﻿Vol.2] 
  INCA 
  CULTURE 
  — 
  ROWE 
  195 
  

  

  on 
  Colonial 
  Lima 
  (Historia 
  de 
  la 
  Fundaci6n 
  de 
  Lima, 
  1882), 
  which 
  I 
  

   have 
  cited 
  as 
  Cobo, 
  1935. 
  

  

  The 
  rest 
  of 
  the 
  important 
  chroniclers 
  are 
  best 
  listed 
  chronologically 
  

   beginning 
  with 
  the 
  earliest. 
  Estete, 
  1918; 
  Sancho, 
  1917b; 
  Xerez, 
  1917; 
  

   and 
  the 
  Anonymous 
  Conqueror, 
  1929, 
  were 
  all 
  eyewitnesses 
  of 
  the 
  

   Conquest 
  who 
  wrote 
  down 
  their 
  impressions 
  immediately. 
  Their 
  

   descriptions 
  provide 
  a 
  valuable 
  check 
  on 
  subsequent 
  writers. 
  Pedro 
  

   Pizarro, 
  1844, 
  and 
  Crist6bal 
  de 
  Molina 
  of 
  Santiago, 
  1916, 
  were 
  other 
  

   eyewitnesses 
  who 
  wrote 
  somewhat 
  later 
  (1570 
  and 
  about 
  1556, 
  re- 
  

   spectively). 
  Their 
  descriptions 
  are 
  more 
  complete 
  but 
  seem 
  some- 
  

   what 
  less 
  reliable 
  than 
  those 
  of 
  the 
  earlier 
  four. 
  

  

  The 
  first 
  great 
  general 
  work 
  on 
  Perti 
  was 
  written 
  by 
  Pedro 
  de 
  

   Cieza 
  de 
  Le6n 
  in 
  1551. 
  Its 
  author 
  was 
  a 
  soldier 
  who 
  had 
  traveled 
  

   all 
  over 
  the 
  Andean 
  area, 
  honest, 
  conscientious, 
  and 
  thorough. 
  The 
  

   first 
  two 
  parts 
  of 
  his 
  "Cronica 
  del 
  Peril," 
  the 
  geographical 
  description, 
  

   published 
  first 
  in 
  1553, 
  and 
  the 
  history 
  of 
  the 
  Inca, 
  which 
  remained 
  in 
  

   manuscript 
  until 
  1880, 
  are 
  the 
  most 
  useful 
  for 
  our 
  purposes. 
  They 
  

   are 
  cited 
  as 
  Cieza, 
  1554, 
  and 
  Cieza, 
  1880, 
  respectively. 
  Cieza 
  is 
  very 
  

   reliable, 
  but 
  tends 
  to 
  generalize 
  instead 
  of 
  giving 
  specific 
  examples, 
  

   which 
  is 
  a 
  little 
  annoying. 
  He 
  is 
  our 
  principal 
  source 
  for 
  the 
  outlying 
  

   provinces 
  of 
  the 
  Inca 
  Empire. 
  Contemporary 
  with 
  Cieza 
  is 
  Juan 
  de 
  

   Betanzos, 
  part 
  of 
  whose 
  "Suma 
  y 
  Relation" 
  was 
  published 
  in 
  1880. 
  

   It 
  also 
  was 
  written 
  about 
  1551. 
  Betanzos 
  married 
  a 
  daughter 
  of 
  

   Atahuallpa 
  and 
  had 
  exceptional 
  opportunities 
  for 
  the 
  investigation 
  of 
  

   Inca 
  antiquities. 
  He 
  is 
  especially 
  useful 
  for 
  Inca 
  legends. 
  

  

  Juan 
  Polo 
  de 
  Ondegardo 
  was 
  a 
  lawyer 
  and 
  government 
  official 
  at 
  

   Cuzco 
  who 
  made 
  exhaustive 
  inquiries 
  about 
  Inca 
  government 
  and 
  

   religion 
  in 
  the 
  1550's. 
  He 
  wrote 
  a 
  number 
  of 
  reports 
  between 
  1561 
  

   and 
  1571, 
  some 
  of 
  which 
  have 
  been 
  found 
  and 
  published 
  (Polo, 
  1916 
  a 
  

   and 
  b; 
  1917 
  a 
  and 
  b; 
  1940). 
  He 
  is 
  generally 
  reliable, 
  but 
  his 
  style 
  is 
  

   very 
  obscure 
  and 
  difficult. 
  Both 
  Acosta 
  and 
  Cobo 
  used 
  him 
  very 
  

   heavily. 
  

  

  A 
  few 
  writers 
  who 
  never 
  went 
  to 
  Peru 
  themselves 
  deserve 
  notice 
  

   because 
  of 
  the 
  care 
  with 
  which 
  they 
  collected 
  and 
  used 
  the 
  reports 
  of 
  

   others, 
  the 
  originals 
  of 
  which 
  have 
  since 
  disappeared. 
  The 
  two 
  most 
  

   important 
  are 
  Oviedo, 
  1851-55, 
  and 
  Las 
  Casas, 
  1892 
  and 
  1909. 
  Both 
  

   wrote 
  in 
  the 
  first 
  half 
  of 
  the 
  16th 
  century. 
  Las 
  Casas' 
  manuscript 
  was 
  

   heavily 
  drawn 
  upon 
  by 
  subsequent 
  writers 
  like 
  Roman 
  y 
  Zamora, 
  

   1897. 
  

  

  Francisco 
  de 
  Toledo, 
  Viceroy 
  of 
  Peru 
  from 
  1569 
  to 
  1582, 
  had 
  careful 
  

   inquiries 
  made 
  about 
  Inca 
  customs 
  and 
  history 
  which 
  are 
  among 
  the 
  

   most 
  valuable 
  records 
  we 
  have. 
  Toledo 
  is 
  a 
  much-discussed 
  figure, 
  

   about 
  whose 
  character 
  there 
  is 
  considerable 
  disagreement. 
  (Cf 
  . 
  Means, 
  

   1928, 
  pp. 
  479-97; 
  Levillier, 
  1935.) 
  It 
  seems 
  not 
  to 
  have 
  occurred 
  to 
  

  

  