Pacariqtambo and Mythohistory

In our effort to familiarize ourselves with more scholarship on the Incas and precolonial Peru, we read Urton's The History of a Myth: Pacariqtambo and the Origins of the Inkas. A short study, Urton's work seems to follow more in the footsteps of Zuidema, opting for a more structuralist approach to the Spanish chronicles and sources on the pre-conquest past of Peru. In our understanding, Urton argues that the origin myth of the Incas from the caves of Pacariqtambo were "concretized" and "historicized" based on very specific conditions related to colonial society in the 1560s and 1570s, particularly the period of Viceroy Toledo's rule. In short, some of the Pacariqtambo area caciques (such as the Callapina family, on 3 different occasions in colonial Peru) argued their descent from Manco Capac and other Inca nobility through a "reworking" of the "mythohistorical" narratives/traditions of Pacariqtambo as containing the caves from which Manco Capac and the early ayllus of Cuzco first arose. His argument is plausible since Indians who could "prove" their noble descent were exempted from taxes and personal service to Spaniards. So some descendants of old kuraka and provincial Incas by privilege likely did engage in some "creative" genealogical reconstructions of their lineages. 

We, however, were a little lost or perplexed by some of Urton's additional arguments. For instance, when he tries to connect the widowed woman who helped Pachacuti defeat the Chancas and save Cuzco to an ancestor of the first Callapina who petitioned to have his noble status recognized in 1569. Is the evidence sufficient to link one of his named ancestors in that 1569 document to a woman who, assuming she did exist, lived in the 1400s and became part of the "mythohistorical" narratives of Pachacuti's victory over the Chancas? It is possible, but we increasingly enter into more uncertain terrain. The final chapters of the book explore the ethnographic present and modern ritual travel/pilgrimage, speculating on how the religiously syncretistic nature of today's Pacariqtambo ayllus and celebrations of the saints may reflect past ayllu-connected rituals regarding kinship and the origin of the Incas. Again we have less evidence to draw from, but it does appear that the ayllus of today's Pacariqtambo have rituals tied to the reworking of their pre-Hispanic past and Catholic saints, rituals. Moreover, Urton does seem to be right that the exact "location" of Pacaritambo and the modern area bearing that name didn't seem to become concrete until 1569-1571, and that some of the Cuzco Inca noble witnesses of the first Callapina were also informants of Sarmiento de Gamboa for his chronicle on the Incas. But without more familiarity with his more detailed ethnographic work on the indigenous peoples of Pacariqtambo today, it was a little harder to see how exactly it supports the earlier chapters in the text. 

Nevertheless, reading this has challenged us to finally engage the works of Zuidema and Urton on the Incan and precolonial past of Peru. Our own bias in favor the "Rowe" model has definitely precluded us from fully considering the colonial context in which the aforementioned "mythohistorical" narratives of Inca origins were first written down in the 1500s and 1600s. But if the traditions about Pachacuti's interest in history and consolidating a "standard" narrative are accurate, perhaps we are all in one form or another acolytes of the Pachacuti school of Inca history. The degree to which it is acceptable more as "myth" versus history depends on context and was probably always in flux, depending on the narrator and audience. Our misfortune today is we lack a full understanding of how amauta and quipu-readers conceived of historicity, although we suspect that the most recent of the Inca emperors were more definitively historical figures rather than mythologized ones like those recalled in the chronicle of Montesinos. 

South American Matches

Although it is probably useless, particularly when using Gedmatch's feature of autosomal 1 to 1 comparison, we nevertheless found several kits associated with South American indigenous people to compare ourselves with. As studies by actual experts have shown, the indigenous ancestry in the Spanish Caribbean is indeed linked to South America, particularly with Amazonian groups and, likely, the spread the Arawakan languages deep in antiquity. In our case, our closest match, however, was with someone labeled Colombian Male 1. We shared 7.9 cM. We assume this person, whose kit is associated with a Native American DNA account, is possibly from the Colombian Amazon. Our next closest match was with a Ticuna sample at 6.5 shared cM (at low SNP density, however). The Ticuna, an Amazonian group, so the distant shared DNA match makes some sense. However, we overlapped on the fifth chromosome, where most of our "Amerindian" ancestry was registed as Indigenous Peru & Bolivia. Next was the kit called First Lokono, at 6.4 cM shared. The Lokono, who speak an Arawakan language and live in northeastern South America, so the match is not too unsurprising. We assume they or other coastal northern South Americans were also in some degree of periodic contact with the indigenous people of the Caribbean, too.

Another match was with a kit associated with Colombian Female, also of indigenous descent. We only shared 4.5 cM. This was followed by the distant match with Wayuu A, at 4.1 cM, on our 2nd chromosome (where our indigenous ancestry is entirely Caribbean, according to Ancestry DNA. The Wayuu, who also live in northern South America, also speak an Arawakan language. Our penultimate match was with Second Lokono at 3.8 shared cM. Last, but certainly not least, we shared 3.5 cM with a Surui sample, on the 2nd chromosome (associated with our Indigenous Caribbean ancestry). The Surui, an Amazonian group, also appear in Illustrative DNA when trying to model our ancestry using modern populations. In this case, the Surui and sometimes Peruvian Ashaninka are used as proxies to model our South American indigenous ancestry. Of course, all of this Gedmatch matching with kits of various South American indigenous peoples is not the most sophisticated approach. Nonetheless, reading studies by specialists who do see commonalities with these aforementioned South American groups and the indigenous peoples of the Caribbean tells us that it isn't entirely noise or false. 

Enslaved Indians in Jacmel (1719)

Whilst perusing the archive of digitized notarized documents from Saint Domingue, from Jacmel, specifically, we encountered a reference to 2 enslaved Indian women. Fouquet serving as notary, the document indicates the presence of a few "Amerindian" slaves in the Jacmel region during the early 1700s. Sadly, nothing of their origin is indicated, although we assume they may have been from the mainland Spanish colonies or "Caribs" from the Lesser Antilles. Family Search's site is such a treasure...

Ancient Caribbean DNA Matches

Although hardly the most sophisticated or reliable method, using Gedmatch's autosomal DNA comparison feature can be entertaining and occasionally useful. In this case, comparing our data to that of around 42 kits of ancient samples was an interesting experience. Indeed, of the 42 ancient samples, we only had matches with 4 individuals, which is significant. All 4 of them, however, were either individuals from Cuba or the Bahamas, surprisingly. We apparently did not share DNA, at least not detectable using Gedmatch, with ancient persons from Puerto Rico and Hispaniola with kits on Gedmatch (that we know of). The dates given for the samples are from undated in one case but the others the woman from Preacher's Cave, in the Bahamas, was the subject of an important article published in 2018 by Hannes Schroeder. According to this study, "Results are consistent with Puerto Ricans and the ancient Taino forming a clade without any significant gene-flow postdivergence." Clearly, the ancient Lucayan woman's genome was similar to that of modern-day Puerto Ricans. Indeed, this study found that Puerto Ricans share large parts of their genome with the ancient "Taino" of the Caribbean. Another study found similarities between the Preacher's Cave sample and precontact Puerto Rico samples in terms of autosomal DNA. These similarities also extend to South American Amazonian groups, such as the Yukpa, Piapoco, Karitiana, and Surui. Furthermore, modern Puerto Ricans harbor mtDNA that is at least partly a reflection of precontact Puerto Rico populations. 

What we find interesting in our matches is the lack of a Puerto Rico or Hispaniola connection. While this is probably, in part, due to the less sophisticated tools and models via Gedmatch, we did match with another ancient "Taino" sample from the Bahamas. On Gedmatch, it is called Kit WE2232796 (*Bahamas Taino Native), with further indication that its test results are from 23andMe. Is this one of their indigenous Caribbean samples the company uses? This person appears to be the same as the Atunwa Inaru, the name given to this ancient woman from the Bahamas. Anyway, we only shared a total of 3 segments, the longest at 3.6 cM. Our total Half-Match segments was 9.7 cM and a total of 458412 SNPs were used, with 47.467 percent fully identical. As one might expect, shared DNA with someone who lived several centuries ago would be low. Yet, with another kit from the same woman from Preacher's Cave, Atunwa Inaru on Gedmatch, we shared a total Half-Match segments of 14 cM, with the largest segment at 6.7 cM of 3 shared segments. 260057 SNPs were used for the comparison with 38.498 percent identical. We assume this match is at least somewhat reliable since geneticists using more sophisticated matches noted similarities in the ancestry of the Preacher's Cave sample and that of modern and ancient Puerto Ricans. We are not sure which of the two kits for the same person are more accurate or reliable, though we'd bet money on the first kit. 

The other two matches, however, remain more problematic. Both are from Cuba, although the date and exact location are unclear. One, called Brizuela on Gedmatch, is supposedly from the 12th century. With that sample, we share one segment at 4.5 cM, but at a lower SNP density. The other sample from Cuba shared even less with us, only 3.8 cM. But, with this Cuban sample, more SNPs and at a higher density. One wonders if these Cuban samples may reflect a 'ceramic' culture whose ancestors included some of the same groups who migrated into the Bahamas from Hispaniola. Or, alternatively, due to the widespread seafaring abilities of the indigenous Caribbean and the lack of evidence for inbreeding in the sample from Preacher's Cave, perhaps some groups found spouses or significant others from distant islands in the archipelago. What we do not understand, however, is our inability to find ancient samples from Hispaniola with whom we share DNA...

The Ancient Kingdoms of Peru

Although it is a little outdated (published in the 1990s), Nigel Davies's The Ancient Kingdoms of Peru provides a nice overview on the history of ancient Peru. Covering the period from the preceramic and Chavin cultures to the Spanish conquest, Davies attempts to elucidate the development of civilizations in Peru (and neighboring areas, to a certain extent) as well as the shifting analysis of these past cultures by archaeologists and historians. Obviously, the lack of a system of writing and records prior to the Spanish period means that most of the book draws from studies by archaeologists who have examined various sites, developed ceramic typologies and chronologies, and have endeavored to understand the nature of political, social, and economic organization. As the author gets closer to the era of the Spanish conquest, written sources from the colonial period become useful, particularly for the Incas and, to a lesser extent, the Chimu state of the coast. Davies masterfully draws upon this vast written corpus when appropriate, although occasionally delving into problematic "language" of "savages" when discussing Indians in Ecuador who opposed Inca expansion. But this probably reflects the time in which the book was published. As a brief introduction to a very complex center of early human civilization, Davies wrote a useful work. He probably did not need to include his critiques of wacky theories of ancient aliens visiting the Nasca, but perhaps a book aimed for a non-specialist audience had to do so to dispel pseudoscientific ideas. Now, we have to find copies of Miguel de Cabello, Cieza de Leon, and other early Spanish sources on Peru for a deeper dive into the precolonial past. 

Juan de Espinosa

Whilst perusing Vilma Benzo de Ferrer's Pasajeros a la Espanola, 1492-1530, we saw that the father of Pedro de Espinosa was a resident in today's Dominican Republic before moving to Puerto Rico with the conquest of that island. Established in the Santiago de Los Caballeros area in 1510, Juan de Espinosa later moved to Puerto Rico, where he was one of the early recipients of an encomienda. According to Vilma Benzo de Ferrer, de Espinosa also received 7 naborias de casa in Santiago (although we thought he was already residing in Puerto Rico by 1514?). It is strange although not surprising to see that a man a huge number of us descend from once lived in Santiago...

Inca Culture at the Time of the Spanish Conquest

Although Rowe's Inca Culture at the Time of the Spanish Conquest was published in the 1940s, some modern scholars have lauded the study as a worthwhile one that still holds up today. As part of a larger project on South America's indigenous peoples, Rowe's relatively short but comprehensive overview of the Inca in the last few centuries before Spanish rule endeavored to cover everything from religious practices to agriculture. Due to the time it was published, before our era's more advanced archaeological methods and technology, Rowe mostly relies on the written sources from the 1500s and 1600s, placing especial esteem for Cobo. El Inca Garcilaso and Blas Valera, especially on matters of religion, were considered less reliable by Rowe. Polo de Ondegardo, interrogations from the governorship of Toledo, and interesting references to Diego Gonzalez Holguin, Cabello, Morua, and others illustrate just how vast the uneven corpus of Spanish sources on the Inca past truly is. It is also noteworthy how some scholars of the present century seem to place more confidence in Blas Valera and even some of the information in the problematic chronicle of Montesinos. In our own opinion, Rowe was perhaps writing too soon to know the type of information available to later scholars on pre-Inca large kingdoms or territories in the highlands. But Rowe's mastery of the relevant source material and attempt to balance it with references drawn from the ethnographic present and archaeology is impressive. For instance, careful examination of the early grammaires and dictionaries of Quechua is indispensable for reconstructing the preconquest past. Thus, our readings in the Inca past have barely scratched the surface.