Memoriales antiguas historiales del Peru

Fernando Montesino's Memoriales antiguas historiales del Peru is a tricky source. The manuscript translated by Philip AInsworth Means includes a critical introduction by Clements R. Markham indicating that the chronicle was likely based on a lost text by the Jesuit mestizo, Blas Valera. However, Montesinos endeavored to force the long history of Peru into a Christian timeline based on the arrival of Noah's son, Ophir, in Peru and reckoning years by 1000 year periods since the Flood. It also appears that Montesinos frequently confused ancient, pre-Inca kings with those better known from other sources on the Inca period. Nonetheless, despite the clearly legendary character of many of the pre-Inca kings and the problems with the chronology suggested by Montesinos, his work is an invaluable source on how, filtered through his own bias, the amautas and quipucamayocs possibly conceived the ancient history of Peru. Furthermore, the idea of the Incas rendering time through cycles with new suns in which, after every 500 years or so, a Pachacuti reigned, is a fascinating one that could point to Mesoamerican influences. Alas, the more reliable work of Blas Valera is lost, forcing us to make sense of the Montesino's work with what has survived from various other Spanish chroniclers, Garcilaso de la Vega and Guaman Poma de Ayala. 

In some respects, the chronicle is mainly a long list of names with some receiving great detail on events during their reigns. This brings to mind sources like the Diwan of the Sayfawa in Kanem-Borno. Like this African dynasty, a number of critical questions has arisen with regard to the chronology used, the possibility of telescoping or confusion, the inclusion of early kings who are of a more legendary character, and the function of such long lists. Sadly, unlike Kanem-Borno, we lack written sources from the pre-conquest period that corroborate it. But, in accordance with the chronicle of Guaman Poma de Ayala, one can also see how a chronicle written as a long list would be likely based on oral traditions preserving history through songs and genealogies while also, perhaps, reflecting the use of quipus. Indeed, Montesinos himself states this, as he claims amautas and quipus were the sources of his chronicle. However, unlike any other source, this is the only one that delves deeply into the matter of pre-Inca kings, before the Inca state of Cuzco developed into a powerful empire that dominated Peru and surrounding areas. It even alludes to migrations and invasions from the Amazonian region and north that, if even remotely true, show how well-connected Peru was to other parts of South America. 

Were some of these pre-Inca kings, also said to have been based in Cuzco and having the same origin as the Incas in other creation myths recorded in the chronicles, actually references to Wari and Tiwanaku kings? Why were they then later remembered as kings based in Cuzco? Was this simply an example of Inca-period amautas transforming the past in a way that affirmed the ultimate Inca authority over Peru based on antiquity? Or was this a reflection of a cyclical view of the past, with similarly-named kings assuming to have ruled over various periods of greatness and decline for thousands of years? Undoubtedly, the chronology used here reminds one of that used by Guaman Poma de Ayala, who, instead of multiplying the number of kings, extended the reigns and life-spans of the Inca emperors and rulers back to about 2000 years ago. However, the traditions recorded by Montesinos allude to interesting events that, while perhaps mainly of an apocryphal character, include a loss system of ancient writing, wars and migrations with people from the East and North and across the sea (including "black" people in their ranks), and the earlier expansion of the Peruvian kings into Quito. Again, Montesinos confuses some of these earlier kings and their exploits with the better known (and significantly later) Inca period of imperial expansion, but perhaps these tales reflect earlier Tiwanaku, Wari, and Chimu states. 

Ultimately, we are of the view that the long list of 93 kings or more of Peru likely does reflect earlier periods in which Wari and Tiwanaku were major powers in the region. The extended chronology and the possibility of collateral succession probably indicate that the extended chronology of Montesinos is far too long. Nonetheless, some of the details reported here are fascinating though difficult or impossible to prove. The idea of the ancient Peruvians having a system of writing using parchment and leaves is fascinating, especially since other traditions about Viracocha (sometimes confused with St. Thomas the Apostle) mention him carrying a book. Whether or not it was actually true that an oracle demanded they cease the use of this writing system seems more legendary, but it would suggest that the Incas developed quipus (including the phonetic ones) from an earlier system based on a writing script. Why Guaman Poma's sources did not include this extensive list of pre-Inca kings may have also reflected his different sources, not based in Ecuador, as well as the influence of Christianity on his conception of time. Perhaps thinking of the Biblical stories and Christian traditions of long-lived patriarchs and the way other traditions in Peru stretched out the chronology of Inca rulers, Guaman Poma instead followed the traditional list of Inca-period rulers based at Cuzco while attempting to preserve the longer time period with inexplicably long reigns. Guaman Poma then was freed from the long list of others who, to be even somewhat accurate for the pre-Inca period, must have been referring to Wari and Tiwanaku rulers whilst forcing that earlier period into a history of the Cuzco-based kings.