SHAPING PRECOLONIAL CONCEPTS IN THE ANDES: THE USHNU

FOR LLOCLLAYHUANCUPA (HUAROCHIRÍ, LIMA)

Gabriel Ramón

In precolonial Andean archaeology, specialists frequently deal with objects whose names and functions are unknown. Similarly,
early colonial documents from the Andes often mention objects without describing their shapes or functions. How can we
articulate these three features—names, shapes, and functions—for objects from precolonial and colonial periods? How can
we define these objects while taking into account intra-Andean variability? This article addresses these questions using one
section from a well-known document of the early seventeenth century, the Huarochirí Manuscript. This section includes a term
extensively discussed in Andean archaeology: husno or ushnu, which has been translated and described in various ways by
diverse scholars. Through analysis of the function, form, and translation of the Quechua term ushnu, I explore a typological
approach to articulate names, shapes, and functions and also propose a redefinition of the concept itself.

En la arqueología precolonial andina, los especialistas frecuentemente trabajan con objetos cuyos nombres y funciones son
desconocidos. Del mismo modo, las fuentes coloniales tempranas de los Andes suelen mencionar objetos sin describir sus
formas y funciones. Esta serie de objetos es fundamental para la tarea de reconstruir el pasado precolonial; sin embargo, no
se ha avanzado mucho en definirlos sistemáticamente. En consecuencia, ¿cómo podemos articular estos tres rasgos (forma,
función y nombre) para objetos de ambos periodos? ¿Cómo podemos definir estos objetos sin soslayar la gran variabilidad
intra-andina? Estas preguntas serán abordadas usando una sección de un conocido documento de inicios del siglo diecisiete,
el Manuscrito de Huarochirí, en el cual aparece un término largamente discutido en arqueología andina: husno (también
llamado ushnu). A través de este caso, se explora un procedimiento para articular formas, funciones y nombres a partir
de la revisión sistemática de la evidencia arqueológica, etnográfica e histórica, planteando una aproximación tipológica al
concepto de ushnu.

M
ost discussions in late precolonial
Andean archaeology have focused on
what might be called major entities
and their related objects: from gods in religion to
rulers in politics. Although this focus may have
allowed for the development of clear definitions
of major divinities and types of sociopolitical
organization in the late precolonial Andes, it
has led to the neglect of detailed and critical
explanations of the forms, functions, and names
of minor entities and objects. But major entities,
in the Andes and elsewhere, can only be fully
explained by paying attention to their component
parts; that is, minor entities. Correlating forms,
functions, and names to propose definitions or
concepts is a fundamental exercise in narrating
the past, but it is a topic that is particularly
underdeveloped for the late precolonial and early
colonial periods in the Andes, despite a recent
flourishing of material culture studies among
Andeanists. This limitation is especially evident
with respect to minor objects or entities, which
usually have been assumed, incorrectly, to be
uniform across time and space in the Andes.
Therefore, while it is necessary to improve
the definitions and concepts applied in Andean
archaeology, it is also imperative to improve
the methodology used to construct these defini-
tions by incorporating cultural and geographic
diversity into the explanations of minor entities
and objects. Building upon the critique of a
linguist who claimed that scholars have been

Gabriel Ramón Departamento de Humanidades, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú (PUCP), Av. Universitaria 1801,
San Miguel, Lima 32, Perú (glramon@pucp.edu.pe)
Latin American Antiquity 28(2), 2017, pp. 288–307
Copyright © 2017 by the Society for American Archaeology
doi:10.1017/laq.2017.22

288
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 23 Jul 2017 at 15:34:56, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.22
 Ramón] SHAPING PRECOLONIAL CONCEPTS IN THE ANDES
proposing definitions of Andean entities without
exerting even a minimum of linguistic care
(Cerrón 2008:9–10), I suggest that in the case of
objects (material culture), truly interdisciplinary
definitions are lacking. By this, I refer not only
to basic linguistic standards but also to elemental
archaeological methods used to relate functions,
shapes, and contexts.
With respect to precolonial Andean objects,
assumptions about the relationships between the
three features of form, function, and name have
generally been based on ethnographic data from
the southern Peruvian Andean region without
taking into account regional, altitudinal, or
latitudinal variability within the Andean world.
These limitations partially stem from the fact that
a significant number of valuable ethnographic
monographs produced between the late 1970s
and early 1990s were on specific villages in
southern Peru (Supplemental Text 1). Because
of their high quality, but also for political and
linguistic reasons, these monographs have had an
enormous impact on Andean studies in the anglo-
phone academy, resulting in a southern Andean
bias. Archaeologists who have worked in the cen-
tral and north-central Andes frequently use these
monographs as their main references, ignoring,
perhaps intentionally or because other studies
are less visible, intra-Andean variability (see
the observations of Pärssinen 1992:305; Ramón
2008:16; Urbano 1999:xciii, xcvi, xcviii). Fol-
lowing this critical approach, this article presents
a study of a single Andean object: a peripheral
and ignored kind of ushnu, an object documented
in the seventeenth century. Such an analysis
shows that minor objects can be indispensable
for understanding and narrating late precolonial
and early colonial contexts while being attentive
to cultural and social variability in the Andes.
Building on previous scholarship, I will also
propose a typological approach to the ushnu,
useful for explaining any other material item
from the Andes, from precolonial times to the
present.
Research Objectives and Documentary
Sources
This article discusses a broad issue using a
specific case. The broad issue is the association
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 23 Jul 2017 at 15:34:56, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.22
289
of objects (their forms and functions) with names
in late precolonial and early colonial Andean
archaeology. Typically, historians (and linguists)
come across terms used for certain objects in
colonial documents, but in general neither the
scholars nor the documents pay close attention
to physical aspects such as shape or function.
Conversely, through excavation or exploration
of museum collections, archaeologists handle
objects whose names or functions are not
always well defined in the Andean literature.
In both cases, in order to advance a variety of
research questions, the standard procedure has
been to analogically survey three main sources
of information: early colonial documents,
twentieth-century ethnography, and the (pre-
colonial) archaeological record (Ramón 2008:7–
16).
The specific case analyzed here is the single
mention of the word husno recorded in the
Huarochirí Manuscript (HM).1 This document
was produced circa A.D. 1608 and compiles
myths and ritual practices of a territory situated
in the province of Huarochirí, in the south-central
highlands of Lima, Peru (Figure 1). Currently
held in the Spanish National Library in Madrid
(No. 3169), this manuscript belonged to the
priest Francisco de Ávila from the parish of San
Damián de Checa, Huarochirí. The information
recorded in the document was likely requested
by Ávila of the local Indian authority (curaca)
and scribe, Cristóbal Choquecasa from Checa,
to learn more about local religious lore in order
to eradicate it in an effective manner. Durston
(2007:227–228) attributes to Choquecasa not
only the transcription but also the authorship of
the HM. The Quechua of the HM is the lengua
general (sensu Taylor 2000a [1990]:41–42),
which was an official colonial Quechua adapted
from a southern Andean dialect of Cuzco
origin, although it contains many localisms, or
orthographic adjustments related to the local
Quechua. Choquecasa was trained in the lengua
general and used it to transcribe the information
collected from local informants (Durston
2007:234–236). The HM is unique in Andean
colonial literature because its 31 chapters
have been translated into seven languages
(Dutch, English, French, German, Latin, Polish,
and Spanish), making it possible to confront
 290 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 28, No. 2, 2017

Figure 1. Some Central Andean locations mentioned in the text. (Map by M. Bell.)

the different—at times very dissimilar— Archaeological Forms and Ethnographic

translations provided for specific terms, and
thus show the complexity of correlating names
and objects in early colonial sources for the
purpose of archaeological interpretation. The
HM contains two supplements not included in
Trimborn’s first translation (1939) or in Galante’s
(1942). The missing section of Trimborn’s first
translation was published separately in 1941.
In the case of the ushnu, while many colonial
documents describe its late precolonial and
early colonial uses, including its locations
and shapes, the HM is special, as it is the
only (currently known) reference that includes
information about the conditions associated
with the making of an ushnu. Moreover, and of
significance to this study, no previous analysis
of the ushnu has discussed its reference in the
HM in detail.
Functions
Before analyzing the specific case of the HM
ushnu, a brief discussion of formal and func-
tional ascription is necessary (Salmon 1982).
Three cases from Andean precolonial archaeol-
ogy inform the perspective adopted in this article.
The first two help us build our approach; the third
shows another option that has been important
in Andean studies. The first comes from Jorge
Zegarra’s notebooks on his excavations of the
Middle Horizon and Late Intermediate period
contexts at the site of Huallamarca, Lima, in 1958
(Zegarra 1958). In this document, Zegarra fre-
quently associates forms, functions, and names
(including Quechua names) when describing the
precolonial artifacts. For instance, when dealing
with the content of Tomb 44, he describes objects

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 23 Jul 2017 at 15:34:56, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.22
 Ramón] SHAPING PRECOLONIAL CONCEPTS IN THE ANDES 291

Figure 2. Identification of artifacts: the textile tool called ruqui. Detail from Jorge Zegarra’s notebooks on his
excavations at the site of Huallamarca, San Isidro district, Lima. (Museo de Sitio Puruchuco, Lima; photo by G.
Ramón.)

under number 1029 as “46 needles of various
sizes made out of wood like chonta with two
pointy ends and 6 pushcas.” Later in the same
document Zegarra describes objects 1032–1033
as “two textile tools made out of bones called
ruquis, of 20 and 17 cms [in length].” Putska
is defined as “spinning device” by Parker and
Chávez (1976), and ruqui as “the bone with
which they make a textile more compact [hueso
con que tupen]” by González Holguín (1952
[1608]; Figure 2).
The second case appears in Morris and
Thompson’s (1985:18) book on their excavations
at the Inca site of Huanucopampa, Huánuco.
Here, when project members were grouping
all excavated bones together, a local worker,
Teodocio Herrera, noticed that several of the
bones were actually weaving tools. Being a
weaver, Herrera demonstrated how to weave
a poncho using these artifacts. His observa-
tions allowed for the reclassification of those
bones as weaving tools and—given the frequency
of these artifacts throughout Huanucopampa—
certain areas of the site came to be associated with
textile production. Thus, the functional ascrip-
tion of one tool through ethnographic analogy
had important implications for the interpretation
of the entire site.
The third case comes from Lumbreras (1984),
who wrote about the relation between function
and form, particularly the distinction between
function (as structurally linked to form) and use
(as something more occasional). For instance,
we could say that a cup’s function is to contain
liquids, but we also recognize that the cup
could be used to trap an insect or to store
beans. Although this proposal has been influen-
tial among Andean scholars, Lumbreras suggests
that the archaeologist “who intends to classify
objects beginning from the infinite possibilities
of use that each of them could have, starting, for
that purpose, from ethnographical analogies or
logical discourses of any kind, is only creating
great confusion about the classified materials,”
concluding that this muddles “the essential with
the phenomenical” (Lumbreras 1984:3; empha-
sis added). Following Lumbreras’s reasoning,
it is not necessary to pay attention to cultural
difference related to regional variation of uses.
Classifications would merely tell us what we
already know, even if this were contradicted by
cases such as the two that have been cited, in
which functional attribution was only possible
because of ethnographic analogies.
The three cases discussed above are a small
representation of a long-running discussion in

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 23 Jul 2017 at 15:34:56, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.22
 292
Andean archaeology on how to associate forms,
functions, and names. This sort of inquiry began
with the work of Uhle (1903:70, Figure 99) at
the archaeological site of Pachacamac, Lima,
which demonstrated the functions of the Late
Horizon gourds used as containers for the lime
used in coca chewing. Probably the most remark-
able study of this kind is by Duviols (1979)
on stone stelae (huancas) using early colonial
documents and ethnographic evidence. Duviols’s
research extended from the interpretation of the
object’s function to the definition of the broader
concept, recognizing its potential intra-Andean
variability (Supplemental Text 2). Importantly,
Duviols considered the relation between ecolog-
ical settings and social and cultural changes in
the distinction between quechua and puna when
analyzing material culture and objects men-
tioned in historical and ethnographic sources.
The quechua level, usually between 2,500 and
3,800 m asl, is particularly suitable for cultivat-
ing grains such as maize. The puna ecological
level, the highest with permanent human occu-
pation, is generally above 3,800 m asl and is
characterized by grasslands mostly devoted to
herding, with limited agriculture (on the limits
between those ecological levels, see Ramón
2008:46–48, 2014:26). In Andean studies, the
huari (farmer, sedentary, villager) are recognized
as the typical inhabitants of the quechua and
the llacuaz (herder, transhumant) as those of
the puna (Duviols 1973). The HM is mostly
written from a quechua setting, and the llacuaz
is identified as other in the text (chapter 19).
Thus, the application of ethnographic analogy
(considering uses as local functions) allows us to
identify cultural variability within a larger region
such as the Andes.
Taken together, the three cases discussed
above demonstrate how the application of ethno-
graphic analogy (i.e., considering uses as local
functions) can be used to identify cultural vari-
ability within a larger region, such as the Andes.
My approach to the ushnu draws on this foun-
dation, as well as the three philological opera-
tions followed by Taylor (2000b [1974]:1–2) for
translating the HM. First, he uses dictionaries
and grammars dating from the period of the HM
to perform a comparative dialectological study.
Second, he examines all the available documen-
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 23 Jul 2017 at 15:34:56, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.22
LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 28, No. 2, 2017
tation on the rites described in the HM, mainly
from the Huarochirí region, to better understand
them. Similarly, for the ushnu, I reviewed all the
available ethnographic and historical sources that
included any variant of the term and the archae-
ological literature that deals with that subject.
Third, assuming that some lexical peculiarities
disappeared with the language of the HM, Taylor
tried to identify the meanings of some obscure
terms by isolating and comparing their contexts.
In this study, I consider the husno the obscure
object to be defined. Taylor (2000b [1974]:1,
note 1) also indicated that some passages of the
HM are difficult to understand because of the
“blind acceptance” of either the traditional values
attributed to some Quechua terms since Christian
evangelization or the meanings of these terms in
the better-known Quechua dialects. In the case
of the husno, besides these two issues, we also
need to deal with the influence of Zuidema’s
definition, which is discussed below.
The examples of Huallamarca and Huanu-
copampa tell us about the everyday strategies
used in Andean archaeology to articulate forms,
functions, and names. While the archaeologists
working at Huanucopampa used and incorpo-
rated the weaver’s suggestion after research
was already underway (explicit ethnographic
analogy), Zegarra combined archaeology and
ethnography from the outset, applying names
(and functions) to artifacts based on his ethno-
graphic knowledge, albeit without always ref-
erencing the source material for his attribu-
tions (implicit ethnographic analogy). An ideal
procedure—which I try to follow here—would
be one of explicit and systematic ethnographic
analysis. This would mean incorporating all the
available ethnographic and historical informa-
tion in the project design, including documen-
tation of the sources of the analogies (Perelman
and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1989:570, 571, 575).
Situated between three epochs—pre-Inca,
Inca, colonial—and given its extraordinary nar-
rative content, the HM is particularly attractive
as a source for an examination of how con-
cepts are shaped over time, and yet it presents
singular difficulties. The earliest direct prece-
dent for the present inquiry is the research
by the archaeologist Toribio Mejía. Between
1941 and 1943, Mejía (1943) produced two
 Ramón] SHAPING PRECOLONIAL CONCEPTS IN THE ANDES 293

Figure 3. Graphic interpretations of the Huarochirí Manuscript by Toribio Mejía: Pariacaca and Wallallo Carwincho.
(Archivo Histórico Riva Agüero, Lima; photo by G. Ramón.) (Color online)

Spanish translations of the HM; they included
several graphics to clarify spatial and material
aspects of the stories and characters (Figure 3).
Unfortunately, Mejía never finished or published
this innovative exercise (see also Szemiñski
ca. 1988). More recently, other authors have
discussed references to material culture in the
HM: for example, Estenssoro (2003:323–332)
on rromano and Salomon (1991) on a coin. This
kind of study of objects goes beyond disciplinary
limits and is prompted by research questions that
may only be answered by combining approaches
from ethnography, history, archaeology, and lin-
guistics. Building on such previous work, this
article investigates the form and function of the
husno made by members of the Checa commu-
nity (llacta) as they searched for the material
manifestation of a sacred being (huaca) called
Llocllayhuancupa, as described in chapter 20 of
the HM.2
Defining Ushnu: Structural and Typological
Approaches
In an exercise comparable to Duviols’s (1979)
huanca study, Zuidema (1989a [1980]) sought
to define the ushnu (see also Zuidema 1989b
[1977/1978], 2004, 2010, 2014). Two years
before his classic work on the topic (1989a
[1980]), Zuidema published an article on “shaft

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 23 Jul 2017 at 15:34:56, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.22
 294
tombs” (Zuidema 1989b [1977/1978]) in which
he proposed a link between those structures and
the ushnu. The link, which was key to his concept
of ushnu, is based on a single documental refer-
ence from Ocros, a village situated in the current
department of Ancash (Hernández Príncipe 2003
[1621]). In that document, the ushnu is defined
as an arcaduz: a water conduit or pipe (“de un
usnu, que es un arcadus, que deshicimos en este
lugar”; Hernández Principe 2003 [1621]:745).3
Besides that mention, all of Zuidema’s assump-
tions in his article (1989b [1977/1978]) regarding
that link are based on comparisons: he used
documents that do not include either the term
ushnu or arcaduz and documents that include
one term but not the association between the two
elements. Building on the link, Zuidema’s main
essay on the topic (1989a [1980]) employs early
colonial and ethnographic evidence to explain
the precolonial concept of ushnu. Its arguments
have oriented most, if not all, subsequent archae-
ological studies of that subject (see, among
others, Meddens 1997; Meddens et al. 2014;
Monteverde 2010; Pino 2004, 2005, 2010).
Zuidema began by making chronological and
regional distinctions, but unlike Duviols, he
completely disregarded altitudinal, latitudinal,
and typological nuances. He established two
main distinctions, a chronological one, between
the pre-Inca and Inca ushnu, and a regional
one, between what happened in imperial Cuzco
and other areas of Tahuantinsuyu. In addition,
Zuidema distinguished between what early colo-
nial writers saw in that city (and were able to
describe) and the observations of those who came
later. Each of these distinctions is crucial for
understanding the ushnu in colonial sources such
as the HM. Because the testimonies of early
authors in Cuzco are useful for understanding
the Inca world, but not necessarily the pre-
Inca ushnu, Zuidema (1989a [1980]:419–425)
turned to ethnography. In Tarma, Junín, in the
1970s, ushnu was described as a place where
the ground absorbs water (Adelaar 1977:370–
371, 488). According to Zuidema, this natural
or almost culturally unmodified element was
transformed by the Incas through adding other
(structural) elements, such as the platform, at
sites outside the city of Cuzco (Zuidema 1989a
[1980]:452–453, 2014; cf. Farrington 2014). The
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 23 Jul 2017 at 15:34:56, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.22
LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 28, No. 2, 2017
early colonial authors described the ushnu in
the center of the imperial capital using various
terms, including escaño, fuente, pilar, or pila
(bench, fountain, pillar, font). It was situated
according to astronomical alignments. In light of
this formal variety, Zuidema (1989b [1980]:420)
suggested a conceptual definition of the ushnu as
an axis mundi, a communication point between
several spheres (the celestial sphere, the surface
of the earth, and the underground). The ushnu
was akin to Rome’s mundus, “the most sacred
place, a central place, a hole opened once a
year” (Zuidema 1989b [1980]:453, 2004:223).
Given that Zuidema cited Rykwert (1985:54–
55) to define mundus, it is worth mentioning
that this Polish architect indicated that besides
the central mundus in Rome, there were others,
including some devoted to specific deities, such
as the mundus for Ceres, an agricultural deity
(see Coarelli 1983:199–226; Deubner 1933).
Two questions arise with respect to Zuidema’s
production of definitions of precolonial and early
colonial artifacts. First, why should the ethno-
graphic material from the second half of the
twentieth century be assumed to be equivalent
to the pre-Inca? When discussing the ushnu,
Zuidema (1989a [1980], 1989b [1977/1978],
2014) suggested a link between the ethno-
graphic and the pre-Inca data but did not explain
the reasons that justify the analogy. Second,
how should intra-Andean ethnographic variety,
or synchronic difference, be handled? While
Zuidema was correct that it is useful to compare,
when relevant, precolonial and ethnographic
data, what should be done when there is wide
variability within the ethnographic record, such
as the different definitions of ushnu in Sup-
plemental Text 3? Like Lumbreras, Zuidema
focused on commonalities, and his writing does
not incorporate meaningful differences resulting
from ethnographic evidence. It is necessary to
keep these questions in mind when dealing with
the husno of the HM.
Zuidema’s main audience has been archaeol-
ogists, who usually follow a less sophisticated
definition of ushnu than that given above (but
see Moyano 2013; Pino 2004, 2005). The typical
archaeological definition of the Inca ushnu has
not centered on the hole or perforation in the
earth (the arcaduz), but rather on the platform
 Ramón] SHAPING PRECOLONIAL CONCEPTS IN THE ANDES 295

Figure 4. Top: Platform at the center of the Inca site of Huanucopampa, Dos de Mayo province, Huánuco department.
(Photo by G. Ramón.) Bottom: Perforation for offerings at the top of the platform. (Photo by J. L. Pino.) (Color online)

above it (Hyslop 1990:70; Tello 1939:643, 707).
For Zuidema (2004:223), the hole was a diag-
nostic feature for the platforms: “In order to
use the name ushnu, the hole must be looked
for; if it exists, it is more likely to be one
[an ushnu].” In this sense, the ideal case of
the ushnu is a platform with a relatively small
perforation in the central part of the top level,
like the one at Huanucopampa (Figure 4; see
also Monteverde 2010:60), some of the plat-
forms located in the puna of Ayacucho, like
Mesayocpata, a village in Circamarca, province
of Víctor Fajardo, and Wamanillo, a village in
Putaccasa, province of Huancasancos (Figure 5;
Ramón 2009:112, 125, 127; Supplemental
Text 4). Zuidema (1989b [1980]:448, 451)

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 23 Jul 2017 at 15:34:56, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.22
 296 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 28, No. 2, 2017

Figure 5. Platform at Wamanillo, village of Putaccasa, Víctor Fajardo province, Ayacucho. The stones on top of the
platform are placed in a circular pattern, probably related to recent interventions at the site. (Photo by G. Ramón.)
(Color online)

discussed the iconic step-pyramid of Vilcashua-
man, Ayacucho. In this Inca site, the ushnu
was not placed in the step-pyramid, but to one
side, marking a tangible difference between these
elements (see image and diagram in Zuidema
2014:7). As will be shown, despite this valuable
remark, the platform has had notable influence
on the definition of ushnu, including some trans-
lations of the HM. Even if an exhaustive formal
inventory of what archaeologists call ushnu is
still lacking, it can be said that the most common
shape is the simple or double platform, while
step-pyramids (three or more levels) are rare
(see the images in Cavero 2010; Meddens et al.
2008:327–339; Monteverde 2010:49; Moyano
2013; Oberti 1997:17; Ziółkowski 2008:134–
135).
Since most archaeologists have identified ush-
nus based on the presence of a platform, it is
relevant to ask whether it is possible to find an
ushnu from the Late Horizon without a platform.
How might one be identified in the archaeolog-
ical record? Only one case, the site Ruinas de
Chada in central Chile, has been documented
to date. For this site Ruano (2012) and Moya-
no (2013:44, 284–294) suggest the presence of
an ushnu based on a hole with astronomical align-
ments but without a platform. Recent approaches
to defining the concept and shape of the Inca
ushnu sensu lato suggest the possibility of diverse
ushnu categories or types. In 2009, I proposed
the distinction between capac ushnu, related to
major Inca sites, using liberally a term mentioned
by Juan Santa Cruz Pachacuti Yamqui (1993
[1613]:245), capac usno, and yllapa ushnu,
related to those small platforms in the puna
of Ayacucho, referring to a term mentioned by
Cristóbal de Albornoz (1996 [1584]:287) for the
same area. The distinction was based on several
features, such as size, location, and potential
relation with specific sacred entities (Ramón
2009:115, 117, 2014:170–173, Table 15.1). In
the same way, Moyano (2013:60, note 37) pro-
posed quilla ushnu [moon ushnu] for the Colla-
suyu region, incorporating a latitudinal variable
to the typological approach. More recently, Med-
dens (2015:244–252) distinguished three types:
capac ushnu platforms, ushnu platform pilgrim-
age sites, and isolated ushnu platform sites.
This typological emphasis has made possible
localized discussions about specific terms such as
yllapa usno, which has already been interpreted
in at least two different ways (Pino 2010; Ramón
2009:115–117, 2014).
It seems productive to continue with this typo-
logical approach, which allows us to recognize

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 23 Jul 2017 at 15:34:56, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.22
 Ramón] SHAPING PRECOLONIAL CONCEPTS IN THE ANDES
commonalities and variability. More important
than the types themselves (or their names) are
the criteria used to establish them. Therefore, we
must consider the relation between political hier-
archies and certain formal and functional features
of the ushnu as well as the ecological levels in
which they are situated. The ecological location
of an ushnu is crucial for defining it because
in the Andes these levels are linked to different
ways of living, different subsistence strategies,
and consequently to different pantheons (Ramón
2009, 2014:168–170). This typological proce-
dure also allows us to stop associating every
ushnu exclusively with the sun by default, as
Zuidema and his followers tended to do. This
is an unfounded assumption, as I have suggested
regarding the puna (Ramón 2014), just as it is for
cases such as the husno from the HM, as will be
shown below. Chapter 22 of the HM includes an
explanation of the relation between ecology and
pantheons that helps us to consider more options
for association when dealing with the husno that
was made while looking for Llocllayhuancupa:
“It is said, that when the Ingas were in the
highlands, they adored the Sun in its sanctuary
of Titicaca saying: ‘This is who transmitted the
vital force to us the Ingas.’ When they were in
the lower lands, they adored Pachacamac saying:
‘This is who has transmitted the vital force to us
the Ingas’” (Taylor 1987:329; emphasis added).
This situation, which is also found in other
early colonial sources, is a case of negotiation in
political and religious terms. Andeanist literature
has examined how the Incas imposed themselves
and left their imperial imprint; few studies detail
how they adapted themselves, or how the local
communities impacted the Inca. What material
consequences prompted the shift from worship-
ping the Sun to worshipping Pachacamac? What
happened in the intermediate territories between
the high and low lands? A category and an object
so well studied as the ushnu could give us some
clues in this respect, since it allows for mapping
difference.
A Wandering Huaca
Chapter 20 of the HM deals with the husno
made by the Checa while searching for the huaca
Llocllayhuancupa in a chacra (agricultural field)
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 23 Jul 2017 at 15:34:56, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.22
297
of a member of their community named Lan-
tichumpi. This community is located in an inter-
mediate place both geographically and politi-
cally. San Damián de Checa’s center is situated at
approximately 3,230 m asl, within the quechua.4
This husno was placed in a territory where the
Inca, the Sun, Pachacamac (as a deity and as a
center of political power), and the divinities of the
puna, such as Pariacaca, were all present. How
does the husno reflect these complicated condi-
tions? The HM provides information about the
appearance, disappearance, vanishing, and return
of Llocllanhuaycupa, the son of Pachacamac; this
information is summarized in Table 1.
The sequence in Table 1 includes five signifi-
cant details. First, L1 and L2 are completely dif-
ferent places, the chacra and the cancha (corral
or patio) at Lantichumpi’s house, respectively.
Second, after the initial incident, L1 is only men-
tioned once. The rest of the story mostly happens
in L2. The ritual center is L2, where the combat
between Choquecasa and the demonized huaca
(Llocllayhuancupa) occurs. Third, the husno is
made in L1, but Llocllayhuancupa is not found
there, so the Checa go down to Pachacamac to
continue their search. Fourth, in political terms,
this sequence describes the arrival of the new
llactayoq or marcayoq, the local deity, who is
subordinate to a major one, his father Pacha-
camac, already officially adopted by the Inca.
Llocllayhuancupa was a deity linked to floodwa-
ters and Pariacaca’s nephew (Taylor 1987:295,
note 10). This data places him in a geographic
middle point. Fifth, regarding chronology, two
main periods are represented: precolonial and
colonial. It is even possible to further divide
the precolonial period according to Inca imperial
presence. The huaca Cataquillay, who facilitates
communication between the Checa and the new
huaca, is an Inca emissary. A stronger imperial
presence is felt when the Inca issues a direct
order impacting the ritual for Llocllayhuancupa.
At this point, if we want to visually represent the
husno, we know its location (a chacra), but not
its precise shape.
Shaping an Husno
What was the form and function of the husno
that was made while looking for Llocllayhuan-
 298 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 28, No. 2, 2017

Table 1. Sequence of Characters and Actions Related to the Husno, Chapter 20, Huarochirí Manuscript.

Events Information (characters, festivities) Chronology

1 While working in her chacra [L1], Lantichumpi finds an Lantichumpi is a woman from the Precolonial
object. She cannot identify it, so she leaves it in the ayllu [kinship group, extended
same place. Later, she is digging in another place and family] Alaysatpa, from the llacta
the same object appears again [L1]. What is that Checa.
object?
2 Lantichumpi collects the object [Llocllayhuancupa] and
takes it to her parents and ayllu.
3 Cataquillay intervenes, making Llocllayhuancupa talk. Cataquillay is a huaca, an emissary
Llocllayhuancupa identifies himself as the son of of the Inca, found in Llacsatambo,
Pachacamac, sent to protect the Checa. within the Checa area.
4 The Checa adopt Llocllayhuancupa and arrange the The ritual is chayana [arrival
cancha [corral or patio] in Lantichumpi’s house [L2] festivity]. It involves a llama
as a ritual space for the huaca. The people from sacrifice during the full moon;
Checa, Huanri, and Chauti collaborate, holding wearing chumpruco and huaychau
periodic celebrations for many years. ahua, which are also worn in the
festival for Pariacaca; and dancing.
5 Llocllayhuancupa disappears, probably because of a
lack of attention from his followers. He returns to
Pachacamac in the lowlands.
6 Followers search for Llocllayhuancupa. They clean the The translators provide different
place where Lantichumpi found him [L1], making an definitions of husno (see Table 2).
husno to search for him, with no results.
7 Men visit Pachacamac with offerings (garments, guinea
pigs, and llamas). By worshiping Pachacamac again
they obtain his son’s return.
8 To keep Llocllayhuancupa, the Checa restore his cult Following an order from the Inca,
with renewed devotion. llamas are are brought to the place
called Suquiahuillca for the cult of
Llocllayhuancupa. Corn is offered.
9 L2 turns into the Purum Huasi [wild house], a building The Spaniards demonize Colonial
where the oneiric combat of Cristobal Choquecasa Llocllayhuancupa.
with Llocllayhuancupa takes place [in chapter 21]. Transformation from a precolonial
to colonial (Catholic) ritual.
Note: Plot based on Arguedas (1966), Salomon and Urioste (1991), and Taylor (1980, 1987).

cupa? To answer these questions, it is neces-
sary to compare the 13 available translations
of the text (on the translations, see Hartmann
1981; Itier 1994; Taylor 1982; Salomon 1991;
Table 2). Among these alternatives, which is
the most accurate translation? The enormous
interpretative differences among the translations
show that the topic exceeds linguistics, due to
formal, typological, and even conceptual dif-
ferences that have significant consequences for
reading this entire chapter of the HM. The
significance of the HM in Andean studies means
that the definition of the word husno would
impact discussions about the religious and polit-
ical elements of this Quechua term (ushnu)
more generally. The following section explains
the commonalities and differences among the
translations.
Retaining the Quechua Term
Both of Mejía’s (1943) translations use the terms
usnu or usno. Mejía initiated the strategy that
Taylor (1980, 1987; usno) followed in both of
his translations, as did Urioste (1983; usnu).
I am using two translations by Taylor (1980,
1987). It must be mentioned that he included
minor changes at the beginning of the phrase
in his 1999 and 2008 versions, but the actual
term remained untranslated in the main text. His
definitions in the notes did, however, change.
This option makes the term adaptable to diverse
definitions, but the meaning of the sentence

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 23 Jul 2017 at 15:34:56, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.22
 Ramón] SHAPING PRECOLONIAL CONCEPTS IN THE ANDES 299

Table 2. Comparison of Translations of the Huarochirí Manuscript, by Author and Year.

From HM, chapter 20: Chaysi chay ynacta ricuspa runacunaca ancha llaquispa chay may pacham ñaupaclla tarirca
lantichumpi ñiscanchic chaytapas allichaspa huc husnocta pircaspa mascar cancu.
1. Trimborn (1939:111; German): Als man dies merkte, suchte man ihn bestürzt zunächst dort, wo Lantichumpi ihn vordem
gefunden hatte, wobei man auch diese Stelle herrichtete und einen Gedenkstein aufstellte [memorial stone].
2. Galante (1942:258; Latin): Quae cum illi animaduertissent, dolore anxii, eo ipso loco, quo primum Lantichumpis eum
inuenerat, quemque ipsi, ut diximus, in meliorem formam, erecta quoque stela, redegerant, quaesiuere [stele]. [Notes:
stele, cipo (memorial stone), column.]
3. Espinosa (1942:380; Spanish): [from 2] Cuando se dieron cuenta de esto, atormentados por el dolor, le buscaron en el
mismo lugar donde le encontrara Llactichumpi y que ellos habían mejorado, y le levantaron una estela [stele].
4a. Mejía (Ms 1943:193; Spanish): Cuando las fiestas no eran buenas en honor de Lloqllay Wankupa, entonces éste se
perdía yéndose donde su padre Pachacamac, entonces los indios construyendo un usnu lo buscaban alli, a semejanza de
lo que hacia Lanti Chumpi. [handwritten, 193]
4b. Por eso a eso mirando las genetes mucho apenándose allí a esa tierra más antes encontró Lanti Chumpi que hemos
dicho a eso también arreglando a un Usno pircando buscaron. [typewritten, 198]
5. Arguedas (1966:115; Spanish): Los hombres se afligieron mucho, y lo buscaron. Hicieron un hueco profundo [deep
hole] en el mismo sitio de la chacra donde la mujer Lantichumpi lo encontró.
6. Trimborn and Kelm (1967:110; German): Als sie dies sahen, sollen die Leute (ihn) dann voller Trauer gesucht haben,
who (ihn) vordem die Lantichumpi gefunden hatte, wobei man auch diesen (Ort) ausbesserte und einen Markstein
errichtete [marker stone].
7. Taylor (1980:135; French): En apprenant cela, les gens se lamentèrent beaucoup. Ils remirent en ordre le site où, tout au
début, Lantichumpi l’avait découvert et ils lui construisirent un usno. [Notes: throne, altar, small tower keeping a sacred
object.]
8. Urioste (1983:II:157, 329; Spanish): Cuando la gente vio esto, se acongojó mucho y arreglaron el lugar donde Lanti
Chumpi lo había encontrado por vez primera, construyendo allí un usnu. [Translator’s notes: circular structure made out
of stone used as burial and with other ritual functions.]
9. Szemiñski (1985:71, 132; Polish): Ludzie, gdy zobaczyli, co sie˛ stało, bardzo sie˛ martwili i tam, gdzie go po raz
pierwszy znalazła wymieniona już przez nas Lantichumpi, zrobili porzadek ˛ i wybudowawszy mu tron [throne] poczeli ˛
go szukać. [Translator’s notes: stone pyramid of several steps, usually with a carved stone seat, in a plaza surrounded by
a wall, where the ruler was seated during tribunals.]
10. Taylor (1987:297; Spanish): Cuando se dio cuenta, la gente, muy afligida, lo buscó y, embelleciendo el sitio en donde
Lantichumpi lo había encontrado por primera vez, le construyó un usno.
11. Adelaar (1988:88; Dutch): Toen de mensen dat merkten, waren zij diep bedroefd en probeerden hem terug te halen door
de plaats waar Lantichumpi hem als eerste ontdekt had te verfraaien en er een altaar [altar] voor hem te bouwen.
12. Salomon and Urioste (1991:102; English): When the people saw this happen, they grieved deeply and searched for him,
adorning the place where Lanti Chumpi had first discovered him, and building him a step-pyramid. [Translator’s notes:
“husnocta pircaspa,” literally, “walling an usnu”; stone-faced step-pyramid perhaps like in Vilcashuaman; definitions by
Zuidema (axis mundi), Albornoz (towers); mentioned by Guaman Poma.]
Note: Translations of husno are in bold; translations of the verbs allichaspa and pircaspa are in italics.

where the term occurs changes depending on
whichever definition of ushnu is chosen.
Formal Definitions
Trimborn assumed husno to be a stone on the
surface of the ground; he rendered it as “memo-
rial stone” (Gedenkstein) in his first translation
(1939) and “marker stone” (Markstein) in the
second (Trimborn and Kelm 1967). Galante
(1942), who used the word stela, followed the
same idea, also likely inspired by González
Holguín’s definitions of usnu (1952 [1608]):
“Judge’s tribunal made out of a stone placed
in vertical position. . . . Mojon [marker stone]
made of a big stone in vertical position.” In
his translation, Galante kept many Quechua
words for key concepts such as huaca (Durston
2014:330), but he had no doubts about the
translation of husno. Espinosa (1942) simply
translated the Latin term stela (from Galante’s
version) into Spanish (estela). After Trimborn,
five of the other translators defined husno in
formal terms: four using early colonial sources
(in their main texts: Salomon and Urioste [1991]
and Szemiñski [1985]; in their notes: Salomon
and Urioste [1991], Szemiñski [1985], Taylor
[1980, 1987], and perhaps Urioste [1983]). Only
one translator (Arguedas 1966) probably used

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 23 Jul 2017 at 15:34:56, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.22
 300
ethnographic evidence. The most spectacular
extremes of this group are “deep hole” (Arguedas
1966) and “stone pyramid of several levels/step-
pyramid” (Salomon and Urioste 1991; Szemiñski
1985).
Functional Definitions
Adelaar (1988) translated husno as “altar,”
a religious structure, probably derived from
Santo Thomas (1951 [1563]), Anonymous (1951
[1586]), and Bertonio (1984 [1612]). Szemiñski
(1985) proposed “throne” (literally: place where
the ruler sits), which is perhaps a bit more polit-
ical and borrowed from Guaman Poma (1980
[1613]:265). Both senses were also included in
a note by Taylor (1980) in his French translation
(“throne, altar, small tower that holds a sacred
object inside”). At first glance, “altar” seems like
the most sure, neutral, and economical solution,
since it avoids formal aspects, alluding only to
function: a sacred space of connection with a
divinity. Moreover, remembering the beginning
of Bertonio’s (1984 [1612]) elegant definition
(“Altar of the guacas”), this fits well with the idea
of an altar for Llocllayhuancupa. Nonetheless, I
do not propose this definition as the best option
for the HM. The second definition (throne) is
probably the hardest to support, because its main
proponent associates it with a specific form:
the stone pyramid of several levels (Szemiñski
1985; see Table 2). A decade after publishing
his translation of the HM, when discussing the
prayer of Manco Capac reproduced by Pacha-
cuti Yamqui, Szemiñski (1997:65, 67) translated
capac osnoyki as “royal usnu.” He added that
usnu could be “throne,” “but it was a stone
construction and not an armchair,” and quoted
González Holguín’s definition, which does not
support the step-pyramid shape, nor the function
as a throne.
Four years before Szemiñski, Itier (1993:66,
141) translated the same prayer of Manco Capac,
assuming “throne” for capac osnoyki. Itier added
that in this case, ushnu did not designate the
precolonial ritual structure defined by Zuidema,
but rather was employed in its quechuista sense;
that is, it was written in Quechua but transmitted
a meaning with a strong colonial imprint. In this
sense, the husno of the HM is clearly different
from the one included in Manco Capac’s prayer,
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 23 Jul 2017 at 15:34:56, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.22
LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 28, No. 2, 2017
but Szemiñski did not consider this difference.
Meanwhile, by defining the husno as “step-
pyramid,” Salomon and Urioste did something
similar to what Itier (1994:564, 565) criticized
them for doing with other key concepts in the
HM (including kamay, llacta, and pacha): they
used the colonial reinterpretation of those terms
in contexts where the precolonial meaning was
more appropriate.5
A second reason to discard the “stone step-
pyramid” translation is that chapter 20 of the
HM does not provide any information that would
allow us to assume that this is the shape of the
ushnu. The only two terms that could provoke
discussion in this respect are allichaspa, which
can be translated as “arranging” or “embellish-
ing,” and pircaspa, translated as “building or
making a wall” (see all options in Table 2). The
text tells us that the Checa people were sad after
Llocllayhuancupa left, and thus searched for him
in the place where he manifested the second time
(L1), as he could have escaped using the same
path. Considering that the Checa remembered
the place as where the sacred manifested itself,
it is reasonable that they would have arranged
or embellished it (allichaspa) before searching
there. Nevertheless, the interpretation of this verb
is strongly conditioned by how husno is defined.
If we read the verb allichaspa without any ritual
connotation and assume that to make a hole in
a chacra (one definition of ushnu), the first step
would likely be clearing the surface by moving
stones or scrub; in other words, allichaspa would
be translated as “to arrange.” This explains
why—just to mention two extremes—Salomon
and Urioste translated allichaspa as “adorning”
(since they were thinking of ushnu in relation to
“step-pyramid”), while Arguedas did not even
include the verb (because he was thinking of
ushnu in relation to a not-necessarily-sacred
“deep hole”). This relation can also be per-
ceived in all the other translations (see Table 2).
Depending on the context, allichaspa might or
might not suggest a ritual space, but it does not
offer a clue about shape. The second verb is
pircaspa, which means “to make a wall using
stones but without using mortar.” Pircaspa does
not imply a specific orientation in relation to
the ground: one can pircaspa upward or down
into the ground; one can pircaspa the wall of a
 Ramón] SHAPING PRECOLONIAL CONCEPTS IN THE ANDES
corral but also make an underground structure
with stone walls, like the puquios of Nazca in
south-central Peru; one can even pircar the edges
of ponds, lakes, or rivers to contain the former or
to alter the flow of the latter, as employed in the
Libro de Cabildos de Lima in the seventeenth
century, and in the HM itself (Bell 2015:82).
Apart from its use in chapter 20, pirca- appears
at least seven times in the HM, in chapters 2, 5,
9, 24, and 31 (Galante 1942:169). In the passage
in Table 2, pircaspa does not imply a specific
shape; as in the case of allichaspa, the definition
of husno has influenced the translation of the
verb.6
The final argument for discarding the step-
pyramid hypothesis is that Zuidema was
emphatic in distinguishing the step-pyramid as
separate from the ushnu at Vilcashuaman, point-
ing out that Guaman Poma assumed the former
element to be the ushnu and projected this
understanding to Cuzco. It could be argued then
that Salomon and Urioste, as well as Szemiñski,
did something similar in Checa.
Some authors provide more than one trans-
lation of husno, giving us various versions of
the same object. Trimborn modified his defini-
tions slightly: “memorial stone” became “marker
stone,” which is a more general term; a memorial
stone is a special kind of marker stone. Taylor,
in his French translation, kept the original term
but added a footnote offering three potential
definitions. In the Spanish version, he used the
term without a translation, reminiscent of Mejía’s
strategy. The most recent definition of ushnu
by Taylor (2008:20) is “an altar containing a
hole into which offers to the huaca were poured,
frequently built on top of an elevated platform in
order to be more visible within the plaza” (my
translation). This reveals the impact of the work
of archaeologists. It could be useful for some
kinds of ushnu but not necessarily for the HM,
since the new definition assumes the existence of
a plaza, which is clearly not present in the HM
case. In chapter 20, the husno was placed in a
chacra. Urioste initially (1983) kept the original
usnu (and added a note) but later, with Salomon
(1991), decided on “step-pyramid.” Unfortu-
nately, the changes in translation introduced by
Trimborn, Taylor, Salomon, and Urioste did not
lead to better explanations of the husno.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 23 Jul 2017 at 15:34:56, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.22
301
Discussion: Two Hypotheses
After reviewing all of the formal and functional
translations for husno in the HM, I argue that
Arguedas’s is the strongest. He proposed “deep
hole,” which is supported by several pieces of
information. First, L1 (chacra) and L2 (cancha)
are different places. Ritual activity is never
mentioned at L1 after the husno is dug; that
only occurs at L2, the place devoted to Llocllay-
huancupa. Second, allischaspa and pircaspa do
not suggest rigid formal or functional options;
specifically, they do not exclude the possibility
of a hole. Third, the reference to usno in the
diary of Francisco de Melo (2012 [1761]:19v,
148, 276), an eighteenth-century Spanish miner
of Huarochirí, indicates a hole of some kind.
Melo’s text is the closest in geographical and
chronological terms to the HM’s mention of
husno, which makes this testimony significant
for proposing translations following Taylor’s
criteria (2000b [1974]:1–2). According to Melo,
on Tuesday, July 28, 1750, the herder María
Micaela Chinchano told him that rebels had “hid
themselves inside that usno while you passed,”
and, immediately,
with this news I went to the Usno, which
is an underground cave, taking with me
the administrator [Caporal], and six other
Indians, and I found there Joseph Macañapa,
and Christoval de Torres, rebel Indians, who
provided me with the details of all of what
María Michaela had told me; and taking them
outside the Cave, I ordered them to be tied
up, and gave them each 100 lashes [Melo
2012 (1761):19v, 148, 276, emphasis added;
Supplemental Text 5].
In Melo’s diary, usno (spelled almost exactly
as it is in the HM, without the h) is an under-
ground cave where multiple people were able
to hide. This detailed definition is very close
to Arguedas’s translation. It must be mentioned
that in the 1940s, before translating the HM,
Arguedas participated in an enormous project
to collect ethnographic information from many
Andean villages. The story of Ushnu Machay,
from the village of Acolla, Junín, includes a
meaning of ushnu similar to that in Melo’s diary
(Teobaldo Zapata, testimony, December 20,
 302
1946, José María Arguedas collection, Centro. 4.
Región Junín 1. a. Libro Junín. i. Departamento
de Junín [Jauja], legajos 46–2/46–5:158–159,
Museo de la Cultura Peruana, Lima). Perhaps
this early project allowed Arguedas to familiarize
himself with the diverse options for translating
some Quechua terms, allowing him to choose
the most appropriate ones. In the dictionary
of Quechua from Junín-Huanca, usnu is also a
“hollow, small natural gallery” (Cerrón 1976).
Thus, I suggest that Arguedas’s is the most
reasonable option: the hole (husno) as an element
at the beginning of an unsuccessful ritual action;
namely, the search in the chacra. It was not nec-
essarily an altar or a throne, and, even less likely,
a step-pyramid (for criticisms of Arguedas’s
translation, see Duviols in Pinilla [2011:15–17,
23–32] and Torero [2005:19–20]). Nonetheless,
a second hypothesis may be suggested, which
is that the husno could be an altar in the mid-
dle of an agricultural field. This second option
has less support than the first, but is difficult
to discard completely. Besides proposing three
initial criteria for making translations, Taylor
(2000a [1990]:123–126, 2000b [1974]:1–2) also
performed ethnographic fieldwork in areas close
to Huarochirí to better understand some of the
details of the HM. Following Taylor’s methodol-
ogy, I explore both the ethnographic and colonial
data from the greater Lima region to evaluate
the second option. The first step is to assume
hypothetically (with Bertonio and Adelaar) that
the husno is functionally an altar; thus, allichaspa
would become slightly more ritually charged,
but pircaspa (related to shape) would remain the
same, in that it could mean building upward or
downward. For the husno as an altar in a field, I
introduce the label chacra ushnu.
Chacra ushnus have not been discussed
at all in the archaeological literature on
ushnu, but they do appear—significantly—
in ethnographic and colonial sources from
the highlands of Lima, relatively close to the
province of Huarochirí. One ethnographic
example comes from the community of Tupe
in Yauyos (southern highlands of Lima), whose
center is approximately 2,830 m asl, with lands
between 1,100 m asl (Catahuasi) and 4,450 m
asl (Lake Huacracocha). In that community, at
least two kinds of ushnu were recorded: one
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 23 Jul 2017 at 15:34:56, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.22
LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 28, No. 2, 2017
related to the puna (Delgado 1965:247, 259,
250, 251, 312–313) and another situated on
agricultural land. It was noted that in the village
of Aysa (or Aiza; 2,500 m asl) during the festival
of corn planting, a llama was sacrificed “at the
center of the agricultural field where there was
an USÑO or special altar” (Ávalos 1952:158;
Delgado 1965:243, 256; Supplemental Text 6).
In historical sources, the chacra ushnu appears
in testimonies collected by the priest Bernando
de Noboa in San Pedro de Hacas (now Acas),
in the colonial jurisdiction of Cajatambo and
currently in the district of Acas, province of
Ocros, department of Ancash. The village of
Acas is 3,690 m asl, in the upper quechua on
the border between Ancash and Lima. In 1657,
two relevant testimonies were recorded in Acas.
According to one witness, Hernando Chaupis
Condor, “in the agricultural field called Tauya,
in the middle of it, there was a small cancha
corralito called osno and there he [Chaupis]
performed a ceremony annually before starting
to work the land” (Archivo Arzobispal de Lima,
Hechicerías e Idolatrías, Leg. 3, Exp. 11, 19v,
in Duviols 2003:351; Supplemental Text 7).
Also in 1657, a second witness (Bartolomé
Chuchucondor) declared that at the beginning of
the rainy season his father used to practice a ritual
“in a corralito in the middle of the chacras that
is called Husnu” (Archivo Arzobispal de Lima,
Hechicerías e Idolatrías, Leg. 3, Exp. 11, 63v, in
Duviols 2003:429; Supplemental Text 8). Acas
is less than 10 km from Ocros (in the district and
province of Ocros, Ancash), where three decades
earlier Rodrigo Hernández Príncipe (2003
[1621]:745) found an arcaduz, also referred to
as usnu in his documents, associated with the
shaft tomb of Tanta Carhua, a girl sacrificed
by the Inca administration. As has been noted,
this case was key for Zuidema’s definition of
ushnu. We can conclude that the two documents
(Hernández Príncipe and Noboa) are dealing
with different kinds of structures. We cannot tell
if the ushnu from Acas included an arcaduz, but
it is clear that the Inca imperial funerary structure
placed in a remote site in a high mountain (alto
cerro) belongs to a different category than those
rather humble corralitos in the middle of the
agricultural fields described by Noboa. Zuidema
used ethnography to expand certain points of
 Ramón] SHAPING PRECOLONIAL CONCEPTS IN THE ANDES
grand Inca history (such as the capacocha and
capac ushnu) found in colonial documents. He
did not, however, employ ethnography to expand
the social scope of historical narrative or to
illuminate simpler aspects such as the chacra
ushnu. Zuidema repeatedly quoted the works on
Tupe, but he overlooked the ushnu placed in the
agricultural field.
With this data from the same region (central
Andes, Lima), a similar setting (agricultural
field), and the same ecological level (quechua),
it is possible to propose the existence of a kind of
altar, different from the capac ushnu and yllapa
ushnu, called the chacra ushnu. In the case of
the altar from chapter 20 of the HM, we also can
identify the huaca to which this potential chacra
ushnu was devoted: Llocllayhuancupa. Since
location and function are rather clear, its precise
shape could probably be resolved analogically,
but the cited evidence already suggests that it was
different from the ushnus at the center of major
Inca sites. This challenges Zuidema’s concept
and method, suggesting that the general defini-
tion of ushnu must be closer to that proposed
by Bertonio, that of “Altar of the guacas” sensu
lato. Therefore, if the Checa husno was an altar,
it was neither central nor for the sun; rather,
it was an altar for a local huaca. This revised
definition supports the possibility that there may
be multiple mundi (Rykwert 1985:54–55).
Conclusion
The implications of our second option—the exis-
tence of a chacra ushnu—could be explored at
length, but the path is already clear. As Taylor
argued, all translations are hypotheses: at the
current stage of our knowledge of the ushnu,
and of the HM, both options (the deep hole
and the chacra ushnu) are highly probable, but
Arguedas’s definition (“deep hole”) prevails for
the HM, mainly because the closest geographical
reference (Melo) defines husno clearly as “hole.”
There is also, of course, the theoretical possibility
that the two options intersect: the chacra ushnu
(an altar in a chacra) could be, or could include,
a deep hole. But neither the HM nor the other
sources reviewed in these pages have provided
any evidence to confirm that possibility. The
analysis presented in this article has demon-
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 23 Jul 2017 at 15:34:56, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.22
303
strated a general approach to the definition of
objects from late precolonial and early colonial
times in terms of both form and function. It sug-
gests two working hypotheses for the definition
of the husno in the HM, and in so doing, illu-
minates a completely ignored type of ushnu (the
chacra ushnu). This is possible not only because
more historical information was incorporated
into the discussion but also because variability
in ushnus was considered from the outset.
It is evident that the different translations of
the HM, from Trimborn to Salomon and Urioste,
require careful handling of the relationship
between general and local uses of definitions
and names in the Andes. When describing the
analytical techniques used in his several trans-
lations of the HM, Taylor explicitly indicated
that he wanted to illuminate local categories.
Meanwhile, Zuidema followed the opposite
approach to explain the ushnu: he combined
all of the information related to this subject
from different parts of the Andes to construct
a macroconcept that disregarded variability
(for example, Zuidema 1989b [1977/1978]:90,
171–176). It is only because of the findings of
both perspectives that the present discussion has
been possible. Nonetheless, the interpretative
issues regarding the case of the husno from
the HM show the clash between the two, as
well as the limitations of Zuidema’s approach
when dealing with Andean material culture.
When local cases differ from the supposedly
pan-Andean concepts, they pose the issue of
anomaly: we need to explain the difference to
improve the definition of the whole category.
There are still many unanswered questions
regarding the concept(s) of ushnu, but it is
clear that the most productive way to approach
new evidence on this topic is with an opera-
tional definition that includes several types of
ushnu. Ideally, in the future, each case could be
compared against a systematic inventory of the
archaeological, ethnographic, and historical data
that considers formal features and potential astro-
nomic alignments as well as regional, altitudinal,
and latitudinal variability. In this way, intra-
Andean cultural and social variability could be
efficiently explored through material culture, and
vice versa. Certainly, the category of ushnu could
unite numerous characteristics, but to identify
 304 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
them in the Andes we need to stop imposing
Cuzco features upon every new case found in
the documents or in the field. This peripheral
case from Huarochirí shows the necessity of
considering intra-Andean variability, not just
with regard to ushnus, but when dealing with
any other kind of object, particularly from the
precolonial past.
Acknowledgments. I am grateful for assistance and contribu-
tions from Willem Adelaar, Luis Andrade, Martha Bell, Julia
Burtenshaw, Norma Matos, Ricardo Moyano, José Pino, Luis
Ramírez, Nicolás Ruano, Idilio Santillana, Karen Spalding,
and Jan Szemiñski, and to the members of the ushnu team
(British Museum, Royal Holloway, University of Reading),
particularly Francisco Araujo, Frank Meddens, and Colin
McEwan. Martha Bell did the cartography and corrected my
translation. The three anonymous reviewers made important
suggestions. A preliminary version of this text was pre-
sented at the conference “Los incas: Propuestas y debates
interdisciplinarios,” organized by Rodolfo Monteverde and
Revista Haucaypata in Lima, September 2012.
Data Availability Statement. A complete digital copy of the
data presented in this article is available upon request to the
author: glramon@pucp.edu.pe.
Supplemental Materials. Supplemental materials are linked
to the online version of this article, which is accessible via the
SAA member login at https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.22:
Supplemental Materials. Supplemental Texts 1–8.
References Cited
Adelaar, Willem
1977 Tarma Quechua: Grammar, Texts, Dictionary. Peter
de Ridder Press, Lisse, Netherlands.
1988 Het boek van Huarochirí: Mythen en riten van het
oude Peru zoals opgetekend in de zestiende eeuw voor
Francisco de Avila, bestrijder van afgoderij. Meulen-
hoff, Amsterdam.
Albornoz, Cristóbal
1996 [1584] Relación de la visita de extirpación de idola-
trías. In El retorno de las huacas, edited by Luis Millo-
nes, pp. 265–87. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, Lima.
Anonymous
1951 [1586] Vocabulario y phrasis en la lengua general
de los indios del Perú llamada quichua. Universidad
Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima.
Arguedas, José M.
1966 Dioses y hombres de Huarochirí. Introductory study
by Pierre Duviols. Museo Nacional de Historia/Instituto
de Estudios Peruanos, Lima.
Ávalos, Rosalía
1952 El ciclo vital en la comunidad de Tupe. Revista del
Museo Nacional 21:107–184.
Bell, Martha
2015 Agua y poder colonial: Ciclos, flujos y procesiones
en el manejo hidráulico urbano en Lima durante el siglo
XVII. Boletín del Instituto Riva-Agüero 37:75–121.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 23 Jul 2017 at 15:34:56, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.22
[Vol. 28, No. 2, 2017
Bertonio, Ludovico
1984 [1612] Vocabulario de la lengua aymara. CERES,
Cochabamba, Bolivia.
Bray, Tamara (editor)
2015 The Archaeology of Wak’as: Explorations of the
Sacred in the Pre-Columbian Andes. University Press
of Colorado, Boulder.
Cavero, Yuri
2010 Inkapamisan: Ushnus y santuario inka en Ayacucho.
Universidad Nacional Mayor de Huamanga, Huamanga,
Peru.
Cerrón, Rodolfo
1976 Diccionario quechua: Junín-Huanca. Ministerio de
Educación/Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, Lima.
2008 Voces del Ande: Ensayos sobre onomástica andina.
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima.
Coarelli, Filippo
1983 Il foro romano: Periodo arcaico. Edizioni Quasar,
Roma.
Covarrubias, Sebastián
1611 Tesoro de la lengua castellana o española. Madrid.
Delgado, Carmen
1965 Religión y magia en Tupe (Yauyos). Museo de la
Cultura Peruana/Universidad Nacional Mayor de San
Marcos, Lima.
Deubner, Ludwig
1933 Mundus. Hermes 68(3):276–283.
Durston, Alan
2007 Notes on the Authorship of the Huarochirí
Manuscript. Colonial Latin American Review 16:227–
241.
2014 Ippolito Galante y la filología quechua en los años
1930 y 1940. Lexis 38:307–336.
Duviols, Pierre
1973 Huari y llacuaz: Agricultores y pastores; Un dua-
lismo prehispánico de oposición y complementariedad.
Revista del Museo Nacional 39:153–189.
1979 Un symbolisme de l’occupation, de l’aménagement
et de l’exploitation de l’espace: Le monolithe huanca et
sa fonction dans les Andes préhispaniques. L’Homme
19:7–31.
Duviols, Pierre (editor)
2003 Procesos y visitas de idolatrías: Cajatambo, siglo
XVII. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú/Institut
Français d’Études Andines, Lima.
Espinosa, Ricardo
1942 Origen y costumbres de los antiguos Huaruchiri.
In De priscorum huaruchiriensium origine et institutis,
edited by Hyppolitus Galante, pp. 303–424. Instituto
Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo, Madrid.
Estenssoro, Juan Carlos
2003 Del paganismo a la santidad. Institut Français
d’Études Andines/Instituto Riva Agüero, Lima.
Farrington, Ian
2014 The Centre of the World and the Cusco Ushnu
Complexes. In Inca Sacred Space: Landscape, Site
and Symbol in the Andes, edited by Frank Meddens,
Katie Willis, Colin McEwan, and Nick Branch, pp. 197–
208. Archetype, London.
Galante, Hippolytus
1942 De priscorum huaruchiriensium origine et institutis.
Instituto Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo, Madrid.
González Holguín, Diego
1952 [1608] Vocabulario de la lengua general de todo el
Peru llamada lengua qqichua o del Inca. Imprenta Santa
María, Lima.
 Ramón] SHAPING PRECOLONIAL CONCEPTS IN THE ANDES
Guaman Poma, Felipe
1980 [1613] Nueva coronica i buen gobierno. 3 vols. Siglo
XXI, Mexico.
Hartmann, Roswith
1981 El texto quechua de Huarochirí: Una evaluación
crítica de las ediciones a disposición. Histórica 5:167–
208.
Hernández Príncipe, Rodrigo
2003 [1621] Visita . . . a Ocros (1621). In Procesos
y visitas de idolatrías: Cajatambo, siglo XVII, edited
by Pierre Duviols, pp. 731–746. Pontificia Universidad
Católica del Perú/Institut Français d’Études Andines,
Lima.
Hyslop, John
1990 Inka Settlement Planning. University of Texas Press,
Austin.
Itier, César
1993 Estudio y comentario lingüístico. In Joan de
Santa Cruz Pachacuti Yamqui Salcamaygua, Relación
de Antigüedades deste reyno del Pirú, pp. 129–178.
Institut Français d’Études Andines/Centro de Estudios
Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de Las Casas,” Cuzco.
1994 Review of The Huarochirí Manuscript: A Testament
of Ancient and Colonial Andean Religion, translated and
edited by Frank Salomon and George L. Urioste. Revista
Andina 25:263–265.
Lumbreras, Luis
1984 El criterio de función en arqueología (II). Gaceta
Arqueológica 9:3.
Meddens, Frank.
1997 Function and Meaning of the Usnu in Late Horizon
Peru. Tawantinsuyu 3:5–14.
2015 The Importance of Being Inka: Ushnu Platforms
and Their Place in the Andean Landscape. In The
Archaeology of Wak’as, edited by Tamara Bray, pp. 239–
263. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.
Meddens, Frank, Nick Branch, Cirilo Vivanco, Naomi Rid-
diford, and Rob Kemp
2008 High Altitude Ushnu Platforms in the Department
of Ayacucho Peru: Structure, Ancestors, and Animating
Essence. In Pre-Columbian Landscapes of Creation and
Origin, edited by John Staller, pp. 315–355. Springer,
New York.
Meddens, Frank, Katie Willis, Colin McEwan, and Nick
Branch (editors)
2014 Inca Sacred Space: Landscape, Site and Symbol in
the Andes. Archetype, London.
Mejía, Toribio
1943 Traducción al castellano del texto quechua
de Huarochirí recogido por Francisco de Ávila.
Manuscript. Toribio Mejía Collection, Archivo
Histórico Riva Agüero, Lima.
Melo, Francisco de
2012 [1761] Diario histórico del levantamiento de la
provincia de Huarochirí. Preliminary study and tran-
scription by Karen Spalding. Centro Peruano de Estu-
dios Culturales, Lima.
Monteverde, Rodolfo
2010 La configuración arquitectónica de los ushnus como
espacios de libaciones y ofrendas líquidas durante el
Tahuantinsuyo. Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Études
Andines 40:31–80.
Morris, Craig, and Donald Thompson
1985 Huanuco Pampa: An Inca City and Its Hinterland.
Thames and Hudson, London.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 23 Jul 2017 at 15:34:56, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.22
305
Moyano, Ricardo
2013 La luna como objeto de estudio antropológico: El
ushnu y la predicción de eclipses en contextos incas
del Collasuyu. Ph.D. dissertation, Escuela Nacional de
Antropología e Historia, México.
Oberti, Italo
1997 Investigaciones preliminares en Usno-Moq’o,
Abancay. Tahuantinsuyu 3:15–21.
Pachacuti Yamqui, Juan Santa Cruz
1993 [1613] Relación de antigüedades deste Reino
del Perú. Ethnohistoric and linguistic study by
Pierre Duviols and César Itier. Institut Français d’Études
Andines/Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos “Bar-
tolomé de Las Casas,” Lima.
Parker, Gary, and Amancio Chávez
1976 Diccionario quechua: Ancash-Huailas. Ministerio
de Educación/Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, Lima.
Pärssinen, Martti
1992 Tawantinsuyu: The Inca State and Its Political
Organization. Societas Historica Finlandiae, Helsinki.
Perelman, Chäim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
1989 Tratado de la argumentación: La nueva retórica.
Gredos, Madrid.
Pinilla, Carmen (editor)
2011 Itinerarios epistolares: La amistad de José María
Arguedas y Pierre Duviols en dieciséis cartas. Pontificia
Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima.
Pino, José
2004 El ushnu inka y la organización del espacio en los
principales tampus de los wamani de la sierra central de
Chinchaysuyu. Chungara 36:303–311.
2005 El ushnu y la organización espacial astronómica
en la sierra central del Chinchaysuyu. Estudios Ata-
cameños 29:143–161.
2010 Yllapa usno: Rituales de libación, culto a ancestros
y la idea del ushnu en los Andes según los documentos
coloniales de los siglos XVI–XVII. Arqueología y
Sociedad 21:77–108.
Ramón, Gabriel
2008 Potters of the Northern Peruvian Andes: A
Palimpsest of Technical Styles in Motion. Ph.D. dis-
sertation, Sainsbury Research Unit, University of East
Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.
2009 Interviews from the Puna of Ayacucho, Perú: Tran-
scriptions and Commentaries. British Museum. Elec-
tronic document, https://www.britishmuseum.org/PDF/
ayacuchoushnufinal_27-06-11.pdf, accessed Septem-
ber 10, 2016.
2014 Altars and Altitude: The Ushnu and the Puna during
the Late Horizon. In Inca Sacred Space: Landscape, Site
and Symbol in the Andes, edited by Frank Meddens,
Katie Willis, Colin McEwan, and Nick Branch, pp. 177–
186. Archetype, London.
Ruano, Nicolás
2012 Arqueoastromonía Inca en el Interfluvio Maipo-
Cachapoal. Bachelor’s thesis, Facultad de Estudios del
Patrimonio Cultural, Universidad Internacional SEK,
Santiago de Chile.
Rykwert, Joseph
1985 La idea de ciudad: Antropología de la forma urbana
en el mundo antiguo. Hermann Blume, Madrid.
Salmon, Merrilee
1982 Analogy and Functional Ascription. In Philosophy
and Archaeology, pp. 57–83. Academic Press, New
York.
 306 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Salomon, Frank
1991 Introductory Essay: The Huarochirí Manuscript. In
The Huarochirí Manuscript: A Testament of Ancient
and Colonial Andean Religion, edited and translated
by Frank Salomon and George L. Urioste, pp. 1–38.
University of Texas Press, Austin.
2001 How an Andean “Writing without Words” Works.
Current Anthropology 42:1–27.
Salomon, Frank, and George L. Urioste (editors)
1991 The Huarochirí Manuscript: A Testament of Ancient
and Colonial Andean Religion. University of Texas
Press, Austin.
Santo Thomas, Domingo de
1951 [1563] Lexicon, o vocabulario de la lengua general
del Perú. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos,
Lima.
Szemiñski, Jan
1985 Bogowie i ludzie z Huarochirí. Wydaw Literackie,
Krakow/Wroclaw.
ca. 1988 Notas de Szemiñski sobre traducción del
Manuscrito de Huarochirí por Mejía Xesspe.
1997 Wira Quchan y sus obras: Teología andina y
lenguaje, 1550–1662. Instituto de Estudios Andi-
nos/Banco Central de Reserva del Perú, Lima.
Taylor, Gerald
1980 Rites et traditions de Huarochirí: Manuscrit
Quechua du début du 17e siècle. Editions l’Harmattan,
Paris.
1982 Las ediciones del manuscrito quechua de
Huarochirí: Respuesta a Roswith Hartmann. Histórica
6:255–278.
1987 Ritos y tradiciones de Huarochirí. With an intro-
ductory study on Ávila by Antonio Acosto. Instituto de
Estudios Peruanos/Institut Français d’Études Andines,
Lima.
2000a [1990] Textos quechuas de Laraos (Yauyos).
In Camac, camay y camasca y otros ensayos sobre
Huarochirí y Yauyos, pp. 123–143. Institut Français
d’Études Andines/Centro de Estudios Regionales Andi-
nos “Bartolomé de las Casas,” Lima.
2000b [1974] Camay, Camac y Camasca en el manuscrito
quechua de Huarochirí. In Camac, camay y camasca
y otros ensayos sobre Huarochirí y Yauyos, pp. 1–
17. Institut Français d’Études Andines/Centro de Estu-
dios Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de las Casas,”
Lima.
2007 Amarás a Dios sobre todas las cosas: Confesio-
narios quechuas, siglos XVI y XVII. Institut Français
d’Études Andines, Lima.
2008 Ritos y tradiciones de Huarochirí. Instituto
de Estudios Peruanos/Institut Français d’Études
Andines/Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos,
Lima.
Tello, Julio
1939 Origen y desarrollo de las civilizaciones pre-
históricas andinas. Actas y trabajos científicos del 27°
Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, I:589–725.
Librería e Imprenta Gil, Lima.
Torero, Alfredo
2005 Recogiendo los pasos de José María Arguedas.
Libros en red. Electronic document, http://www.
haylli-radio.com/LIBROS/RECOGIENDO.pdf,
accessed May 21, 2015.
Trimborn, Hermann
1939 Francisco de Avila: Dämonen und Zauber im
Inkareich: K. F. Koehler Verlag, Leipzig.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 23 Jul 2017 at 15:34:56, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.22
[Vol. 28, No. 2, 2017
1941 Dämonen und Zauber im Inkareich: Nachträge zum
Khetschuarwerk des Francisco de Avila. Zeitschrift für
Ethnologie 73:146–163.
Trimborn, Hermann, and Antje Kelm
1967 Francisco de Avila. Mann Verlag, Berlin.
Uhle, Max
1903 Pachacamac: Report of the William Peper Peru-
vian Expedition of 1896. University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia.
Urbano, Henrique
1999 Estudio Preliminar. In Joseph de Arriaga, 1621, La
extirpación de las idolatria en el Piru, pp. ix–cxxxi.
Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de
las Casas,” Cuzco.
Urioste, George
1983 Hijos de Pariya Qaqa: La tradición oral de Waru
Chiri (Mitología, ritual, y costumbres). 2 vols. Maxwell
School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse, New
York.
Zegarra, Jorge
1958 Trabajos de restauración limpieza y rescate de
especímenes arqueológicos en la H.P.A. o Huallamarca.
Dirigida por: dr. Jiménez Borja. Diario de:„, Del 24 de
junio al 16 de octubre 1958. Vol. 2. Deposited in the
Library of the Museo de Sitio Puruchuco, Lima.
Ziółkowski, Marius
2008 Coropuna y Solimana: Los oráculos de Condesuyos.
In Adivinación y Oráculos en el Mundo Andino Antiguo,
edited by Marco Curatola and Marius Ziółkowski,
pp. 121–159. Instituto Francés de Estudios Andi-
nos/Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima.
Zuidema, Tom
1989a [1980] El ushnu. In Reyes y guerreros: Ensayos de
cultura andina, edited by Manuel Burga, pp. 402–555.
Fomciencias, Lima.
1989b [1977/1978] Tumbas en pozos profundos y el
imperio inca. In Reyes y guerreros: Ensayos de cultura
andina, edited by Manuel Burga, pp. 144–190. Fom-
ciencias, Lima.
2004 Entrevista. Antropólogo R. Tom Zuidema. Summa
Historiae 1:221–226.
2010 El calendario Inca: Tiempo y espacio en la orga-
nización ritual del Cuzco; La idea del pasado. Fondo
Editorial del Congreso del Perú/Pontificia Universidad
Católica del Perú, Lima.
2014 The Ushnus of Cusco and Sacred Centres in
Andean Ethnography, Ethnohistory and Archaeology.
In Inca Sacred Space: Landscape, Site and Symbol
in the Andes, edited by Frank Meddens, Katie Willis,
Colin McEwan, and Nick Branch, pp. 5–28. Archetype,
London.
Notes
1. The spelling of this term in colonial and ethnographic
sources varies: husno, husnu, osno, ozno, ushnu, ushñu, usno,
usnu, usño, uzno. Ushnu is considered the standard academic
term. The h of husno is a peculiar feature of the HM, probably
attributable to the scribe (Durston 2007:236–7), although
Bertonio (1984 [1612]) also spells it with an initial h, as
husnu. In this article, I use husno when discussing the HM
and ushnu as the general term of reference.
2. Huaca: “Divinity, cultural hero or mythical ancestor.
A material manifestation of those sacred beings” (Taylor
2007:86, note 5). See also the introduction by Bray (2015)
 Ramón] SHAPING PRECOLONIAL CONCEPTS IN THE ANDES 307

to an important volume on huacas. It is revealing of the
gap between francophone and anglophone academies on that
topic that Bray does not even mention the fundamental works
of Taylor, Itier, or Duviols.
3. On arcaduz, see Covarrubias (1611).
4. Hereafter, only the altitude at the center of the com-
munity is indicated, since Andean communities usually have
lands at very different ecological levels, and their boundaries
have changed from colonial times to the present.
5. Dealing with the present-day community of Tupic-
ocha, also in Huarochirí, Salomon (2001:6, note 5, Figure 6)
repeated the association of ushnu and step-pyramid, compar-
ing the ushnu with the peaña (peana). Judging from his text,
the Tupicochanos do not use the term ushnu but peaña.
6. Asked in November 2015 about the phrase “husnocta
pircaspa mascar cancu,” the retired schoolteacher Norma
Matos (born in Lircay, Huancavelica, and raised in Huanta,
Ayacucho) translated it as “el pozo de agua haciendo muro
han buscado” (the well that while making a wall they
have looked for) and insisted that husno was something
underground. A broader study of local uses of the term ushnu
in the Andes would be valuable.
Submitted February 13, 2016; Revised September 21, 2016;
Accepted April 27, 2017

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 23 Jul 2017 at 15:34:56, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.22