatcontrolled by the Ychsma curacas in the LateIntermediate Period. However, I do not believethat this was the case, as I explain below.
The second factor would be demographicgrowth of the area, for example because of mit’-maq (conscripted workers) coming from otherparts of the empire and paying tribute at Pacha-camac. It is certain that there was a colonycalled Quilcay established next to the site duringthe Late Horizon, and its members were dedi-cated to fishing (Eeckhout 1999:403). Perhapsthey contributed to the increase of products thatarrived at Pachacamac. The third factor, whichone can add to that just mentioned, would bethat the Inca tribute requirements were greaterthan previously and probably added to thetraditional obligations of the population. In thiscontext it is interesting to mention the work ofJane Feltham (2006) on the tribute of clothingduring the Late Horizon. On the basis of herstudy of the textiles found in excavations atPachacamac, she suggests that this tribute wasonerous to the people, who found themselvesobligated to save time when making their ownclothing, forcing them to look for productionmethods that were faster than those employedpreviously. By contrast, clothing made for trib-ute followed standards established by the Incasand required more time.
A characteristic of Inca logistics was thatthey built their own administration facilities, but
adapted them to the local context. On one handthey adopted local construction techniques andtraditional architectural design at Pachacamac9
but, on the other hand, built structures specifi-cally for administration, that is, ones that wereisolated and mostly separate from the eliteresidences. In this sense the Incas were verydifferent from the Ychsmas. The Inca arrange-ments also demonstrate a global control over thesite, and over regional resources, probably witha focus on its ceremonial aspects, as the quota-tion from Pizarro cited above (“tribute is notpaid to Cusco, but to the mosque”) suggests.This situation is not unique. Other authors havecommented, on the basis of ethnohistoricalsources, that storage to support the state cultcan be considered to be separate from storagesupporting other state functions (Snead 1992:72).
This peculiarity perhaps explains why, inspite of its expansion, Inca storage capacity atPachacamac remained modest (Table 1). Cer-tainly the greater part of Pachacamac, outsidethe Second Wall but within the Third Wall, hasnot been excavated. Nevertheless, the little10
work that has been accomplished and publisheddoes not suggest collcas in this place, but, rather,activity centers, modest residences (Malaga
Pyramid 13 was built and occupied during the Late9
Horizon. Its design conforms to local tradition, but itslocation and specific characteristics suggest that itfunctioned both as an elite residence and as an ushnu(ritual platform) associated with the Plaza of the Pilgrims(Eeckhout and Farfán 2008). The palace of TauriChumpi resulted from the adaptation and transformationof a Pyramid with ramp into an Inca palace, the reason itis also designated as Pyramid 10 (Eeckhout 2010a: 429).
Pacahacamac is divided into three major sectors or10
precincts. From south to north, the Sacred Precinctincludes the major temples and is enclosed by the FirstWall. The Second Precinct encompasses the pyramidswith ramps and other buildings and is enclosed by theSecond Wall. The Third Precinct is a desertic pampawith no monumental structures and is within the ThirdWall.
ANDEAN PAST 10 (2012) - 224
2008), and Late Horizon and early colonialburials (Uhle 1903:62-70). Until we have moreinformation, we must consider the Inca store-houses to be concentrated within the First andSecond Walls, that is, within the monumentalpart of the site, and, more specifically, in thesectors related to ceremonial activities.
In this sense, one cannot consider Pacha-camac to be a state installation of the majortambo type, used to house the imperial armieson the march, and, therefore, designed to storelarge quantities of goods. This was probably thecase with Huánuco Pampa, Hatun Xauxa, orPumpu, each of whose storage capacity is five orten times larger than that of Pachacamac. Thestorage at this latter site appears to be directedprincipally towards religious functions, especiallythose relating to pilgrimage and administration(the palace of Tauri Chumpi). Structure E8could have played a hybrid role, that is, be at thesame time an instrument of local administration,as I have described above, but also include, in itsplacement and design, the functions of a tambofor traveling Inca officials and chaskis (messen-gers), but certainly not for an army on the move.
In other words, Structure E8 was involved inimperial administration at a local level, corre-sponding to what Snead (1992:69, table 3-4)classifies as “storage at secondary state facili-ties”. If we follow this classification, StructureE8 embodies the characteristics of a large tambo,but not a major one, that is, one containing alimited number of storehouses associated with alarge number of facilities, as, for example, atTambo Colorado or Quebrada de la Vaca(ibid.:79-82).
In my opinion, the Incas invested more incult facilities than in the construction of collcason a grand scale for two reasons. First, theYchsma region already had a very well devel-oped and hierarchical network of sites equippedwith storehouses for the control of the resources
of the chiefdom (Eeckhout [editor] 2004; Eeck-hout 2008a). There was no necessity for theIncas to build more, so they simply took advan-tage of what already existed. The context wasnot the same in those parts of the highlandswhere they established large sites like Pumpu,Hatun Xauxa, and Huánuco Pampa (LeVine1992), or those in the Cochabamba Valleys(Pereira 2011), which concentrated the harvestsand resources of immense regions. Second, thepopulation of the chiefdom of Ychsma was notso numerous, nor its productivity so large, as tojustify the expenditure of enormous energy inthe construction of hundreds of storehouses orstructures for their development (see Eeckhout2001; Feltham 1983:354-360).
With respect to this, I can summarizeSnead’s general observations (1992:82-86) onthe highland-coastal dichotomy in state storage.The total number of Inca collcas on the coastrepresents no more than three percent of thetotal number of imperial storehouses in thesample of 71 sites that he studied. FollowingSnead, I think that this reflects the indirectcontrol of the state in regions where the degreeof social integration was already very high, andwhere the type of social management of laborwas different from the sierra, explaining therelatively low number of pre-Inca coastal store-houses (ibid.: 85). Finally, it is my opinion thatthe form of Inca storehouses on the coast, suchas I have described in this article, proceededfrom a local tradition, because there is greatconsistency, both in design and in size, in theLate Horizon. In the future this pattern may beconsidered to be an indication of indirect con-trol by the Inca over coastal provinces.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank the Instituto Nacional de Cultura (now theMinisterio de Cultura) for expediting permissions toconduct research at Pachacamac. The Ychsma Projectreceived financial support from the Université Libre deBruselas (Free University of Brussels), from the FondsNational de la Recherche Scientifique (National Scien-
225 - Eeckhout: Inca Storage at Pachacamac
tific Research Fund) and the Fonds de la RechercheFondamentale Collective (Belgian Fund for Basic Collab-orative Research), and from the Curtiss T. and Mary G.Brennan Foundation, Santa Fe, New Mexico. We alsoreceived logistical support from the Museo de Sitio dePachacamac (Site Museum of Pachacamac), and fromthe Belgian Embassy to Peru. I thank the entire excava-tion team, especially Carlos Farfán, Peruvian national co-director of the Ychsma Project; Milton Luján and Fran-cisco Vallejo, field assistants in charge of the site’s ZoneE; and Kusi Colonna-Preti who is responsible for conser-vation and restoration; surveyor Valérie Decart; and AxelBeff, who created the three-dimensional reconstructionsof buildings at the site. The figures that illustrate thisarticle were prepared by Nathalie Bloch (Centre de Re-cherches Archéologie and Patrimoine de la ULB [Centerof Archaeological Research and Patrimony of the FreeUniversity of Brussels]). An earlier version of this paperwas presented at the colloquium “Los Inkas y la Inter-acción de Sociedades, Paisajes, y Territorios en los Andes:Homenaje a Craig Morris”, held at the UniversidadNacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Perú, June 14-18,2010. I thank the three anonymous Andean Past review-ers who helped me improve this version and DavidPereira who kindly provided me with information on thesite of Cotapachi, Bolivia. I assume full responsibility forthe content of the present article, including any errorsthat might exist.
Translated from the Spanish by Monica Barnes
REFERENCES CITED
Ascher, Marcia and Robert Ascher1981 Code of the Quipu: A Study in Media, Mathemat-
ics, and Culture. Ann Arbor: University of Mich-igan Press.
Bauer, Brian S.2004 Ancient Cuzco: Heartland of the Inca. Austin:
University of Texas Press. Bonavia, Duccio1965 Arqueología de Lurín: Seis sitios de ocupación en la
parte inferior del valle. Tesis antropológicas 4. Lima:Instituto de Estudios Etnológicos del MuseoNacional de la Cultura Peruana and Departa-mento de Antropología de la Universidad Na-cional Mayor de San Marcos.
Bray, Tamara L.2003 To Dine Splendidly: Imperial Pottery, Com-
mensal Politics, and the Inca State. In TheArchaeology and Politics of Food and Feasting inEarly States and Empires, edited by Tamara L.Bray, pp. 93-143. New York: Springer.
Bueno Mendoza, Alberto1974-75 Cajamarquilla y Pachacamac: Dos ciudades de
la costa central del Perú. Boletín Bibliográfico deAntropología Americana 37(46):171-211.
1990 Hallazgo de un kipu en Pachacamac. In Quipu yyupana: Colección de escritos, edited by CarolMackey, Hugo Pereyra, Carlos Radicati, Hum-berto Rodríiguez, and Oscar Valverde, pp. 97-105. Lima: CONCYTEC.
Cieza de León, Pedro1962 [1553] La Crónica del Perú. Colección Austral
507, third edition. Madrid: Calpe, S.A. Conrad, Geoffrey W.1977 Chiquitoy Viejo: An Inca Administrative Cen-
ter in the Chicama Valley, Peru. Journal of FieldArchaeology 4(1):1-18.
D’Altroy, Terence N.1992 Provincial Power in the Inka Empire. Washington,
D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.2002 The Incas. Malden, United Kingdom: Blackwell
Publishers. D’Altroy, Terence N., and Timothy K. Earle1985 Staple Finance, Wealth Finance, and Storage in
the Inka Political Economy. Current Anthropol-ogy 26(2):187-206.
D’Altroy, Terence N. and Christine Hastorf1984 The Distribution and Contents of Inca State
Storehouses in the Xauxa Region of Peru.American Antiquity 49(2):334-349.
Day, Kent C.1982 Ciudadelas: Their Form and Function. In Chan
Chan: Andean Desert City, edited by MichaelMoseley and Kent C. Day, pp. 55-66. Albuquer-que: University of New Mexico Press.
Earle, Timothy K.1992 Storage and the Inka Imperial Economy: Ar-
chaeological Research. In Inka Storage Systems,edited by Terry LeVine, pp. 327-42. Norman:University of Oklahoma Press.
Eeckhout, Peter, editor2004 Arqueología de la costa central del Perú en los
períodos tardios. Boletín Temático del InstitutoFrancés de Estudios Andinos 33(3).
Eeckhout, Peter1998 Le temple de Pachacamac sous l’empire inca.
Journal de la Société des Américanistes 84:9-44.1999 Pachacamac durant l’Intermédiaire récent: Étude
d’un site monumental préhispanique de la côtecentrale du Pérou. British Archaeological ReportsInternational Series 747. Oxford: Hadrian BooksLtd.
2001 Monuments, temps et pouvoir: Force de travailet structure de l’autorité à Pachacamac, côtecentrale du Pérou. In Itinéraires belges aux
ANDEAN PAST 10 (2012) - 226
Amériques: Actes du 1er Colloque de la Société desAméricanistes de Belgique, edited by Peter Eeck-hout and Jacques Malengreau. Civilisations,Volume 50(1-2):195-213. Institut de Sociologiede l’Université Libre de Bruxelles.
2003 Ancient Monuments and Patterns of Power atPachacamac, Central Coast of Peru, Beiträge zurAllgemeine und Vergleichenden Archäologie23:139-182.
2004a Reyes del sol y señores de la luna: Inkas e ychs-mas en Pachacamac. Chungara 36(2):495-503.
2004b Pachacamac y el Proyecto Ychsma (1999-2003).In Arqueología de la costa central del Perú en losperíodos tardios, edited by Peter Eeckhout, pp.425-448. Special volume of Boletín del InstitutoFrancés de Estudios Andinos 33(3).
2008a Poder y jerarquías Ychsma en el valle de Lurín.Arqueología y Sociedad 19:223-240.
2008b El santuario del oráculo de Pachacamac y losperegrinajes a larga escala en los Andes pre-hispánicos. In Adivinación y Oráculos en lasAméricas, edited by Marco Curatola Petrocchiand Mariusz Ziolkowski, pp. 161-180. Lima:Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Fondoeditorial and Instituto Francés de EstudiosAndinos.
2010a Las pirámides con rampa de Pachacamac du-rante el Horizónte Tardío. In Arqueologia en elPerú: Nuevos aportes para el estudio de las socie-dades andinas prehispánicas, edited by RubénRomero Velarde and Trine Pavel Svendsen, pp.415-434. Lima: Universidad Nacional FedericoVillareal.
2010b Nuevas evidencias sobre costumbres funerariasen Pachacamac. In Max Uhle (1856-1944):Evaluaciones de sus investigaciones y obras, editedby Peter Kaulicke, Manuela Fischer, Peter Mas-son, and Gregor Wolff, pp. 151-163. Lima:Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, FondoEditorial.
Eeckhout, Peter and Carlos Farfán 2001 Informe final del Proyecto Ychsma: temporada
2000-2001. Instituto Nacional de Cultura,Lima.
2003 Informe final del Proyecto Ychsma: temporada 2003. Instituto Nacional de Cultura, Lima.
2008 Informe final del Proyecto Ychsma: temporada2008. Instituto Nacional de Cultura, Lima.
Eeckhout, Peter and Lawrence S. Owens2008 Human Sacrifice at Pachacamac. Latin American
Antiquity 19(4):375-398.
Feltham Jane P.1983 The Lurin Valley, Peru: AD 1000-1532. Ph.D.
dissertation, Institute of Archaeology, Univer-sity of London.
2006 Nuevos datos sobre los tejidos de Pachacamac:Urdimbres pareadas del Horizónte Tardío. InActas de las III Jornadas Internacionales sobreTextiles Precolombinos, edited by VictóriaSolanilla Demestre, pp. 261-280. Departamentd’Art, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona.
Flores Ochoa, Jorge A., Elizabeth Kuon Arce, RobertoSamánez Argumedo, Luis Federico Barreda Murillo, andCatherine Julien2007 Cuzco del mito a la historia. Lima: Colección Arte
y Tesoros del Perú.Franco Jordán, Régulo1993 Excavaciones en la piramide con rampa n°2, Pacha-
camac. Tesis de Licenciatura, Universidad Na-cional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima.
1996 El templo del sol de Pachacamac: Esplendor y poder.Lima: DPI.
1998 La pirámide con rampa n°2 de Pachacamac: Excav-aciones y nuevas interpretaciones. Trujillo, Perú: privately published.
Guaman Poma de Ayala, Felipe1989 [c. 1615] Nueva Corónica y Buen Gobierno. Tra-
vaux et Mémoires de l’Institut d’Ethnologie 23(second printing).
Guillén Guillén, Edmundo1974 Version Inca de la Conquista. Lima: Editorial
Milla Batres. Huaycochea Nuñez de la Torre, Flor de María1994 Qolqas: Bancos de Reserva Andinos; Almacenes
Inkas, Arqueología de qolqas. Cusco, Péru:Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad delCusco.
Hyslop, John1984 The Inka Road System. New York: Academic
Press.1985 Inkawasi the New Cuzco, Cañete, Lunahuana,
Peru. Oxford: British Archaeological ReportsInternational Series 234.
1990 Inka Settlement Planning. Austin: University ofTexas Press.
Katterman, Grace L. and Francis A. Riddell1994 A Cache of Inca Textiles from Rodadero, Acarí
Valley, Peru. Andean Past 4:141-167.Kolata, Alan L.1990 The Urban Concept of Chan Chan. In The
Northern Dynasties: Kingship and Statecraft inChimor, edited by Michael E. Moseley andAlana Cordy-Collins, pp. 107-144. Washington,D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library andCollection.
227 - Eeckhout: Inca Storage at Pachacamac
La Torre, Fabriciano and Consuelo Caja2005 Reconocimiento y registro del entorno territorial del
Qhapaq Ñan (Volumen II): El Qhapaq Ñan en laruta del Chinchaysuyu entre Xauxa y Pachacamac.Lima: Instituto Nacional de Cultura.
LeVine, Terry, editor1992 Inka Storage Systems. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press.LeVine, Terry1992 Inka State Storage in Three Highland Regions:
A Comparative Study. In Inka Storage Systems,edited by Terry LeVine, pp. 107-150. Norman:University of Oklahoma Press.
Mackey, Carol2006 Elite Residences at Farfán: A Comparison of the
Chimú and Inka Occupations. In Palaces andPower in the Americas: From Peru to the NorthwestCoast, edited by Jessica Joyce Christie andPatricia Joan Sarro, pp. 313-352. Austin: Uni-versity of Texas Press.
Malaga Villa, María Belén2008 Arquitectura domestica en las pampas de
Pachacamac durante el Horizónte Tardío: Exca-vaciones en el sector SW de las unidades A-2,A3, y A-4. Tesis de Licenciatura en Arqueo-logía, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú,Lima.
Matos Mendieta, Ramiro1994 Pumpu: Centro administrativo inka de la puna de
Junin. Lima: Editorial Horizonte.Mitchell, William P.1991 Peasants on the Edge: Crop, Cult, and Crisis in the
Andes. Austin: University of Texas Press.Morris, Craig 1967 Storage in Tawantinsuyu. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Chicago.1986 Storage, Supply and Redistribution in the Econ-
omy of the Inka State. In Anthropological Historyof Andean Polities, edited by John V. Murra,Nathan Wachtel, and Jacques Revel, pp. 59-68.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1992a Foreword. In Inka Storage Systems, edited byTerry LeVine, pp. ix-xiii. Norman: University ofOklahoma Press.
1992b The Technology of Highland Inka Food Stor-age. In Inka Storage Systems, edited by TerryLeVine, pp. 237-258. Norman: University ofOklahoma Press.
Morris, Craig and Julián Idilio Santillana1978 Perspectiva arqueológica de la economía in-
caica. Histórica 2(1):63-82.2007 The Inka: Transformation of the Chincha
Capital. In Variations in the Expression of InkaPower, edited by Richard L. Burger, Craig
Morris, and Ramiro Matos Mendieta, pp. 135-164. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Re-search Library and Collection.
Morris, Craig and Donald Thompson 1985 Huanuco Pampa: An Inca City and Its Hinterland.
London and New York: Thames and Hudson.Moseley, Michael E.1992 The Incas and their Ancestors. London and New
York: Thames and Hudson. Moseley, Michael and Carol J. Mackey1974 Twenty-Four Architectural Plans of Chan Chan,
Peru. Cambridge, Massachusetts: PeabodyMuseum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Har-vard University.
Paredes Botoni, Ponciano1988 Pachacamac–Piramide con Rampa n°2. Boletin
de Lima 55:41-58.Pärssinen, Martti2003 Tawantinsuyu: El estado inca y su organización
política. Lima: Instituto Francés de EstudiosAndinos, Pontificia Universidad Católica delPerú and the Finnish Embassy to Peru.
Patterson, Thomas C.1983 Pachacamac: An Andean Oracle under Inca
Rule. In Recent Studies in Andean Prehistory andProtohistory: Papers from the Second AnnualNortheast Conference on Andean Archaeology andEthnhohistory, edited by Peter D. Kvietok andDaniel H. Sandweiss, pp. 159-176. CornellUniversity Latin American Studies Program,Ithaca, New York.
Pease, Franklin G.Y.1992 Perú Hombre e Historia II: Entre el siglo XVI y el
XVIII. Lima: Ediciones Edubanco.1999 Curacas, Reciprocidad y Riqueza. Lima: Pontificia
Universidad Católica del Perú, Fondo Editorial.Pereira Herrera, David M.2011 Las qollqas incaicas de Cotapachi, Quillacollo,
Cochabamaba, Bolivia: Un tesoro de incalculablevalor histórico y arqueológico. Brochure distributedby the author. On file in the archives of AndeanPast.
Pizarro, Hernando 1872 [1533] A Letter of Hernando Pizarro to the
Royal Audience of Santo Domingo, November1533. In Reports on the Discovery of Peru, Volume3, edited by Clements R. Markham, pp. 111-127. London: Hayklut Society.
Radicati di Primeglio, Carlos1990 Tableros de escaques en el antiguo Perú. In
Quipu y Yupana: Coleccion de escritos, edited byCarol Mackey, Hugo Pereyra, Carlos Radicati,Humberto Rodríguez, and Oscar Valverde, pp.205-218. Lima: CONCYTEC.
ANDEAN PAST 10 (2012) - 228
Riddell, Francis A.2007 Archaeological Recovery at Quebrada de La
Vaca, Chala, Peru. Andean Past 8:181-218. Rowe, John H.1946 Inca Culture at the Time of the Spanish Con-
quest. In Handbook of South American Indians,Volume 2, edited by Julian H. Steward, pp. 183-330. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin143, Washington, D.C.
1963 Urban Settlements in Ancient Peru. NawpaPacha 1:1-28.
Shimada, Izumi, Rafael Segura, María Rostworowski deDiéz Canseco, and Hirokatsu Watanabe2004 Una nueva evaluación de la Plaza de los Pere-
grinos de Pachacamac: Aportes de la prímeracampaña 2003 del Proyecto ArqueológicoPachacamac. In Arqueología de la costa central delPerú en los periodos tardíos, edited by Peter Eeck-hout, pp. 507-538. Boletin Temático del Institu-to Francés de Estudios Andinos (Lima andParis).
Snead, James E.1992 Imperial Infrastructure and the Inka Storage
System. In Inka Storage Systems, edited by TerryLeVine, pp. 62-106. Norman: University ofOklahoma Press.
Tello, Julio C.2009 Arqueología de Pachacamac: Excavaciones en
el Templo de la Luna y cuarteles, 1940-1941.Cuaderno de Investigación del Archivo Tello 6(Museo de Arqueología y Antropología, Univer-sidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima).
Trimborn, Hermann1988 Quebrada de la Vaca: Investigaciones arqueológicas
en el sur medio del Perú. Lima: Pontificia Univer-sidad Católica del Perú, Fondo Editorial.
Uhle, Max1903 Pachacamac: Report of The William Pepper, M.D.,
LL.D. Peruvian Expedition of 1896. Philadelphia:The Department of Archaeology of the Univer-sity of Pennsylvania.
Urton, Gary1997 The Social Life of Numbers: A Quechua Ontology
of Numbers and Philosophy of Arithmetics. Austin:University of Texas Press.
2003 Signs of the Inka Khipu: Binary Coding in theAndean Knotted-String Records. Austin: Univer-sity of Texas Press.
Valdez, Lidio1996 Los depósitos inka de Tambo Viejo, Acarí.
Tawantinsuyu: An International Journal of InkaStudies 2:37-43.
Wassén, Henry1990 El antiguo ábaco peruano según el manuscrito
de Guaman Poma. In Quipu y Yupana: Colecciónde escritos, edited by Carol Mackey, Hugo Perey-ra, Carlos Radicati, Humberto Rodríguez, andOscar Valverde, pp. 219-234. Lima: CON-CYTEC.
Xerez, Francisco de1965 [1534]Verdadera relación de la conquista del
Perú llamada la Nueva Castilla conquistada porFrancisco Pizarro. In Crónicas de la Conquista delPerú, edited by Julio Le Riverend, pp. 29-124.México: Editorial Nueva España S.A.
229 - Eeckhout: Inca Storage at Pachacamac
Figure 1: Plan of the site of Pachacamac (after Eeckhout and Owens 2008: figure 2).
ANDEAN PAST 10 (2012) - 230
Figure 2: Storehouses associated with the Pyramid with Ramp 1, Pachacamac. The white arrow indicates the position from which the photo was taken.
Figure 3: Panorama and plan of Structure A1-A2, Pachacamac, along the Plaza of the Pilgrims.
231 - Eeckhout: Inca Storage at Pachacamac
Figure 4: Aryballos found in Structure A1, Pachacamac.
ANDEAN PAST 10 (2012) - 232
Figure 5: View and three-dimensional reconstruction of Building E8, Pachacamac.
233 - Eeckhout: Inca Storage at Pachacamac
Figure 6: Plan of the excavations in the fore-chamber in Structure E8, Pachacamac. A, B, C, D, E, F, I, J, K: quipus; G: ceramic fragments; H: wooden kero.
