The Incas of Peru/Chapter 2

by Clements Robert Markham

CHAPTER II

THE MEGALITHIC AGE

There is a mystery still unsolved, on the plateau of Lake Titicaca, which, if stones could speak, would reveal a story of the deepest interest. Much of the difficulty in the solution of this mystery is caused by the nature of the region, in the present day, where the enigma still defies explanation. We must, therefore, first acquire some knowledge of the face of the country before we have the question, as it now stands, placed before us.

The great cordilleras of the Andes, in latitude 14°28′S., unite at the knot of Vilcañota, and then separate, forming the eastern Andes on one side, containing Illimani and Illampu (except Aconcagua and Huascaran, the loftiest measured peaks of the new world), and the maritime cordillera on the other. Between them there is an extensive and very lofty plateau, 13,000 to 14,000 feet above the sea, with the lake called Titicaca, or Inticaca, in its centre. Titicaca is the largest lake in South America. It was formerly much larger. The surface of the lake is 12,508 feet above the sea, that of the plateau being, on an average, several hundred feet higher.

The surrounding mountains form a region of frost and snow. The hardy llamas and alpacas live and breed amidst the tufts of coarse grass called ychu,^[1] and the graceful vicuñas can endure the rigorous climate at still higher elevations. Besides the grass, there is a lowly shrub called tola,^[2] which can be used as firewood. Quinua,^[3] belonging to the spinach family, can alone be raised at the higher elevations, yielding a small grain which, by itself, is insufficient to maintain human life.

The plateau itself, called the Collao, is by no means level. It is intersected by ranges of hills of no great height, and in the northern part the lofty rock of Pucara is a marked feature. Very hardy trees of three kinds, though stunted, are a relief to the landscape, and in some sheltered ravines they even form picturesque groves overshadowed by rocky heights. The tree at the highest elevations is called queñua;^[4] the two others, with gnarled rough trunks and branches, called ccolli^[5] and quisuar^[6] (Oliva sylvestre by the Spaniards, from a fancied resemblance of the leaves), are the only trees of the Titicaca plateau. Crops of potatoes are raised, forming the staple food, with the oca^[7] and some other edible roots. But cereals will not ripen, and the green barley is only used for fodder. The yutu, a kind of partridge, and a large rodent called viscacha,^[8] abound in the mountains, while the lake yields fish of various kinds, and is frequented by waterfowl.

Such a region is only capable of sustaining a scanty population of hardy mountaineers and labourers. The mystery consists in the existence of ruins of a great city on the southern side of the lake, the builders being entirely unknown.

The city covered a large area, built by highly skilled masons, and with the use of enormous stones. One stone is 36 feet long by 7, weighing 170 tons, another 26 feet by 16 by 6. Apart from the monoliths of ancient Egypt, there is nothing to equal this in any other part of the world. The movement and the placing of such monoliths point to a dense population, to an organised government, and consequently to a large area under cultivation, with arrangements for the conveyance of supplies from various directions. There must have been an organisation combining skill and intelligence with power and administrative ability.

The point next in interest to the enormous size of the stones is the excellence of the workmanship. The lines are accurately straight, the angles correctly drawn, the surfaces level. The upright monoliths have mortices and projecting ledges to retain the horizontal slabs in their places, which completed the walls. The carvings are complicated, and at the same time well arranged, and the ornamentation is accurately designed and executed. Not less striking are the statues with heads adorned with curiously shaped head-dresses. Flights of stone steps have recently been discovered, for the ancient city, now several miles from the lake, was once upon its borders. Remarkable skill on the part of the masons is shown by every fragment now lying about. Such are the angle-joints of a stone conduit; a window-frame of careful workmanship with nine apertures, all in one piece; and numerous niches and mouldings. There is ample proof of the very advanced stage reached by the builders in architectural art.^[9]

There are some particulars respecting the ruins in Oliva's history of Jesuits in Peru, obtained from an Indian named Catari, a Quipucamayoc, or reader of the quipus, who was living at Cochapampa in the end of the sixteenth century. It appears that Bartolomé Cervantes, a canon of Chuquisaca, gave to Oliva a manuscript dictated by Catari. The remarkable statement is here made that no judgment can be formed of the size of the ruined city, because nearly all was built underground. Professor Nestler of Prague has proceeded to Tiahuanacu with the object of making researches by the light of the account of Catari.^[10]

The famous monolithic doorway at Tiahuanacu has been fractured, probably by an earthquake. The lower part has not yet been excavated, so that it is not known whether the two sides are connected below or separate. The elaborate carving on the upper part may possibly hold the mystery. In the centre there is a square of seventeen-and-a-half inches, on which the principal figure is carved. The space is nearly square, surrounded by a border with billet ornaments. There are two round indentations for eyes, a nose, mouth, and three small holes on each cheek. The billet ornaments occur again on the sceptres and on the belt. Ornaments issue from the border round the head, consisting of twenty-two ribands ending in heads or circles. In the centre, at the top, there is a human head, on either side two ribands adorned with billets and ending in circles. At the angles there are longer ribands ending with the heads of beasts. These seven bands, including the human head, form the upper part of the rays round the greater head. On the sides there is a riband ending in a beast's head, and two rays ending in circles on either side of it, making a total of ten bands or rays on the sides of the head. Under the head the central band ends with a larger circle, having two smaller ones on either side of it. This makes a total of twenty-two ribands surrounding the head. It is not improbable that they may be intended to represent rays, like those of the sun, but their differences and arrangement also point to some symbolical meaning.

This central figure further has a riband passing round the neck and down to the belt, on either side of the breast. The parts on the breast have three divisions similarly marked on either side. On the upper one there are four small circles, on the next a small circle and two figures like a V, and on the lower division there is a diamond-shaped figure with another within it. I am inclined to think that these curious carvings are intended to represent emblems of months or seasons. In the centre of the breast, between the bands, there is a conventional ornament of two bands ending in heads of birds, and over them another symbol of a month or season. The belt round the figure consists of a band with three billets, terminating at each end with a beast's head.

 

MONOLITHIC DOORWAY, TIAHUANACU

 

The arms issue from the sides in a curve, with human heads hanging from the elbows. The hands, showing three fingers and a thumb, grasp sceptres. Below the hands the two sceptres are exactly the same, consisting of three joints, each with a billet, and ending in a bird's head. Above the hands the sceptres differ. The one on the right consists of five joints with billets and the appearance of a small bird. The one on the left is divided into two, ending with heads of birds.

Below the belt there is a band, whence hangs a fringe of six human heads. The central figure terminates at the knees, just above an elaborately carved ornament which is supposed to have represented a throne. It consists of bands ending in twelve birds' heads, and at the sides the composition terminates in a large beast's head, with a peculiar ornament in front of the mouth. There are three squares, the two outer ones having inner squares, and issuing from them another square, with short bands, ending in a circle and inner circle, on either side.

On either side of the central figure there are forty-eight figures kneeling to it, sixteen with the heads of birds and thirty-two with human heads. All are winged, all are crowned, and all hold sceptres. The bird-headed worshippers have sceptres like the one in the central figure's left hand, while the sceptres of the human-headed worshippers are the same as those in the central figure's right hand. The bird-headed figures have ornamental bands with terminals of fish heads, and the human-headed figures throughout have bands ending in birds' heads.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the central figure is intended to represent the deity having jurisdiction over all human beings on the one hand, and over the animal creation on the other.

Below the rows of worshippers there is a beautifully carved border consisting of double lines ending with birds' heads, surrounding human heads with borders of joints and billets, surmounted in one by five bands ending in circles, in another by four fish heads, in another by an armed human figure.

There is no sign of sculpture nor of any knowledge of proportion in designing a human figure; but at the same time there are indications of very remarkable skill and taste in the masonic art. The ornamentation is accurately designed and executed, and the style of art is well adapted for symbolical representation. The tendency is to straight lines and rectangles, not to curves.

 

PART OF CARVED BORDER, TIAHUANACU DOORWAY.

 

This, then, is the mystery. A vast city containing palace, temple, judgment-hall, or whatever fancy may reconstruct among the ruins, with statues, elaborately carved stones, and many triumphs of the masonic art, was built in a region where corn will not ripen, and which could not possibly support a dense population. It is quite certain that, in the time of the Incas, the people were absolutely ignorant of the origin and history of these edifices. They were to them, as they are to us, mysterious ruins. The statues gave rise to a myth referring to a former creation by the deity, rising from the lake,^[11] of men and women who, for disobedience, were turned into stone. This was to account for the statues. The name of Tiahuanacu is modern.^[12] It is said that an Inca happened to receive a message when visiting the ruins, and he compared the rapidity of the runner to that of the swiftest animal known to him: 'Tia, huanacu,' he said ('Be seated, huanacu'), and the place has since had that name. When the Spaniards arrived the ruins were very much in the same state as they are now. The Jesuit Acosta, who took measurements of the stones, speaks of them as ruins of very ancient buildings. Cieza de Leon mentions two gigantic statues which were much weathered and showed marks of great antiquity. An old schoolfellow of Garcilasso, in writing to him, described the ruins as very ancient.

The builders may best be described as a megalithic people in a megalithic age, an age when cyclopean stones were transported, and cyclopean edifices raised.

The great antiquity is shown by the masonry and symbolical carving, but this is not the only proof that Andean civilisation dates back into a far distant past. The advances made by the Andean people in agriculture and in the domestication of animals must have been proceeding from a very remote period. Maize had been brought to a high state of cultivation, and this must have been the result of careful and systematic labour during many centuries. The cultivation must have been commenced at so remote a time that it is not even certainly known from what wild plant the original maize was derived. The wild potato, however, is known. It is a small tuber, about the size of a filbert, which has scarcely increased in size after a century of careful cultivation. Yet the Andean people, after many centuries of such cultivation, produced excellent potatoes of several kinds, for each of which they had a name. The same may be said of the oca and quinua crops. The agricultural achievements of Andean man are evidence of the vast antiquity of his race in the same region. The domestication of the llama and alpaca furnish additional evidence of this antiquity. There is no wild llama. The huanacu and vicuña are different animals. It must have been centuries before the llama was completely domesticated, carrying burdens, yielding its wool for clothing and its flesh for food. Individuals are of various colours, as is usual with domesticated animals, while the wild huanacus have fleeces of the same colour. The domestication of the alpaca must have taken an equally long period, and called for even greater skill and care. There is no wild alpaca, and the tame animal is dependent on man for the performance of most of its functions. It must have taken ages to bring the silken fleeces to such perfection.

There is thus good reason for assigning very great antiquity to the civilisation of the megalithic people. Another deduction from the premises is that there must have been a dense population for working quarries, moving the cyclopean monoliths from a distance and placing them, as well as for cultivation and the provision of supplies for the workers. This suggests extensive dominions, and some movement of the people.

We only have tradition to indicate the direction whence the megalithic people came. I am quite in agreement with Dr. Brinton that 'the culture of the Andean race is an indigenous growth, wholly self-developed, and owing none of its germs to any other races.' Mr. Squier came to the same conclusion as regards Peru, and Mr. Maudslay as regards the Mayas of Central America. There were doubtless movements among the Andean tribes, gradual progress extending over vast periods of time, and an influx from some direction to form the megalithic empire. But from what direction? Tradition points to the south, to Charcas and Tucuman, and to countries beyond the southern tropic, as the sources of its population. It is interesting to find Garcilasso de la Vega, in one of his letters, describing himself as an 'Antarctic Indian,' Cieza de Leon, the earliest author to collect native traditions, tells us that the people came from the south. Betanzos also makes the civilisers advance from the south. Salcamayhua says that all the nations of Peru came from the south, and settled in the various regions as they advanced. Molina has the same tradition. Montesinos mentions a great invasion from the south in the very earliest times, later the records tell of the arrival of an army from Tucuman, and he tells of a third great invasion from the south when his 62nd King was reigning. On this point there is practical unanimity. The great population, of the existence of which the Tiahuanacu ruins bear silent testimony, represents a series of movements from the south.

The Tiahuanacu ruins also point to extensive dominion, and to ascertain its extent and locality we must seek for similar cyclopean work, and for similar masonic skill in carving, in other parts of Peru.

 

SACSAHUAMAN FORTRESS, CUZCO.

 

In Cuzco there is a cyclopean building in the Calle del Triunfo, with a huge monolith known as the 'stone of twelve corners.' Some portions of the ancient remains at Ollantay-tampu are megalithic work, as well as the 'Inca-misana' and 'Ñusta-tiana,' hewn out of the solid rock. But the grandest and most imposing work of the megalithic builders was the fortress at Cuzco. The Sacsahuaman hill, on which the fortress stood overlooking the city, was practically inaccessible on two sides, and easily defensible on another. But the eastern face was exposed to easy approach, and here the great cyclopean work was constructed. It consists of three parallel walls, 330 yards in length each, with 21 advancing and retiring angles, so that at every point an attack could be enfiladed by defenders. The outer wall, at its salient angles, has stones of the following dimensions: 14 ft. high by 12; another, 10 ft. by 6. There must have been some good cause for the erection of this marvellous defensive work of which we know nothing. Its origin is as unknown as that of the Tiahuanacu ruins. The Incas knew nothing. Garcilasso refers to towers, walls, and gates built by the Incas, and even gives the names of the architects; but these were later defences built within the great cyclopean fortress.^[13] The outer lines must be attributed to the megalithic age. There is nothing of the kind which can be compared to them in any other part of the world. At Chavin, in the valley of the Marañon, there is cyclopean work, and also in Chachapoyas.

In seeking for indications of the megalithic age to be found in the elaborate carving of stones, we at once turn to the great monoliths at Concacha, near Abancay, and to the stone of Chavin. At Concacha the huge sacrificial stone is of limestone, about 20 ft. long by 14 by 12. It is carved in channels for leading away liquids, and in other forms. It points to the megalithic age, as does the circular stone with much fine workmanship in alto relievo, the great seats cut out of monoliths, and the flight of stone steps to form an artificial cascade.^[14] On the Chavin stone we again have the Deity holding two sceptres, as at Tiahuanacu.

This stone was found in about 1840, in the parish of Chavin de Huantar, in the province of Huari, and within the valley of the Marañon. Here there is a curious Inca ruin, known as the Pucara de Chavin. The stone had fallen from the ruins above, but it does not follow that it was the same age as the ruins. It was probably once part of a much more ancient edifice, afterwards used to adorn the more recent Inca fortress. In 1874 the stone was taken to Lima by order of the government, where it now may be seen.

 

CHAVIN STONE

 

The Chavin stone is of diorite, 25 ft. long by 2 ft. 4 in. The carving is very elaborate, and covers the whole length and breadth of the stone. The principal figure occupies the lower half of the stone. The ornamentation is richer and more confused than that on the Tiahuanacu monolith. The head is still square, the chief difference being in the large mouth with teeth and tusks. The rays are not all round the head, but only on the sides, three in number. They are more curved, and end in heads resembling those of serpents. This was the conventional ornament of the later megalithic school of art. At Tiahuanacu the heads are clearly those of beasts, birds, and fish. On the Chavin stone they are all the same, like heads of snakes. But I incline to believe that the latter are merely conventional heads to finish off the bands or rays. Two also come out of each of the knees of the figure.

As in the Tiahuanacu figure there are two arms, with hands grasping sceptres. But on the Chavin stone the sceptres, though much thicker and more elaborately carved, have lost their symbolic meaning. Each has two long bands terminating in heads.

Above the central figure of the Chavin stone there is a richly ornamented composition. Along the centre there are rows of teeth with tusks and three heads on either side, then curves, tusks alternating with bands ending in volutes. At the sides there are 34 long bands, 17 on each side, ending alternately with volutes and heads. At the very top two bands are twisted round each other, terminating with heads. The whole composition, above the central figure, seems to represent an immense and richly ornamented head-dress.

The same general idea appears to prevail in both the central figures at Tiahuanacu and on the Chavin stone. They represent the genius of the same people, and the same civilisation, though at different periods, the Chavin stone being the latest. In both the pervading idea is of a figure of the Deity grasping a sceptre in each hand. The bands or rays terminating with heads or with circles and volutes are the same in both. At Tiahuanacu all the parts of the carving appear to have a symbolical meaning. The artist avoided all curves, preferring straight lines and correctly drawn rectangles. Everything seems to have an intention or a meaning. In the Chavin stone the conception is more confused, and there is much that is more ornate, but apparently conventional and unmeaning.

The two compositions, it may be concluded, are the work of the same people, with the same cult, the same art, and the same traditions, but with an interval of perhaps a century or two between them. There must once have been other stones of the same character. One was probably at Cacha, another at Cuzco, belonging to the same megalithic age. If they had not been destroyed, we could trace the transition from the earlier and simpler style, full of meaning, at Tiahuanacu, to the more elaborate and corrupt work on the Chavin stone.

Guided by the existence of megalithic ruins and by the carved stones, we are led to the tentative conclusion that the ancient empire extended its sway over the Andean regions from an unknown distance south of Tucuman to Chachapoyas, with Tiahuanacu (for want of the real name) as its centre of rule and of thought. We may also entertain two provisional conclusions, one of them touching the great antiquity of the megalithic civilisation, and the other with reference to the area over which it prevailed.

But we must return to the most difficult part of the problem, namely, the climatic conditions. How could such a region as is described at the beginning of this essay, where corn cannot ripen, sustain the population of a great city over 12,000 ft. above the level of the sea? Could the elevation have been less? Is such an idea beyond the bounds of possibility? The height is now 12,500 ft. above the sea level, in latitude 16° 22′ S.

The recent studies of southern geology and botany^[15] lead to the belief in a connection between South America and the Antarctic continental lands. But at a remote geological period there was no South America, only three land masses, separated by great sea inlets, a Guiana, a Brazil, and a La Plata island. There were no Andes. Then came the time when the mountains began to be upheaved. The process appears to have been very slow, gradual, and long continued. The Andes did not exist at all in the Jurassic, or even in the cretaceous period. Comparatively speaking, the Andes are very modern. The bones of a mastodon have been discovered at Ulloma, in Bolivia, which is now 13,000 ft. above the sea. But such an animal could not have existed at such an elevation. Then, again, in the deserts of Tarapaca, embedded in the sides of ravines, there are numerous skeletons of gigantic ant-eaters, animals whose habitat is in a dense forest. When they lived, the deserts in which their bones are found must have been covered with trees. It is the height of the Andes, wringing all moisture out of the trade wind, which makes Tarapaca a desert. When the Andes were lower, the trade wind could carry its moisture over them to the strip of coast land which is now an arid desert, producing arboreal vegetation and the means of supporting gigantic ant-eaters. When mastodons lived at Ulloma, and ant-eaters in Tarapaca, the Andes, slowly rising, were some two or three thousands of feet lower than they are now. Maize would then ripen in the basin of Lake Titicaca, and the site of the ruins of Tiahuanacu could support the necessary population. If the megalithic builders were living under these conditions, the problem is solved. If this is geologically impossible, the mystery remains unexplained.^[16]

We have indications of the megalithic civilisation, of the direction whence it came, of its great antiquity, of the extent of the ancient empire, deduced from the ruins and carved stones, and of the religious feeling, shown by a central figure worshipped by men and the brute creation. We know nothing more about the mysterious megalithic people, unless any light can be thrown on them by a consideration of the long list of kings, which will form the subject of the next chapter.

1. Stipa Ychu (K.).
2. Baccharis Incarum (Weddell), mentioned by Molina and Cobos, p. 486.
3. Chenopodium Quinua (L.), mentioned by Cobos, p. 350.
4. Polylepis racemosa (R.P.).
5. Buddleia coriacea.
6. Buddleia Incana (R.P.).
7. Oxalis tuberosa (L.).
8. Lagidium Peruvianum.
9. The best accounts of the Tiahuanacu ruins are by R. Inwards (The Temple of the Andes, 1884), and the Comte de Crequi Montfort, leader of the 'Mission Scientifique Française' (1904).
10. Information from Dr. Gonzalez de la Rosa.
11. This Titicaca myth is merely of Inca origin, invented to account for the ruins. It is told, in various ways, by Garcilasso de la Vega, Cieza de Leon, Molina, Betanzos, Salcamayhua, and Sarmiento. It is not mentioned by Acosta, Balboa, or Montesinos.
12. Catari, quoted by Oliva, says that the ancient name was Chucara. See Les Deux Tiahuanacu by Dr. M. Gonzalez de la Rosa, p. 406.
13. Sarmiento, p. 152. He regrets the demolition of the Inca citadel for material to build houses for the Spaniards in Cuzco.
14. Squier, p. 555; Wiener, p. 285.
15. Die Vegetation der Erde. Grundzüge der Pflanzenverbreitung in Chile von Dr. Karl Reiche (Leipzig, 1907).
16. Near Valparaiso the land had risen 1300 ft. within modern times (Darwin, p. 32), and at the island of San Lorenzo, 500 ft. (Darwin, p. 48). (Geol. Obs. on S. America. Smith, Elder & Co., 1846.)