FORMS OF ANCESTRAL IMAGES

Arriaga (1968: 90), a key extirpator of idolatries, thought that idolatrous ritual persisted because there were constant physical reminders of obligation to ancestral presences. The idols, mummy bundles, lesser spirit-figures, and related materials (musical instruments, apparel, maize beer, etc.) were all “incitements of idolatry”. In effect, Arriaga attributes to things precisely what Gell (1998) would term “agency”. The cult objects, by way of their availability/vicinity, fostered continued attention to ancestors.

Native groups perceived ancestral divinity and associations in different types of things. Regional creator deities were called huacas, and were manifested frequently as stone monuments or geographical features, such as mountains, stone uprights and outcrops (Duviols 1967; Salomon 1991). The word huaca, in particular, seems to have had some inconsistency in usage. Huaca referred to creator divinities but also grew to mean a range of sacred things and places, especially that which manifested the superhuman (Salomon 1991: 17) or had treasures (Ramirez 1996: 142).

Scholars also recognize the importance of mummy bundles (mallquis) of important individuals who were considered group progenitors and the offspring of huacas (Doyle 1988: 97). Similar to the conceptual slippage of huaca, when describing images, idols or apical ancestors, the use of “mallqui” and “huaca” as terms, often converged (Duviols 1967; Zuidema 1973: 19).

Native peoples also kept “lesser” idols, known sometimes as chancas, conopas, or con churi (cunchur). These were often small stones, sometimes modified, with peculiar shapes or colors. Usually described as personal or family “household” gods, these idols were essentially specific to an individual and his/her near kin (Arguedas and Duviols 1966: 255-256; Arriaga 1968: 28, 68; Duviols 1967: 20). These idols were also often referred to as “relatives,” with or without specific names (Mills 1997: 80-82). As heirlooms and ritual objects, chanca idols were passed down from elders to younger blood relations, usually along patrilineal lines. It is noteworthy that indigenous Andean people could be quite protective of their family gods. They were reluctant to relinquish them or divulge their

Table 51.1. Schematic representation of graded relationships and qualities among ancestral forms during Inca and colonial times. Parentheses indicate with exceptions.

Whereabouts to the Spanish clergy, even in the face of severe punishment. While household idols may have simply been more accessible and intimate sources of superhuman favor (Mills 1997: 78-93), one also wonders to what degree Andeans clung to them after the greater idols were destroyed (see Doyle 1988: 66).

Ancestral images during colonial times shared in a series of unequal relationships or capacities (Table 51.1), which seem, ultimately, to have articulated concerns about scale, place and supernatural reach. At the apex of potency were the huacas, those superhuman beings who were worshipped at a local as well as regional scale, and were usually associated with fairly immobile features of the landscape. Then there were mallquis, who were mummies of recent deceased, also associated with the landscape, typically with their repositories identified as origin places, such as caves (machays) or tombs (chullpas). Then there were the personal/family divinities, who were highly specific, portable, concealable and largely private. These stayed with the person or in the houses of their keepers.

Perhaps the most salient point is the wide variability in the scale, form and qualities, which Andeans attributed to ancestral beings. Four centuries ago, Arriaga (1968: 11) discussed their diversity and mutability, saying: “the Indians recognize deities in small things, for it is known that these figures and stones are images representing hills, mountains and riverbeds, or even their progenitors and forebears, whom they invoke and worship as their creators and from whom they expect well-being and happiness”.