Archives

The question “Who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?” has long been one of the most controversial questions in ancient history, not only because of its religious dimension, but because the search for an answer places us directly within a highly complex zone where sacred religious texts, historical reality, archaeology, and collective memory intersect.

Contrary to the commonly circulated attempts to identify a specific pharaoh by name, a more appropriate scholarly approach does not search for a name as much as it searches for a historical context within which the story may have taken shape. The true starting point in examining the historical context of the Pharaoh of the Exodus, therefore, lies in determining when the Israelites (otherwise known as the ancient Hebrews) actually entered Egypt.

Reconsidering the Question of Israelite Presence in Egypt

There is nothing in the Egyptian archaeological record that explicitly indicates the presence of any group called “the Israelites” inside Egypt during any phase of the New Egyptian Kingdom. No inscriptions describe deportation, nor are there records of forced labor projects associated with a group bearing this name. Nevertheless, the absence of evidence does not necessarily mean the absence of the event itself. Rather, it may indicate that this group was limited in number and lacked political significance at the time.

Egyptian texts clearly refer to the entry of groups known as “Asiatics” (Aamu) into Egypt, whether for work, residence, or as a result of unrest in the East.

This makes the idea of a Semitic group—possibly the nucleus of the Israelites—living in Egypt historically plausible, without requiring the assumption of a sudden migration or an organized invasion. The key question, however, is when exactly these groups formed within Egypt.

What Does the Merneptah Stele Tell Us?

The Merneptah Stele, dating to the reign of the Nineteenth Dynasty (c. 1208 BCE), represents the earliest known mention of the name “Israel” in any historical source. The inscription states: “Israel is laid waste; its seed is no more.”

What is striking about this inscription is that:

• “Israel” seems to be conveyed as a people, not a state.
• The text does not imply mass deportation.

It is notable that the inscription does not mention deportation or captivity, instead employing the familiar propagandistic language of Egyptian royal inscriptions, which exaggerated victories without precise documentation of events.

This allows the phrase to be understood as describing a military blow that ended the cohesive social/political existence of a local group in Canaan, rather than a complete ethnic extermination.

This opens an important possibility: that the group known as “Israel” may have suffered defeat or fragmentation in Canaan without disappearing entirely or being fully deported.

_____________________________

The Merneptah Stele, housed in Cairo, Egypt. Ovedc, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons

_____________________________

From Defeat to Migration — The Hypothesis of Movement to Egypt

In light of this, one may propose the hypothesis that:

• The remaining members of this group, which was defeated in Canaan, may have moved to Egypt, whether as captives, forced migrants, or economic migrants.
• These groups were very small in number.
• Over time, and under difficult social and economic conditions, they multiplied within Egypt.

This scenario explains why no significant trace appears in Egyptian records and why they later emerge as a distinct group with a recognizable identity, yet limited in size. Such a migration from Canaan to Egypt does not need to have been collective or officially documented. It could have been:

• Gradual,
• Limited in number,
• Later absorbed into Egyptian society as a subordinate or laboring class.

This aligns with the image later presented in religious texts.

Between History and Collective Memory

Archaeological research in the Canaanite highlands indicates that between 1100 and 1000 BCE, hundreds of new small villages appeared suddenly, lacking fortifications, palaces, or evidence of invasion. These settlements consisted of simple, uniform houses, suggesting the arrival of a new group practicing a different way of life.

Many scholars have linked these groups to the Israelites. So, even if we apply the traditional biblical Exodus narrative and accept the story that the Israelites wandered in the wilderness for forty years, it would not be a stretch to suggest that they became dispersed and entered Canaan gradually as individuals or small groups who settled in the highlands. This would explain why these groups are scarcely mentioned in the archaeological record, given their small numbers and limited political or economic importance at the time.

When Can the Exodus Be Dated?

If we assume that the entry of these groups into Egypt occurred in the late Nineteenth Dynasty (around 1200 BCE), then their departure—if it occurred—would logically fall at the end of the Twentieth Dynasty (approximately 1100–1050 BCE) — based on Canaan Archaeological evidences — a period at the end of the New Kingdom characterized by:

• Collapse of central authority,
• Severe economic crises,
• Weakening of the army,
• The rise of the priesthood and its control over southern Egypt,
• The absence of effective oversight over the provinces.

All of these factors could create an environment contributive to the departure of a small group without official documentation.

Historical Comparisons to Identify the Likely Characteristics of the Period of the Pharaoh of the Exodus

Based on comparing descriptions found in religious texts to historical records:

According to religious tradition, “Moses” received revelation in his thirties or forties. If one assumes the existence of a single Egyptian ruler from Moses’ birth until the Exodus, then the expected reign of that ruler would exceed thirty years.

If we assume that the Israelites entered Egypt in the 12th century BCE, at roughly the same time the Merneptah Stele was composed, and that this entry occurred in the form of a small group which later multiplied within Egypt, then it is natural to place the Exodus in the subsequent period—namely from the late Nineteenth Dynasty through the Twenty-first Dynasty. It would also be natural for neither the entry nor the departure to be documented, due to the small size of these group and their limited impact.

Religious Narrative and Historical Conditions

According to religious tradition, famine and plagues spread as punishment for Pharaoh and his supporters prior to the Exodus. Egyptian sources likewise indicate that the late Twentieth and early Twenty-first Dynasties witnessed famine, epidemics, climatic disturbances, and reduced Nile floods.

Religious texts also describe the priests and magicians turning against Pharaoh following their confrontation with “Moses”. Historically, Egyptian texts indicate that during the late Twentieth Dynasty—particularly under Ramesses XI (1106/7–1077 (approximate) BCE)—Egypt was divided into north and south, the priesthood defied the King’s commands, controlled the south, royal authority weakened, military power declined, and social and economic unrest intensified.

As a result of the state’s weakness during the late Twentieth Dynasty, documentation declined significantly, meaning that many events may have gone unrecorded.

The Ambiguity of the End and the Drowning Narrative: A Possible Historical Reading

Drawing from the temple of Khonsu in Karnak (Room E). Closeup of pharaoh Ramesses XI while taking a sort of “shower of Life” performed by two gods. Karnak, Reign of Ramesses XI, end-20th Dynasty, end-New Kingdom. [Lepsius’ Denkmaeler, Abtheilung III (Band VII), pl. 239]. Karl Richard Lepsius (1810-84), Public Domain, Wikimedia Commons

The ambiguity surrounding the end of the reign of Ramesses XI acquires particular significance when compared with the religious narrative that suggests, by some scholar’s interpretation, the drowning of Pharaoh during the pursuit of the Israelites. Ancient Egyptian history, despite its propagandistic nature, was accustomed to documenting the deaths of kings and their funerary rites, even during periods of instability. In the case of Ramesses XI, however, we encounter an almost complete silence: no text describing his death, no confirmed tomb (although many scholars connect an unfinished tomb in the Valley of the Kings to him, with no burial), and no mummy that can be attributed to him with certainty.

From a purely historical perspective, this absence cannot be considered direct evidence of a drowning incident. At the same time, it opens the door to the possibility, especially when it is taken into account that drowning and body loss represents the worst possible scenario for the Egyptian royal funerary system, which depended on the recovery of the body, its mummification, and the performance of complex rituals intended to guarantee the king’s eternal life in the afterworld.

Accordingly, the absence of any clear funerary evidence for Ramesses XI should not be read as an isolated mystery, but rather within the broader context of an era marked by the collapse of central authority, the division of the state, and the decline of official record-keeping. In such a climate, a religious narrative describing a humiliating and catastrophic end for the king—such as death by drowning—becomes consistent with the historical void, even if this connection remains within the realm of possibility rather than certainty.

Taking into consideration that the political fragmentation associated with the reign of Ramesses XI was not present at the beginning of his rule, but developed gradually and reached its peak in its final years—could explain a time when a major undocumented event could plausibly have occurred.

Conclusions

Based on the synthesis of archaeological data and religious texts, it becomes possible to propose that:

• The Israelites did not suddenly appear in Egypt. Rather, they gradually emerged from small groups that lived in Canaan and moved to Egypt during the Nineteenth Dynasty and their identity formed over time.
• Their departure from Egypt occurred in the late Twentieth Dynasty (meaning they remained in Egypt for approximately 150 years).
• Their return to Canaan was also gradual, in the form of small groups.

This reading does not negate the religious narrative, but situates it within a historically plausible context and opens the door to a deeper and better understanding of the emergence of one of the most significant identities in the history of the ancient Near East.

The Pyramids and the Question of Chronology

Based on this hypothesis, the widespread association between the Israelites and the construction of the pyramids has no sound historical or chronological basis. The pyramids were built during the Old Kingdom, specifically under the Fourth Dynasty—more than a thousand years before the Israelites appear in the historical record.

If, as archaeological and historical evidence suggests, Israelite presence in Egypt began during the late New Kingdom, then the chronological gap between these events makes it logically impossible for them to have participated in pyramid construction. Thus, linking the Israelites to the pyramids is simply the result of a common conflation between later religious traditions and firmly established historical facts .

Final Assessment

Archaeological evidence from the Canaanite highlands places the emergence of the Israelites in Canaan between 1100 and 1000 BCE, indicating that the Exodus from Egypt would have occurred during this same period—approximately during the reign of Ramesses XI.

Ramesses XI ruled for nearly thirty years, and no confirmed tomb or mummy has been found for him. His reign was marked by economic hardship, political fragmentation, and weakening central authority. These conditions may point to the occurrence of a major event during his reign—one that significantly weakened the Egyptian state but was not documented due to the decline in record-keeping and the Egyptian tendency to omit defeats.

Ramesses XI was the last ruler of the Twentieth Dynasty. After his death, the Twenty-first Dynasty began, marking the period of decline of ancient Egyptian civilization. This may indicate the occurrence of a powerful and destabilizing event from which Egyptian civilization never fully recovered, instead continuing in a prolonged state of deterioration until its eventual disappearance.

Final Question

In light of all the above, can we answer the question that has long puzzled scholars and historians: Who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?

This article does not provide a definitive answer. Instead, it leaves the conclusion to the reader’s judgment after considering the evidence presented. The question remains open—subject to debate, interpretation, and continued dialogue.

_____________________________

References

• Cline, Eric H. 2014. 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Redford, Donald B. 1992. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Kitchen, Kenneth A. 2003. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
• Kemp, Barry J. 2006. Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization. London: Routledge.
• Janssen, Jac. J. 1997. Village Varia: Ten Studies on the History and Administration of Deir el-Medina. Leiden: Brill.
• Finkelstein, Israel. 1988. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
• Lehner, Mark. 1997. The Complete Pyramids. London: Thames & Hudson.

_____________________________

Cover Image, Top Left: Amenemope Dynasty 20 reign of Ramesses XI wood gesso and paint  Mary Harrsch, CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons

Archaeology is widely associated with ancient ruins, lost civilizations, buried temples, and forgotten artifacts. However, archaeology is not limited to dusty landscapes or long-abandoned settlements. At its core, archaeology is the study of material culture—the physical objects people leave behind and what those objects reveal about society, behavior, and time.
When viewed through this lens, even the modern workplace becomes a rich archaeological landscape. From office layouts to discarded documents, from technology to coffee mugs, today’s offices silently document the patterns, values, and routines of contemporary human life.

This article explores how archaeologists interpret workplaces as cultural sites, what future researchers might uncover about our work habits, and how modern office environments—from open floor plans to the classic Office Cubicle—function as meaningful time capsules of the 21st-century professional world.

The Concept of Modern Archaeology

Modern archaeology has expanded far beyond excavations of antiquity. It now includes:

• Contemporary archaeology
• Industrial archaeology
• Digital archaeology
• Urban archaeology
• Workplace and organizational archaeology

These branches examine how people live today—and how future generations might interpret our lifestyles based on the objects, structures, and digital traces we leave behind.

The idea that an everyday environment like an office could hold archaeological significance is rooted in a core principle: humans express culture through material things. Whether it is a clay pot or a laptop charger, objects reveal human habits, values, and relationships.

Why Offices Matter as Archaeological Sites

For centuries, workplaces have shaped human society—factories, farms, workshops, trading centers, and later, corporate offices. Today’s office is a social ecosystem defined by:

• Roles and hierarchy
• Technology
• Rituals and routines
• Spatial organization
• Cultural and behavioral norms

Archaeologists study workplaces the same way they study villages or ancient settlements: by examining spaces, objects, and interactions.

Key Archaeological Questions Apply to Offices Too

1. How is space used?
   Just as archaeologists study room layouts in ancient houses, they examine modern office design to understand work culture.
2. What objects dominate the environment?
   Stone tools once revealed hunting patterns; today, keyboards, sticky notes, and ergonomic chairs reveal patterns of digital labor.
3. What does the “debris” say about daily life?
   Trash bins, old documents, expired ID cards, coffee cups — these items tell an intimate story of how workers navigate their routine.
4. How do people interact with their surroundings?
   Placement of personal objects, choice of workspace, and decoration style reflect individuality and cultural norms.

The Office as a Micro-Society

A workplace mirrors society on a smaller scale. Each office contains:

1. Social Hierarchies

Archaeologists studying ancient palaces and villages look for signs of power.
In offices, hierarchy appears through:

• Private cabins for managers
• Larger desks for senior staff
• Assigned vs. hot-desking spaces
• Access to technology or restricted areas

Spatial patterns reflect authority, decision-making power, and organizational values.

2. Rituals and Routines

Like religious or cultural rituals in ancient societies, modern offices have their own routines:

• Morning coffee gathering
• Weekly team meetings
• End-of-month reporting cycles
• Workplace celebrations and events

Archaeologists interpret these repetitive behaviors as cultural practices that shape identity and community.

3. Material Culture

Workplaces contain a vast collection of objects:

• Stationery
• Laptops, tablets, cables
• Whiteboards with erased or partial notes
• Coffee mugs with messages
• Keycards, tags, access badges
• Waste paper
• Old manuals and training booklets

Each object holds clues about technology, habits, and social norms in the workplace.

What Future Archaeologists Might Discover About Us

Imagine a future researcher discovering a preserved office from 2024. What would they interpret about our society?

1. Digital Dependency

The presence of multiple screens, chargers, docking stations, headsets, and webcams would suggest a society heavily dependent on digital communication.

2. Pandemic Adaptation

Masks, sanitizer bottles, safety posters, and remote-work equipment would indicate a major global event that reshaped work culture.

3. Work-Life Balance Struggles

Objects such as stress balls, motivational posters, ergonomic chairs, and wellness reminder notes may suggest high-stress environments and a desire for mental balance.

4. Hybrid Work Culture

Sign-in logs, meeting rooms equipped for video calls, and hotel-style desks would show evidence of a shift between remote and in-person work.

5. Organizational Identity

Brand merch, lanyards, and internal communication documents provide insights into corporate culture and identity.

Office Layouts as Archaeological Landscapes

Archaeologists interpret office layouts much like they analyze ancient settlements. Spatial design reveals cultural patterns, productivity priorities, and beliefs about social interaction.

Open Office Layouts

Open spaces reflect a cultural shift toward collaboration, transparency, and multi-directional communication. However, cluttered desks or improvised partitions might suggest workers carving out personal boundaries.

Private Offices

Like chambers in ancient palaces, private rooms indicate authority, privacy needs, and organizational hierarchy.

Break Rooms and Social Zones

These are the “communal spaces” of the modern workplace—much like shared courtyards in ancient homes.

The Office Cubicle as Material Culture

The cubicle designs represents a major phase in workplace history, symbolizing:

• The rise of corporate structures
• The need for semi-private but controlled workspace
• Efficiency-driven design trends
• Standardized office environments

Archaeologists might interpret cubicles as artifacts of productivity culture, reflecting how modern workers balanced personal identity with corporate expectations.

Objects and Artifacts in the Modern Office

Archaeology thrives on the study of artifacts. In a modern office, the following categories are deeply meaningful:

1. Personal Items

• Family photos
• Plants
• Decor
• Inspirational quotes
  These objects reveal emotional needs, identity expressions, and personalization habits in the workplace.

2. Technological Artifacts

• Old computers
• USB drives
• Office telephones
• Printers and fax machines
  They document technological evolution and communication practices.

3. Ephemeral Materials

Notes, drafts, printed emails, sticky reminders, timelines, and calendars—though often temporary—are rich sources of information about workflow and cognitive processes.

4. Consumables

Coffee wrappers, snack packets, water bottles—these may seem trivial but reveal dietary habits, stress levels, time pressure, and cultural preferences.

The Office as a Living Excavation Site

Unlike ancient ruins, modern offices are active sites. Archaeologists can perform ethnographic observation, watching people interact with their spaces in real time.

This allows them to study:

Behavioral Patterns

• How people navigate between desks
• How teams use meeting rooms
• How breaks are structured
• How workers personalize space

Interaction with Technology

• Frequency of device use
• Collaboration tools
• Digital storage vs. physical storage choices

The Flow of Materials

• Document lifecycle (printing, marking, discarding)
• Movement of supplies
• Office maintenance patterns

Noise, Light, and Movement

These environmental factors influence how people behave—and leave material traces over time.

Office Waste as an Archaeological Goldmine

In archaeology, garbage tells powerful stories. Office waste bins reveal:

• Productivity cycles
• Stress periods
• Consumption habits
• Communication patterns
• Document revision processes

A sudden spike in printed drafts may indicate important deadlines.
High coffee cup counts may reflect long working hours.
Discarded manuals may point to organizational restructuring.

Corporate Culture Through an Archaeological Lens

Like ancient civilizations, companies have:

• Rituals
• Symbols
• Language
• Belief systems
• Hierarchies
• Shared identity

Archaeologists can trace these cultural elements through:

Artifacts

Branded notebooks, employee badges, merchandise, recognition awards.

Writings

Internal newsletters, memos, manuals, and posters.

Architecture

Work zones, meeting pods, cubicles, and layout choices.

Behavioral Traces

Seating patterns, rearranged furniture, personalized decorations.

Corporate culture becomes a tapestry woven from all these material clues.

How Archaeology Can Improve Modern Workplaces

Archaeology doesn’t just analyze the past—it can improve the present.

1. Better Office Design

Understanding how people use space helps architects design more comfortable, culturally aligned workplaces.

2. Improved Workflow

Archaeological analysis of object placement, movement patterns, and material use can identify inefficiencies.

3. Employee Well-Being

Studying stress markers, personalization trends, and comfort needs helps companies build healthier environments.

4. Cultural Preservation

Companies can treat old documents, awards, or floor plans as heritage—preserving their history for future generations.

The Office as a Future Archaeological Treasure

Centuries from now, if archaeologists excavate modern office buildings, they might uncover:

• Laptops as digital artifacts
• Meeting rooms as ritual gathering spaces
• Desks arranged like ancient workstations
• Corporate identity materials interpreted as cultural symbols
• Technology that becomes obsolete yet historically significant

Just as we uncover the daily life of ancient people through cooking pots and tools, future generations will uncover our work lives through keyboards, printers, and office layouts.

___________________________

The idea of archaeology in the office setting may seem unusual at first, but when examined closely, the workplace becomes a fascinating landscape filled with cultural, social, and historical meaning. Every object, ritual, layout, and behavior contributes to a modern-day time capsule—one that reflects how we work, communicate, socialize, and define ourselves in the 21st century.

The office is not just a place of labor; it is a cultural ecosystem that future archaeologists will study to understand our values, technologies, and way of life. Each desk tells a story, each document holds context, and each space preserves the memory of how we lived our professional lives.

___________________________

Cover Image, Top Left: MagicDesk, Pixabay

___________________________

In “The Conquest of Peru,” we left Pizarro departing Tangarará, which he founded on the Pacific coast in mid-September of 1532. From the coast with his riders and foot soldiers, he traveled up the mountains, where reports of war and carnage became reality. The Spaniards were not aware of the severity of the ongoing “war of succession” between the two sons of Inca Huayna Capac for the crown of the “Land of Four Parts” or Tahuantinsuyo in the Quechua language. It was Topa Inca (1471-1493), the son of the great Sapa Inca Pachacuti (1438-1471), who expanded the empire’s borders north to Ecuador and south to Chile. His son, Huayna Capac, on his deathbed, made the fatal mistake of splitting the kingdom between his two sons (de la Vega, 1539-1616), for his first son, Ninan Cuyochi, who died of smallpox.  Huascar Capac and his deceased brother were born to a Coya or princess of the imperial court at Cusco. His half-brother Atahualpa (1502-1533), born to a Cara princess of the court at Quito, was shunned by the nobility at Cusco for not being of royal blood. Spanish chroniclers of the late sixteenth century depict Atahualpa as brave, ambitious, and popular with soldiers. The father deeply loved his second son and persuaded his legitimate son, Huayna Capac, the future Great (Sapa) Inca in Cusco, to have Atahualpa reign in the northern reaches of the empire at Quito, over a thousand miles away. This situation led to persistent conflicts between the half-brothers and, as de la Vega underlined, they were soon entangled in a deadly civil war that lasted from 1529 to 1532. Antagonisms intensified while ethnic groups sided with one faction or the other, ravaging cities and towns, wreaking havoc on economies, and decimating the population.

________________________________

Lima-Cusco Region

________________________________

Atahualpa and his army of quiteños “people of Quito” defeated Huayna Capac cuzqueños “those of Cusco.” However, it is at Quipaipán in the most significant military battle of Inca history (1532), that the war took a decisive turn for Inca Atahualpa. After the battle, the Inca headed south and stopped at Cajamarca (Kaxamarka in Quechua), while his superior officers (apukispays) chased Huascar’s army south; they defeated and captured him near Cusco. Had it not been for Pizarro’s arrival at that time, the entire Inca empire would have fallen to Atahualpa at Quipaipán.

As the Spaniards moved up the Andes Mountain range, they encountered devastation and remnants of scorched villages. The local people believed that the Spaniards would come to help Inca Huascar against his half-brother Atahualpa, who was now encamped with his army in the Pultumarca valley near Cajamarca. In July 1532, with 62 riders and 106 infantrymen, Pizarro reached the ruined village of Caxas, nine thousand feet up in the mountains on the paved road to Cajamarca. The going was hard in the Cordillera Vilcabamba because the biting cold, ice, and snow of the Salcantay range had replaced the mild climate and sea breeze of the coast. Many troopers suffered from the cold and became sick, as did the horses. Meanwhile, Atahualpa reached the outskirts of Cajamarca, where, informed by his scouts, he waited for the Spaniards.

On Friday, 15 November 1532, the Spaniards arrived on the hills over Cajamarca. The city below looked finely built and paved with smooth stones; it was deserted. Half a mile beyond, in the Pultumarca valley, was Atahualpa’s camp and its thousands of warriors. Pizarro ordered his army to go down to the deserted town before dusk, for they could quickly be overpowered in the open. There, they set up camps in large houses with covered stockades attached for horses. Once settled, Pizarro planned to invite the Inca the following day and capture him. For this purpose, in the morning, he sent Hernando de Soto with Felipillo as translator, and Hernan Pizarro with Yacané, who, with Felipillo, were the young men captured off the coast of Tumbes. Thirty-armed riders protected the envoys.

They made their way through the Inca’s camp and were impressed by thousands of fires and warriors. Courtiers and high-ranking war chiefs welcomed the envoys. Atahualpa made them wait several hours outside his lodgings and appeared when the rowdy visitors’ impatience could no longer be contained. The Inca faced the Spaniards with ire and contempt. This thirty-five-year-old lord with long black hair and gold ornaments dangling from his ears and neck, together with the mascapaycha‘s red imperial headband, magnified his eminent position. He sat on his usnu, an elevated golden throne with officials (kurakas) at his sides. Heated exchanges about the presence of armed white bearded men in his kingdom, soldiers of an unknown king, were baffling to him, as was this equally unknown world they claimed to come from.

The Spaniards displayed their skills riding horses and shooting arquebuses. Pedro de Alvarado, an expert rider, brought his horse at full gallop, heading straight to the seated Atahualpa. He came to an abrupt stop only a few feet from the deadpan Inca. A lesson of remarkable horsemanship, while Atahualpa displayed a lesson of lordly stoicism. To seal the meeting, chicha, the traditional fermented drink made of corn and seasoned with a variety of wild plants, was poured into three large gold cups. The Spaniards held the cups but did not drink, so the Inca, noticing their distrust, sipped from each cup to show his guests they had nothing to fear. Atahualpa accepted Pizarro’s invitation to visit Cajamarca the following day. 

______________________________

Atahualpa, the last Incan Emperor. @sciencephotolibrary.com

______________________________

At noon, after a night of anxiety, the Spaniards were still waiting for Atahualpa. Pizarro hid his forces, including cavalry under Hernando de Soto, Sebastian de Belalcazar, and Hernando Pizarro, along with their saddled horses, in sheds that opened onto the plaza. Juan Pizarro was in command of the infantry and would closely follow the riders’ thrust. Captain Pedro de Candia and the artillery were on the Rumitiana hill behind the town for support. Pizarro, on horseback together with twenty-five-foot soldiers, hid in a structure in the middle of the plaza. Fear was palpable, given the overwhelming odds; several foot soldiers wetted their pants. The plan called for a forceful exit on the plaza, aiming for Atahualpa, who would be carried on his golden litter, then to surround and capture him. A simple plan of victory or death, for there was no other way for a handful of Spaniards in this war of conquest. The Inca likewise had plans, which were to make sure none of the bearded men escaped and survived. Atahualpa’s command officer, Rumiñahui, with battle-hardened warriors, was sent to close any escape route on the back of the town to capture all Spaniards for public execution.

By mid-afternoon, lookouts saw the Inca leave his camp with a large retinue of unarmed warriors, for the Inca bet on numbers to capture the bearded men alive. He was eager to show the Andean supreme deity Viracocha and the people of the empire that no god or man could ever stand or defeat him. He arrived at the plaza on his golden litter held by courtesans, protected by bodyguards and a compact group of unarmed warriors to display his apparent peaceful intent. Calling for the Spaniards, he sent unarmed scouts to find out where they were. They reported that the bearded ones were hiding in nearby sheds around the plaza. The Inca was about to order a more forceful investigation when Dominican Friar Vicente de Valverde, chaplain of the army, pushed his way through the throng to the Inca’s litter with Martinillo, also from the 1526 encounter off Tumbes as translator, screaming God’s name to the heretics while brandishing the Holy Bible.

Atahualpa asked what the yelling was all about, but could not understand, and, enraged by Martinillo’s stuttering, threw both friar and Bible to the ground. This outraged Pizarro, who burst out of the shed with infantry onto the plaza, while Pedro de Candia’s artillery boomed, arquebuses were discharged on the crowd, and a red waving flag summoned the cavalry, which came out stamping grounds, bugles blaring, lances, axes, and saber blades glinting in a no quarter charge. The panicked Incas were no match for the unknown weapons, the ferocious war dogs, and the brutal and pitiless men. Fear seized the unarmed men who tried to escape the plaza, piled up against its walls, forming human pyramids where many were slaughtered. Fear was everywhere, for fear, at that moment, was the Spaniards’ most powerful ally, without which they would have been defeated. The Inca was thrown from his golden litter and seized by Francisco Pizarro. That evening, taken to the town’s Amaru Huasi or Snake House by torchlight, the Spaniards saw a man torn by defeat but still radiating majesty, looking fiercely and imperiously at his captors.

_______________________________

Cajamarca’s Battle. @JuanLepiani, 1922-1927 in wikipedia.org

_______________________________

The following day, November 16, Hernando de Soto on Pizarro’s orders, rode down into the valley in Atahualpa’s camp, where he recovered eighty thousand pesos of gold and seven thousand marcos of silver (Xeres 1983; 1534-fol.XIII). He also came back with over a hundred women and thousands of quiteño prisoners. The many cuzqueños they encountered, were forcefully enlisted in Atahualpa’s army as carriers. Few of them were retained as support personnel while others were ordered to go home.

After days of negotiations, according to Spanish military ransom tradition, Pizarro demanded Atahualpa, as conditional freedom, to fill three rooms to a man’s height, one with gold and two with silver. Upon agreement, over weeks, gold and silver plates, cups, figurines and panels reached Cajamarca in long caravans of llamas carrying loads which, according to estimates, totaled over twenty tons. Why was the astute reason for Atahualpa to pay Pizarro for his restricted autonomy? It was classic Andean barter; the Inca traded gold and silver, of which he had plenty, for a limited self-determination which was better than no freedom. With the capture of Atahualpa, the Spaniards were, if not yet in control of the empire, major players in its future.

A few weeks later Atahualpa’s brother and rival, Huascar, was found drowning in the Andamarca river. Questioned by Pizarro, Atahualpa pleaded his innocence. With no convincing proof of the Inca’s guilt, Pizarro spared his life. The cuzqueños, however, were enraged for they could not understand Pizarro’s leniency; they knew that Atahualpa was Huascar’s murderer. Spanish officers likewise did not believe Atahualpa’s claim of innocence, for they were tipped about his contacts with the quiteño general Quisquis then master of Cuzco, who was last seen near Jaujá, planning to mobilize forces to surround Cajamarca. Even though the gold and silver rooms were not fully stacked up as promised, Pizarro was satisfied but, for security reasons, did not release Atahualpa. Many officers were convinced of Atahualpa’s duplicity and of his hand in Huascar and his family’s execution. However, as a hostage Atahualpa was worth protecting; dead, he had no value. The Spaniards conviction of Atahualpa’s guilt rested largely on their interpreter Felipillo who, at times, translated for his own benefit or that of others. Each party, for its own purpose, wanted Atahualpa executed. Diego de Almagro, who arrived with a reinforcement of two hundred men, was worried that, on one hand, he was not certain of the Inca’s guilt, but on the other that the gold and silver share would mostly go to Pizarro’s men, who already had “saved some” for themselves. Spanish officials were concerned that the fifth of gold and silver, the quinto real owed to the Crown under the 1528 Agreement could be lost or delayed. Friar Vincente de Valverde, as a Dominican with an inquisitorial mentality, demanded the Inca be burned at the stake for his refusal of baptism.

The unstable situation led Pizarro to remain firm in not sentencing Atahualpa to death; he was in fact the only one left on the Inca’s defense. In mid-July, however, after tedious legal proceedings, Atahualpa was indicted for treason, the murder of his brother Huascar, killing family princes and princesses of his father clan (panaca), but also, for having children with his sisters and keeping matrimonial relationships with them and last, for being a heretic who refused the true God. On 26 July 1533, Atahualpa Inca, with his hands tied, was led to Cajamarca’s Plaza in a procession including Friar Vicente de Valverde, the mayor Juan de Porras, Captain Juan de Salcedo, and military officers.  The Inca walked with the serenity of a warrior’s utter indifference to his fate. In the middle of the plaza, a tree trunk was driven into the ground with a pile of wood at its base. Atahualpa understood that he would be burned at the stake and asked the priest Valverde, Why? Valverde answered that fire was for idolaters consigned to hell, while strangulation or garrote was for believers of the true cross, sent to heaven. Atahualpa elected garrote to prevent his soul from being dispersed to the four winds, never to live again. He was immediately baptized under the name of Juan, while Pizarro promptly changed the terms of his execution from burning to strangling. The Incas’ wives cried, begging to follow their lord into the afterlife; many of them did.

With Cajamarca and its province now under Spanish control, Pizarro knew that, for absolute socio-political and economic power, the Spaniards needed to occupy Cusco, the seat of government of the Inca empire. The current leader, Túpac Manco Capac Inca (1514-1544), was born in Tiahuanaco, on the shores of Lake Titicaca. He was one of the sons of Huayna Capac and his second wife, the Coya (princess), Shihui Chimpu Rontocay. Throughout his childhood with his siblings, they were repeatedly told that Atahualpa had slaughtered their family. Now in his late twenties, Manco Capac was already a seasoned military officer stationed in the town of Charcas in the Paititi mountains, leading thousands of warriors during the fratricide war.

Of note is that Manco Capac Inca was initially suspicious of Pizarro’s motives and of his long-term plans. But the recent capture of the quiteño leader Calcuchimac, a Quisquis general hanged by the Spaniards, eased his doubts. Pizarro took advantage of Manco Capac’s lifelong bitterness and made it known that the Inca should be the legitimate heir to the empire.

_____________________________

Manco Capac Inca Yupanqui.  @mayaincaztec.com

_____________________________

Driven by his lifelong rage for the murder of his family, Manco Capac committed to pooling Spanish and Inca forces to take back Cusco from Quiquis, which they did. On 14 November 1533, Pizarro and his army reached the hills overlooking the city and the fortress of Sacsayhuaman, two miles north of Cusco, which Quisquis’ troops had deserted. Cusco is 11,200 feet high in the Andes mountains; its name, Qusquis, in Quechua is Qusqu’wanka or “rock of the owl” in Aymara. The city was divided into two social groups or moieties: hurin (upper), associated with the priesthood and hanan (lower), related with the military. Furthermore, the city was partitioned to mirror the four provinces of the empire: the Tahuantisuyo : Chinchaysuyo (north), Antisuyo (east), Kuntisuyu (west), and Qullsuyu (south), with Cusco at their intersection. Hernando de Soto and Juan Pizarro with the cavalry entered Cusco from the north without opposition. They were followed by Francisco Pizarro, Manco Capac Inca, and his officers, while, to avoid surprises, Diego de Almagro followed with the rear guard. The Spaniards were awestruck by the city’s magnificence, its wide and well-paved streets, and the megalithic, tightly fitting stone walls of buildings. They rode to the main plaza and were received by old priests who believed the bearded men were sent by the creator deity Viracocha, the Sun, with their lord Manco Capac.

_______________________________

Cusco, Plaza de Armas.  @St.Amant-wikimedia.org

_______________________________

Spanish captains secured the main palatial buildings around the central plaza. Pizarro elected Inca Huayna Cápac’s Casana palace for himself. Almagro chose the one next to it while Gonzalo selected Túpac Inca’s palace. They were mesmerized by the city’s abundance of gold and silver seen on and inside major buildings and palaces. Before order could be restored, soldiers ran screaming through the paved streets of polished stones and into palaces and mansions. They came out with armfuls of valuable fine dresses, rich feathers, gold and silver plates, and precious stones. They broke into a storage area containing coca leaves, chili, corn, stacked dried goods, quinoa, weapons, and more. They ran up the wide stairs of the massive Qorikancha, or “great enclosure,” the Temple of the Sun (Inti). Its inside walls were covered with thick gold panels, while in the temple of the Moon goddess (Mama Ocllo), daughter of Viracocha and Mama Qucha, the walls were covered with silver. Halfway up the wide stairs of the Qorikancha, the High Priest (villac umu), his arms spread out, tried to stop the rush of these strange, bearded men who, for an instant, mouth agape, looked up before running up the steps laughing. They reached the Hatunkancha housing of the acllahuasi, the solar virgins dedicated to the Sun, who had been sent safely away a few weeks before to save them from sacrilege.

From Cusco, the first of many shipments of precious metals was carried to Cajamarca for processing. Sixteenth-century records account for hundreds of loads of gold and silver, equivalent to tens of tons (Xerez 1636: fol. XXI). After cutting and melting into bars, the precious metals were transferred to Lima overland for shipment to Panama and then onward to Spain. At the same time, wages of officers and soldiers were paid, together with those for services. Manco Capac Inca’s agreement with Pizarro was grounded in his persistent hate of the quiteños for in his mind, they and not the Spaniards, were the real invaders. After all, didn’t Pizarro agree to return the Inca dominion as his realm? Hernando de Soto, in command of the army, supported by thousands of native troops, was ordered to chase and capture the fleeing quiteños. He crossed the Apurimac river to confront Quisquis’ coalition at Cupi in Collabamba, where a fierce battle forced the defeated group to retreat north.  On their retreat the quiteños left a trail of vengeance and a horrifying killing spree through Quechua and Huanca towns and villages, killing men of all ages and kidnapping hundreds of women. The Spaniards, however, would turn the tide, for by mid-May 1534, they defeated again Quisquis forces in Maraycalla, but once more, he escaped the battlefield. However, he was murdered a year later in the village of Tiacambe near Quito by his lieutenant Huambracuna. Quisquis general Rumiñahui, escaped to Quito after Atahualpa’s capture and named himself Inca. Over months in 1533, he fiercely battled Sebastián de Belalcázar’s army in the empire’s northern reaches. He was taken prisoner and tortured to reveal where he hid the gold and silver of the Treasure of the Llanganates he took from the cities he burned, but he never talked and was hanged on the 26 of July 1533.

Manco Capac Inca returned to Cusco from the Maraycalla battle, wearing the mascapaycha imperial red headband with tassels, followed by Juan Pizarro, Fernando’s brother. A few months later, the Inca had misgivings about the Spaniards’ motives. They were neither friends nor partners as he thought they were, but the real invaders. His lifelong hate for Quisquis and the quiteños he realized blinded him.

_____________________________

Apukispay Quisquis. @numiscorner.com

_____________________________

The conquistadors backed the coronation of Manco Capac to secure their control over the empire. Pizarro’s backing stemmed from the Spaniard’s goal to continue and perpetuate Inca internal discord. Manco Capac, however, decided that he would not be the puppet of the bearded men who frequently disrespected and humiliated him, especially the ambitious and abusive Pizarro brothers Juan and Gonzalo, unlike their father’s paternalistic relationship. Manco Capac discretely shared his growing dislike of the Spaniards’ heavy hand with principals of towns in the Tahuantinsuyo. His supporters agreed to his plans to rebuild the empire of his forebears.

At length, he resolved to escape, which he did on a dark night with his bodyguards. As agreed with kinsmen he headed for the nearby town of Mohina. Upon learning about the escape, Juan Pizarro became enraged and asked his brother Gonzalo, captain of the cavalry, for a squad of riders to capture the Inca, which they did two days later. Manco Capac was forcefully returned to Cusco in chains, placed in a cell and, for weeks, was subjected to abuses from his captors. The punishment included demeaning his first wife, the Colla Curi Ocllo, her sisters, and other noble women. The pressure to deliver more gold and silver knew no bounds. It was driven by greed, as well as to answer the persistent demands from Emperor Carlos V in Madrid to finance his ongoing wars against the French and the Turks.

Manco Capac’s hope was rekindled when the high Solar Priest (villac umu), arrived from exile in Chile where he escaped Alonso de Alvarado’s army. He raised the ire of miners along Lake Titicaca by calling, “all rise and leave no Spaniard alive.” The Solar Priest sent a message to Manco Capac, who was then planning his second escape. The chance came thanks to Hernando Pizarro’s insatiable demands for gold when Manco Capac told him that he knew where Huascar Capac’s hidden treasure was near Cusco. At that time, Manco Capac had been released from strict captivity a few months before and had regained his jailer’s confidence. As evidence, he showed Hernando a large gold statue, which was smuggled into his residence by Inca warriors as proof of Huascar’s treasure. Hernando was convinced and planned to let Manco Capac lead the way, but, to avoid warning the treasure’s guards, he and his riders would follow a couple of leagues behind. That was his mistake. A few leagues from Cusco, Manco Capac met a large group of Inca soldiers who swiftly led him to his army of tens of thousands of warriors encamped fifty miles away. Scouts informed the Pizarro brothers of the Inca gathering forces. Over the course of a few weeks, the brothers fanned out of the city to assess the seriousness of the situation. Meeting one evening, they raised the number of lookouts and guards on the city’s access roads. On May 29, 1536, Hernando and his brothers knew that the Incas’ call to arms to rid their kingdom’s capital of the Spaniards was real because that day, Cusco was surrounded.

Sixteenth-century Spanish chroniclers point to an Inca army numbering over two hundred thousand warriors headed by high-ranking officers (apuquispays), with the Solar Priest in overall command. In addition to combat troops, there were about eighty thousand support personnel and carriers. The Inca forces were to attack the city through the roads of the four suyos, Cusco’s cardinal quarters’ access routes, each headed by experienced fighters and officers. They aimed to weaken the Spaniards by dividing their forces on four fronts. The Incas’ troops under the command of officers Coyllas, Osca, Curi, Atao and Taipe would attack on the North road (Chinchaysuyo) while the South (Qullasuyo) with the bulk of the troops, was under the command of Llicli; the West (Kuntisuyo) squadrons were headed by Saradaman, Humán Quicana, and Curi Huallpa; while those of the East  (Antisuyo) were manned by archers, slingers, and blowgun shooters, under Rampa Yupanqui and Anta Allaca. The Solar Priest’s first order was to breach the water pools and canals around the city to swamp the land and turn it into an immense mud field, which would slow down the Spaniards’ deadly horse charges.

On the conquistadors’ side, there were no more than five hundred Spaniards, all of whom were experienced in military tactics and weaponry. They were fearsome battle-hardened fighters, with years of experience, from Europe to Mexico’s killing fields. In the city, they were supported by about thirty thousand native allies from several ethnic groups hostile to the Incas—chief among them were the Chachapoyas. The three Pizarro brothers knew that the key to survival rested on the cavalry, for the natives were frightened of the trampling horses and their riders, armed with lances and swords. The foot soldiers wore metal helmets, upper body armor and were deadly in close combat with swords and axes; musketeers were of limited use.

The Inca armies’ advantage was in numbers. They were able during battle to roll tired or wounded troops with fresh ones from the rear every three to four hours, allowing for unceasing assaults. Yells from tens of thousands of throats; hundreds of drums beating; blowing of trumpet-like conch-shells (pututu) calling on ancestors for help, never ceased, leaving no respite. Waves of incendiary arrows and slingshots with stones, red heat from fire, wrapped in cotton, burned the roofs of houses made of wood, covering the city with a thick, suffocating smoke. Day after day, it was a merciless fight. 

_____________________________

No Mercy. @F.Castro.P – georgefery.com

_____________________________

Hernando Pizarro organized Cusco’s defense around three teams with riders, each headed by his brother Gonzalo, Gabriel de Rojas, and Hernán Ponce de Leon. In contrast, he, his brother Juan, and their lieutenants would, at the sound of a bugle, move from quarter-to- quarter to support fighters where and when needed. They quickly learned that the cavalry had to be the heart of the defense strategy. Early mornings, the infantry’s task, headed by Pedro del Barco, Diego Méndez, and Francisco de Villacastín, supported by allied warriors, destroyed barricades erected across the streets during the night to clear the way for the cavalry.

The riders were not very successful, given the narrowness of most streets, which, at best, limited the frontal assault to two riders at a time. The deep wall of enemy warriors blocking the street could not be breached, even though many were slain. Both riders and horses were wounded in these forays; many could not fight another day. Indian allies fought boldly and impetuously, while the Spaniards battled with a determination driven by fear. Spanish captains said that they should hold the Qorikancha or “great enclosure” for its massive walls and tunnel (the chincana found in 1594; rediscovered recently), extending below the city to Sacsayhuaman. The enclosure would have been impregnable, allowing time for support to arrive from the coast. Others advised Hernando to abandon Cusco and head for Lima. Alas, it was too late, all roads and trails were now tightly held by the enemy.

The worst came when the Spaniards realized that the massive fortress of Sacsayhuaman (fortress of the royal falcon), two miles on Cusco’s northern outskirts, was held by the enemy. The Killke people had built it around 900, before the arrival of the Incas, when Pachacuti Inca (1438-1471) fortified it in the mid-fifteenth century. The Spaniards had no alternative but to retake the fortress for its proximity to the city, before more enemy forces settled there. With their indigenous allies the Spaniards battled fiercely all day with cavalry charges and foot soldiers.

________________________________

Sacsayhuaman’s Triple Walls. @ticketmachupicchu.com

________________________________

They cleared the fortress late on 6 May 1536, and returned to Cusco, leaving a large contingent of indigenous fighters to hold it. A week later, however, Sacsayhuaman was overrun again. Most worrisome for Inca warriors were the deadly riders with their lances and swords in open terrain. So, they made traps for the horses by digging round holes a couple of feet or so wide and about three or more feet deep in dirt roads in which the leg of a horse at full gallop would plunge into and break. The rider was then easy prey because he had to fight his way on foot or be captured and decapitated.

Twice, the Spaniards overran and lost Sacsayhuaman. On the third attempt, they succeeded in keeping the fortress at the end of a tough day under the leadership of Hernando Pizarro. In command of the fortress was the Solar Priest with more fighters; the frontal assault was as intense as it was brutal. A few days later, fifty horsemen led by Juan Pizarro and auxiliaries rode from Cusco, breaking through lines of warriors, running northwest toward Chinchaysuyo. The riders feigned a retreat toward Lima, which drew more Inca warriors out of the fortress. The Spaniards then swiftly turned around and attacked from the south, securing the first battlement of the perimeter walls. It is at that time that Juan Pizarro, having lost his helmet, was struck in the head by stones from sling shots, and died a few days later from his injuries. The following night, using wood ladders made on site, Spaniards and their allies scaled and fought their way up the two successive upper walls, overrunning the bastions in a savage fury.

In the morning, however, the fortress’s Muyumarca tower was still in the enemy’s hands. The Solar Priest (villac umu) planned his way out from the tower to seek reinforcement. Tuti Cusi Hualpa, the fortress commander, would hold the tower but ultimately could not resist the Spaniards’ onslaught. The following day, the Muyumarca tower was overrun, and the battle was lost. Tuti Cusi Hualpa had sworn to Manco Capac that he would hold the fortress at all costs; he failed and could not surrender. In full regalia, weapons in hand, he threw himself from the battlements to the rocks below. The Solar Priest had escaped on the riverside and joined Manco Capac in Calca with plans for a second siege of Cusco. When, a few weeks later, Inca scouts returned, they found the fortress firmly in Spanish hands. The siege had lasted for a long, brutal year of fighting.  Grain, however, was now in short supply; the Inca army could not be fed. The last harvests were exhausted, and grain storages were empty. Hunger loomed in towns and villages near and far; it was time to plant before famine would overcome everyone. Tens of thousands of allied warriors left for home, so Manco Capac Inca lifted Cusco’s siege and withdrew to Ollantaytambo and then to Vilcabamba where he established the Neo-Inca State (1537-1572).

The cost in lives of the “war of the brothers” followed by the battle of Cusco was dreadful and wrecked Inca and other Peruvian cultures. During the battle of Cusco, Lima, Ciudad de los Reyes, its original name, was very close to falling to the Inca allies’ relentless attacks. The battles were no less brutal and savage than those at Cusco, with Francisco Pizarro at the forefront. The city was saved by those pitiless soldiers from Spain and their indigenous allies who, for weeks, battled and freed Lima on the 14 of September 1536. But where did all the gold go? The upcoming article “Portobello, Peru’s Gold Gateway” will answer this question.

______________________________

Onward to Portobello.  @P.Briege the Elder-wikipedia.org 

________________________________

References – Further Reading:

José Antonio del Busto Duthurburu, 1973 – La Conquista del Perú and Perú Preincaico, 1977                        

Garcilaso de la Vega (1539-1543) by Alain Gheerbrant, 1961 – The Incas and, La Florida del Inca, 1986

Salomon and G.L. Urioste, 1991  –  The Huarochiri Manuscript

Pedro Cieza de Leon (1540-1550) – El Señorio de los Incas 1984, and La Crónica del Perú, 1985

John V. Murra, 1978 – La Organización Económica del Estado Inca

Francisco de Xerez, 2011 – Verdadera Relación de la Conquista del Perú.

Father Bernabé Cobo (1582-1657), by Roland Hamilton, 1979 – History of the Inca Empire

Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa (1532-1608?), 1907 – History of the Incas

Lilian Estelle Fisher, 1966 – The Last Inca Revolt 1780-1783