An Archaeological Perspective on the Andean Concept of Camaquen: Thinking Through Late Pre- Columbian Ofrendas and Huacas Tamara L

Wayne State University DigitalCommons@WayneState

Anthropology Faculty Research Publications Anthropology

10-1-2009 An Archaeological Perspective on the Andean Concept of Camaquen: Thinking Through Late Pre- Columbian Ofrendas and Huacas Tamara L. Bray Wayne State University, [email protected]

Recommended Citation Tamara L. Bray (2009). An Archaeological Perspective on the Andean Concept of Camaquen: Thinking Through Late Pre-Columbian Ofrendas and Huacas. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 19, pp 357-366. doi:10.1017/S0959774309000547. Available at: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/anthrofrp/1

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Anthropology at DigitalCommons@WayneState. It has been accepted for inclusion in Anthropology Faculty Research Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@WayneState. Bray — Archaeological Perspective on the Andean Concept of Camaquen

An Archaeological Perspective on the Andean Concept of Camaquen: Thinking Through Late Pre-Columbian Ofrendas and Huacas

Tamara L. Bray

Ethnohistoric sources suggest that the indigenous inhabitants of Andean South America saw both people and things as animated or enlivened by a common vital force (camaquen). In approaching the subject of camaquenȱ¢ǰȱ ȱĴȱȱȱȱȱ their materiality at the analytical centre, rather than the normally privileged ethnohistoric or ethnographic data, in order to see what new insights into the nature of Pre-Columbian ontologies might be gained from ‘thinking through things’. In this, I follow recent theories premised on the idea that the traditional segregation of concepts and things may hinder ȱȱȱ ǯȱȱ¢ȱȱę¢ȱȱȱǰȱ ¢ȱȱ¢ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱěȱ contexts dating to the Inca period.

The earliest Spanish reports of initial encounters with ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ native Andean peoples render a sense of the profound theoretical stance advocating the idea of ‘thinking strangeness experienced but not yet digested by the through things’, I highlight two key concepts brought European invaders. The alien character of this new forth in the ethnohistoric documentation with regard world can be detected in such comments as those of to Andean ontological assumptions, and then turn to ȱȱȱǻŗşŚŝǼȱȱȱȁę¢ȱ ȱ a consideration of late Pre-Columbian sacred objects pole’ worshipped as the great Andean oracle Pach- ȱ ěȱ ǻofrendas) in light of these. The reas- acamac, or the reported wedding of a young girl to sessment of these archaeological phenomena from a sacred blue stone ‘no bigger than the size of one’s an ontological position that extends the notion of palm’ (Avila 1918, 69–70, cited in Salomon 1991), or ȱȱȬȱȱȱȱĚȱ the confession that a ceramic pot dressed in female back upon our common understanding of these key garb was venerated as the ancestor of a particular ayllu indigenous concepts, enriching our reading of them (Polia 1999, 505). Such observations suggest a radically through a recognition of their necessarily material and ěȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ relational nature. of being on the part of indigenous people in the Andes. Within the context of an emerging paradigm The ontological turn in anthropology: in anthropology that seeks to move beyond the dual- thinking through things ȱ¢ȱȱȱȦȮȦĴȱǰȱ ȱȱȱȱȱĴȱȱ¡ȱȱȱ ‘What would an artifact-oriented anthropology look ȱ ěȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ like if it were not about material culture’ the authors of ȱ ¡ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ę¢ȱ ǰȱ a recently published volume entitled Thinking Through ontologies. As an archaeologist, I am most interested Things ask? (Henare et al. 2007, 1). Arguing against the a ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱěȱȱȱ prioriȱȱ ȱĴȱȱǰȱȱ ȱěȱȱȱȱȱȱ and things, representation and reality, they question the ȱȱȱȱȬȱǯȱĞȱĚ¢ȱ utility of this assumption from an anthropological point

Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19:3, 357–66 © 2009 McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research doi:10.1017/S0959774309000547 Received 1 April 2009; Accepted 20 May 2009; Revised 23 July 2009357 ѝђѐіюљȱђѐѡіќћȱȯȱAnimating Archaeology

ȱ ǯȱ¢ȱěȱȱȱȱȱȱ the understanding that every subject, whether human things might be treated sui generis as meanings (2007, 3) or non-human, has its own point of view, and that and take as their starting point the identity of meaning wherever there is a point of view, there is necessar- and thing, allowing that these may be one and the same, ily a ‘subject position’. Rather than the subject being e.g. that things don’t ‘carry’ meaning but are meaning. ȱȱȱę¡ȱ¢ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ The ultimate aim of this refusal of the Western dichot- view emanates, however, in Amerindian theory, it is omization of the mental and the material is to explore the point of view which is understood to activate or other ways of understanding and being in the world create the subject (Viveiros de Castro 2004, 467). — the presumed remit of anthropology — and to work On the basis of such insights as those provided ȱȱęȱȱȱ¢ȱ ȱ by Viveiros de Castro, Hallowell (1960) and others, of the discipline. Henare et al. (2007) argue that there may well be The authors place their work on the continuum ěȱ ǰȱȱȱěȱ ǰȱȱ of what they describe as a quiet revolution in anthropo- ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱĴȱ logy, characterized as ‘the ontological turn’ (Henare et to the ‘ontological anomalies’ that we encounter as al. 2007, 7–12). This turn involves a movement away anthropologists in our engagement with others and from questions of knowledge and epistemology their understandings of the world. Here I extend these towards those concerned with ontology (see also ideas to the realm of archaeology. ȱǭȱǰȱȱǼǯȱȱę¢ǰȱ they see it as a movement away from the habituation Ethnohistoric insights into native Andean of anthropology to the exigencies of Cartesian dual- ontologies: of persons and things ism. From their perspective, the heuristic prescription of ‘thinking through things’ is what will enable us A key Andean concept for purposes of present discus- to go beyond the common sense assumption of ‘one sion is camay, a native Quechua term that has no clear world, many worldviews’, or the axiom that nature equivalent in Spanish or English. Salomon & Urioste is one, while culture is many, which makes the job (1991, 45) translate camay as ‘to charge’ or ‘to charge of anthropologists, then, the ‘interpretation’ of those being with’, ‘to make’, ‘to give form and force’, or ‘to other worldviews. animate’ (see also Taylor 1974–76; 1987). Camay is fun- They derive the idea of multiple natural worlds ¢ȱȱȱȱęȱȱȱǰȱ (as opposed to multiple cultural views of nature) from force, or power rather than as something abstract the work of Viveiros de Castro (1998; 2004) and the or generalized. Salomon (1991, 16) invokes the idea notion of ‘perspectival multinaturalism’ he developed of ‘species power’ with respect to this term, as, for on the basis of research into Amazonian cosmologies instance, in the case of the patron animals of shamans, and ethno-metaphysics. As discussed by this author ȱȱȱĴȱ ȱȱȱȱǰȱ (2004, 464–4), a foundational ontological premise of such as visual acuity, speed, or strength. Camay also many Amerindian peoples is that humanity, rather carries the connotation of bringing something extant than animality, constitutes the original condition of ȱȱȱȱ£ȱȱ¡ȱĴȱ all phenomena. From this, it follows that animals and (as opposed to creating something from nothing). In other non-human entities, having once been human the later sixteenth century for instance, ecclesiastical must still be; and while their bodily forms may conceal authorities who were intent upon precisely translating their interior subjectivity or core humanness, this the Christian doctrine for native Quechua speakers aspect of their being is nonetheless understood to be rejected the use of the term camay in favour of the verb formally identical to human consciousness. ‘ruray’ to refer to the creation of the universe, as the The ontological presumption here is one of spir- former term would have suggested ‘a god that was the itual unity and corporeal diversity such that culture, or soul (or hidden principle) of the world rather than its the subject, is the form of the universal, while nature, creator’ (Mannheim 1991, 66).1 Unlike the simple act or the object, is the form of the particular (Viveiros de of creation, which once done is over, camay intends ȱŘŖŖŚǰȱŚŜśǼǯȱȱěȱ¢ȱȱȱ something of continuity in sustaining the being, a con- modern Western belief in the unity of nature, lead- dition that involves an on-going relationship between ing Viveiros de Castro to the label ‘multinaturalism’ the camac (e.g. the ‘camay-er’) and its camasca (e.g. its in order to contrast the Amerindian position with tangible instantiation) (Salomon 1991, 16–17). contemporary ‘multiculturalist’ ontologies (Viveiros Many other cultures share a similar notion of de Castro 2004, 466). The perspectival aspect of Amer- a generative life force that infuses and animates all indian ontology as described by this author involves Ĵǯȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ mana-like concepts are ubiqui-

358 Bray — Archaeological Perspective on the Andean Concept of Camaquen

tous in early ethnographic literature, though, as one spiritual beings, but as places from which impersonal author recently commented, ‘mana does not animate magical powers were emanating’. anthropological debate like it used to’ (Holbraad 2007, Various indications in both ethnohistoric reports 190). Relegated to the realm of the mythical, local and the ethnographic literature suggest that ‘huacas concepts of life force, sacred power, etc. have been had vibrantly individual personalities’ (Salomon 1991, out of anthropological fashion for decades. In line 18; see also Salomon 1998). The stories recounted ȱȱȱĞȱȱǰȱȱȱ in the Huarochiri manuscript, for instance, lead ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ camay, the Salomon (1991, 19) to conclude that the huacas are Andean cousin of mana, for purposes of investigating clearly living beings, ‘persons in fact’. He goes on its potential presence and materiality in the archaeo- to note in his introduction to this manuscript that logical context. Because the notion of mana, or in this the world imagined by the Checa does not seem to case — camay, cuts systematically across the Western ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱěȱȯȱǻǯǯǼȱĴȱ ȱ ȱ Ĵȱ ȱ ǰȱ Ĵȱ ȱ and spirit — like that of Christians; (rather) huacas it anthropologically provides us with an analytical ȱȱȱ£ȱĴǰȱȱ¢ȱǰȱ purchase from which to challenge the commonplace and they act within nature, not over and outside it as assumption that things must necessarily be considered Western supernaturals do (Salomon 1991, 19). ontologically distinct from concepts (Holbraad 2007, This insightful observation provides a segue to recent 191). The suggestion here is that we take what appears discussion on the intersection of materiality, agency initially to us as an ontological anomaly, e.g. the notion and personhood. that camay is both a thing and a concept, to create a new analytic frame in which an understanding that Objects, agency and personhood camayȱȱȱȱȱȱȱĜ¢ǰȱȱǰȱ is not impossible. Much of the current theoretical work focusing on Another key Andean concept for the present objects, agency and personhood takes as its starting discussion is huacaǯȱ ȱǻŗşŜŜǰȱŝŜȮŝǼȱĴȱ ȱ ȱ Ěȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǻŗşşŘǲȱ to convey the meaning of this term by enumerating 1996; 1998). Gell’s basic thesis was that things, e.g. the kinds of things called ‘huaca’ by native Andean works of art, images, icons, etc., must be treated as peoples. His list included ‘… idols, rocks, great stones ‘person-like’ — that is, as targets for and sources of ȱȂǰȱȱ ȱȱȱǰȱȱȱȁęȱȱ social agency (1998, 96). In thinking through how ǰȱǰȱȱȂȱěȱȱȱǰȱȱ ȱ things may be construed as persons, he developed as places built, such as ‘any temple, large or small, a sophisticated conceptual framework outlining the ǳȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ęǳȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ way in which objects come to possess social agency houses’. The term huaca, then, generally refers to ‘a — much like people. Within this framework, social sacred thing’, be it a place, idol, or image (Garcilaso ¢ȱȱęȱȱȱȱȱȱĴȱ 1966, 76–7). Cobo (1990, 44) suggested that the things but rather relationally. In other words, it does not mat- Andean peoples worshipped, or huacas, could be ter in ascribing social-agent status what a thing or a divided into two categories: works of nature unaltered ȱȁȂȱȱȱȯȱ ȱĴȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ by human intervention, and ‘idols that did not rep- a network of social relations (Gell 1998, 123). Equally resent anything other than the material from which important here is the conditional and transactional they were produced and the form given them by the nature of the relationship between persons and things Ğȱ ȱȱȂǯȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱ (or ‘patients and agents’ to use Gell’s terminology), ‘all of these idols were worshipped for their own sake, and each being necessarily constitutive of the other’s [that] these simple people never thought to search or ¢ȱȱěȱȱȱȱǻ ȱŗşşŞǰȱŘŘǼǯ use their imaginationsȱȱȱȱęȱ ȱȱȱ Key to this discussion of agency and personhood represented’ (Cobo 1990, 45; emphasis added). Cobo’s ȱȱĞȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ seventeenth-century observations are stunning with ¢ȱȱěǯȱ ȱȱ ǰȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ĵ¢ȱ ȱ ¢Ȭȱ vis-à-vis the so much with what objects mean — e.g. their semiotic ȱ ȱ Ĵȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱȯȱȱ ȱ ȱ¢ȱdo. In this regard, the profound yet seemingly unconsidered insights objects are understood to act not with intentionality he had into native Andean ontologies. Karsten (1949, ȱȱȱȱěǰȱǯǯȱȱĜ¢ǯȱȱ 187) echoes a similar thought in his observation that approach is illustrated in Gell’s (1998, 69–71) analysis ȁǻǼȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ĵȱ ȱ ¡ȱ ȱ of the ocean-going canoes involved in the Kula ring. (e.g. huacas) in a “pre-animistic” way, not as seats of For the Trobrianders, the beautiful carved prows

359 ѝђѐіюљȱђѐѡіќћȱȯȱAnimating Archaeology

To illustrate this, I turn now to two categories of late Pre-Columbian artefact that most Andeanists would be willing to classify as ‘huaca’ based on com- ȱȱȱ¡ȱȱęǯȱ ȱȱȱ broadly into the categories of iconic and aniconic and consider each in light of the extended notions of ǰȱ¢ǰȱ¢ȱȱĜ¢ȱȱ above to see what, if any, new insights might be gained into native Andean ontologies by thinking through these things.

Ofrendas and huacas

Iconic huacas The Inca are famous for their non-iconic approach to visual imagery, art and aesthetics. The principal excep- ȱȱȱȬęȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ the miniature human and camelid statues commonly associated with the important state ceremonial of capacocha (Fig. 1). One of the most momentous of imperial state occasions, the capacocha is understood from ethnohistoric accounts as having been linked to major ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ ȱȱȯȱę¢ȱ Figure 1.ȱ ȱȱęȱȱȱȱ coronation, severe illness and death (Betanzos 1996, capacochaȱěȱȱǯȱǻȱ¢ȱ 46, 132; Molina 1989, 120–27; Sarmiento 1965). The of Johan Reinhard.) archaeological evidence, however, suggests that these ȱęȱ¢ȱȱǰȱȱȱȱ importantly, been linked to the claiming or creation of of these vessels are made to enchant one’s trading sacred space by and for the imperial state. This obser- ȱȱȱǻ¢Ǽȱěȱȱȱȱȱ vation is made on the basis of archaeologically docu- exchange. The canoes are thus seen as important ȱęȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱøȱ agents in their own right within the social network (Heyerdahl et al. 1995), Choquepukio (McEwan & of the Kula. Gibaja n.d.), Isla de la Plata (Dorsey 1901), Tiwanaku Archaeologically, the study of personhood poten- (Yaeger pers. comm.), Lake Titicaca (Reinhard 1992a), tially has much to contribute to our general understand- Saqsaywaman (Valcarcel 1935, 180) and in the central ing of what persons are and how personal identities £ȱȱ£ȱǻȱǭȱĜȱŗşşŜǼǰȱȱ may be construed beyond the dominant notion of others. None of these sites comprise the high-altitude Western individualism (e.g. Fowler 2004; Meskell 1999). burial contexts with which we usually associate capa- Recent work in this area has foregrounded a relational cochaȱęȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ view of personhood in which persons are seen as multi- ęȱǻȱȱŗşşşǲȱȱŗşşŘǲȱȱǭȱ ǰȱȱȱęȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ Ceruti 2000). Instead, a common denominator among they do rather than on how they appear, and conformed these localities suggests a strong interest in physically of their many and various interactions within a kalei- claiming sacred sites and spaces that once belonged ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ to powerful predecessors or rivals (but see Sillar, this animals, things and places (Brück 2001; Chapman 2000; ǰȱȱȱ¢ȱěȱǼǯȱȱ Fowler 2004). From this perspective, social relations this framework, the capacochaȱęȱȱȱȱ are seen to provide the grounds for and the context summits of important Andean peaks may be viewed within which persons take (temporary) shape, with as a special subset of such imperial acts (see McEwan the nature of personhood consequently understood as & van de Guchte 1992). ¡ȱ ȱ Ğǯȱ ȱ ȱȱ ¡ǰȱ ȱȱȱȱȱøǰȱȱǰȱęȱ the exploration of alternative forms of personhood ȱęȱ ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ and types of persons articulates closely with notions features situated around the entrance to the principal of power, agency, reciprocity and ethical obligation. temple at the site. This temple had been in use several

360 Bray — Archaeological Perspective on the Andean Concept of Camaquen

centuries prior to the Inca occupation (Heyerdahl et al. 1995). The ritually interred artefacts included one mini- ȱȱȱęȱȱ directly in front of the main entryway, ȱȱȱȱȱęȱȱ spondylus in a pit to the east of the ¢ǰȱȱ ȱȱęǰȱ one of spondylus and one of silver, in a pit to the west. The large, canted stone guanca that constitutes the interior focal point of the principal temple ȱ øȱ ǻǯȱ ŘǼȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ resemblance to a similarly enclosed monolith uncovered by Gordon McEwan at the site of Choquepukio in the Cuzco basin, as do the reported ęȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ spondylus ȱȱȱęȱȱȱ Ĵȱ ȱ ǻ ȱ ǭȱ ȱ ǯǯǼǯȱ The special nature of the canted Figure 2. Sacred stone, or guanca, inside Temple of the Sacred Stone at monoliths at these two sites, their ǯȱǻȱ¢ȱȱȱ ǰȱ¢ȱȱǯǼ probable revered status, and the like- lihood of their perceived potency is suggested by the special enclosures within which they two small stone boxes recovered from an underwater were housed, the centrality of the stone and its hous- ȱěȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ ing vis-à-vis the rest of the site, and the fact that they ȱȱȱęȱȱȱȱȱęȱ ȱȱȱȱȱěȱȯȱ¢ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱęȱǻȱ expectation of reciprocity in the Andean context and 1992a).2 In Cuzco, the ceremonial and political capital the subject positionality of these objects in a network ȱȱ ȱǰȱȱęȱȱȱȱ of social relations. and camelids suggest their role in the creation, as well Similar observations can be made at various as appropriation, of sacred space. Valcárcel (1935, other important pre-Incaic sites that subsequently 18), for instance, recovered a pair of silver female came to be dominated by the Inca. At Pachacamac, ęȱȱȱȱ¡ȱȱȱ for instance, one of the principal centres of regional the fortress complex of Saqsaywaman directly above and religious power for at least a millennium prior Cuzco, while more recent archaeological work in the to the rise of the Inca, a number of miniature human main plaza of Cuzco yielded four miniature camelid ęȱ ȱ¢ȱȱǻȱŗşŖŚǼǯȱ ęȱ ȯȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Among these was an unusually large male statue spondylus ǻȱǭȱĜȱŗşşŜǼǯȱ of silver that stands 24.3 cm tall, and another male Two important aspects of these miniatures is that specimen with bands of horizontal inlay (see Dransart they were usually made to be anatomically correct ŘŖŖŖǰȱŝŞǰȱŞŖǼǯȱȱǰȱěȱȱȱȱǰȱ and, though not all specimens have been equally well ¢ȱ ǻŗşŖŗǼȱ ¡ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ ǰȱȱȱęȱ ȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱ ȱęȱǻȱȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱ dressed in miniature versions of gender-appropriate of bronze), tupu pins and Inca ceramics on the island clothing (Dransart 2000). That these objects were meant of La Plata. Other archaeological material recovered to be viewed as people seems unquestionable. Even from this island (Dorsey 1901), as well as ethnohistoric the Spanish apparently recognized this, as indicated information (Cieza 1986), clearly indicate that La Plata in one chronicler’s comment that children intended as island had long been a sacred huaca of the local inhab- capacochaȱęȱ ȱȱ¢ȱȁȱȱ itants of the coastal mainland. In the Andean Altiplano gold and silver’3 (Molina 1989, 122). That such objects to the south of Cuzco, Lake Titicaca was also the focus were understood by the Inca as animate, person-like of regional worship and ritual activity long before beings in their own right, e.g. as targets for and sources the Inca incursion (Bauer & Stanish 2001). In 1991, of social agency, also seems highly likely.

361 ѝђѐіюљȱђѐѡіќћȱȯȱAnimating Archaeology

This is suggested on the basis of the unique only possible, of course, if we open up to the possibili- relational networks within which these objects were ties of alternative ontologies or states of being beyond ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱĴȱȱȱ- that of the dichotomized categories of subject/object, ȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ¢ȱ ȱĞǯȱ ę¢ȱ ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱĜ¢ȱ When found in context, these miniatures are invari- and agency. These power-full iconic objects existed ably positioned independently of but in clear relation side by side with perhaps less ‘read-able’ but equally ȱȱȬȱǻǯǯȱȱęǼȱȱȱ powerful non-anthropomorphic huacas within the late object-persons (for example, guancas). As such, they Pre-Columbian realm. seem to comprise part of a highly structured social network of subject-objects that existed not discretely but Aniconic huacas relationally. Following Cobo’s observation that such Turning now to the aniconic category of huaca, we idols were not seen to represent anything other than know from the ethnohistoric data that Andean people themselves (mentioned above), combined with Henare venerated many kinds of ‘natural’ objects, including et al.’s (2007) advocacy of what they refer to as ‘radical stones, rocks, wooden poles, trees and mountains essentialism’, it seems not unreasonable to infer that — as is still the case in many parts of the highlands these objects were understood by the Inca to instanti- today (Fig. 3). As a class, these objects shared the ate these relations rather than to ‘stand for’ them in characteristic of being non-anthropomorphic. But some separate way, and that they were consequently even though non-anthropomorphic and ‘aniconic’, ȱȱĜȱȱȱȱȱ ȱǯȱ such objects could nonetheless be considered ȱ ȱ ęȱ ¡ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ¢¢ȱ ‘representational’, if we understand that the deity ǰȱȱȱȱęȱ¢ȱȱȱ or force they were intended to ‘represent’ — the in a capacity similar to that of huauques — the stone ‘proto-type’ to use Gell’s term — was itself formless doubles or ‘brothers’ of Inca rulers (see van de Guchte and shapeless. These huacas might thus be considered 1996). In the case of the huauques, ethnohistoric sources both wholly iconic and wholly aniconic at the same report that these ‘doppelgangers’ appear to have time. That they were understood as animate beings operated independently of their human counterparts, is clearly indicated by the kind of treatments such ȱęȱȱȱȱȱȱ objects received — which included being fed, clothed absence of their corporeal doubles, as for instance in and petitioned. The wooden pole that was the great ȱȱȱĴȱȱȱȱȱȱ oracle Pachacamac, the stone guancas at Chokepukio property (van de Guchte 1996). ȱ øǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȭ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ - capped peaks (the apus), were all regular recipients tions that might be regarded as blatant cases of ‘state ȱȱěǰȱȱȱĞȱ ȱ¢ȱ appropriation’ could be interpreted as a concern on made with entreaties and expectations of reciprocal the part of the Inca with eliminating any possibility ȱ ȱ ȱ ęǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ of misconstrual with regard to meaning or intent. In involved here, however, is not one that should be these contexts, such an approach might be understood construed in the biological sense but rather in the as a concession on the part of the Inca to a mimetic ȱȱȱĜ¢ȱȯȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱěǯȱȱ ȱǰ ȱěȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱ ȱĴȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȁȂȱ¢ȱȱȱ cultural ‘outsiders’. It is worth noting here that the example of animism, but it doesn’t necessarily imply imperial predecessors of the Inca — the Huari and the belief that the stone is ‘alive’ in a biological sense. the Tiwanaku — made regular use of representational In other words, ‘idols may be animate without…. imagery in state art, indicating both cultural familiar- being endowed with animal life or activity (Gell ity with such approaches and, perhaps, a conscious 1998, 122). rejection of such on the part of the Inca, generally In the Andean realm, numerous native communities speaking (see Bray & Cook n.d.). ȱęȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ Tacking back and forth between archaeological and guardians. Such features were referred to by the context, ethnohistoric data and ethnographic insights, Quechua term ‘guanca’. Such objects were generally ȱȱȱ ȱ¢ȱ ȱ ȱęȱȯȱȱ ęȱȱǯȱ ȱ£ǰȱȱǰȱȱ miniature persons that were placed in highly charged ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱęȱ ritual and political contexts — as power-full, or power Inca sibling Ayar Cache who watched over the welfare objects imbued with the ability and the agency to serve ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ¢ȱ as proxies for, or agents of, the State. Such a view is made (Cieza 1986). Further north, in the province of

362 Bray — Archaeological Perspective on the Andean Concept of Camaquen

Cajatambo, the local community worshipped ‘a stone in the form of a man’ who was their forbear and pro- tector (MacCormack 1991, 408). In other cases, rocks were understood to be deities that had deliberately turned themselves to stone (see Salomon & Urioste 1991). Though their external appearance changed, the identity of these objects apparently remained continuous with their original animate existence (cf. Viveiros de Castro 1992; also Salomon 1998). Unmodi- ęȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǻȱǭȱ Urioste 1991, 131), desired outcomes (Allen 1997), and personal protectors (Lumbreras 1979, 249). Interest- ingly, stones could also become people, as illustrated ȱȱȱȱȱȱęȱȱȱ£ȱ that rose up and turned into warriors to help Pachacuti defeat the enemy Chanca and defend the capital. Thus aniconic stone huacas and people apparently shared a similar kind of animating essence in the late Pre- Columbian world, as well as the ability to transform their outward appearances. In his investigation of the huauque, or stone doubles of the Inca lords, van de Guchte (1996) develops the idea that stones were considered kinsmen within Inca society. However, though no huauque are known Figure 3. Dressed stone huaca in highlands of Bolivia to have survived, it is unlikely that they were intended being entreated by supplicants. (Photograph courtesy of to have been actual physical representations of the Johan Reinhard.) Inca kings based on the ethnohistoric descriptions. In addition, as noted above, most Inca imagery was decidedly abstract and non-representational. Duviols abound throughout the imperial realm, from Cho- (1977) has suggested that the stone brother-statues quequilla and Quillarumi near Cuzco, to Copacabana were likely much more than mere state portraits. in Bolivia, to Coyuntur in southern Ecuador (Fig. 4). In Rather, they may well have been containers of the some cases, such as that of the ‘puma rock’ at Q’enqo life force or energy — the camaquen — of the ruler, and the ‘sacred rock’ at Machu Picchu, the stone huacas the essence that animated both the king and his stone were minimally re-touched. In other cases, such as double. I suggest here that stone may have been the numerous ‘Inca thrones’ and ‘intiwatanas’ found viewed as the camay of the imperial Inca elite — that throughout the empire, the stone huacas were heavily the Inca may have viewed themselves as the tangible sculpted by Inca masons (see Gasparini & Margolies instantiation of the power of stone, sharing the ani- 1980; Paternosto 1989). This unique insistence on the mate ‘stoney essence’ of durability, permanence, and special treatment of stone by the Inca again might ubiquity with this important and elemental material ĚȱȱȱĜ¢ȱȱȱȱǯȱ of the Andean world. Again, such proposals are only While perhaps not every outcrop or boulder in possible if we allow for the possibility of alternative the Andes was considered a huaca or a priori ‘alive’, ontologies beyond the rigid dichotomization of sub- it may be the case that every stone was viewed as jects and objects (see also Groleau, this issue; Haber, having such potentiality. The main determinate of this issue). whether a particular stone object was understood as ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ huaca seems to relate to whether or not that object formations and outcrops is one of the most recogniz- had ever been previously involved relationally with able artefacts and signatures of the Inca empire. Such other persons. Such social relations may be discern- dramatic re-workings of the landscape may have been ible archaeologically through special treatments or aimed at creating or distinguishing sacred space, or ęȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ huacas, by externalizing or making visible the essence ȱ ȱ ěǰȱ ȱ ȱ - of the stone’s sacred nature (Hemming & Ranney cation, and/or through other contextual associations 1982; Paternosto 1989). Examples of such stone huacas signalling special status.

363 ѝђѐіюљȱђѐѡіќћȱȯȱAnimating Archaeology

Figure 4. Inca carved outcrop, Coyuntur, southern Ecuador. (Photograph by Tamara Bray.)

Closing thoughts hood’ of objects. The distinction required here in the consideration of dressed objects between animacy and Premised on the idea that the traditional Western inanimacy cuts across the categorical divide between ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ĵȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ living and non-living things, thus constituting an ability to conceptualize alternative understandings ontological anomaly from a dualist perspective. Such and categories of being, this article has explored anomalies begin to suggest the inadequacy of our own the materiality of the Andean categories of huaca, or categories of persons and things as concepts through sacred things and camay. Two sub-categories of late which to apprehend the odd or special artefacts trans- Pre-Columbian huacas associated with the Inca state Ĵȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ¢ȱ out the possibility of alternative understandings (see and context were considered, e.g. iconic and aniconic Zedeño, this issue). huacas. Thinking through these things in the ways out- With regard to iconic and aniconic huacas, there ȱȱěȱ ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ are also important dimensions of contrast that might ontologies and understandings of being in the world. usefully be explored. These may be considered along They suggest how the Inca may have construed and the lines of such issues as portability vs immobility, constructed their relationship to the material, cultural the idea of foreign or imported vs local/indigenous, and spiritual worlds of which they were a part. They and perhaps the significance of appearance vs ȱěȱȱ¡ȱȱȱ ¢ȱȱ ȱȱ essence. As demonstrated here, thinking through concept of camay was made manifest and material in things helps extend our theoretical imaginations and the late Pre-Columbian world. allows us the possibility of potentially apprehending In thinking comparatively through the two sub- other and others’ ontologies in a way that allows us categories of Andean huacas, there appear to be both to go beyond the dominant framework of Western important dimensions of contrast and similarity that dualism. In thinking through Andean huacas, we may open the door to future investigation. First, it seems begin to understand them as objective embodiments that personhood and animacy were expressed for of the idea of power, their material form enabling both iconic and aniconic forms through the metaphor ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱĜ- of clothing (see also Bray 2008; Dransart 2000; Clas- cious in the world. At the same time, they suggest sen 1998). Dressing stones, dressing pots, dressing alternative ontologies of being, in which concepts ęȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ and things are one and the same, or perhaps inter- fundamentally Andean way of indicating the ‘person- changeable.

364 Bray — Archaeological Perspective on the Andean Concept of Camaquen

Notes Cieza de Leon, P. de., 1986. Crónica del Perú, segunda parte ǻŗśśŚǼǰȱ ǯȱ ǯȱ øǯȱ Ǳȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ŗǯȱ ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ¢ȱĴȱȱȱ ęȱȱàȱȱøǯ reference. Classen, C., 1998. Inca Cosmology and the Human Body. Salt 2. A third box recovered at the same time was found to Lake City (UT): University of Utah Press. contain only three gold tupu pins — items usually Cobo, B., 1653. ȱȱȱ (1653). (Biblioteca ȱ ȱȱǲȱȱȱȱęȱ ȱ de Autores Españoles t.91–2.) Madrid: Editoriales found on the lake bed several dozen metres away from Atlas. the reef site which may have originally been associated Dorsey, G., 1901. Archaeological Investigations on the Island of with this third stone container (Reinhard 1992b). ȱǰȱǯ (Field Columbian Museum Publica- 3. ‘… y tomádolas, llevavan hasta la guaca, y allí ahogavan tion 56; Anthropological Series, vol. II, no. 5.) Chicago ȱȱÛȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱęȱ (IL): Field Columbian Museum. de plata, de ovejas y de personas de oro y plata’ (Molina Dransart, P., 2000. Clothed metal and the iconography of 1989, 122). human form among the Incas, in Precolumbian Gold: Technology, Style, and Iconography, ed. C. McEwan. ȱǯȱ¢ London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 76–91. Duviols, P., 1977. Un symbolisme andin du double: la Wayne State University lithomorphose de l’ancetre. Actes du ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱǭȱ International des Americanistes 4, 359–64. 4841 Cass Avenue Duviols, P., 1979. Un symbolisme de l’occupation de Řŗśśȱȱȱ l’amenagement et de l’exploitation de l’espace. ǰȱ ȱŚŞŘŖŗ Ȃ 19(2), 7–31. USA ǰȱǯȱǰȱŗşŚŝǯȱàȱȱȱȱ£ȱȱÛȱ- Email: [email protected] tán Hernando Pizarro por mandado de su hermano References desde el pueblo de Caxamarca a Parcama y de allá a Xauxa (1534), in Verdadera Relación de la Conquista del Allen, C., 1997. When pebbles move mountains, in Creating Perú y Provincia del Cuzco llamada Nueva Castilla, ed. Context in Andean Cultures, ed. R. Howard-Malverde. F. de Xérex. Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Españoles, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 73–84. 26, 338–43. Avila, F. de, 1918. Informaciones acerca de la religion y gobierno ǰȱ ǯȱǭȱǯȱĜǰȱŗşşŜǯȱȱ¢ȱǱȱ de los Incas ... anotaciones y concordancias con las cronicas nuevos hallazgos en el Tawantinsuyu. Tawantinsuyu de Indias por Horacio H. Urteaga. Lima: Sanmarti y ca. 2, 73–7. Baessler, A., 1904. ȱ. Berlin: Verlag Fowler, C., 2004. The Archaeology of Personhood: an Anthropo- von Georg Reimer. logical Approach. London: Routledge. Bauer, B. & C. Stanish, 2001. Ritual and Pilgrimage in the Garcilaso de la Vega, el I., 1966. Royal Commentaries of the Ancient Andes. Austin (TX): University of Texas Incas and General History of Peru (1609). Austin (TX): Press. University of Texas Press. Betanzos, J. de., 1996. Narrative of the Incas (1551), translated Gasparini, G. & L. Margolies, 1980. Inca Architecture. Bloom- by R. Hamilton & D. Buchanan. Austin (TX): Univer- ington (IN): Indiana University Press. sity of Texas Press. Gell, A., 1998. Art and Agency: an Anthropological Theory. Bray, T.L., 2008. Exploring Inca state religion through the Oxford: Oxford University Press. use of conceptual metaphors: a cross media analysis Gell, A., 1992. The technology of enchantment and the of Inca iconography, in ȱȱȱȱǰȱ enchantment of technology, in Anthropology, Art and ed. L. Fogelin. Carbondale (IL): Southern Illinois Aesthetics, eds. J. Coote & A. Sheldon. Oxford: Claren- University Press, 118–38. don Press, 40–67. Bray, T.L. & A.G. Cook, n.d. Early Andean Empires and Gell, A., 1996. Vogel’s net: traps as artwork and artwork as Corporate Art: a Comparison of Inca and Wari traps. ȱȱȱȱ1(1), 15–38. Ceramic Styles. Unpublished paper presented at the van de Guchte, M., 1996. Sculpture and the concept of the 64th Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, double among Inca kings. RES: Journal of Anthropology Nashville, 1997. and Aesthetics 29/30, 257–68. Brück, J., 2001. Monuments, power, and personhood in the Hallowell, A.I., 1960. Ojibwa ontology, behavior, and world British Neolithic. Journal of the Royal Anthropological view, in Culture in History: Essays in Honor of Paul Institute 7, 649–67. Radin, ed. S. Diamond. New York (NY): Columbia Ceruti, M.C., 1999. Cumbres Sagradas del Noroeste Argentino. University, 19–52. Buenos Aires: Editorial Universitaria de Buenos Hemming, J. & E. Ranney, 1982. ȱ ȱ ȱ . Aires. ȱǻǼǱȱĴǰȱ ȱǭȱǯ Chapman, J., 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology: People, Henare, A., M. Holbraad & S. Wastell (eds.), 2007. Thinking Places, and Broken Objects in the Prehistory of South- through Things. London: Routledge. eastern Europe. London: Routledge. Hereydahl, T., D. Sandweiss & A. Narvaez, 1995. Pyramids

365 ѝђѐіюљȱђѐѡіќћȱȯȱAnimating Archaeology

of Tucume. London: Thames and Hudson. àȱȱǯ Holbraad, M., 2007. The power of powder: multiplicity and Salomon, F., 1991. Introductory essay: the Huarochiri manu- motion in the divinatory cosmology of Cuban Ifá (or script, in ȱ ȱ, eds. F. Salomon mana, again), in Thinking through Things, eds. A. Hen- & G. Urioste. Austin (TX): University of Texas Press, are, M. Holbraad & S. Wastell. London: Routledge, 1–38. 189–225. Salomon, F., 1998. How the huacas were: the language Karsten, R., 1949. A Totalitarian State of the Past: the Civiliza- of substance and transformation in the Huarochiri tion of the Inca Empire in Ancient Peru. Port Washington Quechua manuscript. RES: Journal of Anthropology and (NY): Kennikat Press. Aesthetics 33, 7–17. Lumbreras, L., 1979. Religion and power in the Andes: Salomon, F. & G. Urioste, 1991. The ȱ. idolatrous curacas of the central sierra. Ethnohistory Austin (TX): University of Texas Press. 26(3), 243–63. Sarmiento de Gamboa, P., 1965. Historia de los Incas (1572), MacCormack, S., 1991. Religion in the Andes. Princeton (NJ): ed. C. Saenz de Santa María. (Bibloteca de Autores Princeton University Press. Españoles 135.) Madrid: Bibloteca de Autores Mannheim, B., 1991. ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ- Españoles, 189–279. pean Invasion. Austin (TX): University of Texas Press. Taylor, G., 1974–76. Camay, camac, et camasca dans le McEwan, C. & M. van de Guchte,1992. Ancestral time and manuscrit quechua de Huarochiri. Journal de la Société sacred space in Inca state ritual, in Ancient Americas: des Americanistes 63, 231–43. ȱȱȱ, ed. R. Townsend. Chicago Taylor, G., 1987. Ritos y Tradiciones de Huarochiri del Siglo XVII. (IL): Art Institute of Chicago, 359–71. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. McEwan, G. & A. Gibaja, n.d. The Selz Foundation Excava- ¤ǰȱǯǰȱŗşřśǯȱȱȱàȱȱȱ- tions at Chokepukio, Cuzco, Peru: Report of the 2004 tamento de Cusco, Sajsawaman Redescubierto III–IV. Excavations. Unpublished manuscript in possession ȱȱȱ 4(1–24), 161–203. of authors. Viveiros de Castro, E., 1998. Cosmological deixis and Meskell, L., 1999. ȱȱȱ. Oxford: Black- Amerindian perspectivism. The Journal of the Royal well. Anthropological Institute 4(3), 469–88. Molina, C. de, 1989. Fábulas y Ritos de los Incas (1577), eds. H. Viveiros de Castro, E., 1992. From the Enemies Point of View: ȱǭȱǯȱǯȱǻ ȱŗŜǯǼȱǱȱ ¤ęȱ Humanity and Divinity in an Amazonian Society. Chi- Nilo. cago (IL): Chicago University Press. Paternosto, C., 1989. The Stone and the Thread: Andean Roots of Viveiros de Castro, E., 2004. Exchanging perspectives: the Abstract Art. Austin (TX): University of Texas Press. transformation of objects into subjects in Amerindian Polia, M., 1999ǯȱ ȱ àȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ontologies. Common Knowledge 10(3), 463–84. Documentos Inéditos del Archivo Romano de la Compañía de Jesús (1581–1752)ǯȱ Ǳȱ ęȱ ȱ Author biography àȱȱøǰȱȱǯ ǰȱ ǯǰȱŗşşŘǯȱ ȱàȱ- Tamara Bray is an Associate Professor of Anthropology aticas en el lago Titikaka, in Arqueología Subacuatica en at Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan. She special- ȱȱǱȱ ȱÇęǰ eds. C. Ponce San- izes in the archaeology of Ecuador and the Inca empire. guines et al. La Paz: Palabra Produccciones, 419–30. She is currently co-director of investigations at the site of Reinhard, J., 1992b. Sacred peaks of the Andes. National Inca-Caranqui in northern Ecuador. Articles based on her Geographic 181(3), 84–111. research have in appeared in a variety of edited volumes Reinhard, J. & M.C. Ceruti, 2000. Investigaciones Arqueológicas and journals. en el Volcáȱ. Salta: Ediciones Universidad

366 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.