Two Different Sources, Two Different Perus

James Dancho

With Peruvian elections over one cannot help but wonder how the country of Peru came to be what we see today. The uninitiated may expect accounts of history to be consistent, but this is rarely the case even among canonical works. Two widely accepted sources, John Hemming’s book “The Conquest of the Inca” and Titu Cusi Yapanqui’s account “An Inca Account of the Conquest of Peru,” give very different readings ofPeruvian history. Hemmings, a leading scholar in Inca culture, sees the formation of the Kingdom of Peru quite differently from Cusi’s, son of an Inca ruler, and himself an eventual Inca ruler. Looking at the reasoning for Atahualpa’s capture, the capture/ treatment of Manco, and the perception of the Spaniards one is able to see distinct differences in both sources.

            Hemming’s book is a very detailed account of the conquest with much focus upon the civil war that consumed the country during the Spaniard’s first arrival. Hemming’s stance is skeptical of the Inca showing him in a more human light as opposed to the Cusi’s more heroic account. In regards to the capture of Atahualpa, Hemmings explained: “The Inca admitted the fate he had planned for the strangers. ‘He answered half smiling…he intended to capture the Governor but the reverse had happened.’” (Hemming 46) Using this example one can see that a reader would assume the Inca to be conniving but with Cusi’s account one is not so quick to attack the Inca. Cusi explains that Atahualpa took measures to understand these foreigners on his land. Spaniards came and took as they pleased bringing disease and having no respect for Inca customs. Pizarro and Atahualpa’s first encounter was not courtly with Atahualpa claiming, “Well, you do not have any regard for my gesture, and I do not have any regard for yours.” (Cusi 15) It seems one cannot be so quick to judge.

            Though Cusi’s account is a primary source it leaves a strong bias for the Incan people only recounting the evils done upon them by the Spaniards. Manco Inca, Cusi’s father, stated: “Do you think that it is possible that I am a dog or sheep? So, if I am not a dog nor any of these things I mentioned, what is your reasoning for treating me in this manner?” (Cusi 63) Strong tensions lie within Cusi’s account while Hemming’s work is more detached in his effort to understand the Spaniards while reasoning for their actions. Using theories to justify actions, Hemmings claimed: “A third theory was that Manco had determined to rebel and sent Paullu with instructions to annihilate Almagro’s army at the appropriate moment.” (Hemming 172)

            Even as early as 1532 both Spaniards and Inca alike carried distorted views of one another. Hemming’s book shows the Inca perceiving the Spaniards as gods but after some investigation coming to the conclusion that they were other worldly people but mortal and with that came the realization that they might of dominate these foreign invaders. Cusi explained: “The Tallanas said that they had seen some people arrive in their land who dressed very differently from our people; these new people seemed to be viracochas.”(Cusi 9)  On the other hand the Spaniards associated the Inca as a group of people similar to the Aztec since that was their only prior experience. Remembering those experiences helped the Spaniard’s take advantage of the Inca. Hemmings explains Atahualpa’s perception of the Spaniards: “Atahualpa was surprised to see no Spaniards. He later admitted he thought they must have hidden from fear at the sight of his magnificent army. “(Hemming 41)) Atahualpa’s capture happened regardless but the perceptions this great leader had upon first meeting the Spaniards altered history in favor of the conquistador.  

            Two different sources form the same period, different accounts, but additive when encountered together. The different perspectives challenge the reader to form her own synthesis. Understanding and reconciling these very different sources helps us to understand how Peru came to be. I highly recommended reading both sources, Hemming’s lengthy analysis, as well as  Cusi’s recounting. Both narratives deserve our attention.