The Cuzco Ushnu
.
In the centre of the Haukaypata plaza, in the sacred city of Cuzco was a special stone feature known to the Inca as an 'ushnu'. Because of its early destruction by the Spanish we have to rely totally on written information to help us reconstruct its appearance and use.
Construction
According to Cieza de Leon [1553-4 (1976) the ushnu was constructed during the reign of the seventh Incan king – Inca Yahuar-Huacac. As any firm dates assigned to the early Incan emperors are considered very tenous it is probably only reliable to say this would be in the early 15th century, probably before 1430. Another early author, Betanzos, however describes it as being built by the ninth Inca, (Pachacuti) [Betanzos 1557 (1996)], which would put the date at 1438 or after. Given this conflict of dates I tend to feel Cieza de Leon is to be more trusted, as Betanzos' account is somewhat biased towards Pachacuti's achievements. Cieza de Leon is more impartial in the amount of information he provides for each ruler and seems to have used a variety of sources to obtain his information.
Location
Almost all the reports describe the ushnu as being located in the centre or middle of the Haukaypata plaza [Pizarro 1571 (1921), Anom Chronicler 1570 (1989), Discurso 1570 (1990), Molina 1575 (1982), Betanzos 1553 (1996), Cieza de Leon 1553-4 (1976), Albornoz 1582 (2004), Santacruz Pachacuti 1613 (1990)].
Function
Like the descriptions of the ushnus appearance (to be discussed a little later) the accounts we have of the ushnu give it a variety of functions depending on their author.
The three most commonly reported uses of the ushnu were:
1. as a site for the worship of the Sun where ritual drinking as well as sacrifices took place, and where liquids and ashes from those two activities were deposited into a basin component [Pizarro 1571 (1921), Betanzos 1557 (1996), Garcilaso de la Vega 1609 (1966), Discurso/Anom Chronicler 1570 (1990/1989) and Albornoz 1582 (2004)].
2. as a throne and reviewing stand for the Inca (on which he may have sat on a smaller stool) [Garcilaso de la Vega 1609 (1966), Guaman Poma 1615 (1980), Santa Cruz Pachacuti ( 1980)]
3. as a site for the assembly of military personnel [Cieza de Leon 1553-4 (1976), Molina 1575 (1873)].
Less commonly documented functions for the Cuzco ushnu include its use for offerings by newly initiated Incan boys [Cobo 1653 (1990)], and as an site for determining when it was the right time to plant around Cuzco by observing when the sun was located between 2 pillars on the Cuzco horizon from the ushnu in the plaza [Anom Chronicler 1570 (1989)].
Appearance
The most controversial part of this discussion is deciding what the Cuzco ushnu looked like. The reason for this is firstly because the structure no longer exists and we are relying on written reports to be detailed enough to allow us to make an accurate reconstruction. Secondly the ushnu was destroyed at an early date after the conquest so few of the written reports are written by eyewitnesses themselves, and probably are based on the memories of other observers. Thirdly, the written sources often do not name the structure they describe, making it hard to be certain they are infact refering to the ushnu, and finally they often seem to describe different parts of the structure. This last reason suggests that the ushnu had different components, and some authors chose to emphaise some of these over others in their descriptions.
The best overall description (I believe) of the ushnu is that contained in the Discurso report which says ‘All the Indians of the area came together in the main plaza called Haukaypata and there, with much ceremony, they made their sacrifices on a pillar of stone with its shelf called ushnu in the middle of the plaza. [They sacrificed] llamas, valuable clothing, and many other things, and, at the foot of the bench they poured much corn beer. They said they were offering it to the Sun’ [1570 (1980)]. This description clearly states the ushnu was made up of two components, a platform (or shelf) and a pillar. A third allied component - that of a basin, is implied, located at the foot of the bench into which liquid offerings were poured.
Several accounts describe the upright component of the ushnu. Some describe it as a pillar [Discurso/Anom Chronicler 1570 (1990 and 1989), Albornoz 1582 (2002)]. Two accounts refer to it as being like a ‘sugar loaf’ [Betanzos 1557 (1996), Cieza de Leon 1553-4 (1976) ] with a pointed top [Betanzos 1557 (1996)]. The upright is described as being around 6 foot high [Anom Chronicler 1570 (1989) ] and being at least partially encased in gold [Betanzos 1557 (1996), Cieza de Leon 1553-4 (1976), Albornoz 1582 (2002)].
Two accounts definitely describe a platform/shelf/seat component to the ushnu [Discurso/Anom Chronicler 1570 (1990), Guaman Poma 1615 (1980)], and three other accounts also suggest this [Pizarro 1571 (1921), Santa Cruz Pachacuti 1613 (1980), Garcilaso de la Vega 1609 (1976)]. No dimensions are given other than Pizarro describing his bench or seat as 'small'. Garcilaso de la Vegas account states the platform was made of (more likely covered in) gold.
A final potential reference to a platform structure is from Cieza de Leon who describes a 'great theatre with tiers' or 'throne' erected in the Haukaypata plaza during the festival of 'Hatun Raimi' in Cuzco [1553-4 (1976)]. It is not clear whether this was a permanent or temporary structure, and the material from which it is made is not mentioned. No modern researcher that I am aware of has connected this description with the Cuzco ushnu. I feel it is unlikely that this description is of the ushnu as no other early author describes such a prominent structure in the plaza (excepting perhaps Guaman Pomas drawing, discussed below) and the Discurso (which specifically identifies the ushnu) describes its platform as a single shelf, not as being tiered. In addition Cieza de Leon himself describes seperately a 'sugar loaf' stone in the plaza which seems better to fit the description of the ushnu, and he does not connect the references he makes to this stone with his description of the structure used during the Hatun Raimi festival, suggesting they are descriptions of seperate and different structures. It seems more likely therefore that this was indeed a temporary structure, built to display religious images for the festival described.
Excitingly 'excavations in the centre of the Haukaypata during refurbishment of the fountain' in 1996 discovered 'alignments of Inka stones which appear to be the footings for a retaining wall of a structure which was probably the usnu' [Farrington and Raffino 1996]. This evidence would seem to confirm the platform component to the ushnu, and the location of the ushnu in the centre of the plaza. Frustrating I have been unable to source any further details about these excavations that might provide a dimension to the retaining wall/platform described. However it was reported that associated with the structure 'were found a large quantity of Inka ceramics and an offering of 4 camelid figurines, one gold, two silver and one made of spondylus shell' [Farrington and Raffino 1996].
A stone gold covered basin or font associated with the upright and platform components is described by several authors. It is described as being 3 foot high [Betanzos 1557 (1996)], golden or gold covered [Molina 1575 (1873), Garcilaso de la Vega 1609 (1966)], round or teat shaped [Pizarro 1571 (1921)] and it apparently drained to the Coricancha complex through a special conduit [Molina 1575 (1873), Garcilaso de la Vega 1609 (1966)]. At night its opening in the plaza was covered over with round woven mats [Pizarro 1571 (1921)]. Its location at the foot of the platform component is implied by the Discurso [1570 (1990)] although Betanzos describes the font as surrounding the upright stone [Betanzos 1557 (1996)]. I think Betanzos’ description of the upright in the basin is unlikely and it is possible he is describing his ‘font’ as a combination of platform and basin together, in which case the platform could be considered to be 3 foot high.
Completing this discussion regarding the description of the Cuzco ushnu I should mention that we do have one drawing that is labelled as being of the structure [Guaman Poma 1615 (from Gasparini and Margolies 1980)]. Unfortunately this image does not generally agree well with the written descriptions above. As Guaman Poma drew his picture at least some sixty years after the presumed destruction of the Cuzco ushnu (in 1555, see further below) it is almost certain he never saw it, and it is more likely he instead based his drawing on extent provincial ushnu, which as we will see in the next posting differed in their appearance and size from the Cuzco version.
.
Construction
According to Cieza de Leon [1553-4 (1976) the ushnu was constructed during the reign of the seventh Incan king – Inca Yahuar-Huacac. As any firm dates assigned to the early Incan emperors are considered very tenous it is probably only reliable to say this would be in the early 15th century, probably before 1430. Another early author, Betanzos, however describes it as being built by the ninth Inca, (Pachacuti) [Betanzos 1557 (1996)], which would put the date at 1438 or after. Given this conflict of dates I tend to feel Cieza de Leon is to be more trusted, as Betanzos' account is somewhat biased towards Pachacuti's achievements. Cieza de Leon is more impartial in the amount of information he provides for each ruler and seems to have used a variety of sources to obtain his information.
Location
Almost all the reports describe the ushnu as being located in the centre or middle of the Haukaypata plaza [Pizarro 1571 (1921), Anom Chronicler 1570 (1989), Discurso 1570 (1990), Molina 1575 (1982), Betanzos 1553 (1996), Cieza de Leon 1553-4 (1976), Albornoz 1582 (2004), Santacruz Pachacuti 1613 (1990)].
Function
Like the descriptions of the ushnus appearance (to be discussed a little later) the accounts we have of the ushnu give it a variety of functions depending on their author.
The three most commonly reported uses of the ushnu were:
1. as a site for the worship of the Sun where ritual drinking as well as sacrifices took place, and where liquids and ashes from those two activities were deposited into a basin component [Pizarro 1571 (1921), Betanzos 1557 (1996), Garcilaso de la Vega 1609 (1966), Discurso/Anom Chronicler 1570 (1990/1989) and Albornoz 1582 (2004)].
2. as a throne and reviewing stand for the Inca (on which he may have sat on a smaller stool) [Garcilaso de la Vega 1609 (1966), Guaman Poma 1615 (1980), Santa Cruz Pachacuti ( 1980)]
3. as a site for the assembly of military personnel [Cieza de Leon 1553-4 (1976), Molina 1575 (1873)].
Less commonly documented functions for the Cuzco ushnu include its use for offerings by newly initiated Incan boys [Cobo 1653 (1990)], and as an site for determining when it was the right time to plant around Cuzco by observing when the sun was located between 2 pillars on the Cuzco horizon from the ushnu in the plaza [Anom Chronicler 1570 (1989)].
Appearance
The most controversial part of this discussion is deciding what the Cuzco ushnu looked like. The reason for this is firstly because the structure no longer exists and we are relying on written reports to be detailed enough to allow us to make an accurate reconstruction. Secondly the ushnu was destroyed at an early date after the conquest so few of the written reports are written by eyewitnesses themselves, and probably are based on the memories of other observers. Thirdly, the written sources often do not name the structure they describe, making it hard to be certain they are infact refering to the ushnu, and finally they often seem to describe different parts of the structure. This last reason suggests that the ushnu had different components, and some authors chose to emphaise some of these over others in their descriptions.
The best overall description (I believe) of the ushnu is that contained in the Discurso report which says ‘All the Indians of the area came together in the main plaza called Haukaypata and there, with much ceremony, they made their sacrifices on a pillar of stone with its shelf called ushnu in the middle of the plaza. [They sacrificed] llamas, valuable clothing, and many other things, and, at the foot of the bench they poured much corn beer. They said they were offering it to the Sun’ [1570 (1980)]. This description clearly states the ushnu was made up of two components, a platform (or shelf) and a pillar. A third allied component - that of a basin, is implied, located at the foot of the bench into which liquid offerings were poured.
Several accounts describe the upright component of the ushnu. Some describe it as a pillar [Discurso/Anom Chronicler 1570 (1990 and 1989), Albornoz 1582 (2002)]. Two accounts refer to it as being like a ‘sugar loaf’ [Betanzos 1557 (1996), Cieza de Leon 1553-4 (1976) ] with a pointed top [Betanzos 1557 (1996)]. The upright is described as being around 6 foot high [Anom Chronicler 1570 (1989) ] and being at least partially encased in gold [Betanzos 1557 (1996), Cieza de Leon 1553-4 (1976), Albornoz 1582 (2002)].
Two accounts definitely describe a platform/shelf/seat component to the ushnu [Discurso/Anom Chronicler 1570 (1990), Guaman Poma 1615 (1980)], and three other accounts also suggest this [Pizarro 1571 (1921), Santa Cruz Pachacuti 1613 (1980), Garcilaso de la Vega 1609 (1976)]. No dimensions are given other than Pizarro describing his bench or seat as 'small'. Garcilaso de la Vegas account states the platform was made of (more likely covered in) gold.
A final potential reference to a platform structure is from Cieza de Leon who describes a 'great theatre with tiers' or 'throne' erected in the Haukaypata plaza during the festival of 'Hatun Raimi' in Cuzco [1553-4 (1976)]. It is not clear whether this was a permanent or temporary structure, and the material from which it is made is not mentioned. No modern researcher that I am aware of has connected this description with the Cuzco ushnu. I feel it is unlikely that this description is of the ushnu as no other early author describes such a prominent structure in the plaza (excepting perhaps Guaman Pomas drawing, discussed below) and the Discurso (which specifically identifies the ushnu) describes its platform as a single shelf, not as being tiered. In addition Cieza de Leon himself describes seperately a 'sugar loaf' stone in the plaza which seems better to fit the description of the ushnu, and he does not connect the references he makes to this stone with his description of the structure used during the Hatun Raimi festival, suggesting they are descriptions of seperate and different structures. It seems more likely therefore that this was indeed a temporary structure, built to display religious images for the festival described.
Excitingly 'excavations in the centre of the Haukaypata during refurbishment of the fountain' in 1996 discovered 'alignments of Inka stones which appear to be the footings for a retaining wall of a structure which was probably the usnu' [Farrington and Raffino 1996]. This evidence would seem to confirm the platform component to the ushnu, and the location of the ushnu in the centre of the plaza. Frustrating I have been unable to source any further details about these excavations that might provide a dimension to the retaining wall/platform described. However it was reported that associated with the structure 'were found a large quantity of Inka ceramics and an offering of 4 camelid figurines, one gold, two silver and one made of spondylus shell' [Farrington and Raffino 1996].
A stone gold covered basin or font associated with the upright and platform components is described by several authors. It is described as being 3 foot high [Betanzos 1557 (1996)], golden or gold covered [Molina 1575 (1873), Garcilaso de la Vega 1609 (1966)], round or teat shaped [Pizarro 1571 (1921)] and it apparently drained to the Coricancha complex through a special conduit [Molina 1575 (1873), Garcilaso de la Vega 1609 (1966)]. At night its opening in the plaza was covered over with round woven mats [Pizarro 1571 (1921)]. Its location at the foot of the platform component is implied by the Discurso [1570 (1990)] although Betanzos describes the font as surrounding the upright stone [Betanzos 1557 (1996)]. I think Betanzos’ description of the upright in the basin is unlikely and it is possible he is describing his ‘font’ as a combination of platform and basin together, in which case the platform could be considered to be 3 foot high.
Completing this discussion regarding the description of the Cuzco ushnu I should mention that we do have one drawing that is labelled as being of the structure [Guaman Poma 1615 (from Gasparini and Margolies 1980)]. Unfortunately this image does not generally agree well with the written descriptions above. As Guaman Poma drew his picture at least some sixty years after the presumed destruction of the Cuzco ushnu (in 1555, see further below) it is almost certain he never saw it, and it is more likely he instead based his drawing on extent provincial ushnu, which as we will see in the next posting differed in their appearance and size from the Cuzco version..
.
Reconstruction
Based on the written descriptions I have made a hypothetical drawing of what the Cuzco ushnu might have looked like. I obviously acknowledge that it is quite likely the actual structure had differences from this drawing as there are gaps and inconsistencies in our descriptions, especially regarding the dimensions of the platform and its relationship to the upright. Hopefully with time the findings of the excavations in the plaza in 1996 will be published giving the dimensions of the retaining wall found which was probably associated with the ushnu. I feel it is unlikely that the platform would have been particularly high or large without there having been some comment in this regard by the chroniclers or the mention of a staircase so I have drawn its height as around 2-3 feet (this is another why I have not taken into account Cieza de Leons isolated description of the tiered structure erected in the plaza during the Hatun Raimi festival as referring to the Cuzco ushnu). In regard to its relationship to the upright the Discurso [1570 (1990)] implies the drain is at the foot of the platform (bench), and Betanzos [1557 (1996)] notes that the basin is adjacent to the upright. Combining these reports which each refer to the basin as a reference point suggests the upright was on the platform (implied by the Discurso also) at the foot of which was the basin. This is why I have drawn it as such, with the upright far enough back to allow the Inca to sit on the platform with the upright as a sort of backing to his throne.
Another consideration in making this drawing is that the Incas often treated stone sculptures in an abstract way, often disregarding symmetry. This may have been the case for the Cuzco ushnu, although the provincial examples, as will be seen, are generally symmetrical in shape. This may depend on whether the Cuzco ushnu was a structure built of masonary or a natural outcrop. As there is no indication it was a natural outcrop I tend to suspect it was of symmetrical design.
Bearing in mind these limitations I feel this is probably a roughly correct guide to the Cuzcos ushnus appearance.
Destruction
It would appear that the Cuzco ushnu was destroyed at an early date in the Spanish conquest. This could have been as early as 1534 when Cuzco was divided up by the Spanish into house lots and spaces for public and religious buildings. Or it could have been destroyed during or just after the first uprising of Manco Inca (1535), during which time the city itself became a battleground, the frontline often passing through the main plaza where the ushnu was located. It was certainly gone by 1551 as Betanzos [1557 (1996] notes that in its place the Spanish had located their gallows.
The reasons for its destruction are probably manifold – the ushnu was a structure intimately associated with Inca religion and with the role of the Inca, roles the Spanish were bent on eliminating and supplanting with their own (hence perhaps the symbolism of replacing the ushnu with a gallows). In addition the ushnu was associated with gold, both being covered with it and with gold objects being buried beneath it [Betanzos 1557 (1996)]. Forever gready for riches it would have not taken long for the Spanish to dig up the ushnu inorder to access these golden objects, destroying the structure in the process.
In my next two postings I shall comment on the provincial ushnu, of which we have surviving structures to examine, and determine if we can link the appearance of the two types of ushnu together. In the appendix below I refer to other researchers descriptions and reconstructions of the Cuzco Ushnu.
Reconstruction
Based on the written descriptions I have made a hypothetical drawing of what the Cuzco ushnu might have looked like. I obviously acknowledge that it is quite likely the actual structure had differences from this drawing as there are gaps and inconsistencies in our descriptions, especially regarding the dimensions of the platform and its relationship to the upright. Hopefully with time the findings of the excavations in the plaza in 1996 will be published giving the dimensions of the retaining wall found which was probably associated with the ushnu. I feel it is unlikely that the platform would have been particularly high or large without there having been some comment in this regard by the chroniclers or the mention of a staircase so I have drawn its height as around 2-3 feet (this is another why I have not taken into account Cieza de Leons isolated description of the tiered structure erected in the plaza during the Hatun Raimi festival as referring to the Cuzco ushnu). In regard to its relationship to the upright the Discurso [1570 (1990)] implies the drain is at the foot of the platform (bench), and Betanzos [1557 (1996)] notes that the basin is adjacent to the upright. Combining these reports which each refer to the basin as a reference point suggests the upright was on the platform (implied by the Discurso also) at the foot of which was the basin. This is why I have drawn it as such, with the upright far enough back to allow the Inca to sit on the platform with the upright as a sort of backing to his throne.Another consideration in making this drawing is that the Incas often treated stone sculptures in an abstract way, often disregarding symmetry. This may have been the case for the Cuzco ushnu, although the provincial examples, as will be seen, are generally symmetrical in shape. This may depend on whether the Cuzco ushnu was a structure built of masonary or a natural outcrop. As there is no indication it was a natural outcrop I tend to suspect it was of symmetrical design.
Bearing in mind these limitations I feel this is probably a roughly correct guide to the Cuzcos ushnus appearance.
Destruction
It would appear that the Cuzco ushnu was destroyed at an early date in the Spanish conquest. This could have been as early as 1534 when Cuzco was divided up by the Spanish into house lots and spaces for public and religious buildings. Or it could have been destroyed during or just after the first uprising of Manco Inca (1535), during which time the city itself became a battleground, the frontline often passing through the main plaza where the ushnu was located. It was certainly gone by 1551 as Betanzos [1557 (1996] notes that in its place the Spanish had located their gallows.
The reasons for its destruction are probably manifold – the ushnu was a structure intimately associated with Inca religion and with the role of the Inca, roles the Spanish were bent on eliminating and supplanting with their own (hence perhaps the symbolism of replacing the ushnu with a gallows). In addition the ushnu was associated with gold, both being covered with it and with gold objects being buried beneath it [Betanzos 1557 (1996)]. Forever gready for riches it would have not taken long for the Spanish to dig up the ushnu inorder to access these golden objects, destroying the structure in the process.
In my next two postings I shall comment on the provincial ushnu, of which we have surviving structures to examine, and determine if we can link the appearance of the two types of ushnu together. In the appendix below I refer to other researchers descriptions and reconstructions of the Cuzco Ushnu.
.
Link to the next post in this series - http://ushnu.blogspot.com/search/label/provincial%20ushnu
Appendix 1. - Other Researchers Descriptions/Reconstructions of the Cuzco Ushnu
Having made my own reconstruction of the Cuzco ushnu it is of interest to mention other researchers' findings. One of the main reasons I became interested in the Cuzco ushnu is that I was really confused by the inconsistencies in the way the ushnu was described in the literature.
Hemming in his description of the Cuzco ushnu simply quotes Molinas description that the ushnu was a fountain of gold and suggests there may have been a second ushnu in the city [Hemming and Ranney 1982].
Bauer references several authors [Albornoz, Pizarro, Betanzos, Molina], and describes the Cuzco ushnu 'a standing stone, or pillar, covered with gold' at the foot of which was a basin [Bauer 2004].
Protzen does not specifically mention the Cuzco ushnu but states that 'usnu designated the small sugarloaf stone on top of the platform...but with time the term came to stand for the entire structure' suggesting the original ushnu (that of Cuzco) was the small sugarloaf stone [Protzen 2000].
Gasparini and Margolies [1980] cite several early authors [Guaman Poma, Santa Cruz Pachacuti] and in their visual reconstruction of Cuzco show it as a small 3 tiered step pyramid in the Haukaypata plaza.
Von Hagen and Morris [1998] illustrate a small 2 tiered stepped platform in the plaza.
Brundage [1963 ] writes 'in the centre of the great square Pachacuti planted the capac usno (great dias), on which the ruler sat for state occassions. This was a shaped stone set in the earth....near by was the famous sugar-loaf stone...this stone had a perforation in it into which the sacred chicha of the Sun was poured...'. Thus he seperates the dias from the upright, and suggests the upright contained a hole that acted as a basin.
Hyslop quotes several sources including Pizarros account though he seems to incorrectly paraphrase it saying ashes were throw 'onto' a stone, not 'into' as Pizarro is normally translated. Overall Hyslop says the Cuzco ushnu was 'a pointed stone with a drainage system. Liquid were poured therein as offerings to the Sun, whose image was placed on a nearby bench' [Hyslop 1990]. This suggests Hyslop believed the upright was seperate from the platform.
Davies quotes Albornoz for his description of the Cuzco ushnu and says it was 'a pillar surmounted by a seat used only by the reigning Inca' [Davies 1995]. This however seems like an odd translation of Albornoz's text when compared with Bauers translation [2004].
D'Altroy describes 'a gilded stone...situated in the plaza next to which the Incas excavated a hole in the ground' [D'Altroy 2005].
The author whose findings are most similar to my own is Moseley who says, without citing sources in the text (in rather impassioned prose) 'The navel of the universe, the capac usnu, was a multifaceted dais of finely hewn rock with a vertical pillar and a carved seat, which stood within the plaza. The jutting pillar was a celestial sighting point for tracking heavenly luminaries and dark constellations in the quarters of the universe. The sculptured seat was a stone throne where the emperor, the 'son of the sun', maintained terrestrial order. The lord of the realm ascended the dais to review processions, to toast the gods, and to placate the ancestors. Copious libations of chicha were poured into the 'gullet of the sun', a regal basin of stone sheathed in gold resting at the foot of the usnu' [Moseley 2001].The main issue I would have with this as beyond the sighting of the sun between two pillars on the horizon at a certain time of year we have no evidence that I am aware of that the ushnu was used for 'tracking heavenly luminaries and dark constellations in the quarters of the universe' or how this might have been done. But it certainly sounds good!
And finally Meddens [1997], makes reference to Albornoz, Guaman Poma, Cobo (though I could not find the reference to an ushnu on the thirteenth ceque line in the Cuntisuyu sector that Meddens refers to), the Anonymous Chronicler, Santacruz Pachacuti Yamqui, Pizarro and Betanzos in discussing the Cuzco ushnu - or more accurately ushnus plural - as Meddens accepts and largely draws on the findings of Tom Zuidema. Zuidema (according to Meddens) suggests there were 2 ushnu in Cuzco, one in the main plaza and 'the other 13 deg 30 mins south of east' [Meddens 1997] - wherever that might be. Meddens goes on to say 'The two usnus identified by Zuidema in the Inca capital do not appear to have been constructed in the shape of truncated pyramids. Their size was much smaller...although they clearly had a basin and an associated drainage system'. Regarding the ushnu in the main plaza Meddens says 'its primary function was as the seat of the sun rather than the seat of the Inca' [Meddens 1997].
Appendix 1. - Other Researchers Descriptions/Reconstructions of the Cuzco Ushnu
Having made my own reconstruction of the Cuzco ushnu it is of interest to mention other researchers' findings. One of the main reasons I became interested in the Cuzco ushnu is that I was really confused by the inconsistencies in the way the ushnu was described in the literature.
Hemming in his description of the Cuzco ushnu simply quotes Molinas description that the ushnu was a fountain of gold and suggests there may have been a second ushnu in the city [Hemming and Ranney 1982].
Bauer references several authors [Albornoz, Pizarro, Betanzos, Molina], and describes the Cuzco ushnu 'a standing stone, or pillar, covered with gold' at the foot of which was a basin [Bauer 2004].
Protzen does not specifically mention the Cuzco ushnu but states that 'usnu designated the small sugarloaf stone on top of the platform...but with time the term came to stand for the entire structure' suggesting the original ushnu (that of Cuzco) was the small sugarloaf stone [Protzen 2000].
Gasparini and Margolies [1980] cite several early authors [Guaman Poma, Santa Cruz Pachacuti] and in their visual reconstruction of Cuzco show it as a small 3 tiered step pyramid in the Haukaypata plaza.
Von Hagen and Morris [1998] illustrate a small 2 tiered stepped platform in the plaza.
Brundage [1963 ] writes 'in the centre of the great square Pachacuti planted the capac usno (great dias), on which the ruler sat for state occassions. This was a shaped stone set in the earth....near by was the famous sugar-loaf stone...this stone had a perforation in it into which the sacred chicha of the Sun was poured...'. Thus he seperates the dias from the upright, and suggests the upright contained a hole that acted as a basin.
Hyslop quotes several sources including Pizarros account though he seems to incorrectly paraphrase it saying ashes were throw 'onto' a stone, not 'into' as Pizarro is normally translated. Overall Hyslop says the Cuzco ushnu was 'a pointed stone with a drainage system. Liquid were poured therein as offerings to the Sun, whose image was placed on a nearby bench' [Hyslop 1990]. This suggests Hyslop believed the upright was seperate from the platform.
Davies quotes Albornoz for his description of the Cuzco ushnu and says it was 'a pillar surmounted by a seat used only by the reigning Inca' [Davies 1995]. This however seems like an odd translation of Albornoz's text when compared with Bauers translation [2004].
D'Altroy describes 'a gilded stone...situated in the plaza next to which the Incas excavated a hole in the ground' [D'Altroy 2005].
The author whose findings are most similar to my own is Moseley who says, without citing sources in the text (in rather impassioned prose) 'The navel of the universe, the capac usnu, was a multifaceted dais of finely hewn rock with a vertical pillar and a carved seat, which stood within the plaza. The jutting pillar was a celestial sighting point for tracking heavenly luminaries and dark constellations in the quarters of the universe. The sculptured seat was a stone throne where the emperor, the 'son of the sun', maintained terrestrial order. The lord of the realm ascended the dais to review processions, to toast the gods, and to placate the ancestors. Copious libations of chicha were poured into the 'gullet of the sun', a regal basin of stone sheathed in gold resting at the foot of the usnu' [Moseley 2001].The main issue I would have with this as beyond the sighting of the sun between two pillars on the horizon at a certain time of year we have no evidence that I am aware of that the ushnu was used for 'tracking heavenly luminaries and dark constellations in the quarters of the universe' or how this might have been done. But it certainly sounds good!
And finally Meddens [1997], makes reference to Albornoz, Guaman Poma, Cobo (though I could not find the reference to an ushnu on the thirteenth ceque line in the Cuntisuyu sector that Meddens refers to), the Anonymous Chronicler, Santacruz Pachacuti Yamqui, Pizarro and Betanzos in discussing the Cuzco ushnu - or more accurately ushnus plural - as Meddens accepts and largely draws on the findings of Tom Zuidema. Zuidema (according to Meddens) suggests there were 2 ushnu in Cuzco, one in the main plaza and 'the other 13 deg 30 mins south of east' [Meddens 1997] - wherever that might be. Meddens goes on to say 'The two usnus identified by Zuidema in the Inca capital do not appear to have been constructed in the shape of truncated pyramids. Their size was much smaller...although they clearly had a basin and an associated drainage system'. Regarding the ushnu in the main plaza Meddens says 'its primary function was as the seat of the sun rather than the seat of the Inca' [Meddens 1997].
.
Image Credits
top left - Gasparini and Margolies [1980]
bottom left - Authors drawing
References
Albornoz, Cristobal de - in Bauer [2004]
Anonymous Chronicler - in Aveni [1989]
Aveni, Anthony. Empires of Time. 1989, Basic Books
Bauer, Brian S. Ancient Cuzco, Heartland of the Inca. 2004, University of Texas Press
Betanzos, Juan de. Narrative of the Incas. Translated by Hamilton and Buchanan. 1996, University of Texas Press
Brundage, Burr C. Empire of the Incas. 1963. University of Oklahoma Press
Cieza de Leon, Pedro de. The Incas of Pedro Cieza de Leon. Translated by Harriet de Onis. 1976, University of Oklahoma Press
Cobo, Bernabe. Inca Religion and Customs. Translated by Roland Hamilton. 1990, University of Texas Press
D'Altroy, Terence N. the Incas. 2005, Blackwell Publishing
Davies, Nigel. The Incas. 1995, University Press of Colorado
Discurso - in Hyslop [1990]Hemming, John. The Conquest of the Incas. 1974, Macmillan London
Farrington, Ian S and Rodolfo Raffino. Mosoq Suyukunapa Tariqnin; Nuevos Hallazgos En El Tawantinsuyu - Inka News From Around the Empire. 1996, Tawantinsuyu Journal, Australian National University, Canberra
Garcilaso de la Vega, Inca. Royal Commentaries of the Incas and General History of Peru. Translated by HV Livermore. 1966, University of Texas
Gasparini, G and L Margolies. Inca Architecture. 1980, Indiana University Press
Guaman Poma de Ayala, Felipe - in Gasparini and Margolies [1980]
Hemming, John and Edward Ranney. Monuments of the Incas. 1982, Little, Brown and Co.
Hyslop, John. Inka settlement planning. 1990, University of Texas Press
Meddens F M. Function and Meaning of the Ushnu in Late Horizon Peru. 1997, Tawantinsuyu Journal, Australian National University, Canberra
Molina, Cristobal de (of Cuzco). Relation of the fables and rites of the Incas, translated by CR Markham. 1873, Hakluyt Society
Morris, Craig. The Architecture of Tahuantinsuyo in the volume The Incas, Art and Symbol. 2005(?), Banco de Credito del Peru
Moseley, Michael E. The Incas and their Ancestors. 2001, Thames and Hudson
Pizarro, Pedro. Relation of the discovery and conquest of the kingdoms of Peru. Translated by Ainsworth Means. 1921, The Cortes Society
Protzen, Jean-Pierre. Inca Architecture in the volume The Inca World, The Development of the pre-Columbian Peru AD 1000-1534. 2000, University of Oklahoma Press
Rowe, John H. Inca Culture at the Time of the Spanish Conquest in Handbook of South American Indians vol 2. 1946, Washington DC
Santa Cruz Pachacuti Yamqui Salcamayhua, Juan de - in Hyslop [1990]
Von Hagen, A and C Morris. The Cities of the Ancient Andes. 1998, Thames and Hudson
No comments:
Post a Comment