reading response

Witnessing the In-visibility of Inca Architecture in Colonial Peru Author(s): Stella Nair Source: Buildings & Landscapes: Journal of the Vernacular Architecture Forum, Vol. 14 (Fall, 2007), pp. 50-65 Published by: University of Minnesota Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20355395 . Accessed: 23/02/2014 22:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Minnesota Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Buildings &Landscapes: Journal of the Vernacular Architecture Forum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 69.41.96.102 on Sun, 23 Feb 2014 22:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

STELLA NAIR

Witnessing the In-visibility of Inca

Architecture in Colonial Peru

Chinchero, Peru, January 9,1999 I had awoken that morning full of excitement and

anticipation. As I ate breakfast with Simeona and

her children in the warm adobe kitchen, I could

not wait to begin that day's work. The day before

I had spotted in the distance what appeared to be a beautiful Inca wall. As I had found very little

surviving Inca architecture in this portion of the

town, I was thrilled. The wall could be a critical

piece of the puzzle, help me to reconstruct what

the Inca royal estate had looked like, and I began to envision the various possibilities. As Jacinto and I hiked over the hill from Simeona's house

to the new wall, I felt my chest tighten, not only due to the altitude (11,000 feet) but also because

of my own towering expectations. However, upon arriving at the wall, I was

filled with disappointment. Although the wall

had the formal elements of an Inca wall (which I had noticed from afar), up close the wall

revealed some surprising evidence. Staring back

at me on the stone blocks were the small, evenly distributed tool marks unmistakably left by a

particular metal chisel, a tool that was brought to the Andes after the Spanish invasion in 1532 CE. This made the wall useless to my study of

imperial Inca architecture. Since the wall was

clearly erected after 1532, it could not have been

part of the original Inca royal estate, which had

been built for the ruler Thupa 'Inka sometime

between 1480 and 1500 CE (Figure i). Thus, at

first I dismissed the wall as an anomaly of the

colonial period and returned to study the archi tecture at Chinchero that was built during the

imperial Inca period. Yet, in the next few months, more and more anomalous walls appeared, and

the questions regarding their significance con

tinued to grow in my mind as I measured and

mapped the indigenous town.

After a few months, the rainy season came

full force to the south-central Andes, turning the

steep, stone-lined streets in town into cascading fountains and mountain paths into muddy traps,

rendering fieldwork impossible. I escaped to the

archives and libraries of Cuzco and began to focus on the issue of the anomalous walls from the

Spanish occupation. I searched the literature on

Inca architecture built in the colonial period, only to discover that there was very little written on the

topic. As I read further, I also realized that there was no actual place for Inca?or for that matter

indigenous?architecture in the current defini

tions of Latin American architecture in the colo

nial period, at least not in any meaningful way. Instead, I found that any opportunities to allow

for its existence seemed to disappear, occluded by rhetorical conventions (such as architectural cate

gories and naming practices) and falling between

disciplinary boundaries and scholarly assump tions (such as the relationship between style and

ethnicity, as well as historical and cultural rup tures and periodizations). My discovery of these

slips and occlusions not only revealed how a part of the architectural record had been overlooked, it also uncovered a larger problem of how colo

nial-era indigenous architecture has been seen or, more

accurately, not seen

by scholars.1

Architecture as a Product of Empire Inca architecture is ubiquitous in the Andes; its

proliferation is understood as a visible manifesta

tion of the power of the Inca Empire. The Incas were the last of a series of indigenous nations

that ruled over most of the western rim of South

50 I BUILDINGS <*; LANDSCAPES 14, 2007

This content downloaded from 69.41.96.102 on Sun, 23 Feb 2014 22:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

America during the fifteenth century. The Incas

rapidly built a powerful, well-organized empire that stretched from modern Colombia in the north to Argentina and Chile in the south. Along the

way, they implemented an impressive building campaign in the newly colonized lands, one that

incorporated a distinctive architecture, was easily

recognizable, relatively simple and quick to build, and adapted to diverse environments and uses.2

As part of their conquest strategy, the Incas built. Their architecture was marked by its unique stone

masonry, walls that had an inward batter and by an

emphasis on single-room, rectangular structures

with trapezoidal doorways, niches, and windows

(Figure 2).3 While adapting skillfully to local con

texts (hence, allowing for regional expressions and

variability in the imperial architecture), Inca archi tecture read?much as it does today?as distinctly different from other built environments, visually

proclaiming the expanse and power of the Inca

Empire. However, in 1532 the Spanish arrived on

Andean soil, quickening the dramatic decline of

the Inca Empire, and, it is often assumed, bring ing an end to Inca architecture.4

Just as the proliferation of Inca architecture across the Andes has been seen as visual evidence

of the might of the Inca empire, the destruction

of indigenous cities and buildings and their

replacement by European counterparts has been seen as a visual manifestation of the power of the Spanish empire over indigenous empires. Indeed, European architecture spread rapidly across the Americas. As historians Burkholder and Johnson have pointed out, "in a remark

ably short time, the conquerors' cathedrals, convents, administrative buildings, and private residences replaced the pyramids, elevated pla zas, ball courts, and palaces of the indigenous elites."5 Imperial capitals such as the Mexica capi tal Tenochtitlan and the Inca capital Cuzco were

transformed into visual attestations of Spanish power. In indigenous towns and cities, Spaniards

"destroyed many of the Indian structures to make room for churches, government buildings, and

Spanish residences."6 In addition, the Spanish imposed new urban plans in a demonstration of their power to resettle indigenous communi

ties across the New World.7 Research has shown

that much of this dramatic change seems to have

been deliberate and self-conscious, as was the

Spanish practice of intentionally leaving visible remnants of the prior buildings under or within the new structures to serve as clear reminders of

the changes in power.8 These dramatic changes have captivated

art historians, whose studies have explored the introduction and transformation of European styles and architectural practices in the New

World. These studies have shown the rapidity with which European influences moved across

the Americas. One of the leading authorities on colonial Andean architecture, Valerie Fraser, states that,

within a hundred years of Columbus's landfall in the Caribbean, the Spanish settlers had super

imposed a recognizably European imprint on the

landscape from Mexico to Chile, burying the vast

religious and urban complexes of the indigenous

inhabitants, especially the Aztec and Inca, beneath

uniform grid-plan towns, straight streets and

arcaded squares, stone-fronted government build

ings, palaces and town houses, and above all, reli

gious foundations: churches and monasteries with

generous dimensions, and imposing facades and

bell-towers.9

The resulting image is of an indigenous landscape that was rapidly destroyed and thoroughly sup

planted by a European one.

But in this sweeping introduction and impo sition of European architecture, what happened

Figure i.

View of the street

Conquista in Chinchero.

Note the stone walls

topped by adobe blocks.

From a distance, the

stone walls appear similar to imperial Inca

walls at Chinchero,

with their inward batter,

height, and stone blocks.

However, on closer

examination, one notices

that many of the blocks

have been worked with

metal hammer tools

introduced by Europeans

immigrants. These

hard metal tools do not

deform noticeably with

continued use and leave

the distinct wear pattern found. By contrast,

imperial Inca masons

used a series of stone

tools, which also left a

distinctive tool mark.

From this evidence I was

able to determine that

many of the walls lining the street were made

after 1532. In addition, remnants of a series of

parallel imperial Inca

walls and one finely made

building were found

embedded in the fabric of the colonial era street.

Photograph by author.

STELLA NAIR, WITNESSING THE IN-VISI Bl LITY OF INCA ARCHITECTURE | 51

This content downloaded from 69.41.96.102 on Sun, 23 Feb 2014 22:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

building at Pisac, a ^^^^^^KI^^^Ei^^KE^^BSSh^^^HMiJ'ta^^ f^i cayplifti attributed to Thupa ^vE^^^HHHI^^B^IB^?H^^^^BB&AjI^I^^J^ Srara Mnka's father Pachakuti. lFH*fl^Bf||BBPHMW ?* M&^ ̂ii This structure shows Hk?d|^H9EHH|LuJBt:V^^^^ . . , ur??c!MinK^ the typical niche form, Kftg^f^^BtoMg**?--<!** T mW?mT'**." . jLTt!aC10fe M?4

' *v "? ,vJ.!S S???t^-'iW^-V '^

niche arrangement, stone g||^5fS?J'??ifc^ > , jR ,,

f|HH[K|fi^^^^*?

inward wall batter that BSJflPHE^1 jS^J^^^BOi^^MBB^^^K^I^K^raMl^ it ̂^^M Jjl^^fe? *Jg^^^^^B characterized imperial Bfe; ̂ BBBB^?iK^ ^^^BSft?B ST^^B??^K??i3B^SlCr^r*^^^? Inca architecture. Hp, ?KIM'' /^l?r^^^K?BfiBffi^- ^^Km^BrPSBf-1^& .^^^H-"J^^^SI^m?^^^^B- ' Photograph by author. HO^SB^^^K I^^^HnaSRiE?tJIH

H^^B^^^flBiBuiBjkj^^B^EX^E^w^^^K' ,:'?iMKii^^BM*M^BHBBfeBR*^KM^ 9?^-^I^^^IBil'lyH^E^^^BHEiP^BHr^^

to indigenous traditions? Did any indigenous traditions survive the onslaught of European artistic and construction practices? Scholars have

long noted the abundance of indigenous traits

in colonial material culture. Early scholarship held that these traditions were lingering, often

meaningless aspects of the past that were soon

to disappear.10 However, subsequent research on

colonial-era paintings, tapestries, drinking ves

sels, and other movable arts demonstrated that

indigenous traditions were vibrant and varied

during the European occupation of the Americas.

Indigenous artists, who rejected, transformed, or

embraced European traditions in their own work, remained active during this period. Colonial arts were dynamic expressions of complex cultural

interactions."

Art historians, trained to pick up on the mul

tiple inspirations and layers of meaning in works

of art, have increasingly focused on these mani

festations of cultural entanglements, yet architec

tural historians exploring colonial Latin America

have not been as thorough in reading layers of

influence. The focus on tracing European-derived

styles has tended to obscure complex cultural

transformations. Although there have been a few

important studies that have highlighted indig enous practices in colonial architecture, these

have often been dismissed as regional manifes

tations that do not call into question the belief

that colonial Latin American architecture is still

fundamentally European in character.12

One of the reasons architecture is treated as

a distinctly different type of material culture is

its presumed association with the state and its

institutions. Due to this belief, architecture in the

colonial period is thought to reflect the intentions

of the Spanish government and its elite citizens

and associated institutions (such as the Roman

Catholic Church). The speed with which Euro

pean architecture overtook indigenous forms in

the Andes is seen as an expression of the rapid

ity with which the Spanish forces overcame their

indigenous cultural counterparts. However, it is

important to remember that what the Iberian

powers claimed to be in their control was often

not, at least not in the beginning. Historians in

the last several decades have challenged the idea

of a swift and complete transition from indig enous to Spanish control in the Americas, and

their work has revealed the nuanced, multifac

eted dynamics of invasion, resistance, and adap tation that characterized the first centuries of the

European invasion.13 For example, studies con

ducted on the extended Maya resistance and the

mid-colonial Aymara revolt have exposed how

52 I BUILDINGS ?f LANDSCAPES 14, 2007

This content downloaded from 69.41.96.102 on Sun, 23 Feb 2014 22:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

fragile Spanish control in parts of the Americas

could be. There was often a significant difference

between the intent of the colonizers in terms of

their conquest strategy and what they were actu

ally able to enact on the ground, a disparity that

varied greatly across space and time.

In the Andes, such a disjuncture is most evi

dent in the vast mountainous areas, which made

up a significant portion of the new territories

in Viceregal Peru and housed the preponder ance of the people, the majority of whom were

indigenous.14 In 1532, the Europeans arrived on

the north coast of South America, encountering an Inca empire devastated by a brutal civil war

and the introduction of European diseases.15 The

Spanish kidnapped the Inca ruler Atahualpa and

demanded an enormous ransom for his freedom.

However, upon receiving the treasure, the Span ish killed Atahualpa and proclaimed control over

the lands in the name of Spain. As we now know, this declaration of Span

ish imperial dominion was premature, as the

brutal murder of the Inca ruler anticipated a

lengthy period of negotiation, during which vari ous indigenous and European groups vied for

power, each manipulating the other in hopes of (re)gaining full control over the Andes. Dur

ing this period, lasting from 1532 to 1570, there

were proportionally few Europeans in the Andes,

fostering a practice in which Spaniards relied on

indigenous leaders to mediate their intents and

carry out their plans, as well as build their archi

tecture. Continuing well after the Spanish were

able to bring the high Andes under firm Spanish control, the use of indigenous intermediaries was

particularly evident in areas of large indigenous

populations, such as the Inca heartland, where

indigenous resistance and cultural production remained strong.

Hence, while the Spanish colonizers deployed architectural projects as part of their conquest

strategy, they did not have the power to com

pletely transform the built environment of their

newly conquered lands. In many parts of the

Americas, indigenous individuals, groups, and

communities continued to wield some form of

control over the built environment, particularly in their own cities and homes where there was

limited European influence.16 The architecture

ranged from those sponsored by individuals to

those sponsored by indigenous organizations and included domestic, religious, and civic build

ings, as well as urban places, such as the Inca city of Vilcabamba and the Itza Maya city of Tayasal.

With so many areas jostling for control and other areas far from Spanish reach, we must rethink

the assumption that the Spanish government controlled the Americas to the extent that it deter

mined the architectural landscape and eclipsed

indigenous practice completely.

Monumental versus Vernacular Architecture

If the Spanish governments and its elite patrons did not have complete control of the built envi

ronment, what was being built in areas in which

struggles for power continued or where Spain

loosely held sway over a large and not readily controlled indigenous population? What type of architecture did indigenous people build for

themselves during the Spanish occupation?

Unfortunately, we know very little about the

buildings made in the colonial period for patrons not directly aligned with Spanish authorities.

Most of the architectural studies in the Andes

have focused on the major monuments of the

European conquest, specifically those buildings associated with the Spanish government, its elite

citizens, and the Catholic Church. This bias is due

to assumptions and practices within the field of

architectural history, rather than an issue related

exclusively to the study of colonial Latin American

architecture.

Architectural historians in Europe and the

Americas (North, Central, and South) have

focused primarily on "high-style" or monumen

tal architecture. This category is an elusive one

but tends to concentrate on the architecture of

powerful state institutions and the elite. Some

scholars have called the focus of these studies

"Architecture with a capital A."17

By contrast, all other architecture has tended

to be grouped under the rubric of "vernacular."

This category is equally difficult to define. Some

have attempted to do so on the grounds of the

training of the builders, systems of construction,

scale, or the state of development of a culture

who builds.18 However, Dell Upton has pointed out that the actual definition of the category of the

STELLA NAIR, WITNESSING THE I N-VISI Bl LITY OF INCA ARCHITECTURE | 53

This content downloaded from 69.41.96.102 on Sun, 23 Feb 2014 22:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

vernacular is not as important as understanding how the category has served as a foil for high

style architecture, which is at the core of Western

architectural history. He notes that vernacular

and high-style architecture are not normative

categories but are a culturally constructed dichot

omy that enables a hierarchy of buildings to be

established, such that those made for the elites in

power can be placed above all others.19 One does not need to read very far in the architectural lit erature to see the examples of this. Until recently, studies of architecture have focused almost exclu

sively on the architecture of the powerful rather

than the modest architecture of the everyday. Differences of materials have reinforced the

dichotomy, such that the architecture that has

endured has tended to be large scale and built

of durable materials. Usually this requires the resources of a state. By contrast, architecture

created by individuals of modest means tends to

be made of perishable materials and on a much

smaller scale. With time, these buildings visually

disappear, leaving us with the enduring architec

tural complexes that are often the deliberate ges tures of imperialism.

The availability of written sources has bol

stered this emphasis on high-style or monumen

tal architecture. In areas of the world where there

is a vibrant writing tradition, architecture created

by elites and powerful institutions is more likely than vernacular architecture to be referred to in

written material. Thus, architectural historians

have much more evidence available to study when looking at architecture of elites. This has

reinforced which types of buildings architectural

historians study, namely architecture of literate

elites and their institutions rather than structures

built by nonliterate groups, historically often the

majority of a population. True to disciplinary practices, the study of

colonial Latin American architecture has empha sized the grand and enduring monuments of

the colonial period, such as the impressive and

costly structures relating to the Spanish govern ment, the Catholic church, and the homes of

the elite (usually Spanish) citizens. What could

be classified as Andean vernacular architecture

(primarily structures built for people not directly associated with European powers nor designed

by architects trained in European academic insti

tutions) has been largely ignored. Thus the archi tecture covering the majority of the Andes and its

largely indigenous population built after 1532 has

escaped study.

Naming Colonial Architectural Categories The influence of the monumental/vernacular

dichotomy can be seen in the practice of naming colonial Latin American architectural categories. This has been set in motion by a disciplinary divide between archaeologists on one side and art and architectural historians on the other, with

archaeologists focusing primarily on indigenous architecture built before 1532 and art and architec

tural historians studying European architectural

traditions after this date.20 Disciplinary boundaries

have resulted in a divergent language for pre- and

post-1532 architecture, one that implies an end

of indigenous architectural practices and their

replacement with European designs. For example, architecture built before 1532 in the Andes car

ries the names of the many indigenous groups with which they are associated, such as Aymara, Moche, Inca, and Chachapoya architecture. How

ever, for architecture built after 1532, there are just two categories, Spanish and mestizo, suggesting the end of the diverse indigenous architectural

practices. Spanish architecture tends to be equated with the monumental and hence is often the focus of research, while mestizo is a more nebulous

category, frequently applied to more modest struc

tures, a type of Andean vernacular expression.

These naming practices have played a criti

cal role in how we understand architecture in

the colonial period. Spanish architecture (Fig ure 3) has traditionally been analyzed in terms

of its European elements, and mestizo or hybrid architecture (Figure 4) has been highlighted for

its unusual mixing of European and indigenous elements.21 In addition, Spanish and mestizo

styles are assumed to reflect the ethnic groups that designed, built, and often inhabited the structures. Spanish architecture is usually found in the major cities, while mestizo architecture

tends to be found in secondary centers, usually in

the form of provincial churches. The prevalence of mestizo style in remote settings is seen as a

lack of Spanish influence and control in more

54 I BUILDINGS ?f LANDSCAPES 14, 2007

This content downloaded from 69.41.96.102 on Sun, 23 Feb 2014 22:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

hard-to-reach locations. The Spanish and mes

tizo categories focus on structures built by Span ish institutions, such as the Catholic Church, as

well as by wealthy individuals. They reiterate an

emphasis on European powers and cultures, but

they also hint at the possibility that other players may have been involved in the colonial fabric of

the New World.

Clearly these two categories do not sufficiently encompass all of the architecture built during the

Spanish occupation of the Andes. For example,

indigenous structures built in the colonial period fall into neither category, potentially threaten

ing the stability of these rubrics. An example of

excluded architecture is neo-Inca architecture.

Scholars have used this catchall label to describe a variety of buildings that have clear links to

imperial Inca architectural traditions.22 It ranges from architecture that looks nearly identical to

structures built before the arrival of Europeans on Andean soil, to Inca architecture that includes

Spanish influences.

This category of buildings has received almost no attention by scholars. Federico Kauffmann

Doig is one of the few scholars to examine the

continuation of Inca architecture practices.23 One reason for this lack of attention is the previously stated notion that indigenous material culture

stopped being produced soon after the European invasion. Kaufmann Doig's important work

could have easily destabilized these assumptions and practices but was prevented from doing so

by the author himself. He described his "Inca

influenced" architecture as being part of the

category "mestizo." In doing so, he effectively removed this architecture from a longer indig enous tradition. Instead, he has placed it as a

subset of a new European-dominated architec

tural category, thus reinforcing the notion of a

Spanish-dominated colonial landscape. However, even the name "neo-Inca," used by

subsequent scholars to describe this perceived subset of mestizo architecture, does not menace

the pervasive belief in the dramatic cultural and

architectural rupture of 1532. Instead, the name

suggests that this category of buildings is part of a revival, therefore reinforcing the assumed

rupture. When used to describe architectural

traditions, "neo" means a revival, a rebirth of a

tradition that has died. As we can see in exam

ples such as neogothic or neoclassical, archi

tectural revivals are usually introduced after a

significant period of time, usually measured in

centuries rather than decades.24 Furthermore, revivals are often the products of groups that are

culturally and geographically distant from the

original creators of the style. The revived style is

also frequently used in different contexts. Exam

ples are the monuments to North American

governance, such as the neogothic parliament

building in Canada or the neoclassical Capitol in

Washington, D.C. Both are far removed in time,

space, and ethnicity from where these styles were first used. Likewise, neo-Inca suggests a

revival of Inca style after a significant time of

abandonment and the style may have had little

(top) Figure 3 Cathedral of Cuzco, Peru.

Front fa?ade. Photograph

by author.

(bottom) Figure 4.

San Pedro Church, Lake

Titicaca, Zepita, Peru.

Photograph by author.

STELLA NAIR, WITNESSING THE IN-VISI BILITY OF INCA ARCHITECTURE | 55

This content downloaded from 69.41.96.102 on Sun, 23 Feb 2014 22:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Figure 5.

Exterior view of two

colonial-era buildings from shared private

courtyard. These

structures were

separated by an entrance

space that opens out

to the public street.

Chinchero, Peru.

Photograph by author.

?B?V**i

to do with Inca descendants or have carried the same original meaning.

Problematizing terms like "neo-Inca" leads to

other questions such as when did Inca architecture

die? For how long was it abandoned? When did

the revival begin? As no one has seriously inves

tigated these questions, we must turn directly to

the physical evidence. Indeed, a study of the sur

viving evidence?and there is an abundance in

Cuzco?reveals that there is no time in the early colonial period when we can say that Inca archi tecture was no longer being built. Rather, neo

Inca architecture appears in seamless continuity with imperial Inca constructions. Sometimes it is

impossible to separate the types stylistically. This

suggests that the name neo-Inca is historically misinformed and highlights the subtle yet pro found effect that scholarly naming practices can

have on how we understand the past.25 The name neo-Inca appears to have been

erroneously given to this category of buildings because of their assumed link with a political

entity, the neo-Inca state.26 This implicit relation

ship reflects a tendency to interpret all (colonial) architecture as products of a state and its asso

ciated institutions. Yet, linking all architecture

with political bodies or movements disregards

the many types of buildings that are produced

separately from or contrary to the state, and it

ignores the complex ways that architecture func tions within a culture. In the case of the build

ings labeled neo-Inca, most of these structures

had nothing to do with a political movement but were the individual or communal efforts of local

ethnic Incas in the form of shared spaces or pri vate homes.27

Inca Architecture in Chinchero, Peru

Examples of Inca architecture produced in the

colonial period can be found in the very walls that

had so confounded me during the early days of my fieldwork. These "anomalous walls" lie in public spaces such as the town plaza as well as in private homes, where they are frequently found today. In one section of the inhabited town of Chinchero, one finds a collection of colonial homes built by

indigenous commoners and elite Inca residents

(Figure 5). The spatial arrangements of these

buildings are classic Inca. They are freestanding, single-room, single-story rectangular structures.

The buildings are often arranged parallel with one

another or at right angles. An open space usually separates the structures. Infrequently the build

ings are arranged in a courtyard design, one that

56 I BUILDINGS <? LANDSCAPES 14, 2007

This content downloaded from 69.41.96.102 on Sun, 23 Feb 2014 22:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

follows the layout of the kancha, or household

compound, as seen in the imperial Inca site of

Ollantaytambo rather than the continuous con

struction typical of Spanish courtyard housing. These structures are unlike most vernacular tradi

tions in Spain, where even modest homes were

often contiguous, multiroom, multiple-storied structures. In addition, the floor plans of Spanish vernacular housing ranged from rectangular to

round and most had interior connections, such as doorways connecting two interior rooms. One

of the only Spanish spatial patterns found in the

Chinchero buildings is the occasional entrance

hall.

While the spatial layout of the structures are

almost entirely Inca, the construction and icon

ographie influences in the Chinchero houses

draws from both Inca and European traditions.

The private homes are constructed from adobe on a stone base. This was the standard combi

nation found in imperial Inca Chinchero but in

different proportions. The colonial adobe bricks in the house walls were made in molds. Even

though form molds were used in the northern

coastal Andes, the traditional method in the cen

tral highlands had been to form adobe bricks

by hand. In the colonial period, the Spanish are

credited with introducing the use of the standard

form mold in the central highlands.28 The iconographie choices found in the colo

nial structures creatively employed both Inca and

European-derived design elements. Niches were

ubiquitous elements in Inca architecture. In the

colonial homes at Chinchero, niches are often

evenly spaced and arranged in a single row, one

of the most common niche patterns in Tawan

tinsuyu (Figure 6). Yet, like their imperial Inca

predecessor, the colonial Chinchero residents

experimented freely with a variety of patterns. The colonial Chinchero residents introduced

Spanish elements in the form of arches. In the

private homes, arches were creatively combined

with rectangular and trapezoidal doorways and

niches (Figure 7). The incorporation of Spanish arches into the

private homes of indigenous residents reveals

problems with facile association of architecture

and iconography with ethnicity. These indigenous inhabitants incorporated the Spanish arches into

their own Andean houses; the arches cannot be a reflection of Spanish ethnicity. Also, the use of

both expressions within a single structure reveals

the problem with seeing the two styles as always

existing in opposition. The arches in the colonial

indigenous homes remind us that the meaning of architectural styles and iconography is not set

but rather changes over time and across space,

depending on the context.29

The use of Spanish style motifs in Inca archi tecture of the colonial period also highlights the issue of change in Inca architecture. Until

recently, the prevailing view has been that Inca

architecture did not change. This belief was not

based on an analysis of the evidence but origi nated in an antiquated assumption in West ern scholarship that indigenous cultures were

essentially static.30 Therefore, scholars tended to

interpret change in colonial indigenous material

culture as a loss of once-pure traditions rather

than as an adaptation to evolving contexts. This

viewpoint is in stark contrast to the interpretation

governing European architecture, where change and adaptation are seen as normal progressions and evidence of its complexities.

It has been only recently that imperial Inca

architecture has been recognized as dynamic, and research has begun to give us insights into

Inca adaptations to local influences. The research

of Jean-Pierre Protzen and Craig Morris at Tambo

Colorado highlight two examples. The first is

the raised floors, or beds, found in many of the rooms at Tambo Colorado. This design element is not found in Inca architecture from the Cuzco

region and appears to be an adaptation of local

coastal architecture. The second example is the use of tapia, or tapped earth, rather than adobe.

Tapia is a common construction method of the

coast, and the Incas incorporated this technique when they conquered the area.31

The Islands of the Sun and the Moon, two of

the most sacred of Inca sites, provide other exam

ples of change in Inca architecture. Here, the

Tiwanaku style in the form of elaborate stepped frets and the Andean cross were incorporated into

Inca architecture. Tiwanaku was one of the most

important centers of artistic production before

the Incas and Lake Titicaca, where the Island of the Sun lies, was considered an important spiri

STELLA NAIR, WITNESSING THE I N-VISI Bl LITY OF INCA ARCHITECTURE | 57

This content downloaded from 69.41.96.102 on Sun, 23 Feb 2014 22:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Figure 6.

View of niches in the

interior of a colonial

house. Niche pattern is in typical horizontal

arrangement with even

spacing, typically found

during the imperial Inca

period. However, two of

the niches have pointed lintels (made by placing adobe blocks diagonally) while the other two have

flat lintels (supported by horizontal wooden

beam). Chinchero, Peru.

Photograph by author.

Figure 7.

View of niches in interior

of a colonial house.

This is just one example of the creative ways in

which local residents

experiment with niche

shape and pattern

placements. Chinchero,

Peru. Photograph by author.

tuai center for the region. Hence, coopting Tiwa

naku iconography into their regional architecture

may have been a strategic act on part of the Incas.

Throughout their empire, the Incas adapted their

construction and design to the particular circum

stances of their buildings. Therefore, the change that is apparent in colonial Inca architecture

should not be seen as a loss or a corruption of an

indigenous tradition but as an expected develop ment, one that was driven by human intentions.

58 I BUILDINGS <? LANDSCAPES 14, 2007

This content downloaded from 69.41.96.102 on Sun, 23 Feb 2014 22:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The adoption of foreign elements was a continua tion of Inca cultural patterns, architectural or oth erwise.32 Hence we must be careful to examine

all aspects of Inca architectural practice to under stand the dynamic forces at work. To look only at

form rather than at process leads to overly narrow

understandings. The changes evident in Andean

architecture in the colonial period reflect a larger process of cultural change that has been brought to light by ethno-historians.

Painting and Performance in Chinchero To understand the circumstances that gave rise to a particular building, we turn to relevant written

documents and material culture. Yet, in many

indigenous areas such as Chinchero, there are

few written sources. Therefore, the study of the material culture becomes even more critical. In

the case of Chinchero, a painting provides some

compelling insights into the indigenous residents, their use of both Inca and Spanish iconographies, and their use of public space. This painting is

complex, hence I will summarize some of the most compelling elements from a previous study that are relevant to an analysis.33

Francisco Chivantito was an indigenous artist

born and raised in Chinchero. In 1693, he com

pleted a painting of the Virgin of Montserrat. The

right side of this painting depicts the town center

of the colonial period, with the church and plaza of Chinchero (Figure 8). In the plaza, against the

backdrop of the Inca niche wall, stands the local

kuraka, or village leader, surrounded by elite men

and women and lower status musicians. The

public performance in the plaza is reminiscent

of imperial Inca use of the plaza where Inca lead ers would display their authority in a variety of

choreographed ceremonies, suggesting that the

function of space resonates with a longer Andean

tradition.34

In this painting, the importance of the Andean

elite is clear, as is its close relationship with both

European and Andean cultures. Research on the

depiction of indigenous and Spanish clothing has shown that the higher the prestige of a person, the fewer indigenous elements he or she is shown

wearing.35 The kuraka in the center dons a Span ish coat, jacket, shirt, shoes, pants, and leggings.

However, he also wears the traditional Inca tunic.

The musicians, on the other hand, show more of a mixture in clothing types. Most wear Iberian

pants and coats, yet all wear Inca shirts decorated with indigenous patterns. As a lower-class group, their clothing contains more indigenous ele

ments than does the clothing of the kuraka. This portrayal of indigenous men in the Chin

chero painting provides key insights into the material culture of the residents, particularly into how the body was adorned and how class and eth

nicity were articulated. Clearly, the assumption that style directly reflects ethnicity is false. Here,

indigenous elites as well as indigenous common ers draw from pan-Andean, Inca, and Spanish

material culture to represent class status, as well as local indigenous identity. Spanish elements do not appear to represent a lessening of Inca or indigenous identity but serve as signifiers of

authority that are incorporated and translated into indigenous cultural performance.

In terms of architecture, this provides an

important clue into understanding the addition of Spanish styles and construction techniques, suggesting not only functional aspects due to

economy and ease but also suggesting that Span ish-derived aspects in Inca vernacular architec ture did not signify the presence of Spaniards in what we know to be an indigenous town, nor

Figure 8.

View of plaza scene

depicting local residents

and architecture in

Chinchero. Virgin of Montserrat, Francisco

Chivantito, 1693. The

Church of Nuestra

Se?ora de Montserrat,

Chinchero, Peru.

Photograph by author.

STELLA NAIR, WITNESSING THE IN-VISI BILITY OF INCA ARCHITECTURE | 59

This content downloaded from 69.41.96.102 on Sun, 23 Feb 2014 22:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

represent a shift from indigenous and Inca iden

tity to that of a Spanish or mestizo one. As a par allel to the architecture, the Chinchero painting

highlights how aspects of Spanish culture were

incorporated into town life in a dynamic and

meaningful way. Indeed, this was in the tradition

of Inca culture that predated the European inva

sion, one that was always dynamic and adaptive. However, that is not to suggest that Spanish

material culture was seen as benign or was eas

ily translated into all aspects of Chinchero daily and ceremonial life. In the town scene, Chivantito

depicts two women walking behind the kuraka

while two other women carry large Inca jars.

Despite the 150 years since the Spanish invasion, their clothing shows almost no sign of Spanish influence. They wear the traditional shawl and

the Inca dress, the patterns of which are entirely Andean.

Chivantito's image of women in Chinchero

reveals the divergent ways in which indigenous

people may have interacted with Spanish culture

and oppression. These images of women indicate

that a rejection of things Spanish and an embrac

ing of Inca material culture could also articulate

authority. This image also reveals the profound

impact that gender could play in the experience of the Spanish occupation, suggesting that how we interpret the Inca buildings of colonial-period Chinchero and the surrounding region is depen dent also on understanding the gender dynamics of the household and town.

Chivantito's painting reflects the roles defined

by class, gender, and ethnic conflict in colonial

Chinchero and thus suggests some of the distinct

and varied experiences of the conquest. The adop tion of Spanish artistic elements did not cause

people to become Spanish; instead Spanish derived aspects were recast with new meaning in

the Andean landscape. For the elite men, Spanish

style became one method of showing their access

to another system of authority. For elite woman, the rejection of Spanish influences?and their

celebration of Inca signifiers?emphasized their

important role in maintaining critical continu

ities with indigenous traditions and thus their own source of authority. Relying on a diversity of evidence allows for a deeper understanding of

colonial architecture. In the case of Chinchero,

a single painting can provide a glimpse into the

people who designed, built and experienced the

architectural landscape. The painting provides insights into the rich

Inca architecture from the colonial period in

Chinchero, and it suggests paths for further

research. The persistence of Inca spatial patterns indicates the continuation of some Inca social

practices within the home. However, the addi

tion of the European-derived entrance hall indi cates accommodation to Iberian influences in

private life, one that mediated the dynamic life of

the town streets with that of the intimate family scene. This choice in adaptation can be seen in

construction practices as well, such that Inca con

struction practices continued, although with the

significant addition of molds used to form adobe

bricks. This may be a reflection of the fact that

indigenous men were brought in by the Spanish as labor to erect their homes and settlements, and in the process they introduced indigenous

men to Iberian construction practices. A more complicated question regards the

diversity of iconographie influences found within

the private homes. Ranging from the standard

imperial Inca iconography of trapezoidal niches

in a row, to creative mixtures of European

inspired arches next to Inca-style niches, these

arrangements reveal the diversity of options open to residents and the distinct choices they embraced. Was this a reflection of the dramatic

upheaval of the time or of the diverse ethnic,

class, and gender differences of the indigenous inhabitants in Chinchero, who each experienced the Spanish invasion in distinct ways? Or did

this patterning reflect the changing meaning of

the forms and styles, as each became introduced

and translated in a distinct way? While we do not know at this stage in the investigation, we

can say with certainty that Inca architecture con

tinued well into the colonial period in Chinchero

and that it was as adaptive and creative as it was

during imperial Inca times.

Andean Built Environments: Another Look The preceding examples of Inca architecture

in colonial Chinchero also force us to consider

whether they were unique or representative of

larger Andean architectural practices. Can similar

60 I BUILDINGS <? LANDSCAPES 14, 2007

This content downloaded from 69.41.96.102 on Sun, 23 Feb 2014 22:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

structures be found elsewhere? Evidence suggests that the answer is yes, particularly in the former

Inca capital of Cuzco and in the surrounding Inca

heartland. The numerous structures labeled "neo

Inca" are a case in point. Examples can be found in the Sacred Valley (Figure 9) or in Cuzco, where one can walk down almost any of the old streets

to find examples of Inca-style architecture built

in the colonial period. Ranging from structures

that were constructed with the traditional stone

tools of the imperial Inca period to those built

with European metal hammers, the colonial archi tecture of Cuzco shows a range in incorporating elements of European construction and form into

Inca architectural practices. While these structures indicate the preva

lence of this category of buildings in the colo

nial period, they do not necessarily proclaim the

ethnicity of their inhabitants or patrons. Unlike

the examples of Chinchero, Cuzco was home to

Spaniards and Incas, as well as other indigenous and European groups. Hence, we can begin to

question how cultural interaction may have

impacted the built environment in the colonial

period beyond Inca architecture for Inca elites.

For example, did Spaniards adopt Inca architec ture styles for their own homes?

When we look at this evidence more closely, we will likely find a very complicated picture, one

that involves not just Inca and Spaniard but vari ous indigenous and European groups. In Cuzco

alone, there is evidence suggesting not only a

vibrant Inca architecture in the colonial period, but also a Chachapoya one. The plan and perspec tive of two parishes in Cuzco (dated 1643) reveals

the distinct rooftops and housing arrangements of a densely inhabited Chachapoya neighbor hood. Now we can begin to discuss the evolution

of different indigenous architectural traditions

before and after 1532.

Riverside, California, April 12, 2007 As I sit on my balcony, watching the setting sun

turn the desert mountainside from warm beige to a glowing purple, I think about what I missed

those first months in Chinchero. A key problem is

that I had looked first to the definitions of colonial

architecture as form and iconography and not as

process. However, as Dean and Leibsohn have so

eloquently shown, it is what we don't readily see

that can be as (and perhaps more) important as

what we do see. Those tool marks, which were

such an early source of frustration to me, were

the keys to understanding the importance of the

Figure 9.

Colonial-era house in the

Sacred Valley. Has often

been attributed to an

early colonial Inca leader,

Sayri Topa. Yucay, Peru.

Photograph by author.

STELLA NAIR, WITNESSING THE I N-VISI Bl LITY OF INCA ARCHITECTURE | 61

This content downloaded from 69.41.96.102 on Sun, 23 Feb 2014 22:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

structures, as well as a reminder of the complex process of making that is central to understand

ing architecture. In the early colonial period, the

labor force, which built even the most European

looking buildings, was almost if not completely

indigenous. The tool marks on the Chinchero

walls only begin to hint at the complex stories of

architecture in fracture, rather than just in form, that remain to be written for the Andes in the

colonial period. As the examples in Chinchero and Cuzco

show, the Andes during the colonial period were

not only a Spanish architectural landscape but also an indigenous one. Inca architecture was always

dynamic, actively incorporating other influences.

These changes never made Inca architecture less

Inca or less indigenous. Instead, new influences were translated into an Inca vocabulary of mate

rial culture, adding to its richness and mean

ing. Architecture is dynamic and can reflect the

specificity of the context in which it was built and

the people who inhabited it. Hence, we architec

tural historians need to rigorously question our

own disciplinary practices in order to more fully understand the complexity of colonial Andean

life being explored by social and art historians.

We must be careful with the names that we

give architectural styles. Terms such as "neo

Inca" and even "mestizo" can create fundamental

misunderstandings and mask important continu

ities. As the painting and domestic architecture

in Chinchero suggests, to read style as reflecting

ethnicity is to miss important issues of cultural

translation occurring in colonial material culture in the Andes. We must also be cautious reading

larger ethnic and political battles into architec

ture, for we can make assumptions of linkages that never existed. In many ways, we have only

begun to grapple with the issue of contact and

continuity in Andean architecture in the colonial

period.

Indigenous architecture in the colonial

period?its space, construction, and iconog

raphy?can provide a new avenue of research

into the study of the Andean past, but only if we

acknowledge its complexity and relationship to a

broader landscape and historical processes. As

the architectural historian Dell Upton has said, "the relationship between artifacts and ethnic

ity or culture is ambiguous and evanescent. The

object does its work by contrast and comment, inflection and reflection, by imagery and detail:

it requires the context of a landscape on a large scale."36

As noted by travelers and scholars alike, the

architecture of Europe did spread rapidly across

the landscapes of the Americas, and we are only in the early stages of exploring that remarkable

process and the diversity of expression and play ers within it. But this Europeanization aspect of

the architectural landscape must not shield us

from looking with equal concentration to the vast

indigenous built environment that developed

simultaneously and equally defined the colonial

period. We must always be cautious in focus

ing solely on the architecture of the state and its

elite citizens and institutions when discussing the architectural history of a time, and also look

to the vast built environment erected by people with little or only loose ties to powerful authori

ties, European or indigenous. This call relates not

only to the Spanish occupation of the Americas

but also to that of the imperial Inca era. One may wonder, as we look across the Andes and note the numerous and impressive imperial Inca installa

tions, what other buildings were erected by those

populations colonized by the Inca? Architectural

historians need to incorporate these building

projects into the scholarship of the imperial Inca

landscape, a landscape that was marked by Inca

architecture but not limited to it.

NOTES

This article began as part of a presentation for a con

ference in Peru at the Catholic University (PUCP) in

2o02, which was published as "?Neo inca or Colonial?

La muerte de la arquitectura inca y otros paradigmas,"

in Identitdad y transformaci?n en el Tawantinsuyu y en

los Andes Coloniales. Perspectivas Arqueol?gicas y Etno

hist?ricas (Segunda parte), ?d. Peter Kaulicke, 7:113-31

(Lima: PUCP Pontifica Universidad Cat?lica del Per?,

2003). A subsequent paper presented at the Vernacular

Architecture Forum in Tuscon, Arizona, 2005, devel

oped into the present article. I owe much to the discus

sions on the topic with colleagues, such as Kevin Carr,

Preeti Chopra, Don Choi, Monica Dominquez Torres,

Finbarr Barry Flood, Rebecca Ginsburg, Robert Gonza

lez, Jeremey Mumford, Andrew Sandoval-Strausz, Ari

62 I BUILDINGS <? LANDSCAPES 14, 2007

This content downloaded from 69.41.96.102 on Sun, 23 Feb 2014 22:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

jit Sen, Jason Weems, and the fellows of the Michigan

Society of Fellows. However, any and all mistakes that

exist are mine alone. Funding for this project was pro

vided by the Fulbright ITE and CASVA at the National

Gallery of Art.

i. This is relevant for not only the Andes region but

for indigenous architecture across the Americas. The

use of architecture in the discourse of native North

America is one example. During the discovery, colo

nization, and western expansion of North America by

Europeans, architecture was invoked to substantiate

the views that native Americans were savages, Satan's

children, or merely less developed. Dispersed settle

ments and ephemeral architecture (such as tents) were

cited as examples of native Americans' lesser status.

By contrast, when the existence of urban centers and

more permanent or "monumental" architecture were

found, innovative narratives were devised to explain

them away. In the early days, these histories credited

the urban and monumental (i.e., "civilized" architec

ture) as belonging to migrating Welshmen, Vikings, and other (primarily Northern European) groups. It

was argued that these wandering Nordic men built

the cities and durable structures before the arrival of

the "less civilized" native North American people and

the creation of their "inferior" ephemeral architecture.

Thus architecture was invoked to visualize the view of

indigenous history that suited nonnative needs and

beliefs. When architecture surfaced that countered

these narratives, a new story was created to explain

away the architecture so that the paradigm of the less

developed indigenous population was preserved.

Eventually, the testament of the indigenous built

environment could not be ignored and the surviving

cities and related architecture forcefully unraveled the

misconceptions of native North American history and

material culture. An example can be seen with the Late

Woodland and Mississippian cities. Having success

fully ignored written accounts of European encoun

ters with the Natchez living in one of these earthen

cities, as well as indigenous oral histories relating dis

tinct groups to these settlements, scholars and nonin

digenous laymen were eventually forced to accept the

overwhelming archaeological evidence indicating that

these impressive sites were built by native American

people. In particular, careful analysis of the material

culture excavated from these sites, such as Shawnee

style burial boxes, convinced scholars and began to

shake views of native North Americans as entirely

"uncivilized." Due to the perceived link between a peo

ple and their architecture, evidence that native North

Americans created monumental architecture and lived

in cities, both understood as visual hallmarks of a civi

lized people, problematized the notion of natives as

uncivilized.

2. The Inca Empire was a relatively new empire.

The Inca Empire is believed to have spread rapidly, with much of its expansion occurring in about ioo

150 years, right up to the Spanish invasion. Therefore,

when the Spanish arrived, some of the Inca lands

had just been conquered, while most others had been

occupied for only a generation or two. Architectural

infrastructure appears to have been a key part of the

expansion process, much in the same way architecture

was employed by the Roman Empire as part of its con

quest strategy.

3. The Incas also built in adobe, a much-neglected

aspect of Inca architecture in the scholarly literature.

For a discussion on Inca architecture, in particular its

standard characteristics and how those elements could

be arranged to create a

diversity of building complexes,

see Jean Pierre Protzen, "Inca Architecture," in The

Inca World: the Development of Pre-Columbian Peru,

A.D. 1000-1534, ed. Laura Laurencich Minelli, 193-222

(Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000).

4. The Andean empire began to unravel before the

physical arrival of Europeans in the Andes. Disease,

believed to be of European origin, spread ahead of the

Spanish invasion in the Andes, leading to the untimely death of the ruler Wayna Capac and resulting in a battle

of succession between two of his sons. Hence, when

the Spaniards arrived in the Andes, the Inca Empire was already racked by a terrible epidemic, which had

wiped out a large portion of its subjects, and a brutal

civil war, which left the war-torn region vulnerable to

outside attack.

Scholarship on the conquest traditionally described

the transition from Inca to Spanish rule as relatively

swift, symbolized with the Spanish decapitating the

Sapa Inka (ruler) Atahualpa soon after their arrival

in the Andes. However, research during the last sev

eral decades has emphasized the length and details

of that transition, emphasizing how complex and

uneven it was and, in particular, that Spanish control

was frustrated by frequent indigenous rebellions and

the reconstitution of a minor but defiant neo-Inca

state. However, it is generally accepted that the Inca

Empire?and its imperial building program?ended

STELLA NAIR, WITNESSING THE I N-VISI Bl LITY OF INCA ARCHITECTURE | 63

This content downloaded from 69.41.96.102 on Sun, 23 Feb 2014 22:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

soon after the arrival of Spaniards on Andean soil.

5. Burkholder and Johnson refer to this progression

as "indigenous to mature colonial," discussing its rela

tionship to the Spanish conquest strategy, such that

"colonial authorities decided, for political reasons, to

rebuild the cities as Spanish centers" because "rebuild

ing them symbolically legitimized the authority of the new colonial order." Mark A. Burkholder and Lyman

L. Johnson, Colonial Latin America (New York: Oxford

University Press, 2004), 235.

6. Ibid., 236.

7. Ibid., 236-44.

8. For an example of the intentional destruction and

reuse of Inca sites by Spanish authorities see Carolyn

S. Dean, "Creating a Ruin in Colonial Cusco: Sacsahua

man and What Was Made of It," Andean Past 5 (1998):

161-83. For an example of the intentionality of Span

ish architecture and iconography being used to visual

ize authority over indigenous landscapes, see Thomas

Cummins and Joanne Rappaport, "The Reconfigura

tion of Civic and Sacred Space: Architecture, Image,

and Writing in the Colonial Northern Andes," Latin

American Literary Review 26, no. 52 (1998): 174-200.

9. "During the colonial period, the dominant

manifestation of European culture was architecture.

. . . Another hundred years on and allowing for local

and regional differences, especially in the Portuguese

territories of Brazil, this approximately Mediterranean

pattern extended from California to Patagonia. Even in

the countryside, where the land itself was still largely shaped by traditional native American agricultural

practices, the cupolas and bell-towers of the parish

churches effectively 'Latinized' the landscape." Valerie

Fraser, "Art and Architecture in Latin America," in

The Cambridge Companion to Modern Latin American

Culture, ed. John King (London: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 202-3.

10. George Kubier, "On the Colonial Extinction of

the Motifs of Pre-Columbian Art," in Essays in Pre-Co

lumbian Art and Archaeology, ed. Samuel K. Lothrop,

14-34 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,

1961). 11. There has been an abundance of art historical

research, far too numerous to list here, that has suc

cessfully interrogated colonial Andean art as an expres

sion of complex cultural interactions. Excellent recent

studies, which explore drinking vessels, clothing, per

formance, metalwork, furniture, painting, and other

movable arts include Thomas B. F. Cummins, Toasts

with the Inca: Andean Abstraction and Colonial Images on Quero Vessels (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004); Carolyn Dean, Inka Bodies and the Body

of Christ: Corpus Christi in Colonial Cuzco, Peru (Dur ham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1999); and Elena

Phipps, ed., The Colonial Andes: Tapestries and Silver

work, 1530-1830 (New York: The Metropolitan Museum

of Art, 2004).

12. Valerie Fraser states, "identifying such [indig

enous] elements requires detailed scholarship and un

derstanding of native culture and does not undermine

a broader view of early colonial architecture as essen

tially European in form and function." Valerie Fraser,

"Art and Architecture in Latin America," in The Cam

bridge Companion to Modern Latin American Culture, ed.

John King (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2004), 204. See also Valerie Fraser, The Architecture of

Conquest: Building in the Viceroyalty of Peru, 1535-1635

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

13. It is one that coincides with what art historians

have discovered in the movable arts.

14. The vast Andes landscape was also a site of

rebellions against the Incas, frustrating imperial Inca

control in many areas of their empire.

15. European diseases are believed to have spread

ahead of European migrations in the New World. Dis

eases such as smallpox were introduced by Europeans

into the Caribbean, North America, and Mesoamerica;

the diseases moved down the landmass at a rapid pace,

eventually reaching the Andes and causing widespread illness and death in the Inca empire. This is believed

to have precipitated the Inca civil war, such that Wayna

Capac died suddenly, possibly of smallpox, without a

clear successor, thus allowing for the beginning of the

civil war.

16. This could range from small pockets of land, to

huge territories. An example of the latter was the vast

tropical interiors of South America, which Europeans

had difficulty penetrating. 17. Marvin Trachtenberg and Isabelle Hyman,

Architecture from Prehistory to Post-Modernism: The

Western Tradition (New York: Abrams, 1986), 42. 18. Trachtenberg and Hyman summarize some of

the traditional definitions of vernacular architecture.

They state, "the essence of vernacular architecture is its

unchanging quality, having generally come into being

in response to the ahistoric conditions of agrarian,

backwoods, or primitive societies. Sometimes called

'architecture without architects/ it can also be termed

64 I BUILDINGS <? LANDSCAPES 14, 2007

This content downloaded from 69.41.96.102 on Sun, 23 Feb 2014 22:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

'architecture without history'... the subject has great

appeal today?being functional, ecologically based,

collectively planned, and often charming." Ibid., 41.

19. Dell Upton, "The VAF at 25: What Now?" paper

given at the Vernacular Architecture Forum 2004.

20. This is slowly changing. Recently, a number of

archaeologists have begun actively examining sites in

both the pre- and post-1532 context. See for example,

recent research by Steve Wernke, "Analogy or Era

sure? Dialectics of Religious Transformation in the

Early Doctrinas of the Coica Valley, Peru," International

Journal of Historical Archaeology 11, no. 2 (June 2007):

152-82.

21. For an excellent summary and discussion of the

mestizo style and other related categories in the Andes

and Mexico, see Carolyn Dean and Dana Leibsohn

"Hybridity and Its Discontents: Considering Visual

Culture in Colonial Spanish America," Colonial Latin

American Review 12, no. 1 (2003): 7-9.

22. This term has been used extensively in the Inca

heartland to describe Inca-style architecture built in

the colonial period. For example, see Arminda Gibaja,

"La occupaci?n neoinca del valle de Urubamba," in

Arqueolog?a de Cuzco, ed. ?talo Oberti (Cuzco, Peru:

Instituto Nacional de Cultura, 1982), 81-96.

23. Federico Kauffmann Doig, Influencias "Inca" en

la arquitectura peruana del Virreinato: H fen?meno hua

manquino' (Lima, Per?: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, 1965).

24. It is important to note that these "neo" catego

ries are now being questioned in the Western context.

While being recognized as descriptive of trends within

space and time, the terms are being challenged on the

grounds that they should no longer be understood as

births and declines. Rather, they should be understood

as expressions of artistic modes or languages that

have always existed in Western architecture but are

employed in different ways across time.

25. One of the first studies to elucidate the impor

tance of naming in colonizing situations was Paul

Carter's The Road to Botany Bay: An Exploration of

Landscape and History (New York: Knopf, 1987). 26. The term "neo-Inca" was first coined to refer

to a political entity, which was the Inca government

that fled in the invasion of Cuzco and whose remnants,

reconstituted a new Inca government in Vilcabamba.

See George Kubier, "The Neo-Inca State (1537-1572),"

HAHR: Hispanic American Historical Review 27, no. 2

(1947): 189-203. However, this term was then used to

refer to Inca architecture built after 1532.

27. The buildings may have also been built for non

Incas, especially in the colonial period.

28. The introduction of this method of construc

tion in the Cuzco area may have been the result of

Andean migration and technology exchange between

indigenous groups and not necessarily a

sign of Span

ish technology.

29. These stylistic concerns were occurring in

Europe as well. For example, Gothic and Italianate in

16th century architecture were terms that referenced

ethnicity. However, recent research has indicated the

alternative employment of these modes were actually

responses to ideological and rhetorical issues (I thank

Monica Dominquez for pointing out this parallel). 30. Note how this view of the unchanging parallels

views of the vernacular. See Trachtenberg and Hyman

42.

31. Jean-Pierre Protzen and Craig Morris, "Los colo

res de Tambo Colorado: una reevaluaci?n," Bolet?n de

Arqueolog?a PPUCS (2004): 267-76. 32. This highlights the problematic associations of

the idea of "tradition" as unchanging, timeless prac

tices associated only with "primitive" peoples. Change,

or more specifically the incorporation and modifica

tion of elements from other cultures they came into

contact with, was an important aspect of Inca culture

and is one of the reasons that the Inca state was so suc

cessful in its conquest strategy. Examples can be seen

in Inca religion and customs.

33. For an extensive analysis of this painting, see

Stella Nair, "Localizing Sacredness, Difference, and

Yachacuscamcani in a Colonial Andean Painting," Art

Bulletin 89, no. 2 (2007): 209-31.

34. For a discussion of the important roles that

architecture played in Inca elite life, particularly in

governance, religion, public and private life, and the

remembrance of history, see Susan Niles, The Shape

of Inca History: Narrative and Architecture in an Andean

Empire (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1999). 35. John H. Rowe, "Colonial Portraits of Inca

Nobles," in The Civilizations of Ancient America, Pro

ceedings of the Twenty-ninth International Congress

of Americanists, ed. Sol Tax, 1:258-68 (Chicago: Inter

national Congress of Americanists, 1951).

36. Dell Upton, "Ethnicity, Authenticity and Invent

ed Traditions," Historical Archaeology 30 (1996): 5.

STELLA NAIR, WITNESSING THE I N-VISI Bl LITY OF1NCA ARCHITECTURE | 65

This content downloaded from 69.41.96.102 on Sun, 23 Feb 2014 22:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions