Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Feb 8;18(2):e0280511. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280511

Inka Unku: Imperial or provincial? State-local relations

Jacqueline Correa-Lau 1,*, Carolina Agüero 2, Jeffrey Splitstoser 3, Ester Echenique 4, Tracy Martens 5, Calogero M Santoro 1,*
Editor: John P Hart6
PMCID: PMC9907846  PMID: 36753504

Abstract

Standardized Inka tunics, or unku, were created under the auspices of the state as symbolic expressions of its expansionist power. To ensure these textiles acquired the status of effective insignias of power and territorial control, the Inka established and imposed technical and stylistic canons for their production (techne) by means of highly-skilled state weavers. In the provinces, social groups that came under imperial rule, local expert weaving agents adopted the conventions of the state and included meaningful symbolic elements of the idiosyncrasies, traditions, and experiential knowledge of the local community (metis). We therefore propose that this was not a unidirectional process and that the Caleta Vitor Inka unku (hereon referred to as the CV unku), presented here, reflects a syncretism promoted by local weavers. In terms of methods, we have developed a decoding tool for the unku, with the aim of distinguishing state from local hallmarks, thereby revealing the syncretic complexity of these iconic tunics. This methodological tool is based on a series of standard analytical parameters and attributes linked to morphological, technological, and stylistic features, which we applied to the CV unku. Unlike others, this unku does come from a looted tomb but was scientifically excavated in a cemetery located in the Caleta Vitor Bay in northern Chile. By deconstructing the CV unku we determined the steps in the chaîne opératoire at which local technical and stylistic elements were incorporated, thus affecting or transforming, in part, its emblematic imperial imagery. This study also marks a step forward in our understanding of a syncretic landscape that combines the state worldview and organized production system (imperial Inka) with craft-production practices that were rooted in provincial and local communities (provincial Inka).

Introduction

Over the course of their territorial expansion, the Inka incorporated several social groups, each with its own traditional way of producing material culture, imposing upon them a set of state canons that were systematically reproduced throughout the empire. However, given the capacity of weaving agents to apply their own thought processes and expertise to their craft, we believe that, as well as appropriating and reproducing the state’s morphological, technological, and stylistic canons, they also imbued fabrics with attributes from their own cultural traditions. The result was textiles with visible adherence to state canons, while local hallmarks were ingrained in less obvious technical, formal, and aesthetic features. The combination of techniques and styles both reflected and shaped the syncretic relationship between the state (imperial Inka) and the provincial or local communities (provincial Inka).

In this regard, we address the importance of the relationship between state and local knowledge, which brought agents into a dialectical arena in which state ideologies could be negotiated. The importance lies in the fact that, despite the scale of the social and military structure of the Inka State, its expansive, economic and ideological success depended to a large extent on the agreements reached, peacefully or belligerently, with the local communities of the provinces integrated into the empire. Among the dialectical scenarios was the textile industry, in whose production the technical and idiosyncratic canons of the state were negotiated with those of the communities themselves. In this context, the unku, as symbols of imperial power, are key elements for materially visualizing the dialectical relationship between the state and the local communities.

For the analysis of this dialectical arena, we use the concepts of metis and techne [1] to facilitate an understanding of the dialectical relationship between these agents. On the one hand, metis refers to knowledge acquired through experience. This type of knowledge is generated locally and as a result is tied to the place of origin. Techne, on the other hand, is knowledge taught or transmitted as a formal and established discipline. It differs radically from metis in regard to organization and transmission by being codified, taught, and modifiable [1:319]. Unlike the particular and contextual metis, techne combines discipline and technical knowledge, enabling the Inka State to convey ideological parameters that were reproducible in textiles and other emblematic goods throughout Tawantinsuyu.

The concepts of metis and techne, or the relationship between local and state knowledge, can be materialized and understood through both high-visibility and low-visibility attributes, commonly used in the archaeological literature of enculturation. High-visibility attributes are intentional signaling features such as decorative/stylistic designs that denote standardized choices made by the government to transmit and create a sense of being part of larger corporate polity. Low-visibility attributes are technological features, such as raw materials, yarn types, or a particular textile structure, linked to group identity and community.

Costin [2] makes reference to the fact that studies of Inka textiles have focused on their meaning from the perspective of consumption rather than the circumstances of their production. This, despite almost all imperial subjects being engaged, to a greater or lesser extent, in textile production, whether procuring or processing raw materials, spinning fiber, weaving fabric, or finishing a garment [3, 4]. We estimate that throughout this chaîne opératoire, the state imposed its own set of canons with the aim of standardizing the production process. Hence, the kind of syncretism proposed here derived from the skills of local weavers in adhering to the state’s mode of “doing”, while adding their own traditional imprint, visible or otherwise, local or personal.

The technological styles and symbolic structures of the textiles produced for the state constituted an active tool of social action [5] insofar as their production depended on the weavers of the local communities who had to follow the state model. In this active role of perpetuating state canons, local weavers had the insight to introduce subtle technical and stylistic changes throughout Tawantinsuyu. This is reflected in the degree of variability that can be observed in unku, like the Caleta Vitor Inka unku (hereon referred to as the CV unku). A previous study of the CV unku, conducted by Martens et al. [6], confirmed that it was an authentic imperial Inka garment, as it shared key imperial technical and stylistic characteristics—observed in 36 examples of unku from different museums across Europe and the United States of America—that were compiled for her comparative study and recorded in a database [6]. In the process of extending the study of this particular unku we realized that state parameters were accompanied by features that did not conform to the Inka style as defined in previous classifications [7].

To further analyze the unku, while following our theoretical perspective, we developed a methodological tool—based on parameters and attributes that consider morphological, technological, and stylistic features—that bridges the knowledge gap between high-visibility and low-visibility attributes, where morphology relates to textile composition. Technology links social productive activities and their interactions with material culture [8], which means that “technology, as embodied material practice, is a socially charged and materially grounded arena in which agents express and negotiate social relationships, establish and express value systems, and give meaning to the object world” [9:162]. Technology, then, is recognized as a meaningful social activity, driven through agency processes [10]. Style here refers to “a form of non-verbal communication, through doing something in a certain way that conveys information about relative identity” [11:8]. Our methodological tool is aimed to differentiate where in the chaîne opératoire the state canons differ from the local ones, thereby revealing the syncretic complexity of these iconic tunics (cf., Mary Frame’s [12] idea that hybridization in textile design was an effect of the technology used during the manufacturing process). It is designed for in-depth physical analysis to infer information about the identity of the intended wearer of the garment, as well as to understand its practical and functional purpose [13]. This is based on the hypothesis that technical and/or stylistic differences in the unku might represent differences in the status of the wearer, which include the ruling elite, administrators, priests, and members of the military. Because each unku was woven for one of these characters, each with a specific role and status, were weavers allowed or did they take a significant control over the way they conformed to (or deviated from) imperial versus local weaving styles and parameters? Furthermore, in some cases, unku acquired additional elements and underwent modifications for reuse and when being discarded.

Historical references describe with great precision the characteristics of the garments worn by the Inka, his administrative entourage, and by members of the army. Previous studies have focused on the visible, imperial, technical, and stylistic features, which is inconsistent with the Inka strategy that respected local cultural practices and the resulting hybridization of material culture, as we propose was the case of local unku. Local individuals or groups negotiated their relations with the social structures of the state, setting in motion a dynamic social agency, which played an essential role in shaping technology [9]. This may have entailed shifts in the relationship between status and basic ideological concepts among interacting social agents. Our analysis of this process enables us to visualize the relationship between technological action and the propagation of state power and ideology.

Inka unku, imperial material imagery

The Inka unku was a male garment made by expert weavers [14], whose knowledge, techniques, and skills were both valued and endorsed by the state which implemented the textile programs, as reflected in their high degree of standardization. Paramount homogenizing political, economic, and social organizations, such as the Inka State, established socially recognized morphological, technological, and stylistic elements that had to be considered by weavers. These specialists could not disregard the fact that their products were intended to convey power, prestige, status, or serve as the state’s territorial insignia, entrusted to dignitaries from within the core society and beyond [15, 16]. An example of textiles carrying this semantic load can be seen in the context of the mountain-top female Inka burials of Cerro Esmeralda on the coast of the Atacama Desert, northern Chile, which would have formed part of the Inka expansion along the coast and to the south of the imperial center in Cusco. On the slopes of this mountain that rises steeply above the Pacific Ocean near the Inka-controlled Huantajalla silver mine, a cache of textiles and other objects were found that accompanied the burial of two young women [17:36, 1821]. Beyond their intrinsic value, these textiles have a profound symbolic meaning tied to the legitimation of Tawantinsuyu expansion and domination [7, 2234]. Similar meanings are also attributed to the cumpi (finely woven cloth), often adorned with rectangular geometric motifs or tocapu. Highly prized for their symbolic value, this attribute indicated noble status [13:175–176].

Unku were originally produced for daily use by the ruling classes [35, 36]. As such, they were considered imperial attire, not to be worn by anyone unless gifted by a government official [7] or provided for a special purpose such as exercising a military role [15, 37]. Some sumptuary goods were also given as part of the mitimae program of forced resettlement. The wealth of the Inka was measured in part by their “generosity” in sharing used cloth among the leaders of the different ethnic groups that were absorbed into the state. Those gifted with such garments would be obliged to wear them for special civic-ritual ceremonies. The garments would also be awarded on an annual basis to soldiers who had displayed valor in battle. The clothes appeared to be new, but on some occasions, repaired items were also distributed [14]. In Andean communities there is a relationship between clothing and people, insofar as the possession of certain types of clothing confers special social and cultural status to the wearer [22, 38]. Unused pieces were presented as sacrificial offerings or used for dressing the dead, reflecting an intimate association between textiles and death [14:157]. We have interpreted this relationship as reinforcing the social, ethnic, cultural, and gender roles of the individuals buried with this type of clothing, maintaining a sense of a community through textile production, in which social boundaries were strengthened through exchange networks, similar perhaps to the practices proposed by Ann Peters for the Paracas Necropolis [4]. At the same time, these garments represented imperial power for provincial leaders or officials in their natural setting, deriving from deliberate political action by the state to distribute these garments as part of political, economic, and ideological agreements.

The state imposed a series of labor obligations and commitments through mit’a (asymmetric reciprocal labor system) using different coercive measures, including political, economic, military and even matrimonial agreements with local communities. In this system of reciprocal relations, the state provided the necessary resources (raw materials, tools, architectural facilities, etc.) for the performance of assigned tasks [14, 39]. The mit’a agreements also implied great acts of generosity on the part of the state as another way of committing local communities to participate in this reciprocal process [14]. In this context of generosity, we believe that the state was also able to transmit the stylistic, architectural, morphological, and technological patterns to be applied in local production, all of which involved acculturation processes [40, 41].

Standardization, such as that found in the unku, is likely related to the need of the state to reproduce its symbols of power. Therefore, garments had to adhere as strictly as possible to the standard parameters that gave these pieces an eminently imperial character; however, it has also been pointed out that one of the political strategies of the Inka state was to coordinate the diversity of the peoples, with their different cultures, languages, and traditions, without trying to homogenize them completely. The Inka promoted diversity and allowed local groups to produce material culture and conduct local ritual behavior in ways that represented their ethnic identity [14, 42]. In short, the relationship between the state and local communities was a dialectical process that varied from region to region and village to village, depending on the pressure exerted by the state and the receptivity of local groups [40, 43]. In our opinion, these historical contexts would have generated the conditions for local weavers to introduce morphological, technological, and stylistic features with low visibility, attributes which did not radically transform the imperial character of these iconic objects that represented the state.

To identify the state-imposed aesthetic in the production of the CV unku, we looked at the typologies proposed by John Rowe [7] and Ann Pollard Rowe [30] for Inka tapestry tunics, which consist of six styles. Ann Pollard Rowe expanded on John Rowe’s findings to develop a system that includes formal, stylistic, and structural characteristics of unku, both imperial and provincial [29, 30, 44], concluding that Inka unku can usually be identified by the following attributes: construction (woven with the warp in the short direction), woven-in neck slot (as opposed to cut), embroidered edges (including armholes and neck slot), dimensions being longer than wide, and the use of weft-faced plain weave with discontinuous, simple-interlocked, two-ply, camelid fiber wefts interweaving three-ply warps (cotton or camelid fiber).

These typologies have been used by many researchers to broaden the discussion of the symbolic, political, and social meanings both embedded and visible in unku [15, 16, 32, 4547]. All the tunics “are of Inka size and proportions, which appear to be the key factors in what was appropriate for Inka men to have” [30:33]. For example, following John Rowe’s typology, Pillsbury [15, 16] focused her analysis on the unku’s spatial composition. Discontinuous warps and wefts were presumably woven “to signal the office of the person who wore that class of garments” [48:230]. Consequently, Dransart has suggested that “it is possible to see different levels of social articulation in these garments” [48:230]. The interlocking tapestry to create binary oppositions and the use of space were identified as a dominant textile features among altiplano and highland social groups in the southern Andes [49:116]. Katterman [25] sought to draw a distinction between different social ranks by focusing her technical analysis on finishes. Bray [50] and Frame [51] presented a perspective based on design and iconography. Several authors, including Vreeland [52], Vanstan [53], and Desrosiers [54, 55], analyzed the techniques employed in making unku, as well as the use of looms and weaving types.

Most of the studies of unku noted above approach them from a technical and stylistic perspective primarily focused on identifying Inka influence on the provinces, which we consider a unidirectional perspective, concerned mainly with high-visibility attributes, or techne. In contrast, most of the 55 unku that were analyzed for the present study—from several museum collections from around the world (S1 Table)—were studied from the perspectives of both techne and metis. In this paper, we demonstrate that, when creating local unku, expert weavers followed the state canons—morphological, technological, and stylistic—to reproduce the emblematic symbols embedded in these imperial garments (techne). Simultaneously, they integrated meaningful symbolic elements representative of local idiosyncrasies, traditions, and experiential knowledge (metis). Consequently, the emblematic symbol of unku, instrumental for the expansion of the state, would have resulted from dynamic relationships between the Inka and the local community where expert weavers played a key role as agents of change.

Although local weavers would have been required to adhere to strict state canons when crafting unku and other textiles, as has been suggested for chuspas (coca bags) [27], they likely would have also found a way to develop and incorporate elements of local style, depending on their own life experiences and social milieu at the time of weaving. These changes in the technical, formal, and aesthetic aspects of these textiles, resulting from the interaction between the state and the local community which we believe represent the concepts of techne and metis, are part of what is known as provincial Inka [25, 29, 56, 57]. Yet we also suggest that certain stylistic and/or technical hallmarks introduced by local weavers were intentionally made less obvious or evident so as to remain in keeping with state conventions. This, given that the functional purpose of the garments and the essentially imperial values associated with them, was reinforced by means of adherence to the state-imposed canons as visible expressions of power, prestige, and ideology.

In the Atacama region [58], local weavers introduced a series of hallmarks to the imperial attributes of the unku. For example, multiple wefts were introduced, a traditional textile technique that became a concealed technical trait found in textiles during the Inka period [5961]. On the coast of Arica, the continued use of single wefts has been recognized [60, 62]. Other examples of this type of syncretism have been described for ceramic production in the area inhabited by the Diaguita people. For instance, González [63] suggests that specialized mitmakuna (Inka State forced settlers) would have been brought to this province to produce, and ultimately teach, locals how to reproduce non-variant imperial ceramics. Interactions between these artisans would have led to the merging of local technological procedures and stylistic expressions with those imported from Cusco, giving shape to a provincial Inka tradition. Williams et al. [64] have shown that local ceramic artisans tried to emulate, as much as possible, the appearance of imperial styles, and in that process added certain traditional procedures, such as the use of local raw materials that differed from those used in the state centers of ceramic production (ollero villages) in the Andean zone [65]. Their ceramic analysis demonstrated that, although the raw materials were different, the artisans tried to give the vessels an imperial appearance (Hughes [27] points out a similar situation for the production of chuspas). This symbiosis combined technical, iconographic, and morphological characteristics whilst leaving space for local modifications. Provincial Inka styles were generated in this way, produced by local artisans who set about reproducing styles that appeared to be like those emanating from Cusco. Cusqueño-like vessels were produced throughout the South Central Andean region, including the Diaguita area and in Northwest Argentina [66], and we can recognize a broad variety of styles ranging from goods with typical Inka hallmarks to objects inspired primarily in accordance with local traditions [4956].

While visibly reflecting the state’s aesthetic canons, provincial Inka styles were characterized by additional features or modifications, such as the use of different color combinations, geometric designs, or some form of iconography associated with the local landscape [67]. It appears, therefore, that the state posed no impediment to the application of local canons during the production process. To the contrary, it is likely the state allowed flexibility for agents to employ certain local practices that could be reproduced by hand while incorporating stylistic expressions of the state [14].

To test the hypothesis that the CV unku was produced by specialized local weavers who incorporated their own symbolic and meaningful elements, our case study focuses on the unku found in Caleta Vitor Bay, northern Chile [6]. The CV unku is an exceptional example, not only for that area but also for the entire Andean region. Unlike most of the rare examples of unku, the CV unku (Fig 1) comes from the archaeologically excavated remains of a previously looted funerary context comprising a series of elements that accompanied the burial. Within this assemblage, the CV unku is the most eloquent form of material expression related to the Inka; therefore, we suggest that this textile was possibly locally produced in the context of a work commitment imposed under the mit’a system [14].

Fig 1. Unku found in Caleta Vitor Bay.

Fig 1

Top: sides A and B from the wearer’s point of view (photographs by Paola Salgado); bottom: illustration of the tapestry tunic from the weaver’s position and viewpoint (illustration by Paola Salgado).

State and provincial unku: Morphology, technology, and style

In the earliest phases of Andean history, vegetal fibers such as Asclepias sp. and Cyperaceae sp. were commonly used to make fabrics [6870]. Cotton does not appear on the coast and valleys of northern and central Peru until the Middle Archaic, becoming popular by the Late Preceramic period (5000 cal yr BP), largely supplanting the use of vegetal fiber in fabrics [62, 69, 71, 72]. Its use continued until the Late Horizon or Inka period. Camelid fiber does not appear on the north coast until the Early Intermediate Period [73]. In contrast, in the valleys and coast of southern Peru and northern Chile, vegetal fiber was followed by camelid fiber, and cotton was introduced during the early Formative (ca. 4000 cal yr BP) [68, 72, 74]. In Caleta Vitor Bay, Martens and Cameron [74] confirmed that fabrics made of vegetal fiber were common since the Early Archaic (ca. 9000–8000 cal yr BP). By the Late Formative, however, this raw material drops off as camelid fiber becomes the most common material. Similarly, the use of cotton was very limited, but became overwhelmingly dominant up to the Inka period [74].

Tapestry warps were traditionally made of white cotton on the coast and valleys of central and northern Peru during the Inka period (Late Horizon). While camelid fiber was less commonly used for warps in tapestry, it was the dominant fiber used for wefts [29]. Similarly, it has been noted that Inka-period textiles from Tarapacá Viejo (the valley administrative center) in northern Chile were also woven in weft face with white cotton warps and camelid fiber wefts [31, 75]. In contrast, at Caleta Vitor Bay, all chuspas have camelid fiber warp and weft. Cotton was almost absent.

Cotton textiles from Huaca Prieta on Peru’s north coast (near the modern city of Trujillo) show that spinning practices used to produce yarns with an “S” twist were well established over 6000 years ago [62]. On the south coast of Peru, cotton was usually spun with a “Z” twist since at least ca. 3000 cal yr BP. These early textiles throughout coastal Peru, however, often included “counter-spun” yarns and yarns that were plied with Z- and S-twists, leading to the creation of new yarn parameters [62, 76]. In pre-Hispanic times, final twist had symbolic connotations for ritual or everyday activities in the Cusco region [7779]. Arnold [80] also noted that spin and ply direction continues to have a sociocultural and communicative properties. The predominant form is S(2z) (two Z-spun yarns plied in the S-direction), although in exceptional cases, such as for ritual use, both twists are combined. In some fabrics, the combination of S and Z final twist, where yarns with a Z twist are called lloque (left handed) yarns was a visual device that derives from aesthetic considerations [80:99]. Both Rowe and Cohen [81] and Phipps [82] note its presence, frequently inserted in the edges of fabrics made in the highlands from Colonial to modern times, where it served multiple functions that ranged from functional—keeping edges from rolling—to aesthetic imparting a herringbone effect. Splitstoser [83] found counter-spun yarns combined with yarns with regular twist, forming repetitive patterns in archaeological textiles from both Cerrillos and Huaca Prieta [62, 83]. Their function is unknown, however, because unlike most highland textiles, which are made of camelid fiber, the archaeological textiles studied by Splitstoser [83] are made primarily of cotton and counter-spun yarns that are found throughout the textiles, not just primarily in the selvages.

The degree of control the Inka exacted over the production of unku garments is also evident in the procedures put in place to ensure the amount of labor required to make each textile was consistent. For instance, Costin [2] notes that the state introduced a quadrangular area as standard for creating large garments. Ann Pollard Rowe [44] and John Rowe [7] documented at least six examples where this metric is evident, suggesting standardized production and a degree of supervisory control.

Large textiles were woven using special looms, propped against a wall, with a vertical structure that consisted of cross bars, top and bottom, as well as heddles. This description by John Rowe [7] is based on the drawings of Guamán Poma [84]. Others, such as Rojas and Hoces de la Guardia [85], Oakland [86], and Conklin [87], have pointed out that broader pieces may have been worked simultaneously by more than one person. Costin [2] and John Rowe [7] believed this interlocking tapestry technique to have been a state technology. Unlike other Andean techniques, both their structure and designs were part of an inseparable system [2, 5]. The interlocking tapestry technique [88] produces designs that entirely conceal the warp, generating abrupt changes of color and shapes that culminate in a complex decorative composition without the restrictive right-angles resulting from many other techniques. Discontinuous warps [87] have been known since the early phases of the Nazca culture [89] and were used for making openings, such as the neck slot in unku, which were finished with warp chaining. Heading cords, located at both warps ends of the textile and at the ends of the discontinuous warps, lent structure and support to the piece.

John Rowe [7] identified six Inca tapestry-tunic styles: Black and White (BW), Inka Key (IK), Tocapu Waistband (TW), Diamond Waistband (DW), All Over Tocapu (AOT), and Zigzag Waistband (ZZW). These styles are defined based on the following components: diamonds or rhomboids; stripes or bands; checkerboard; tocapu (geometric motifs enclosed in quadrangles); and zigzags. Diamonds or rhomboids, which appear repeatedly on ceremonial objects and mainly on Inka tunics [7, 50], may be introduced as iconographic elements or form part of the structure, enclosing spatial areas of the tunic into two or four discrete areas of elaboration. The geometric shape of the diamond or rhomboid design, with its symmetry and concentricity, has been interpreted as a graphic expression of the sociopolitical organization of the Inka State, Tawantinsuyu ("kingdom of the Four Quarters") [50]. The spatial and social correlation generated by the diamond derives from the fact that it can be imaginatively divided into halves and quarters along its symmetrical axes, which together form a visual representation of the Andean world [50]. This motif, called awaqui or auaqui (“V”-shaped yoke) [37:330, 82:41], is frequently recorded in Inka tunics, but it has precedents in tunics from the Wari culture [90:41, Fig 8D]. Unku with awaqui were worn by certain rulers and captains from Inka nobility, although this was relaxed to include other officials and members of the state. This same design continued to be used during the colonial phase in the garments of various high-ranking officials, such as mayors and native tribute collectors [90]. The awaqui motif continues to be used in the textile traditions of modern Andean villages, including those in northern Chile, but with some variations including straight or stepped edges, outlines of rows of triangles, and different interior fills [50].

Unku with plain stripes located around the arm slits would have been worn by lower-level administrative functionaries [54, 86]. In the area of Arica, the mostly thin, plain-striped, natural-colored textiles have been interpreted as a simplified decorative popularization of this Inka feature [22, 91, 92].

The checkerboard pattern, though recorded in the garments of pre-Inka cultures such as the Wari [37, 93], was one of the Inka State’s most used and standardized designs for unku. The black-and-white checkerboard pattern also appears on miniature garments associated with male figurines used in offerings at high-altitude sites [90], and checkered patterns were often applied to ritual textiles, aryballos (storage jars), queros (drinking vessels), paintings on funerary architecture, and rock art. Berenguer [37:Fig 1, 93] interprets this design as a military emblem based on its widespread distribution across the South Central Andean region, Northwest Argentina, and Central Chile. López Campeny and Martel [90], on the other hand, point out that garments bearing these designs were used by the Inka and their entourage when departing from Cusco to visit the provinces.

In contrast, tocapu designs were worn exclusively by the Inka and members of the royal family [2], whose task of weaving them was entrusted to the aqllakuna (chosen women). These specialized weavers were confined, which would have guarded the technical know-how involved in creating tocapu, and preventing the transmission of this knowledge to outsiders [2].

The zigzag design was applied to garments worn by rulers, military leaders, provincial governors, and high-ranking administrators. In the colonies, this same design was extended to ordinary people and provincial noblemen [7:242]. The zigzag design is widely depicted by Guamán Poma de Ayala in illustrations of Andean characters dressed in unku [7].

The final stage in the production of an unku was to remove it from the loom and fold it in half along its vertical axis. The fold served to mark the area of the shoulders (from the wearer’s point of view), and the neck slot was deliberately left open at the center of the tunic so it could easily be placed over the head. Both sides were sewn together to a sufficient height to allow the arms to be inserted. Tiwanaku, Wari, and Inka unku from the Central Andes feature high-density figure eight stitching applied mainly in the lateral seams. This generated a double column that combined several colors, which gave an additional decorative element to the piece [7, 24]. The tunics also present the zigzag in a way that combined the displacement and density of the fishbone stitch. Zigzag embroidery was typically applied near the bottom selvage of the tunic. In addition to the zigzag, the selvage edge of tunics shows overcast stitch, known since Wari (AD 650–1000) [94]. For Desrosiers [54], tapestry tunics from the coast are characterized by their reinforced longitudinal selvages, which can be observed in Tiwanaku, Wari, Inka, and probably colonial pieces. The tunics also retain their heading cords that produce the same effect as a reinforced selvage.

At least some unku were apparently stored as “heirlooms”. A case in point involves a colonial-era unku which was carefully preserved in a cedar box and is now housed at the Museo de América in Madrid (inventory number 14.501). Jiménez [35] interprets this heirloom as a symbol of resistance against the imposition of European power, having been passed down through successive generations.

Murra [14] noted that Pedro Pizarro witnessed baskets of old or used clothing, including unku, that the emperor would gift to the people, and which the authors interpret as a political and economic strategy by the Inka to demonstrate generosity in the complex negotiations the state had with various provincial leaders. In archaeological sites from Arica dating to the Inka Period, both along the coast and in the valleys, textiles have been found that show clear signs of repair for subsequent reuse [22]. Large areas of repairs often appear on textile pieces used as garments during this period, suggesting excessive use and increasingly impoverished clothing among local communities [22]. We believe this may be related to fact that garments containing important symbolic information were handed down from generation to the next.

Material and methods

Caleta Vitor Bay, area of study

The Inka subdivided the Atacama Desert region into three major provinces: Arica, Tarapacá, and Atacama [95]. Complex imperial architectural features can be recognized in these provinces, such as the agricultural canals and terraces essential for maize production, as well as urban facilities containing ushnu (ceremonial platforms) (Fig 2). State emissaries negotiated with representatives from each local community to foster economic growth and strengthen regional and interregional ties. Once agreements between state officials and local authorities had been successfully reached, territories within the Atacama Desert were rapidly and effectively integrated within the imperial system [95].

Fig 2. Distribution of the main sites where imperial Inka elements have been recorded in the provinces of Arica, Tarapacá, and Atacama.

Fig 2

(1) Molle Pampa (ushnu, chullpas); (2) Cruces de Molino (petroglyphs); (3) Azapa 15 (cemetery, ushnu, geoglyphs); (4) Pubrisa (village, monumental architecture); (5) Zapahuira complex (tambo, qolqas, Qapac Ñan, huairas); (6) Chajpa and Ancopachane architectural compounds; (7) Huaihuarani (hilltop village including plaza, domestic and ceremonial architectures); (8) Molle Grande (pictograph with red and white checkerboard); (9) Caleta Vitor Bay; (10) Inkahullo village (sunturhuasi cosmological architecture); (11) Saguara 2 village (domestic and ceremonial architectures: ushnu); (12) Tarapacá Viejo village; (13) Cerro Esmeralda (hilltop burial); (14) Huantajalla (silver mine) (map courtesy of Matias Frugone).

Upstream from the Vitor or Chaca canyon in the Codpa valley, evidence of this integration is found in the form of a pictograph with an Inka checkerboard design. Set on a vertical panel just above a small cave near the Molle Grande archaeological site, the squares are painted red and white and cover an area of 140 cm high x 140 cm wide. The panel is located on the lower section of a rocky wall of the steep gorge about 8 meters above its floor (Fig 3). Berenguer [37] describes this site along with a series of other locations in provinces to the south of Cusco where this checkered pattern is depicted.

Fig 3. Rocky cave in the Molle Grande sector, Codpa Valley, upstream from the Chaca or Vitor canyon.

Fig 3

(a) general view of the pictograph with red and white squares on the lower half of the steep valley wall; (b) closeup of the pictograph. (Photograph courtesy of Arthur Aufderheide†).

Several archaeological sites, such as Caleta Vitor Bay, have been recorded at the mouth of northern Chile’s steep canyons or quebradas. The Caleta Vitor Bay archaeological complex is characterized by broad, deep middens formed by the accumulation of food remains and other elements associated with domestic life along the coast. Along the exoreic coast in Chile’s extreme north, Caleta Vitor Bay is one of the few places that was ideal for early human settlement and dates to the early Holocene [96, 97]. It has permanent sources of fresh water and a wide variety of coastal marine resources (e.g., mollusks, fish, algae, birds, and mammals). These marine food resources, combined with abundant deposits of seabird guano—valued and exploited by the Inka as fertilizer for intensive farming in the inland valleys and oases [98100]—and the Huantajalla silver mine, nestled in Iquique’s coastal mountain range, were significant factors in Inka expansion into this territory.

The middens at Caleta Vitor contain tomb clusters, either in their interior or in adjoining sectors, some of which have been looted. The tomb containing the CV unku was entered into the archaeological record as Tomb N°1 by Chris Carter [96]. Located on a vertical plane on the eastern edge of zone CV2, the tomb became exposed due to deep and extensive excavations carried out by the Chilean Navy in 1960. In addition to the unku, the tomb contained a bow, a clutch of six arrows positioned vertically beside the funerary bundle (Fig 4A), four camelid fiber bags (three square-shaped chuspas and one rectangular talega, or domestic bag) (Fig 4B), a leather breastplate, a vegetal fiber mat, a vegetal fiber capacho (backpack), and two truncated cone hats with twisted chinstraps and stepped geometrical designs made from a flat, rigid, vegetal fiber base interworked with camelid fiber (Fig 4C) [96:193]. The arrows, made entirely of wood, consist of two parts: the shaft (average length of 43.7 cm), which is stained with red ochre except at the proximal segment where the feathers are attached; and the arrowhead, which is a piece of sharpened wood (11.7 cm long x 0.6 cm diameter) fastened to the distal end of the shaft with a thin fiber binding. The bow (51 cm long) was made from a single piece of cylindrical, slightly-curved wood. At the ends of the bow are remains of a cotton string; both bow and string are pigmented with red ochre.

Fig 4. Main objects associated with the excavated Tomb No. 1, Caleta Vitor Bay 2. (a) bow and arrows; (b) chuspas and talega; (c) hats (photograph by Jacqueline Correa-Lau).

Fig 4

Standard analytical parameters and their descriptive attributes for unku classification

To define the standard analytical parameters and attributes associated with the production, use, repair, and discard of unku, we used a methodology developed by Splitstoser [62], which provides a practical framework for data collection based on a quantitative and qualitative analysis of textile attributes. Splitstoser’s method recognizes the various stages of the step-by-step chaîne opératoire of textile production [62]. The process spans raw material acquisition and preparation, yarn spinning and dyeing, loom choice and preparation, color planning, warping and weaving, off-loom finishing, use, reuse, repair, and disposal [50]. This analytical process makes it possible to identify the different stages of the textile’s life history [101].

In Table 1 we list these nine analytical parameters and 26 corresponding attributes, arranged in numerical and alphabetical order. Table 2 presents the parameters and attributes used to study the CV unku. These terms are further defined in S2 Table. These features are used to identify the technical and stylistic attributes that deviated from imperial weaving canons and which are likely associated with the geographical origin of the textile.

Table 1. Standard analytical parameters and attributes.

Parameters (P) Attributes
P1. Material Selection 1a. Fiber type
P2. Spinning 2a. Yarn type
2b. Yarn length
2c. Yarn thickness or count
2d. Yarn structure
2e. Degree of twist
P3. Color Selection 3a. Color name
3b. Color Source
P4. Loom Selection 4a. Horizontal loom
4b. Vertical loom
P5. Preparation and Set Up 5a. Geometric shape
5b. Size
5c. Symmetry
5d. Spatial layout
P6. Technological-Structural Construction 6a. Weave structure
6b. Weave density
P7. Design and Decorative Effects 7a. Diamonds or rhomboids
7b. Stripes or bands
7c. Checkerboard
7d. Tocapu
7e. Zigzag
7f. Textures or effects
P8. Finishes 8a. Types of finish
P9. Usages of the unku 9a. Initial use
9b. Reuse
9c. Disposal

Table 2. Analytical tool.

Standard Analytical Parameters and Attributes Application of the Analytical Tool to the CV Unku
Parameter Attribute Results
Specific detail/ characteristic Location on textile from weaver’s viewpoint Imperial or local feature
Material Selection Fiber type Cotton Warp 1; heading cord Top/bottom and central support Imperial
Warp 2 Complete piece Imperial
Alpaca Weft 1 Selvages Imperial or local
Wefts 2, 3, 4 Flange (checkered) Imperial or local
Wefts 5, 6 Pampa Imperial or local
Wefts 7, 8, 9, 10 Center or taypi (striped) Imperial or local
Repair 1 Pampa (side B) Local
Repair 2
2. Spinning a. Yarn type Monochrome/regular Warps 1, 2; Wefts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and heading cords Complete piece Imperial or local
Monochrome/regular Repair 1 Pampa (side B) Local
Melange Repair 2
b. Yarn length Cotton N1: 2600 cm of cotton yarn in each quadrangle i.e., warp in each quadrangle Imperial
Alpaca N2: 4000 cm of alpaca yarn in each quadrangle i.e., weft in in each quadrangle Imperial
c. Yarn thickness or count Warp 1 (c) regular (10–18); (d) 2nd order Z(2S); (e) strong (30–45°) Top/bottom and central support Imperial or local
Warp 2 (c) regular (10–18); (d) 2nd order S(3Z); (e) strong (30–45°) Complete piece Local
Weft 1 (c) very fine (30–35); (d) 2nd order S(2Z); (e) strong (30–45°) Selvages Imperial or local
Wefts 2, 3 (c) very fine (30–35); (d) 2nd order S(2Z); (e) strong (30–45°) Flange (checkered) Imperial or local
(c) very fine (30–35); (d) 2nd order S(2Z); (e) strong (30–45°)
d. Yarn structure Weft 4 (c) very fine (30–35); (d) 2nd order S(2Z); (e) strong (30–45°) Flange. Half-check Imperial or local
e. Degree of twist Weft 5 (c) very fine (30–35); (d) 2nd order S(2Z); (e) strong (30–45°) Pampa Imperial or local
Weft 6 (c) very fine (30–35); (d) 2nd order S(2Z); (e) strong (30–45°)
Wefts 7, 8, 9, 10 (c) very fine (30–35); (d) 2nd order S(2Z); (e) strong (30–45°) Center or taypi (striped) Imperial or local
Repairs 1, 2: (c) fine (30–18); (d) 2nd order S(2Z); (e) strong (30–45°) Pampa (side B) Local
3. Color Selection a. Color name Warp 1 (a) beige 2.5Y 7/4; (b) natural Top/bottom and central support Imperial
Warp 2 (a) beige 2.5Y 7/4; (b) natural Complete piece Imperial
Weft 1 (a) dark brown 2.5Y 3/3; (b) dyed Selvages Imperial or local
Weft 2 (a) white 2.5Y 8/1; (b) natural Flange (checkered) Local
Weft 3 (a) very dark brown 2.5Y 2/1; (b) dyed
Weft 4 (a) dark brown 2.5Y 3/3; (b) dyed Side B. 2nd and 4th row, 4th quadrangle from bottom to top Local
Weft 5 (a) light garnet red 10R 3/6; (b) dyed Pampa (side A), lower section Imperial
b. Color source Weft 6 (a) dark garnet red 10R 2/3; (b) dyed Pampa Imperial
Weft 7 (a) white 2.5Y 8/1; (b) natural Center or taypi (striped) Local
Weft 8 (a) very dark brown 2.5Y 2/1; (b) dyed
Weft 9 (a) medium brown 2.5Y 5/6; (b) dyed
Weft 10 (a) very dark brown 2.5Y 2/1; (b) dyed
Repair 1 (a) dark brown 2.5Y 3/3; (b) dyed Pampa (side B), upper section Local
Repair 2 (a) very dark brown with white fibers 2.5Y 2/1; (b) dyed Pampa (side B), upper section Local
4. Loom Selection a. Horizontal loom Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
b. Vertical loom Yes Not applicable Imperial
5. Preparation and Set Up a. Geometric shape Rectangular along the width (width greater than height) Not applicable Imperial
b. Sizes 80 cm high x 182.5 cm wide Piece fully stretched out Imperial
80 cm high x 35 cm wide (side B) Checkered section (complete section) Imperial
26 cm Fully open neck slot Imperial
Between 7.4–9.5 cm high x 8.2–10 cm wide Pattern repeat in two alternating colors Flange (checkered) Imperial
Between 4.0 and 7.0 mm wide Pattern repeat in four alternating colors Center or taypi (striped) Local
c. Symmetry Symmetric in shape and asymmetric in color Vertical and horizontal Local
d. Spatial layout Heading cord Top/bottom Imperial or local
Checkered Flanges Imperial
Plain area Pampas Imperial
Striped diamond Center or taypi Local
6. Technological-Structural Construction a. Weave structure Heading Cords Top/bottom and central support Imperial or local
Interlocking tapestry Whole piece Imperial
Discontinuous warps Neck slot Imperial
Slit tapestry Intersection between pampa and striped diamond Imperial
Wefts grouped in 3/3 Joining of two parts (pieces) of the textile local
b. Weave density Warp 1 2 threads at 3 mm Top/bottom and central support Imperial
Warp 2 26 threads per cm Complete piece Imperial
Weft 1 8 passes at 3 mm Selvages Imperial or local
Weft 2 40 passes per cm Flange (checkered) Imperial
Weft 3, 4 48 passes per cm
Weft 5 44 passes per cm Pampa Imperial
Weft 6 68 passes per cm
Weft 7 32 passes at 7 mm Center or taypi (striped) Local
Weft 8, 9, 10: 28 passes at 7 mm
Repair 1 14 passes per cm Pampa (side B) Local
Repair 2 15 passes per cm
7. Design and Decorative Effects a. Rhomboids or diamonds Yes Half rhomboid or “V” shape which forms a breastplate. Side corners (shoulder height) are truncated. A complete rhomboid is formed when the piece is fully extended. Imperial
b. Stripes or bands Yes Regular stripes based on a 4-color pattern repeat (one of the colors is repeated) Center or taypi (rhomboid) Local
c. Checkered Yes 4 rows of 10 quadrangles and two alternating colors Flange Imperial
d. Tocapu Not applicable Not applicable Not identifieda
e. Zigzag Not applicable Not applicable Not identifieda
f. Textures and/or effects Eccentric weft Visual curvilinear and ribbed effect Pampa (side A), lower section Imperial or Local
Lazy lines Diagonal lines Pampa (side A), upper section Imperial or Local
8. Finishes a. Type of finish Overstitch Neck slot (side A) Imperial or Local
Figure-eight stitch Not identified Not identifieda
Zigzag-reinforced stitch Not identified Not identifieda
Fishbone stitch Not identified Not identifieda
Heading cords Top/bottom Imperial or Local
9. Usages of the Unku a. Initial use Original Not applicable Local
b. Reuse Repairs Two in the pampa, very fine weave which imitates the structural weave parameter. One of these is more visible due to its mélange yarn Pampa (side B), upper section Local
c. Disposal burial Not applicable Local

aImperial feature not identified in the CV unku.

Results

Case study of the Caleta Vitor Bay Inka unku

A detailed description of our findings for each structural element (Fig 5) is presented in S1 File and summarized in Table 2. These data allowed us to methodologically deconstruct the textile chaîne opératoire step by step, addressing both high-visibility and low-visibility attributes, and enabling us to distinguish morphological, technical, and stylistic state hallmarks from local ones in the CV unku (as noted in the last column of Table 2). In sum, the proposed methodological tool performed satisfactorily in our analysis of the CV unku.

Fig 5. Description and detail of the CV unku (illustration by Pamela Aravena).

Fig 5

Discussion

Results obtained from our methodological tool provided us with a better understanding of the visual and technological features of the CV unku. We were able to characterize a series of visible traits strongly associated with the Inka State, suggesting this tunic would have been recognized as a state symbol of power and prestige at the time it was worn. If our analysis had focused solely on identifying and defining the visual attributes of Inka traits (techne), we would not have identified a series of traits unique to this piece and deriving, we propose, from local traditions (metis). The dialectical processes we identified between metis and techne must have been a source of tension between the skilled weavers and the technical and stylistic demands of the state. Our analysis provides a deeper understanding of the processes involved in textile production under the pressures of adhering to state canons. We also shed light on the identificatory character ascribed to textiles by their makers that helps reveal their geographic origins.

The CV unku is especially remarkable for its stylistic singularity, reflecting the technological-structural syncretism that gave rise to this particular provincial Inka unku. Brugnoli et al. [102] point out that Andean garments embody a narrative and, according to Wobst’s theory of style [103], would have been designed in such a way as to be seen from afar to convey syncretic symbolism. In this same vein, other iconic material goods from the Inka period, such as ceramic aryballos, wooden queros [104], chuspas [27], tunics [12], ushnus, and monumental architecture, display the hallmarks or identity traits of local cultures, distinguishable from those of the empire.

In one sense, the CV unku represents well-known and highly-visible Inka imperial standards (techne). This includes a long rectangular morphology and lack of sleeves. The measurements are within the established averages for width [between 72–79 cm; 6] and length [between 79–110 cm; 44]; see also Mary Frame [12]. The unku’s interlocking tapestry technique is certainly of highland origin, as are its checkerboard design and “V”-shaped yoke, which forms a diamond when the piece is laid out fully. The diamond design may somehow reflect the Inka cosmovision of the world divided into four zones or suyus. On the other hand, the slit tapestry technique at the intersection of the pampa and diamond seems to refer to a coastal origin [12].

The CV unku presents several low-visibility structural and stylistic variants that we attribute to local/regional practices (metis), possibly of coastal origin. First, the textile was woven with cotton warp and camelid fiber wefts. Because imperial unku could have either camelid fiber or cotton warps, this latter feature is not diagnostic of an unku with a coastal origin; however, there is a strong association between cotton and coastal textiles. Although the CV unku was conceived as a single piece, it was made in two parts. This becomes visible where the sections converge, denoted by the heading cords that add structure to the shoulder area of the textile. At the shoulder seam, there is a small incongruity in the alternating colors of the diamond-enclosed stripes and pattern repetition, which appears to be the result of more than one weaver working together, as Rojas and Hoces de la Guardia [85] have proposed for other Inka textiles. Apart from the change of hands that may have led to these kinds of mismatches, they might also have resulted from a lack of rigor in the finishing process. Alternatively, it could be suggested that this “error” came about due to an intentional decision on the part of the weavers to impart local/regional practices, or metis, to deviate from state norms. That being said, the evidence would not have been immediately visible, neither to the wearer nor the observer, given its position at shoulder height.

The solid stripes that make up the diamond are organized based on a repetition of natural, contrasting colors within the brown range. This stripe pattern is regularly recorded in other woven textiles such as bags (talegas, costales, chuspas, and inkuñas) and tunics from earlier periods excavated along the southern coast of Peru and throughout northern Chile. The use of this color scheme and its adaptation to the CV unku is a highly visible aesthetic feature. For this reason, we see this decision as reflecting a choice made by local coastal weavers, who, though adhering to general state patterns, still managed to leave their own hallmark, thereby characterizing and marking the piece as a provincial Inka unku.

Similarly, the colors of the checkerboard squares present variations in range that go beyond those of the state. They are not the standard black-and-white squares as described by John Rowe [7]. Indeed, we identified the black color, macroscopically and microscopically, as dark brown to very dark brown. At first glance and from a distance, the very dark brown color could easily have passed for black from the point of view of an observer engaged in certain activities when the piece was worn. On B side (from the wearer’s point of view), two squares were woven half in very dark brown and half in dark brown. Rather than technical errors or design mismatches, these digressions are, in our view, the product of deliberate actions by local weavers. This characteristic of two squares with chromatic duality in the brown range is exemplified on a large scale (i.e., the entire surface of the textile) in two unku defined as provincial in the collection of the Ethnological Museum of Berlin (VA 16630 and VA 4576) [105]. Another case, but with curved figures, is observed with a duality of blue range (VA 62696). The CV unku, a piece that integrates imperial and provincial morphologies, technologies, and styles, is a perfect example of syncretism, which transforms it into a local product. The detail of the chromatic duality in a single square of a checkered surface has not been noted in any other unku of the BW type, with which this piece would be associated. Therefore, we suggest investigating this feature as an element of the creation of local weavers who, following the state templates, introduced distinctive hallmarks. As for the prominence of this feature, although it is located on the front flange of the garment, due to slight tonal differences, it is not readable. Similarly, it occurs with the intersection of the stripes at shoulder height, which are in less conspicuous positions. We identified both features as having low-visibility.

Another technical decision with subtle visual effects was the change in shades of red produced by the “lazy lines” [88] which occur diagonally across the red area. Also, the tightly packed wefts in the structural area produced a ribbed visual effect that enhances contrast in the warps. The latter effect may be due to the use of S(3z) warps, which are thicker and less dense (10–18 per cm) than the weft yarns. Furthermore, some of the warps appear to be “floating” above the flat red area. In the first instance, we presumed these were technical errors. However, given these traits are repeated on both sides of the piece, we consider this to have been an intentional a priori effect introduced by its makers, which we interpret as another attribute of the CV unku that was the result of local weaving practices.

Repairs to the piece were made by intricately and delicately emulating the original technique. As such, they are not immediately apparent and would have been barely perceptible to observers. For this careful repair work, the mender used composite yarns of different colors to those of the original textile, thus disclosing the intention to modify the conservation of the piece and unveil his hallmark as a mender. The repairs were intended to prolong the lifespan of the piece and thus give way to the second usage (reuse) of its life history. The CV unku was a singular piece in which, at first glance, state and provincial canons are identified, which thus made it an object valued locally and representative of a social, cultural, geographical, and temporal context. In this sense, this piece was transformed into an inheritable and desirable object given its ideological and political charge, which was to be maintained in perpetuity through reparations, thus endorsing the position of the character or family lineage in which the piece fell, to the extent that it continued to be part of the structure of the political relationship between the state and this local community.

Given the ecological constraints in developing their economic programs, the hyper-arid coast of northern Chile was somewhat indirectly linked as a sociopolitical unit of the Inka State compared to those of its inner core. Its most important resources were the abundant seabird guano reserves along the northern coast of Chile, where guano deposits are still visible at Caleta Vitor Bay, and the rich silver mine of Huantajalla, south of Caleta Vitor Bay. Control and exploitation of these key resources generated traffic routes along the coast and toward the hinterland [98, 100, 106]. Caleta Vitor Bay was therefore one of the nodes within this territorial economic sphere and was likely part of the guano production and distribution network, which was coordinated by the Inka State and essential to agricultural activities within the desert and beyond. According to Williams et al. [67], failure to reach negotiated agreements with the state meant that local communities remained outside imperial networks, which was clearly not the case with the community at Caleta Vitor Bay.

The CV unku and accompanying objects recorded from Caleta Vitor Bay Tomb N° 1 may reflect broader negotiations and agreements that took place between Inka State officials and local Caleta Vitor Bay authorities to access and control guano extraction and the movement of silver mined from Huantajalla. This relationship would also have brought with it a series of obligations to the state as well as provisions for local communities. In these negotiations, there was no commitment on the part of the Inka to invest in any monumental architecture projects such as the ushnu erected in several other localities scattered along the interior coastal valleys. In fact, the material culture that defined the relationship between the state and the Caleta Vitor Bay social group would have been non-monumental in nature and operated primarily through symbolic elements. Within this ensemble, the CV unku stands out for its eloquence.

If it is accepted that the CV unku was the result of local production, we might suggest that the garment was produced under the state mit’a system, which according to Murra [14] was one of the main work obligations demanded of local communities by the state. This means that the products of this local mit’a were state property, which were distributed inside or outside the territory, depending on the state’s needs.

The CV unku’s checkerboard design has been interpreted as a military symbol. The idea that the CV unku may have been worn by a local member of the state military is also supported by some of the associated archaeological materials (i.e., breastplate and possibly the bow and arrows). Tentatively, we estimate that this function (military service) may have corresponded to another mit’a obligation incurred by the Caleta Vitor Bay community. In Cusco, according to Murra [14], military garments were produced by women and given by the Inka government to men of military age, an endowment that represented a state reward. These tunics may have been produced by relatives of the soldiers. Similarly, we estimate that the state may have gifted the locally produced CV unku to this military figure as a prestige object befitting his position. In this process of giving and receiving, the state enacted the redistribution system of mit’a produced objects with the community of Caleta Vitor Bay. The action of giving helped bring negotiations and agreements to a successful conclusion, paving the way for integration and fostering collaboration between the community and the state.

Conclusions

Regarding the origins of the CV unku, given its recognizable morphological, technological, and stylistic features, we are inclined to suggest it was made by weavers who were very well versed in the textile traditions of the southern coast of Peru and northern Chile, which constituted its identificatory attributes. These textiles of local origin, however, had to be stylistically and functionally equivalent to those produced by state weavers in Cusco and other state production centers. Consequently, local weavers from an unknown locality in the Arica or Tarapacá provinces would have endorsed the state’s conventional traits to ensure the CV unku functioned stylistically and structurally as an item of military clothing. However, the local weavers were able to add their own designs (e.g., stripes) while applying enough Inka details to allow the wearer to project his role as a state dignitary. Thus, the CV unku embodied the social, economic, and political relations and obligations negotiated between the state and local communities.

The textile pieces provided by the state formed part of the collective memory of social groups and served, intrinsically and extrinsically, to maintain the reciprocal tradition of giving and receiving coopted by the State. However, they also demonstrate the flexibility that local communities had in being able to introduce their own set of idiosyncratic variations, modifications, and substitutions. At the same time, local weavers understood how critical it was to uphold certain immutable and essential fixed traits of Imperial importance, ensuring that their technical actions would not compromise the pieces’ symbolic function. This syncretic condition of the textile could also be repeated in other goods produced by and for the state. For example, despite the rigid production processes of ceramics, artisans managed to introduce technical and aesthetic variations that resulted in a diversity of vessels defined as local or provincial Inka.

In conclusion, the signals, variations, and visual and haptic effects of the CV unku demonstrate the existence of local agents operating within an asymmetric and non-unidirectional system of state-community relations. The tension embodied by weavers in having to explicitly reproduce state patterns, and mask or subtly unveil their local hallmarks are well represented and expressed in this unku. This tension has also been replicated in other woven pieces (e.g., chuspas). Each one of these textiles preserves a unique and inalienable life history, representing the vestiges that attest today to the dialectic processes at work in the development of the Inka State.

Supporting information

S1 Table. List of unku from around the world.

Register of unku located in museums in Europe, the United States of America and South America.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Standard analytical parameters and attributes.

Description of the 9 analytical parameters and 26 attributes.

(DOCX)

S1 File. CV unku parameters and attributes.

Supplementary description that characterize the CV unku.

(DOCX)

S1 Fig

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

To Persis Clarkson for her careful revision of the English; to Benjamin Ballester for informing us about two unku excavated and photographed by Max Uhle in 1916, held at the Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut and Ethnological Museum of Berlin; to Lena Bjerregaard for proving further information about the collection of this unku, and Mauro Bologna for refining a formula to calculate yarn length. To Natalia Aravena and Arnoldo Vizcarra for the optical microscopy and electron microscopy images of the unku yarns at the Laboratorio de Bioarqueología, Instituto de Alta Investigación, Universidad de Tarapacá, courtesy of Bernardo Arriaza. To the anonymous reviewers and editors for their fruitful comments and suggestions that substantially enriched this work.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

ECOS200056, Sra. Jacqueline Correa-Lau (CMS, JC-L) https://www.anid.cl/redes-estrategia-y-conocimiento/programa-de-cooperacion-cientifica-ecos-anid/ FONDECYT 1201687, Sr. Calogero M. Santoro (CMS) https://www.anid.cl/proyectos-de-investigacion/fondecyt-regular/ NCN19_153, Sr. Calogero M. Santoro (CMS) https://www.anid.cl/centros-e-investigacion-asociativa/nucleos-milenio/ UTA Mayor 3759-22, Sra. Ester Echenique (EE) https://www.uta.cl/index.php/concurso-de-proyectos-mayores-de-investigacion-cientifica-y-tecnologica-utamayor-2022/ The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Scott JC. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Costin CL. Housewives, chosen women, skilled men: Cloth production and social identity in the late prehispanic Andes. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association. 1998;8(1):123–41. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Grávalos ME, Bria RE. Prehispanic Highland Textile Technologies: A View from the First Millennium AD at Hualcayán, Ancash, Peru. Latin American Antiquity. 2021;32(4):781–99. Epub 2021/06/04. doi: 10.1017/laq.2021.30 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Peters AH. Paracas Necropolis: communities of textile production, exchange networks, and social boundaries in the Central Andes, 150 BC to AD 250. In: Arnold DY, Dransart PZ, editors. Textiles, Technical Practice and Power in the Andes. London: Archetype Publications; 2014. p. 109–39. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lechtman H. Style in Technology–Some Early Thoughts. In: Lechtman H, Merril R, editors. Material Culture Styles Organization, and Dynamics of Technology. San Francisco: West Publishing Co., St. Paul/New York/Boston/Los Angeles; 1977. p. 3–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Martens T, Correa-Lau J, Santoro CM, Carter C, Cameron J. An Inka Unku from Caleta Vitor Bay, Northern Chile. Latin American Antiquity. 2021;32(1):201–8. Epub 2021/03/23. doi: 10.1017/laq.2020.81 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Rowe JH. Standardization in Inca tapestry tunics. In: Rowe AP, Benson EP, Schaffer A-L, editors. The Junius B Bird Pre-Columbian Textile Conference, May 19–20, 1973. Washington, D.C.: The Textile Museum and Dumbarton Oaks; 1979. p. 239–64 [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Arnold D, Espejo E. El Textil Tridimensional: la Naturaleza del Tejido Como Objeto y Como Sujeto. La Paz: Fundación Albó, Fundación Interamericana e Insituto de Lengua y Cultura Aymara (ILCA); 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Dobres M-A. Technology and social agency: outlining a practice framework for archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Dobres M-A, Hoffman CR. Social agency and the Dynamics of Prehistoric Technology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 1994;1(3):211–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hegmon M. The Social Dynamics of Pottery Style in the Early Puebloan Southwest. Cortez, Colorado: Crow Canyon Archaeology Center; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Frame M. Chuquibamba: A highland textile style. Textile Museum Journal. 1997;1998:2–47. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Abal de Russo CM. Arte Textil Incaico en Ofrendatorios de la Alta Cordillera Andina. Aconcagua, Llullaillaco, Chuscha. Buenos Aires: Fundación Ceppa; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Murra JV. El Mundo Andino. Población, Medio Ambiente y Economía. Lima: Fondo Editorial Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú e Instituto de Estudios Peruanos; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Pillsbury J. Inka Unku: Strategy and design in colonial Peru. Cleveland Studies in the History of Art. 2002;7:68–103. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Pillsbury J. Inca colonial tunics: A case study of the Bandelier set. In: Young-Sánchez M, SF W., editors. Andean Textile Traditions: Papers from the 2001 Mayer Center Symposium at the Denver Art Museum. Denver, CO: Denver Art Museum; 2006. p. 120–68. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Jensen E, Lindberg I. Chile hace mil años. Revista Viaje. 1971;452:33–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Checura J. Funebria incaica en el cerro Esmeralda (Iquique, I región). Estudios Atacameños. 1977;5:125–41. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hoces de la Guardia S, Cárdenas LM, Brugnoli P, Jélvez P. Andean colors: A colorimetric registration in pre-Columbian textiles from Northern Chile. Color Research & Application. 2019;44(6):981–92. 10.1002/col.22424. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hoces de la Guardia S, Rojas AM. Vestimenta de mujeres en la nobleza Inca. Ajuar textil en el enterratorio del Cerro Esmeralda y sus relaciones con los textiles en miniatura de estatuillas. Nuevo Mundo—Mundos Nuevos. 2016;1(1). 10.4000/nuevomundo.69833. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Morales O. Hallazgo arqueológico en el Cerro Esmeralda. Informe Museo Regional de Iquique. Iquique: Corporación Municipal de Desarrollo Social; 1976. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Carmona G. Caracterización de las prendas textiles incas presentes en sitios arqueológicos tardíos del extremo norte de Chile. Santiago: Universidad de Chile; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Julien CJ. History and art in translation: The panos and other objects collected by Francisco de Toledo. Colonial Latin American Review. 1999;8(1):61–89. doi: 10.1080/10609169984764 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Katterman G. Costuras de unión y remates apuntados de la costa sur del Perú durante los tiempos de los Incas. In: Solanilla Demestre V, editor. Actas III Jornadas Internacionales de Textiles Precolombinos. Barcelona: Grup d’Estudis Precolombins, Departament d’Art de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; 2006. p. 341–53. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Katterman G, editor Clothing styles from a provincial Inca outpost. Textile Society of America Symposium Proceedings; 2002; Lincoln, Nebraska: DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Katterman G. Tela y técnica entre los Incas provincianos de la costa sur. In: Solanilla Demestre V, editor. Tejiendo Sueños en el Cono Sur Tejidos Andinos: Pasado,Presente y Futuro. Barcelona: Grupo d’Estudis Precolombins; 2004. p. 261–76. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hughes LF. Weaving imperial ideas: iconography and ideology of the Inca coca bag. Textile. 2010;8(2):148–78. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Katterman G, Riddell FA. A cache of Inca textiles from Rodadero, Acari Valley Peru. Andean Past. 1994;4:141–67. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Rowe AP. Provincial inca tunics of the south coast of Peru. The Textile Museum Journal. 1992;31:5–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Rowe AP. Inca weaving and costume. The Textile Museum Journal. 1995–1996;34–35:5–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Urbina S, Uribe M, Agüero C, Zori C. From Inca province to repartimiento: Tarapaca in the XVth and XVIth centuries (South Central Andes). Estudios Atacameños, Arqueología y Antropología Surandinas. 2019;61:219–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Zuidema RT. Guamán Poma and the art of Empire: Toward and iconography of Inca royal dress. In: Adrien KJ, Adorno R, editors. Trans-Atlantic Encounters: Europeans and Andeans in the Sixteenth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1991. p. 151–202. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Menzel D. The Archaeology of Ancient Peru and the Work of Max Uhle. Berkeley: R.H. Lowie Museum of Anthropology University of California; 1977. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Rowe AP. Costumes and Featherwork of the Lords of Chimor. Washington, D.C.: The Textile Museum; 1984. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Jiménez Díaz MJ. Una “reliquia" inca de los inicios de la Colonia: El uncu del Museo de América de Madrid. Anales del Museo de América. 2002;10: 9–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Cook AG. The emperor’s new clothes: symbols of royalty, hierarchy and identity. Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society. 1996;24(1–2):85–120. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Berenguer J. Unkus ajedrezados en el arte rupestre del sur del Tawantinsuyu: ¿La estrecha camiseta de la nueva servidumbre? In: Albeck ME, Ruiz M, Cremonte MB, editors. Las Tierras Altas del Area Centro Sur Andina entre el 1000 y el 1600 dC. San Salvador de Jujuy: Editorial EDIUNJu; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Pease F. Curacas, Reciprocidad y Riqueza. Lima: Fondo Editorial Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú (PUCP); 1992. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Rostworowski M. Historia del Tahuantinsuyu. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos; 1988. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Raffino R. Los Inkas del Kollasuyu. Orígenes, Naturaleza y Transfiguraciones de la Ocupación Inka en los Andes Meridonales. Buenos Aires: Ramos Americana Editora; 1981. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hyslop J. Factors Influencing the transmission and distribution of Inka cultural materials throughout. In: Rice DS, editor. Latin American Horizons: A Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks, 11th and 12th October 1986. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection; 1993. p. 337–56. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Von Hagen A, Morris C. The Cities of the Ancient Andes. London: Thames and Hudson Inc; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.D’Altroy TN, Lorandi AM, Williams VI, Calderari M, Hastorf CA, DeMarrais E, et al. Inka rule in the northern Calchaqui Valley, Argentina. Journal of Field Archaeology. 2000;27(1):1–26. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Rowe AP. Technical features of Inca tapestry tunics. The Textile Museum Journal. 1978;17:5–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Dransart P. Vestirse en los periodos tardíos del centro sur andino. In: Solanilla V, editor. Actas de la I Jornada Internacional sobre Textiles Precolombinos. Barcelona: Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona; 2000. p. 27–53. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Pillsbury J. Imperial radiance. Luxury arts of the Incas and their predecessors. In: Potts T, Richter KN, editors. Golden Kingdoms: Luxury and Legacy in the Ancient Americas; and Golden Kingdoms: Luxury Arts in the Ancient Americas. Los Angeles, California: The J. Paul Getty Museum at the Getty Center; 2017. p. 33–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Hamilton AJ. Scale and the Incas. New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Dransart P. Thoughts on productive knowledge in Andean weaving with discontinuous warp and weft. In: Arnold DY, Dransart P, editors. Textiles, Technical Practice and Power in the Andes. London: Archetype Publications; 2014. p. 216–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Conklin WJ. Structure as meaning in andean textiles. Chungara. 1997;29(1):109–31. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Bray TL. Exploring Inca State religion through material metaphor. In: Fogelin L, editor. Religion, Archaeology, and the Material World. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 36, Southern Illinois University; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Frame M. What the women were wearing: a deposit of Early Nasca dresses and shawls from Cahuachi, Peru. Textile Museum Journal. 2005;42/43:13–53. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Vreeland J. The vertical loom in the Andes, past and present. In: Emery I, Fiske P, editors. Irene Emery Roundtable on Museum Textiles 1977, Proceedings: Looms and their Products. Washington D.C.: The Textile Museum; 1979. p. 188–211. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Vanstan I. Did Inca weavers use an upright loom? In: Rowe AP, Benson EP, Schaffer A-L, editors. The Junius B Bird Pre-Columbian Textile Conference. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks; 1979. p. 233–8 [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Desrosiers S. Las técnicas de tejido ¿tienen un sentido? Una propuesta de lectura de los tejidos andinos. Revista Andina. 1992;1:7–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Desrosiers S. El textil como matriz para el desarrollo de las artes plásticas en los Andes. Revista Española de Antropología Americana. 2013;43(2):477–514. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Agüero C. Intervention in local textile-making as a Tahuantinsuyu strategy for linking Northwest Argentina with the Atacama Desert, Northern Chile (AD 1350–1500). Quaternary International. 2019;533:78–87. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Frame M. Nasca-Huari y otros textiles de la costa sur/Nasca- Huari and other south coast textiles. In: de Lavalle JA, de Lavalle de Cárdenas R, editors. Tejidos Milenarios del Peru/Ancient Peruvian textiles. Lima: Integra; 1999. p. 311–51. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Carrasco A. Embracing the Anaconda: A Chronicle of Atacameño Life and Mining in the Andes. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Agüero C. Tradiciones textiles de Atacama y Tarapacá presentes en Quillagua durante el periodo Intermedio Tardío. Boletín del Comité Nacional de Conservación Textil. 1998;3:103–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Agüero C. Las tradiciones de tierras altas y de Valles Occidentales en la textilería arqueológica del valle de Azapa. Chungara, Revista de Antropología Chilena. 2000;32(2):217–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Agüero C. El Rol del Vestuario en la Sociedad Pica-Tarapacá (800–1300 dC). Saarbrücken: Editorial Académica Española; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Splitstoser JC. Weaving the Structure of the Cosmos: Cloth, Agency, and Worldview at Cerrillos, an Early Paracas Site in the Ica Valley, Peru. Washington, DC,: Department of Anthropology, The Catholic University of America; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.González P. Arte visual, espacio y poder: manejo incaico de la iconografía cerámica en distintos asentamientos de la Fase Diaguita Inka en el Valle de Illapel. Chungara, Revista de Antropología Chilena. 2004;36(2):375–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Williams VI, Santoro CM, Speakman RJ, Glascock MD, Romero Guevara ÁL, Valenzuela D, et al. Instrumental neutron activation analysis of Inka and local pottery from northern Chile’s Atacama Desert and late prehistoric interregional interaction in the Southern Andes. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 2016;9:481–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Murra JV. Los olleros del Inka: hacia una historia y arqueología del Qollasuyu. In: Murra JV, editor. El Mundo Andino Población, Medio Ambiente y Economía. Lima: Fondo Editorial Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú e Instituto de Estudios Peruanos; 2002. p. 287–93. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Lynch J, Lynch V, Güida JA, Chacón Villalba ME. Pigment identification of prehispanic ceramics during Inka occupation (Catamarca, Argentina) using non-invasive spectroscopy (Infrared-Raman). Vibrational Spectroscopy. 2022;118:103327. doi: 10.1016/j.vibspec.2021.103327 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Williams VI, D’Altroy TN, Neff H, Speakman J, Glascock M. Provisioning the Inka economy in Qollasuyu: production and distribution of ceramics at Inka sites in the southern Andes. Buenos Aires 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Santos M, Standen VG. El temprano arte de la tradición de tejer esteras en fibra vegetal en la sociedad Chinchorro (10.000–3500 aP): Extremo norte de Chile. Latin American Antiquity. 2022;33(2):355–75. Epub 2021/10/06. doi: 10.1017/laq.2021.59 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Pearsall DM. Plant domestication and the shift to agriculture in the Andes. In: Silverman H, Isbell WH, editors. The handbook of South American archaeology. New York: Springer; 2008. p. 105–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Dillehay TD, Bonavia D, Goodbred S, Pino M, Vasquez V, Tham TR, et al. Chronology, mound-building and environment at Huaca Prieta, coastal Peru, from 13 700 to 4000 years ago. Antiquity. 2012;86(331):48–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Dillehay TD, Rossen J, Andres TC, Williams DE. Preceramic adoption of peanut, squash, and cotton in northern Peru. Science. 2007;316(5833):1890–3. doi: 10.1126/science.1141395 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Beresford-Jones D, Pullen A, Chauca G, Cadwallader L, García M, Salvatierra I, et al. Refining the Maritime Foundations of Andean Civilization: how plant fiber technology drove social complexity during the Preceramic Period. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 2018;25(2):393–425. doi: 10.1007/s10816-017-9341-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Conklin W. An Introduction to South American Archaeological Textiles with Emphasis on Materials and Techniques of Peruvian Tapestry. In: Fiske PL, editor. Irene Emery Roundtable on Museum Textiles 1974 Proceedings: Archaeological Textiles. Washington D.C.: The Textile Museum; 1975. p. 17–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Martens T, Cameron J. Early coastal fiber technology from the Caleta Vitor archaeological complex in northern Chile. Latin American Antiquity. 2019;30(2):287–99. [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Agüero C, Zori C. Otro quipu encontrado al sur de Arica. Boletín de la Sociedad Chilena de Arqueología. 2007;40:21–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Wallace DT. The Tiahuanaco Horizon Styles in the Peruvian and Bolivian Highlands. Ph.D. Dissertation. Los Angeles: University of California; 1957. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Cases B. Etnoarqueología y tecnología de las bolsas a la producción textil prehispánica. Un caso de estudio en Huancarane (período Intermedio Tardío, valle de Camarones). Arica, San Pedro de Atacama2017.
  • 78.Goodell G. The cloth of the quechuas. Natural History. 1969;78:48–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Agüero C. Clasificación de turbantes del periodo Formativo temprano. Boletín del Comité Nacional de Conservación Textil. 1994;2:61–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Arnold D. El textil y la documentation del tributo en los Andes: Los significados del tejido en contextos tributarios. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Asamblea Nacional de Rectores; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Rowe AP, Cohen J. Hidden threads of Peru: Q’ero textiles. Washington, D.C.: Textile Museum; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Phipps E. Woven brilliance: Approaching color in Andean textile traditions. Textile Museum Journal. 2020;47:28–53. [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Splitstoser JC. Twined and woven artifacts, Part 1: Textiles. In: Dillehay T, editor. Where the Land Meets the Sea: Fourteen Millennia of Human History at Huaca Prieta, Peru. Austin: University of Texas Press; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Guamán Poma de Ayala F, editor. El Primer Nueva Corónica y Buen Gobierno. Edición crítica de John V. Murra y Rolena Adorno. Traducciones y análisis textual del quechua por Jorge L. Urioste. México D.F.: Siglo Veintiuno; 1980 [1613].
  • 85.Rojas AM, Hoces de la Guardia S. Coexistencia y diversidad tecnica, textural y formal en los textiles de un fardo perteneciente al sitio coyo de San Pedro de Atacama. Chungara Revista de Antropología Chiilena. 2000;32(2):227–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Oakland A. Tiwanaku textile style from the south central Andes, Bolivia and north Chile. Austin: University of Texas; 1986 [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Conklin WJ. Pucara and Tiahuanaco tapestry: time and style in a sierra weaving tradition. Ñawpa Pacha. 1983;21:1–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Emery I. The Primary Structures of Fabrics. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd; 2009[1966]. [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Rowe AP. Interloking warp and wefts in the Nasca 2 style. The Textile Museum Journal. 1972;3(3):67–78. [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Lopez Campeny SML, Martel AR. La vestimenta del poder: Comparando los registros textil y rupestre en el noroeste de Argentina (siglos XIII a XV). Relaciones de la Sociedad Argentina de Antropología. 2014;XXXIX(1):21–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Ulloa L. Evolución de la industria textil prehispánica en la zona de Arica. Chungara. 1981;8:97–108. [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Ulloa L. Estilos decorativos y formas textiles de poblaciones agromarítimas en el extremo norte de Chile. Chungara. 1981;8:109–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Berenguer J. Las pinturas de El Médano, norte de Chile: 25 años después de Mostny y Niemeyer. Boletín Museo Chileno de Arte Precolombino. 2009;14(2):57–95. [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Isbell WH. Wari (Huari) culture. The Encyclopedia of Empire. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Santoro CM, Uribe M. Inca imperial colonization in northern Chile. In: Alconini S, Covey RA, editors. The Oxford Handbook of the Incas. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2018. p. 355–74. [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Carter CP. The Economy of Prehistoric Coastal Northern Chile: Case Study: Caleta Vitor. Canberra: The Australian National University; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Santoro CM, Gayo EM, Capriles JM, de Porras ME, Maldonado A, Standen VG, et al. Continuities and discontinuities in the socio-environmental systems of the Atacama Desert during the last 13,000 years. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 2017;46(June):28–39. doi: 10.1016/j.jaa.2016.08.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Hidalgo J, Cisternas P, Aguilar J. Cambios políticos, sociales y económicos en relación a la pesca y extracción del guano en la costa de Arica y Tarapacá: siglos XVI a inicios del XIX. Estudios Atacameños Arqueología y Antropología Surandinas. 2019;61:275–98. [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Santana-Sagredo F, Schulting RJ, Méndez-Quiros P, Vidal-Elgueta A, Uribe M, Loyola R, et al. ‘White gold’ guano fertilizer drove agricultural intensification in the Atacama Desert from ad 1000. Nature Plants. 2021;7:152–8 doi: 10.1038/s41477-020-00835-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Julien C. Guano and Resource Control in Sixteenth-Century Arequipa. In: Masuda S, Shimada I, Morris C, editors. Andean Ecology and Civilization An interdisciplinary perspective on Andean ecological complementarity. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press; 1985. p. 185–231. [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Schiffer MB. Studying Technological Change: A Behavioral Approach. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Brugnoli P, Hoces de la Guardia S, Antonelli A. Un estandarte Chimú en la textilería andina. Mundo Precolombino. Revista del Museo de Arte Precolombino 1995;2:76–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Wobst HM. Stylistic behavior and information exchange. In: Cleland CE, editor. Papers for the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B Griffin. 61. Michigan: Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; 1977. p. 317–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Zori C. Queros as Inalienable Objects: Ritual Drinking Vessels and the End of the Inka Empire at Moqi (Locumba Valley, Southern Peru). Latin American Antiquity. 2021:1–19. Epub 2021/09/14. doi: 10.1017/laq.2021.61 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Bjerregaard L. PreColumbian Textiles in the Ethnological Museum in Berlin. University of Nebraska, Lincoln: Zea Books; 2017. Available from: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/zeabook/. [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Santoro CM, Gayo EM, Capriles JM, Rivadeneira MM, Herrera KA, Mandakovic V, et al. From the Pacific to the Tropical Forests: Networks of social interaction in the Atacama Desert, late in the Pleistocene. Chungara. 2019;51(1):5–25. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

John P Hart

17 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-00867Inka Unku: Imperial or Provincial? State-Local RelationsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Correa-Lau,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Each of the three reviewers indicate that major revisions are required before your work will be suitable for publication. Reviewers 1 and 3 provide detailed comments on areas of the manuscript that need to be reworked for clarity and consistency. Please take all of the reviewers' comments, suggestions, and criticisms into account while making revisions.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 01 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

John P. Hart, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Yes, the information provided on the CV unku (file S2) is sound data that delineates relevant unku/tunic features. The context of the unku find (at a CV burial) and references to technique + design support argument that local elements become factors in addition to state (unku) standards.

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

N/A for statistical analysis. Yes, the review of the one unku sample is rigorous and helpful to considering more about deviations from Inka standards or how “syncretic” aspects can come forward but as the authors note what is offered is a semi-quantitative and qualitative analysis of one unku more than a statistical analysis.

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? Yes, the separate data sheet on the CV unku is helpful in addition to the tables

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Yes, although there is significant room to review content for clarity here and there. See comments below in #5.

5. Review Comments to the Author

Regarding the paper’s intent to “help us visualize the relationship between technological action and propagation of state power/ideology,” good observations are made regarding how local social agency (via technological aspects) is expressed. However, there are several areas where sentences or paragraph organization can be clearer. With regard to the parameters, for example, of “visible and low-visibility” attributes and the terms “technological” and “aesthetic,” sometimes the reader loses their way. The distinction of what is a technical attribute and what is an aesthetic attribute, for example, or how technology and style interface is not always precise and sections could be reviewed for more precision in word usage. Likewise, with content related to whether (local) adjustments to state standards are visible or not, there is a section (lines 471-498) where the reader loses sight of what the authors aim to do in terms of (as stated in line 87) bridging “the knowledge gap between visible and low-visibilty attributes.” I note in comments at end a text by Arnold and Espejo that is a good reference for how technology, structure, and motifs/aesthetics can be discussed in correspondence with one another. I don’t see it referenced in the bibliography and it would make sense to include it.

The tables provide relevant information re: standardization aspects in Inka unkus and the particular traits of the subject unku but there are a couple of things that might make the table 2 more digestible. One thing, for example, is that there could be color coding or something introduced in the Table 2 to highlight where CV unku’s features deviate from the Inka standard. This would be a helpful visual assist to the reader.

Throughout there are parts that bring up questions re: word choice or whether content is coming across clearly enough—I've made some notes below

Section 1. Introduction

From the Intro’s parag. 1 where authors note an attention to “technical-formal-aesthetic” elements but then later at Line 89 the reference is to “technological-structural-aesthetic” attributes. Should be consistent, formal is not equivalent to structural …or the equivalence authors are making should be clarified

Lines 93-96—can be clearer—reference is made to “the unku” but it also seems reference is being made to unkus in general here, (e.g. “in some cases”) so which is the subject (one or all unkus available for study) of these sentences could be clearer.

Section 2. Inka unku, imperial material imagery

Lines 101-102 – re: “formal-functional, structural-aesthetic”-- the hyphenated relationships are a little confusing. Can it be more straightforward? E.g. technical (structural), aesthetic, functional, and socially recognized elements

Line 105—last sentence seems out of place, perhaps belongs further up somewhere

Lines 107-116 seem out of place here or unnecessary

Line 120—re: not sure this is best word choice re: “disused”

Line 122—sentence “During the early colonial period…” seems irrelevant?

Line 125—re: wording/word choice “’man-and-clothing’ relationship” is a little awkward

Lines 131-134: these first sentences don’t really correspond to the paragraph, could be removed

Line 136: suggest simplifying “consisted of six styles. This typology has been used to broaden…”

Line 146: could re-phrase/check wording “developed politically”

Line 153: can be clearer re: mention of one-way perspective here, since previous sentence refers to different perspectives. Can this sentence be re-phrased for clarity

Line 155: Sentence re: “We believe that…” is very crammed with wording (of too many associations) and tries to do too much. Suggest breaking into separate sentences or re-phrasing for clarity. In other words, following the beginning of the next sentence, how are all these “points of convergence”?

Line 159: Sentence “In other words” seems unnecessary here and disrupts rather than helps

Lines 164-168: sentence “These creative processes…” can be revised for clarity—what is the takeaway here

Line 173: re: word choice-- “patterns” may not be the best word choice? State criteria? See note in 'Materials and Methods'

Line 173: A couple of things are unclear here. Does the word “unku” here refer to the specific unku in this study or to unkus of this coastal region or to standard Inka unkus in general? Can clarify… the unku that is the subject of this study shares the camelid warp and weft criteria seen in Inka checkerboard unkus…but not all standardized state unkus (as referenced by Anne Rowe and John Rowe) have camelid weft and warp…some examples (esp. diamond waist) have cotton warp

Line 179—if the previous sentence mentions the concealed gesture of multiple wefts, why does this sentence begin with “similarly” but then refer to the “simple weft” type that is recognized along Arica coast? It’s a little confusing.

Lines 203-205—re: “…the search for… Inka state conventions in garments has been limited to analysis of their visible side”…unclear sentences in these 2 lines…sentence content can be clarified as implication is that no significant analysis has been made beyond just the visible

Line 212—re: word choice “sceneries”

Section 3. State and provincial unku. Form, function, structure, and aesthetics

Line 237. Can clarify—ref. Rowe, in some standardized state unku examples, we do see cotton warp

Line 256 – re: “special looms, hung on the wall,”….rather the suggestion from Rowe, Cobo, etc. is that the vertical looms were propped against a wall/ set upright against a wall…

Line 281—can be clarified, when you talk about the ahuaqui/awaki, the suggestion is that this is a reference to rhomboid/diamond motifs in general (according to the paragraph context) but the term is often used to refer to the area around the neck (the yoke) that may have stepped edges outlining a rhomboid… Or where is the citation for the ref. to Wari ahuaqui?

Line 289—unclear…what is meant by “in the case of the plain stripes…located around the arm slits”? What are the “plain stripes”? Is this a reference to woven stripes, as seen in the diamond cowl of the subject tunic, in which case the word would not be “applied to pieces” but “woven into the garment”…or is it reference to the embroidered striped cross-knit loop stitching (which would be “applied”) seen often on Inka tunic armholes and bottom edges?

Lines 319 and 322—unclear…but zigzag embroidery does not seem to be an element that lends the tunics more structure, which might be said of the cross-knit loop stitching at the hems or the figure-eight stitches on the side seams. Also, the suggestion in this paragraph is that all standardized unkus have zigzag stitching, but this is not the case…

4. Materials and Methods

Regarding Sub-section “Standard Analytical Patterns / attributes/classification”- the first several paragraphs have a lot of repetition and the content could be streamlined. Suggest editing these paragraphs down to clarify main points. Everything could be summed up more or less in a few sentences instead of a few paragraphs: “Our method is based on semi-quantitative and qualitative analysis: we define a set of standard analytical patterns and their attributes on the Inka unku which, in turn, are understood as technical and aesthetic “hallmarks” of production. Framing our analysis within modes of production, we follow Splitstoser’s methodology, which recognizes…Our attempt to deconstruct process in the operation chain helps us understand….textile production norms.”

Question: why the word “patterns” to describe the analytical criteria? Not sure it’s the best word choice. “Patterns” is too resonant with how we would consider surface aspects of a textile (design/aesthetic, display/arrangement). Can another word be used to describe the considerations? “Criteria”? “Aspects”? “Elements”? “Parameters”?

-Re: lines 432-433…what is the difference between “utilitarian features” and “functional particularities”?

-Re: line 432—“they were developed specifically for analyzing the unku..”—most of the “patterns” seem to refer to unku as a type rather than this particular unku…can this be clarified in this section?

This can also be clarified in the language used in Table 1, each section of which should be reviewed for language clarity and precision re: study parameter—e.g. sentence “we have divided the piece into separate parts,” can be clearer b/c don’t the authors mean “we have divided the Inka unku (as a type) into separate parts”? In other words, this is not about this specific piece but a general assessment of the type…but it’s not clear in the language.

Further issues regarding language clarity—for example, in “Attribute 7a. Diamonds or rhomboids,” the use of the word “structure” doesn’t seem appropriate here. The geometric shapes form the composition by outlining spatial areas. When the word “structure” is used, it confuses terms, since “structure” really connotes the interior/technical elements not the surface, design elements.

5. Results

Table 2

Re: “Location of textile from weaver’s viewpoint” revise “Location on textile…”;

Re: 2. Spinning, a. Yarn type, clarify: “Simple: regular/monochrome”

Re: 2. Spinning--the break up of the table here with parts c. through e. distributed differently—both on the horizontal and vertical axes-- and re: 3. Color Selection. Would it be useful to have this differently organized content put into a separate table to avoid having this irregularity in table organization?

6. Discussion

Lines 457-458—these two sentences “More specifically” and “There must have” seem to disrupt the general gist and don’t serve the paragraph

Lines 489-490—the suggestion that discrepancy in the alignment of the two parts of the large rhomboid is a “gesture of transgression” veers a bit from how the article frames local attributes in relation to state standards…should this idea of transgression be brought up sooner?

Line 471 –498 –between these lines the arc of the argument varies from suggesting that local weavers were making [local] adjustments that were highly visible or also making adjustments that were not immediately visible. Content could be more carefully argued here. Re: the point that the unku carries local tradition and skill/experience (metis), was it meant to be seen or not? The takeaway gets muddled in these paragraphs

Line 505—can clarify re: the half squares at the lateral selvages… the suggestion that half squares are a local anomaly but this does appear in many of the standardized BW unkus that John Rowe reviews

Lines 548-551—this content seems relevant as something to underscore earlier in the article as well

Line 559--word choice, not “printed on the clothing” but rather introduced into/woven into /embedded into the woven structure of the cloth…

Line 564-565—points being made could be clearer, or seem to disrupt other content flow

*Throughout double check for spelling, punctuation--, eg p. 28 table 2 heading– typo in “application”; sometimes “state” is capitalized, sometimes not…

Re: recommend including/using these additional sources:

Mary Frame, “Chuquibamba: A Highland Textile Style,” Textile Museum Journal, 1997-1998, Vols. 36, Washington DC. Frame’s essay regarding provincial Inka tunics may be of interest as she discusses various aspects of textile production from the Chuquibamba textile tradition and contextualizes them against Inka standards to a degree. Also, at parts, she considers how fabric-making technology informs design in textiles (contrast to this article’s interest in pointing to chains of operation at the local level as being influential over design aspects).

Denise Arnold and Elvira Espejo, El Textil Tridimensional: La Naturaleza del Tejido Como Objeto y Como Sujeto, Edition: Serie Informes de Investigación, II, No. 8, Fundación Xavier Albó and Instituto de Lengua y Cultura Aymara, La Paz, 2013.

See pp. 118-130 of the book--This article’s bibliography references Denise Arnold’s Textil y Tributo but I would also point to this text which discusses weaving tools and practices within the notion of chaine operatoire, particularly, that may be relevant to this article. For example, although in an ethnographic context and within an Aymara context, the authors refer to what goes into the color selection process within the operation chain fairly in-depth, referencing musa waraña. This may be useful to this article for elaborating on some points re: how color choices are made/were made perhaps in manner applicable to the question of operation chain re: color and Inka context, etc.

See also pp.183- 184 in same book. These paragraphs tease out question of how to think about style in relation to technology and may be useful, would be relevant to cite.

Also, the bibliography points to the text “An Inka Unku from Caleta Vitor Bay, Northern Chile,” written by some of this article’s same authors, with citation/note in Attribute 5b. That text’s attention to the same unku and question of Inka investment/stamp on the CV unku garment seems pertinent to this article’s inquiry and probably should be given further mention, e.g. stating how this extends/expands/or deviates from that study.

Reviewer #2: The authors present a fascinating and potentially very important argument: that Inka unku, paradigmatic symbols of imperial power, are made locally in certain cases. This would be a welcome addition to this area of research. That said, the article would be strengthened by clarifying and quantifying key aspects of the argument that at the moment are either unsupported or clouded by extraneous detail.

For example, at the outset the authors argue that the Inka "imposed technical and aesthetic canons" for the production of the tunics. How did they do this? It would be good to note the data supporting this statement. Furthermore, how does this then play into this article's argument that this tunic was outside (?) of this control? Or, if not outside of this control, how were these canons shared/imposed?

Most importantly, however, the crux of the argument lies in the presumed fact that the tunic was made locally. This is an essential piece of the argument and it needs to be presented in a clearer, more forceful way. The article will be strengthened by cutting back on jargon and presenting the data in a straightforward way. At the moment it reads more like a discursive thesis than a scientific journal piece.

I encourage the authors to tighten up their manuscript and re-submit as the research is of much merit.

Reviewer #3: On page 5, the authors write that their objective is “to bridge the knowledge gap between visible versus low-visibility attributes. To this end, we created and defined standard analytical patterns and their technological structural-aesthetic attributes to analyze the unku. This theoretical-methodological tool also serves to evaluate the possible existence, or not, of technical and/or aesthetic differences in the unku, depending on the status of the wearer.” This objective, and the relationship between it and the specific analytical approach taken to characterize the different variables of the unku, remains deeply confusing to me. First, I do not know what a “theoretical-methodological tool” is; theory refers to a conceptual framework used to interpret patterns in the archaeological record that asserts specific relationships between variables, and that can be objectively tested against predicted patterns in the record. To the extent that a theoretical framework is offered, this draft perhaps predicts variability between textiles’ attributes that can be attributed to, or used to identify, local weavers’ agency. Methodology refers to a specific set of sampling and data collection techniques that can be used to collect the data needed to objectively test specific hypotheses generated by the theoretical framework. If the analytical form in Table 2 is what the authors as referring to by the phrase “theoretical-methodological tool”, alternatively referred to on page 20 as “a theoretical practical framework for data collection”, it needs to be explained how this particular spreadsheet of attributes derives from the theoretical approach they advocate for: how, for example, the assertion that local weavers used specific technical or aesthetic differences to indicate the status of the wearer. It is also unclear why a checkerboard unka (male tunic) buried with two young women in a provincial burial is appropriate or sufficient data to test this hypothesis.

On page 5, the authors assert that “he unku were woven and distributed from Cusco across the entire territory under Inka control.” This is directly contradicted by the statement on pages 8-9 (emphasis added) that “local weavers introduced their own hallmark in the form of multiple wefts, a traditional textile technique that became a concealed technical gesture used in textiles during the Inka period [47-49]. Similarly, continual use of the simple weft has been recognized along the Arica coast.”

Indeed, I believe a better statement of the paper’s main contribution appears on page 10, where the authors write: “we have developed a decoding tool for the unku with the aim of distinguishing state from local hallmarks, thereby revealing the syncretic complexity of these iconic tunics.” If other scholars have assumed that unku were centrally produced in Cuzco and distributed throughout the empire, then your study provides additional support to Williams et al, and others’ work demonstrating local production of imperial-style ceramics, but extended to weaving production. Consider reframing the article around this narrower, but clearer objective.

I also believe that the very long list of complete attribute descriptions given in Table 1 can be selectively condensed. I would much rather, for example, have the full list – along with the form given in Table 2 – put on a website somewhere. The space could then be devoted to explaining with 2-3 specific examples how local weavers’ agency would produce different values in specific attributes than centrally-controlled or Cusqueño weavers’ textiles. In other words, the article could use a much fuller and more specific, detailed explanation of how specific attributes in the form are useful for identifying local weavers’ choices or hallmarks. Using the form, or only a select subset of attributes from the form, to show distinct differences between the Caleta Vitor unku and one or more unku that were clearly made by Cusqueño weavers, would provide a stronger argument for the form’s utility in testing hypotheses about state vs local differences in the chain of operations. The authors begin to do so on pages 34-36 in the discussion section, but I would like to see a much more detailed dive into the specific attributes that support their argument.

Additional quick notes:

On page 7, line 151, there are parentheses that are empty. Is there missing information or references that were omitted?

On page 16, line 345, there is a bolded note that says “(Error! Reference source not found.)”, which should be corrected.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Feb 8;18(2):e0280511. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280511.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


4 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-00867 Inka Unku: Imperial or Provincial? State-Local Relations

Review Comments to the Author

Reply to reviewer:

Reviewer #1:

Query 1: Regarding the paper’s intent to “help us visualize the relationship between technological action and propagation of state power/ideology,” good observations are made regarding how local social agency (via technological aspects) is expressed. However, there are several areas where sentences or paragraph organization can be clearer. With regard to the parameters, for example, of “visible and low-visibility” attributes and the terms “technological” and “aesthetic,” sometimes the reader loses their way. The distinction of what is a technical attribute and what is an aesthetic attribute, for example, or how technology and style interface is not always precise and sections could be reviewed for more precision in word usage.

Reply: Agreed and fixed in the whole text. The term concepts of visible and low-visibility were expanded for clarification. This section of the paragraph now stands as (line 64-70): The concepts of metis and techne, or the relationship between local and State knowledge, can be materialized and understood through both high-visibility and low-visibility attributes, commonly used in the archaeological literature of enculturation. High-visibility attributes are intentional signaling features such as decorative/stylistic designs that denote standardized choices made by the government to transmit and create a sense of being part of larger corporate polity. Low-visibility attributes are technological features, such as raw materials, yarn types, or a particular textile structure, linked to group identity and community.

Query 2: Likewise, with content related to whether (local) adjustments to state standards are visible or not, there is a section (lines 471-498) where the reader loses sight of what the authors aim to do in terms of (as stated in line 87) bridging “the knowledge gap between visible and low-visibilty attributes.” I note in comments at end a text by Arnold and Espejo that is a good reference for how technology, structure, and motifs/aesthetics can be discussed in correspondence with one another. I don’t see it referenced in the bibliography and it would make sense to include it.

Reply: Agreed and fixed. Terms like “technological, structural, and aesthetic” were replaced by morphological, technological, and stylistic, throughout the entire text.

The entire paragraph was rephrased. Concepts from Arnold and Espejo (2013), and Hegmon (1995) were introduced in the text, which stands now as follows (line 91-97):

This section of the paragraph now stands as: To further analyze the unku, while following our theoretical perspective, we developed a methodological tool—based on parameters and attributes that consider morphological, technological, and stylistic features—that bridges the knowledge gap between high-visibility and low-visibility attributes, where morphology relates to textile composition; technology links social productive activities and their interactions with material culture [8]; and style here refers to “a form of non-verbal communication, through doing something in a certain way that conveys information about relative identity” [9:8]

Query 3: The tables provide relevant information re: standardization aspects in Inka unkus and the particular traits of the subject unku but there are a couple of things that might make the table 2 more digestible. One thing, for example, is that there could be color coding or something introduced in the Table 2 to highlight where CV unku’s features deviate from the Inka standard. This would be a helpful visual assist to the reader.

Reply: Agreed and fixed. A color coding was introduced in Table 2.

Throughout there are parts that bring up questions re: word choice or whether content is coming across clearly enough—I've made some notes below.

Section 1. Introduction

Query 4: From the Intro’s parag. 1 where authors note an attention to “technical-formal-aesthetic” elements but then later at Line 89 the reference is to “technological-structural-aesthetic” attributes. Should be consistent, formal is not equivalent to structural …or the equivalence authors are making should be clarified.

Reply: Agreed and fixed. As indicated in the answer to question 1, the attributes "technical-formal-aesthetic" and "technological-structural-aesthetic" were replaced by the terms "morphological, technological, and stylistic" throughout the text.

Query 5: Lines 93-96—can be clearer—reference is made to “the unku” but it also seems reference is being made to unkus in general here, (e.g. “in some cases”) so which is the subject (one or all unkus available for study) of these sentences could be clearer.

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The paragraph stand now as follows (line 97-104): Our methodological tool is aimed to differentiate where in the chaîne opératoire the state canons differ from the local ones, thereby revealing the syncretic complexity of these iconic tunics (cf., Mary Frame’s [10] idea that hybridization in textile design was an effect of the technology used during the manufacturing process). It is designed for in-depth physical analysis to infer information about the identity of the intended wearer—as well as to understand the practical and functional purpose—of the garment [11]. This is based on the hypothesis that technical and/or stylistic differences in the unku might represent differences in the status of the wearer, which include the ruling elite, administrators, priests, and members of the military.

Section 2. Inka unku, imperial material imagery

Query 6: Lines 101-102 – re: “formal-functional, structural-aesthetic”-- the hyphenated relationships are a little confusing. Can it be more straightforward? E.g. technical (structural), aesthetic, functional, and socially recognized elements

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The entire sentence was rephrased as follows (line 125-127): Paramount homogenizing political, economic, and social organizations, such as the Inka State, established socially recognized morphological, technological, and stylistic elements that had to be considered by weavers.

Query 7: Line 105—last sentence seems out of place, perhaps belongs further up somewhere

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The sentence “Therefore, the unku were woven and distributed from Cusco across the entire territory under Inka control” was deleted.

Query 8: Lines 107-116 seem out of place here or unnecessary

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The entire paragraph was removed

Query 9: Line 120—re: not sure this is best word choice re: “disused”

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The word was replaced by used cloth.

Query 10: Line 122—sentence “During the early colonial period…” seems irrelevant?

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The sentence “During the early colonial period, they were worn for ecclesiastical feasts.” was deleted.

Query 11: Line 125—re: wording/word choice “’man-and-clothing’ relationship” is a little awkward.

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The entire sentence was replaced, and stands as follows (line 148-150): In Andean communities there is a relationship between clothing and people, insofar as the possession of certain types of clothing confers special social and cultural status to the wearer [22, 38].

Query 12: Lines 131-134: these first sentences don’t really correspond to the paragraph, could be removed

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The sentence was moved to the end of the previous paragraph, where it fits better, as it describes the different aspects surrounding the manufacture, use and disposal of unku.

Query 13: Line 136: suggest simplifying “consisted of six styles. This typology has been used to broaden…”

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The sentence was reworded, and now it reads as follows (line 183-185): To identify the State-imposed aesthetic in the production of the CV unku, we looked at the typologies proposed by John Rowe [7] and Ann Pollard Rowe [30] for Inka tapestry tunics, which consist of six styles. Ann Pollard Rowe expanded on John Rowe’s findings to develop a system that includes…

Query 14: Line 146: could re-phrase/check wording “developed politically”

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The wording was checked and the sentence stands as follows (line 196-199): Discontinuous warps and wefts were presumably woven for the elite [48]. The interlocking tapestry to create binary oppositions and the use of space were identified as a dominant textile features among Altiplano and highland social groups in the southern Andes [49:116].

Query 15: Line 153: can be clearer re: mention of one-way perspective here, since previous sentence refers to different perspectives. Can this sentence be re-phrased for clarity.

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The wording was checked and the sentence stands as follows (line 204-211): Most of the studies of unku noted above approach them from a technical and stylistic perspective primarily focused on identifying Inka influence on the provinces, which we consider a unidirectional perspective, concerned mainly with high-visibility attributes, or techne. In contrast, most of the 55 unku that were analyzed for the present study—from several museum collections from around the world (S1 Table)—were studied from the perspectives of both techne and metis.

Query 16: Line 155: Sentence re: “We believe that…” is very crammed with wording (of too many associations) and tries to do too much. Suggest breaking into separate sentences or re-phrasing for clarity. In other words, following the beginning of the next sentence, how are all these “points of convergence”?

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The sentence stands as follows (line 209-2015):

In this paper, we demonstrate that, when creating local unku, expert weavers followed the State canons, morphological, technological, and stylistic, to reproduce the emblematic symbols imbedded in these imperial garments (techne). Simultaneously, they integrated meaningful symbolic elements representative of local idiosyncrasies, traditions and experiential knowledge (metis). Consequently, the emblematic symbol of unku, instrumental for the expansion of the State, would have resulted from dynamic relationships between the Inka and the local community, in which expert weavers played a key role as agents of change.

Query 17: Line 159: Sentence “In other words” seems unnecessary here and disrupts rather than helps

Reply: Agreed and fixed. See query 15 (“In other words” was replaced with the term consequently).

Query 18: Lines 164-168: sentence “These creative processes…” can be revised for clarity—what is the takeaway here

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The sentence stands as follows (line 219-222):

These changes in the technical, formal, and aesthetic aspects of these textiles, resulting from the interaction between the State and the local community, which we believe represent the concepts of techne and metis, are part of what is known as provincial Inka [25, 29, 56, 57].

Query 19: Line 173: re: word choice-- “patterns” may not be the best word choice? State criteria? See note in 'Materials and Methods'

Reply: Agreed and fixed. That sentence was deleted and the paragraph now begins as follows (line 227-229):

In the Atacama region [58], local weavers introduced a series of hallmarks to the imperial attributes of the unku. For example,…

Query 20: Line 173: A couple of things are unclear here. Does the word “unku” here refer to the specific unku in this study or to unkus of this coastal region or to standard Inka unkus in general? Can clarify… the unku that is the subject of this study shares the camelid warp and weft criteria seen in Inka checkerboard unkus…but not all standardized state unkus (as referenced by Anne Rowe and John Rowe) have camelid weft and warp…some examples (esp. diamond waist) have cotton warp

Reply: Agreed and fixed. See Reply to query 18

Query 21: Line 179—if the previous sentence mentions the concealed gesture of multiple wefts, why does this sentence begin with “similarly” but then refer to the “simple weft” type that is recognized along Arica coast? It’s a little confusing.

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The sentence stands as follows (line 227-230):

In the Atacama region [58], local weavers introduced a series of hallmarks to the imperial attributes of the unku. For example, multiple weft were introduced, a traditional textile technique that became a concealed technical trait found in textiles during the Inka period [59-61]. On the coast of Arica, the continued use of single wefts has been recognized [60, 62].

Query 22: Lines 203-205—re: “…the search for… Inka state conventions in garments has been limited to analysis of their visible side”…unclear sentences in these 2 lines…sentence content can be clarified as implication is that no significant analysis has been made beyond just the visible

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The sentence stands as follows (line 249-255):

Whilst visibly reflecting the state’s aesthetic canons, provincial Inka styles were characterized by additional features or modifications, such as the use of different color combinations, geometric designs, or some form of iconography associated with the local landscape [67]. It appears, therefore, that the State posed no impediment to the application of local canons during the production process. To the contrary, it is likely the State allowed flexibility for agents to employ certain local practices that could be reproduced by hand while incorporating stylistic expressions of the State [14].

Query 23: Line 212—re: word choice “sceneries”

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The word was changed to “proposals”.

Section 3. State and provincial unku. Form, function, structure, and aesthetics

This subtitle was replaced by: State and provincial unku. Morphology, technology and style

Query 24: Line 237. Can clarify—ref. Rowe, in some standardized state unku examples, we do see cotton warp.

Reply: Agreed and fixed. We reviewed the entire paragraph, which stands as follows (line 271-282):

In the earliest phases of Andean history, vegetal fibers, such as Asclepias sp. and Cyperaceae sp. were commonly used to make fabrics [68-70]. Cotton does not appear on the coast and valleys of northern and central Peru until the Middle Archaic, becoming popular by the Late Preceramic period (5000 cal yr BP), largely supplanting the use of vegetal fiber in fabrics [62, 69, 71, 72]. Its use continued until the Late Horizon or Inka period. Camelid-fiber does not appear on the north coast until the Early Intermediate Period [73]. In contrast, in the valleys and coast of southern Peru and northern Chile, vegetal fiber was followed by camelid-fiber, and cotton was introduced during the early Formative (ca. 4000 cal yr BP) [68, 72, 74]. In Caleta Vitor, Martens and Cameron [74] confirmed that fabrics made of vegetal-fiber were common since the Early Archaic (ca. 9000-8000 cal yr BP). By Late Formative, however, this raw material drops off as camelid-fiber becomes the most common material. Similarly, the use of cotton was very limited, but became overwhelmingly dominant up to the Inka period [74].

Query 25: Line 256 – re: “special looms, hung on the wall,”….rather the suggestion from Rowe, Cobo, etc. is that the vertical looms were propped against a wall/ set upright against a wall…

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The sentence stands as follows (line 315-316):

Large textiles were woven using special looms, propped against a wall, with a vertical structure that consisted of cross bars, top and bottom, as well as heddles.

Query 26: Line 281—can be clarified, when you talk about the ahuaqui/awaki, the suggestion is that this is a reference to rhomboid/diamond motifs in general (according to the paragraph context) but the term is often used to refer to the area around the neck (the yoke) that may have stepped edges outlining a rhomboid… Or where is the citation for the ref. to Wari ahuaqui?

Reply: We agreed that the ahuaqui/awaki refers to a romboid/diamond motif/design. For this issue we added a reference by Berenguer 2013, page 330. The reference of this features related with Wari can be found in Campeny and Martel 2014, page 41, figure 8d.

Query 27: Line 289—unclear…what is meant by “in the case of the plain stripes…located around the arm slits”? What are the “plain stripes”? Is this a reference to woven stripes, as seen in the diamond cowl of the subject tunic, in which case the word would not be “applied to pieces” but “woven into the garment”…or is it reference to the embroidered striped cross-knit loop stitching (which would be “applied”) seen often on Inka tunic armholes and bottom edges?

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The sentence was rephrased as follows:

Unku with plain stripes located around the arm slits would have been worn by lower-level administrative functionaries[54, 86]. In the area of Arica, the mostly thin, plain-striped, natural-colored textiles have been interpreted as a simplified, decorative popularization of this Inka feature [22, 91, 92].

Query 28: Lines 319 and 322—unclear…but zigzag embroidery does not seem to be an element that lends the tunics more structure, which might be said of the cross-knit loop stitching at the hems or the figure-eight stitches on the side seams. Also, the suggestion in this paragraph is that all standardized unkus have zigzag stitching, but this is not the case…

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The statement “lends the tunics more structure” was deleted. Sentence was rephrased as follows (line 369-381):

The final stage in the production of an unku was to remove it from the loom and fold it in half along its vertical axis. The fold served to mark the area of the shoulders (from the wearer's point of view), and the neck slot was deliberately left open at the center of the tunic so it could easily be placed over the head. Both sides were sewn together to a sufficient height to allow the arms to be inserted. Tiwanaku, Wari, and Inka unku from the Central Andes feature high-density figure-eight stitching applied mainly in the lateral seams. This generated a double column that combined several colors, which gave an additional decorative element to the piece [7, 24]. The tunics also presents the zigzag in a way that combined the displacement and density of the fishbone stitch. Zigzag embroidery was typically applied near the bottom selvage of the tunic. In addition to the zigzag, the tunics show overcast stitch, known since Wari (AD 650–1000) [94], on the selvage edge. For Desrosiers [54], tapestry tunics from the coast are characterized by their reinforced longitudinal selvages, which can be observed in Tiwanaku, Wari, Inka, and probably colonial pieces. The tunics also retain their heading cords that produce the same effect as a reinforced selvage.

Section 4. Materials and Methods

Query 29: Regarding Sub-section “Standard Analytical Patterns / attributes/classification”- the first several paragraphs have a lot of repetition and the content could be streamlined. Suggest editing these paragraphs down to clarify main points. Everything could be summed up more or less in a few sentences instead of a few paragraphs: “Our method is based on semi-quantitative and qualitative analysis: we define a set of standard analytical patterns and their attributes on the Inka unku which, in turn, are understood as technical and aesthetic “hallmarks” of production. Framing our analysis within modes of production, we follow Splitstoser’s methodology, which recognizes…Our attempt to deconstruct process in the operation chain helps us understand….textile production norms.”

Question: why the word “patterns” to describe the analytical criteria? Not sure it’s the best word choice. “Patterns” is too resonant with how we would consider surface aspects of a textile (design/aesthetic, display/arrangement). Can another word be used to describe the considerations? “Criteria”? “Aspects”? “Elements”? “Parameters”?

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The following changes were made:

The term "patterns" was replaced by "parameters", and the first two paragraphs were rephrased as follows (line 461-468):

To define the standard analytical parameters and attributes associated with the production, use, repair, and discard of unku, we used a methodology developed by Splitstoser [62], which provides a practical framework for data collection based on a quantitative and qualitative analysis of textile attributes. Splitstoser’s method recognizes the various stages of the step-by-step chaîne opératoire of textile production [62]. The process spans raw material acquisition and preparation, yarn spinning and dyeing, loom choice and preparation, color planning, warping and weaving, off-loom finishing, use, reuse, repair, and disposal [50]. This analytical process allows the identification of the different uses of a textile throughout its life history [101].

Query 30: -Re: lines 432-433…what is the difference between “utilitarian features” and “functional particularities”?

Reply: Fixed. See Reply to query 29, where these differences were referred to Abal de Russo (2010). The term “utilitarian features” and “functional particularities”, however, were deleted.

Query 31: -Re: line 432—“they were developed specifically for analyzing the unku..”—most of the “patterns” seem to refer to unku as a type rather than this particular unku…can this be clarified in this section?

This can also be clarified in the language used in Table 1, each section of which should be reviewed for language clarity and precision re: study parameter—e.g. sentence “we have divided the piece into separate parts,” can be clearer b/c don’t the authors mean “we have divided the Inka unku (as a type) into separate parts”? In other words, this is not about this specific piece but a general assessment of the type…but it’s not clear in the language.

Further issues regarding language clarity—for example, in “Attribute 7a. Diamonds or rhomboids,” the use of the word “structure” doesn’t seem appropriate here. The geometric shapes form the composition by outlining spatial areas. When the word “structure” is used, it confuses terms, since “structure” really connotes the interior/technical elements not the surface, design elements.

Reply: Agreed and fixed. We clarified that the clarification system refers any king of unku. The sentence stands know as follows (line 469-473): In Table 1 we list these nine analytical parameters and 26 corresponding attributes, arranged in numerical and alphabetical order. Table 2 presents the parameters and attributes used to study the CV unku. These terms are further defined in Supporting information S2 Table. These features are used to identify the technical and stylistic attributes that deviated from Imperial weaving canons and which are likely associated with the geographical origin of the textile.

See Supporting information S2 Table.

Attribute 5d. Spatial layout. The piece is observed and register analytically ("read") fully stretched from the weaver's point of view, from one end to the center, including the following analytical sections:…

Attribute 7a. Diamonds or rhomboids. Geometric shapes delimiting spatial zones with bilateral and/or quadripartite divisions.

Section 5. Results

Table 2

Query 32: Re: “Location of textile from weaver’s viewpoint” revise “Location on textile…”;

Reply: Agreed and fixed.

Query 33: Re: 2. Spinning, a. Yarn type, clarify: “Simple: regular/monochrome”

Reply: Agreed and fixed. See S2 Table, attribute 2a, yarn type.

Query 34: Re: 2. Spinning--the break up of the table here with parts c. through e. distributed differently—both on the horizontal and vertical axes-- and re: 3. Color Selection. Would it be useful to have this differently organized content put into a separate table to avoid having this irregularity in table organization?

Reply: Agreed and fixed. Table 2 was reorganized accordingly.

Section 6. Discussion

Query 35: Lines 457-458—these two sentences “More specifically” and “There must have” seem to disrupt the general gist and don’t serve the paragraph

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The paragraph was rephrased as follows (line 490-497):

Results obtained from our methodological tool, provided us with a better understanding of the visual and technological features of the CV unku. We were able to characterize a series of visible traits strongly associated with the Inka State, suggesting this tunic would have been recognized as a state symbol of power and prestige at the time it was worn. If our analysis had focused solely on identifying and defining the visual attributes of Inka traits (techne), we would not have identified a series of traits unique to this piece and deriving, we propose, from local traditions (metis). The dialectical processes we identified between metis and techne must have been a source of tension between the skilled weavers and the technical and stylistic demands of the State.

Query 36: Lines 489-490—the suggestion that discrepancy in the alignment of the two parts of the large rhomboid is a “gesture of transgression” veers a bit from how the article frames local attributes in relation to state standards…should this idea of transgression be brought up sooner?

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The paragraph was rephrased as follows (line 527-531):

Alternatively, it could be suggested that this “imperfection” came about due to an intentional decision on the part of the weavers to impart local/regional practices, or metis, to deviate from state norms. That being said, the evidence would not have been immediately visible, neither to the wearer nor the observer, given its position at shoulder height.

Query 37: Line 471 –498 –between these lines the arc of the argument varies from suggesting that local weavers were making [local] adjustments that were highly visible or also making adjustments that were not immediately visible. Content could be more carefully argued here. Re: the point that the unku carries local tradition and skill/experience (metis), was it meant to be seen or not? The takeaway gets muddled in these paragraphs.

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The paragraph was rephrased as follows (line 508-527):

In one sense, the CV unku represents well-known, highly-visible Inka imperial standards (techne). This includes a long rectangular morphology and lack of sleeves. The measurements are within the established averages for width [between 72-79 cm; 6] and length [between 79-110 cm; 44]; see also Mary Frame [10]. Its interlocking tapestry technique is certainly of highland origin, as are its checkerboard design and “V”-shaped yoke, which forms a diamond when the piece is laid out fully. The diamond design may somehow reflect the Inka cosmovision of the world divided into four zones or suyus. On the other hand, the slit tapestry technique at the intersection of the pampa and diamond seems to refer to a coastal origin [10].

The CV unku presents several low-visibility structural and stylistic variants that we attribute to local/regional practices (metis), possibly of coastal origin. First, the textile was woven with cotton warp and camelid-fiber wefts. Because Imperial unku could have either camelid-fiber or cotton warps, this feature (cotton warps) is not diagnostic of an unku made on the coast origin; however, there is a strong association between cotton and coastal textiles. Although the CV unku was conceived as a single piece, it was made in two parts. This becomes visible where the sections converge, denoted by the heading cords that add structure to the shoulder area of the textile. At the shoulder seam, there is a small incongruity in the alternating colors of the diamond-enclosed stripes and pattern repetition, which appears to be the result of more than one weaver working together, as Rojas and Hoces de la Guardia [85] have proposed for other Inka textiles. Apart from the change of hands that may have led to these kinds of mismatches, they might also have resulted from a lack of rigor in the finishing process.

Query 38: Line 505—can clarify re: the half squares at the lateral selvages… the suggestion that half squares are a local anomaly but this does appear in many of the standardized BW unkus that John Rowe reviews.

Reply: Agreed and fixed. That statement was deleted, because we recognize that this was a mistake. The paragraph was rephrased as follows (line 545-546):

On B side (from the wearer's point of view), two squares were woven half in very dark brown and half in dark brown.

Query 39: Lines 548-551—this content seems relevant as something to underscore earlier in the article as well.

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The following paragraph was added between lines 261 to 264 in the first section of the revised manuscript: Within this assemblage, the CV unku is the most eloquent form of material expression related to the Inka; therefore, we suggest that this textile was possibly locally produced in the context of a work commitment imposed under the mit'a system [14].

Query 40: Line 559--word choice, not “printed on the clothing” but rather introduced into/woven into /embedded into the woven structure of the cloth…

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The paragraph was rephrased as follows (line 593-598): The CV unku’s checkerboard design has been interpreted as a military symbol. The idea that the CV unku may have been worn by a local member of the State military is also supported by some of the associated archaeological materials (i.e., breastplate, and possibly the bow and arrows). Tentatively, we estimate that this function (military service) may have corresponded to another mit’a obligation incurred by the Caleta Vitor community. If this is the case, the person buried with this offering was of local origin.

Query 41: Line 564-565—points being made could be clearer, or seem to disrupt other content flow

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The paragraph was rephrased as follows (line 598-605): In Cusco, according to Murra [14], military garments were produced by women and given by the Inka government to men of military age, an endowment that represented a State reward. These tunics may have been produced by relatives of the soldiers. Similarly, we estimate that the State may have gifted the locally-produced CV unku to this military figure as a prestige object befitting his position. In this process of giving and receiving, the State enacted the redistribution system of mit’a-produced objects with the community of Caleta Vitor. The action of giving helped bring negotiations and agreements to a successful conclusion, paving the way for integration and fostering collaboration between the community and the State.

Query 42: *Throughout double check for spelling, punctuation--, eg p. 28 table 2 heading– typo in “application”; sometimes “state” is capitalized, sometimes not…

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The word introduction was corrected as mentioned. State term was checked too. State with capital letter was used when it refers to the State as a subject. State with lower case was used when term acted as adjective (state patters). There are other contexts for this term like “state of preservation”, or used as verb (e.g., Arnold also states). Other words were fixed too.

Query 43: Re: recommend including/using these additional sources:

Mary Frame, “Chuquibamba: A Highland Textile Style,” Textile Museum Journal, 1997-1998, Vols. 36, Washington DC. Frame’s essay regarding provincial Inka tunics may be of interest as she discusses various aspects of textile production from the Chuquibamba textile tradition and contextualizes them against Inka standards to a degree. Also, at parts, she considers how fabric-making technology informs design in textiles (contrast to this article’s interest in pointing to chains of operation at the local level as being influential over design aspects).

Reply: Mary Frame´s study was integrated in several section of the manuscript (see lines 99, 200, 222, 511).

Query 44: Denise Arnold and Elvira Espejo, El Textil Tridimensional: La Naturaleza del Tejido Como Objeto y Como Sujeto, Edition: Serie Informes de Investigación, II, No. 8, Fundación Xavier Albó and Instituto de Lengua y Cultura Aymara, La Paz, 2013.

Reply: The study by Denise Arnold and Elvira Espejo was also integrated of the manuscript (see line 95) and in the Supporting Information S2 Table (Parameter 3).

Query 45: See pp. 118-130 of the book--This article’s bibliography references Denise Arnold’s Textil y Tributo but I would also point to this text which discusses weaving tools and practices within the notion of chaine operatoire, particularly, that may be relevant to this article. For example, although in an ethnographic context and within an Aymara context, the authors refer to what goes into the color selection process within the operation chain fairly in-depth, referencing musa waraña. This may be useful to this article for elaborating on some points re: how color choices are made/were made perhaps in manner applicable to the question of operation chain re: color and Inka context, etc.

See also pp.183- 184 in same book. These paragraphs tease out question of how to think about style in relation to technology and may be useful, would be relevant to cite.

Reply: Agreed and fixed. These details were also integrated in the Supporting Information (see S2 Table, Parameter 3).

Query 46: Also, the bibliography points to the text “An Inka Unku from Caleta Vitor Bay, Northern Chile,” written by some of this article’s same authors, with citation/note in Attribute 5b. That text’s attention to the same unku and question of Inka investment/stamp on the CV unku garment seems pertinent to this article’s inquiry and probably should be given further mention, e.g. stating how this extends/expands/or deviates from that study.

Reply: Regarding the article by Martens et al. 2021, which includes some of the co-authors of this manuscript, was aimed to confirm that the unku from Caleta Vitor was an authentic Inka imperial garment, comparing its technical and stylistic characteristics of 36 examples of unku, recorded in museums of Europe and the United States of America. Martens et al. 2021 concluded that the unku from Caleta Vitor could be classified as a new type, and added a new perspective to "the complex relationship between the inhabitants of this province and the Inka State". It was also noted that "more research is needed on late period interactions in northern Chile and the artifact assemblage typically associated with the Inka." In the process of expanding the study of this particular unku we realized that the state parameters were accompanied by features that did not conform to the stylistic and technological typologies previously established by other authors. This motivated us to develop a methodological procedure to distinguish more precisely in which part of the operative chain the state canons differ from the local ones. From this observation and based on the literature, we began to put forward the ideas and arguments of this new manuscript.

Part of this explanation was added to main text of the manuscript (see lines 84-90).

Reviewer #2:

The authors present a fascinating and potentially very important argument: that Inka unku, paradigmatic symbols of imperial power, are made locally in certain cases. This would be a welcome addition to this area of research. That said, the article would be strengthened by clarifying and quantifying key aspects of the argument that at the moment are either unsupported or clouded by extraneous detail.

Query 47: For example, at the outset the authors argue that the Inka "imposed technical and aesthetic canons" for the production of the tunics. How did they do this? It would be good to note the data supporting this statement. Furthermore, how does this then play into this article's argument that this tunic was outside (?) of this control? Or, if not outside of this control, how were these canons shared/imposed?

Reply: The following paragraph was added to support our argument that the State needed to find ways to communicate/transmit and ultimately impose its stylistic parameters, within a dynamic process that left room for local innovations:

The State imposed a series of labor obligations and commitments through mit'a (asymmetric reciprocal labor system) using different coercive measures including political, economic, military and even matrimonial agreements with local communities. In this system of reciprocal relations, the State provided the necessary resources (raw materials, tools, architectural facilities, etc.), for the performance of assigned tasks [14, 39]. The mit'a agreements also implied great acts of generosity on the part of the State as another way of committing local communities to participate in this reciprocal process [14]. In this context of generosity, we believe that the State was also able to transmit the stylistic, architectural, morphological, and technological patterns that were expected (?) to be applied in local (?) production, all of which involved acculturation processes [40]. This would explain, in part, the standardization of material and immaterial culture that characterized the Inka State throughout the Andes [41].

Standardization, such as that found in the unku, is likely related to the need of the State to reproduce its symbols of power. Therefore, garments had to adhere as strictly as possible to the standard parameters that gave these pieces an eminently imperial character; however, it has also been pointed out that one of the political strategies of the Inka State was to coordinate the diversity of the peoples, with their different cultures, languages, and traditions, without trying to homogenize them completely. The Inka promoted diversity and allowed local groups to produce material culture and conduct local ritual behavior in ways that represented their ethnic identity [14, 42]. In short, the relationship between the state and local communities was a dialectical process that varied from region to region and village to village, depending on the pressure exerted by the state and the receptivity of local groups [40, 43]. In our opinion, these historical contexts would have generated the conditions for local weavers to introduce morphological, technological, and stylistic features with low visibility, attributes which did not radically transform the imperial character of these iconic objects that represented of the State.

Query 48: Most importantly, however, the crux of the argument lies in the presumed fact that the tunic was made locally. This is an essential piece of the argument and it needs to be presented in a clearer, more forceful way. The article will be strengthened by cutting back on jargon and presenting the data in a straightforward way. At the moment it reads more like a discursive thesis than a scientific journal piece.

Reply: The characteristics that distinguish this piece from being of local manufacture were clarified in the answer to query 37 of Reviewer #1; all of which was introduced in the main text (lines 529-541). As for the “jargon”, if it refers to the technical analysis of the textile, it is necessary to point out that the theoretical-methodological procedure presented in this manuscript is key to substantiate the ideas proposed here. In addition, following the suggestions of reviewer #1's question 34, who seems to be comfortably with the technical terms, the contents of Tables 1 and 2 were reviewed in detail. If this is not the case, it is difficult to imagine what jargon the reviewer is referring to specifically. It would have been ideal to have comments as precise as those of Reviewer #1.

Query 49: I encourage the authors to tighten up their manuscript and re-submit as the research is of much merit.

Reply: The whole manuscript was revised, edited and tighten, following comments of the three reviewers.

Reviewer #3:

Query 50:

a) On page 5, the authors write that their objective is “to bridge the knowledge gap between visible versus low-visibility attributes. To this end, we created and defined standard analytical patterns and their technological structural-aesthetic attributes to analyze the unku. This theoretical-methodological tool also serves to evaluate the possible existence, or not, of technical and/or aesthetic differences in the unku, depending on the status of the wearer.” This objective, and the relationship between it and the specific analytical approach taken to characterize the different variables of the unku, remains deeply confusing to me. First, I do not know what a “theoretical-methodological tool” is; theory refers to a conceptual framework used to interpret patterns in the archaeological record that asserts specific relationships between variables, and that can be objectively tested against predicted patterns in the record. To the extent that a theoretical framework is offered, this draft perhaps predicts variability between textiles’ attributes that can be attributed to, or used to identify, local weavers’ agency.

Reply: Agreed and fixed. We recognize the confusion created by the terms theoretical-methodological tool.

The term theory is used only to refer to the following concepts: metis and techne, mit'a, low-visibility and high-visibility that support the central theoretical approach of this manuscript, which proposes that the weavers, mainly local, although they had to and did follow the morphological-technological-stylistic parameters of the Inka State, sought ways to introduce features that gave certain particularities to the tunics without altering the iconographic image of the State. Consequently, following this comment, the theoretical and methodological terms were completely separated in the main text.

b) Methodology refers to a specific set of sampling and data collection techniques that can be used to collect the data needed to objectively test specific hypotheses generated by the theoretical framework. If the analytical form in Table 2 is what the authors as referring to by the phrase “theoretical-methodological tool”, alternatively referred to on page 20 as “a theoretical practical framework for data collection”, it needs to be explained how this particular spreadsheet of attributes derives from the theoretical approach they advocate for: how, for example, the assertion that local weavers used specific technical or aesthetic differences to indicate the status of the wearer.

Reply: Agreed and fixed. In lines 97 to 108, we added the following paragraph to introduce the purpose and characteristics of the methodology: Our methodological tool is aimed to differentiate where in the chaîne opératoire the state canons differ from the local ones, thereby revealing the syncretic complexity of these iconic tunics (cf., Mary Frame’s [10] idea that hybridization in textile design was an effect of the technology used during the manufacturing process). It is designed for in-depth physical analysis to infer information about the identity of the intended wearer—as well as to understand the practical and functional purpose—of the garment [11]. This is based on the hypothesis that technical and/or stylistic differences in the unku might represent differences in the status of the wearer, which include the ruling elite, administrators, priests, and members of the military. Because each unku was woven for one of these characters, with a specific role and status, were weavers allowed (or took) a significant control over the way they conformed to (or deviated from) imperial versus local weaving styles and parameters? Furthermore, in some cases, unku acquired additional elements and underwent modifications for reuse and when being discarded.

For the second concern of the query, the phrase “a theoretical practical framework for data collection”, was fixed as follows: “a practical framework for data collection” (see line 463)

c) It is also unclear why a checkerboard unka (male tunic) buried with two young women in a provincial burial is appropriate or sufficient data to test this hypothesis.

Reply: It is necessary to say that the women of the Inka sanctuary of the coast of Iquique (Cerro Esmeralda) do not have a checkerboard unku. Abal de Russo 2010 [11] mentions a checkerboard unku associated with a girl sacrificed at the Chuscha volcano. The author wonders if the girl was specially dressed in male clothing for that ritual [11:261]. At Aconcagua volcano, a miniature of a checkerboard unku associated with a male statuette belonged to a child of the same sex. Regarding the evidence from the Chuscha volcano, since the excavations were made by amateurs, the circumstances of the findings were not well documented. The author [11:260, 394] notes, moreover, that these garments are typically part of male clothing. In sum, the evidence is rather weak to associate this clothing with women.

Query 51: On page 5, the authors assert that “he unku were woven and distributed from Cusco across the entire territory under Inka control.” This is directly contradicted by the statement on pages 8-9 (emphasis added) that “local weavers introduced their own hallmark in the form of multiple wefts, a traditional textile technique that became a concealed technical gesture used in textiles during the Inka period [47-49]. Similarly, continual use of the simple weft has been recognized along the Arica coast.”

Reply: Agreed and fixed. Following Reviewer #1 query 7, the sentence “Therefore, the unku were woven and distributed from Cusco across the entire territory under Inka control” was deleted as it is “out of place”. This means that we maintain the statement of pages 8, and lines 157-158.

Query 52:

a) Indeed, I believe a better statement of the paper’s main contribution appears on page 10, where the authors write: “we have developed a decoding tool for the unku with the aim of distinguishing state from local hallmarks, thereby revealing the syncretic complexity of these iconic tunics.”

Reply: Agreed and fixed. The statemen “we have developed a decoding tool…” was integrated in the abstract (lines 29-30), as well as in lines 97-108, which is part of the introduction of the manuscript (see Reply to query 50).

b) If other scholars have assumed that unku were centrally produced in Cuzco and distributed throughout the empire, then your study provides additional support to Williams et al, and others’ work demonstrating local production of imperial-style ceramics, but extended to weaving production. Consider reframing the article around this narrower, but clearer objective.

Reply:

Previous studies on the unku have focused their interest on specifying the technological and stylistic parameters that identify these tunics as imperial, so they have not been concerned with identifying whether production occurred in Cusco or in the provinces. In the original version of our manuscript we indicated, in a confusing way, that the unku were produced in Cusco. That sentence was deleted following comments from reviewers 1 and 3 (see response to questions 7 and 51, respectively). Our study follows in part the argument of Williams et al. (2016), who point out that local ceramic artisans tried to emulate, as much as possible, the imperial styles in their visible aspects, and in that process would have added consciously or unconsciously certain traditional procedures, such as the use of local raw materials that differed from those used in the state centers of ceramic production (ollero villages) in the Andean zone. Their ceramological analysis demonstrated that although the raw materials were different, the artisans tried to give the vessels an imperial appearance. Hughes [27] points out a similar situation for the production of chuspas.

Our study, however, goes a step further than that indicated by Williams et al. and Hughes, insofar as to identify the syncretism that integrated, on the one hand, the imperial parameters, obviously more visible and, on the other hand, certain local parameters, less visible, by proposing a methodology aimed at identifying at what point in the long process of production, use and discard of the tunics, the local contributions were introduced and what were their characteristics.

In short, given that we have stressed this objective, highlighted not only by this reviewer, throughout the entire manuscript, the suggestion of "reframing the article around this narrower, but clearer objective", it is accomplished. Regarding the conclusion of Williams et al., and other authors, we rephrased that paragraph to make clearer how this key issue is connected with our arguments (see lines 234-248).

Query 53: I also believe that the very long list of complete attribute descriptions given in Table 1 can be selectively condensed. I would much rather, for example, have the full list – along with the form given in Table 2 – put on a website somewhere. The space could then be devoted to explaining with 2-3 specific examples how local weavers’ agency would produce different values in specific attributes than centrally-controlled or Cusqueño weavers’ textiles. In other words, the article could use a much fuller and more specific, detailed explanation of how specific attributes in the form are useful for identifying local weavers’ choices or hallmarks. Using the form, or only a select subset of attributes from the form, to show distinct differences between the Caleta Vitor unku and one or more unku that were clearly made by Cusqueño weavers, would provide a stronger argument for the form’s utility in testing hypotheses about state vs local differences in the chain of operations. The authors begin to do so on pages 34-36 in the discussion section, but I would like to see a much more detailed dive into the specific attributes that support their argument.

Reply:

Table 1 was moved to Supporting Information (S2 Table), but it was replaced in the main text by a summary listing the 9 analytical parameters and their 26 attributes.

Table 2, however, was maintained in the main text, since it shows in detail the morphological, technological, and stylistic parameter of imperial and local origin. To make it clearer a column was added to this Table, indicating for each attribute whether it represents an imperial or local feature. This addition makes it possible to visualize the elements that are considered local based on data from previous studies and our own experience.

The suggestion to apply the analytical tool to "one or more unku that were clearly made by Cusqueño weavers" is beyond the scope of this study, but we have set it as a task for a next step in this research.

Additional quick notes:

Query 54: On page 7, line 151, there are parentheses that are empty. Is there missing information or references that were omitted?

Reply: Fixed.

Query 55: On page 16, line 345, there is a bolded note that says “(Error! Reference source not found.)”, which should be corrected.

Reply: Fixed.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reply to reviwers_PLOS_Final.docx

Decision Letter 1

John P Hart

14 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-00867R1Inka Unku: Imperial or Provincial? State-Local RelationsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Correa-Lau,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Both reviewers are very positive about your revised manuscript. Reviewer 1 identifies several issues that should be addressed when making your final revisions. Please be sure to do a thorough proofread of the manuscript before submitting it.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 28 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

John P. Hart, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I recommend minor revisions before this is completely ready for publication. It would be very worthwhile to do a full copyedit review as there are a few places that need to be tended to for grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, or something along those lines. See, for example, lines 91-97; 105-108; 156-158; line 167; line 182; lines 224-226; 228-230; 244-245; 289-290; 302-303 (here also some of the content re: yarn spin could be put in a footnote, doesn’t all seem necessary here); lines 568-570. These are parts where I caught some kind of error or oversight but a professional copyeditor would be most useful.

General comment: suggest that words like “state” and “imperial” be lower case across the board. There are still some inconsistencies in capitalization of these here and there and it would be cleaner to just lower case these words throughout, even re: “Inka state.”

Other general comments/notes:

Line 53—what is the “importance of the relationship btwn state and local knowledge” what is the “dialectical arena in which state ideologies could be negotiated”

Line 79: suggest removing first clause, re: “we recognize style …tool of social action” and beginning sentence with “The State-produced textiles” b/c what ‘style’ encompasses is vague here and subsequent sentences elaborate on a variety of things besides style that become ‘tools of social action’…technical aspects, manufacture/process, etc..

Lines 109-121--these do not seem necessary to the text and maybe muddle the direction the discussion is headed in. If anything, the quoted text (re: “technology, as embodied…”) might be preserved but moved to a different section, prob. somewhere in previous pages;

Line 168…sentence “This would explain,..” is confusing, would delete;

Line 196 “discontinuous warps and wefts …woven for the elite” is a confusing phrase;

Line 469…the different ‘stages’? vs. ‘uses’ of a textile’s life history?;

Lines 546-550—this is so interesting about the half dark brown/half very dark brown squares, but can there be elaboration here as to why this would be local hallmark versus other explanation? Do we see examples of this kind of chromatic duality locally, that can be pointed to here for support? Also, the statement is that these half-squares are not conspicuous but they’re located or seem to be located toward the center of the textile panel, which would seem to be more conspicuous than not (?)

Line 566, a little unclear-- what is the ‘new’ role that the mending presumably highlights, apart from the original role the piece would have had before the mending…

Line 621—in the context of broader Andean cultural practices, another way of saying this might be the ‘tradition of giving and receiving ‘coopted’ by the state” rather than “‘established’ under the state”

Line 626-628 and ‘syncretic conditions’ in textiles that cannot be found or repeated in textiles—but in other parts of the paper the comment seems to be that ceramics can also display hallmarks of local tradition along with state aspects (e.g. pp. 11, 27)

Line 632—but what comes up in the content is that not all are ‘masked hallmarks’...that should be included here for clarity/nuance

Reviewer #3: Thank you for your detailed and careful attention to the revisions. It is now a well-written, clearly organized, and tightly focused argument. I look forward to seeing the final product in print. Please note though the phrase "Error! Reference source not found" that appears in line 401 (page 18). That is the only one I found.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Feb 8;18(2):e0280511. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280511.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


30 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-00867/R1: Inka Unku: Imperial or Provincial? State-Local Relations.

Review Comments to the Author

Reply to Reviewer #1:

Query 1: I recommend minor revisions before this is completely ready for publication. It would be very worthwhile to do a full copyedit review as there are a few places that need to be tended to for grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, or something along those lines. See, for example, lines 91-97; 105-108; 156-158; line 167; line 182; lines 224-226; 228-230; 244-245; 289-290; 302-303 (here also some of the content re: yarn spin could be put in a footnote, doesn’t all seem necessary here); lines 568-570. These are parts where I caught some kind of error or oversight but a professional copyeditor would be most useful.

Reply: Agree and fixed. The text was reviewed and corrected in its entirety by a native English speaker

Query 2: General comment: suggest that words like “state” and “imperial” be lower case across the board. There are still some inconsistencies in capitalization of these here and there and it would be cleaner to just lower case these words throughout, even re: “Inka state.”

Reply: Partially agreed and fixed. The Associated Press (AP) and the Chicago Manual of Style, indicate that the word "state" is capitalized when referring to a government agency. In all other cases they prefer lower case. Therefore, we have opted for "Inka State" (and Inka Empire) but "state" (lowercase) for all other cases. Besides, different articles (mostly Plos One) speak of Inka/ Inca State. We maintained the Inka term capitalized because is a proper name.

Query 3: Line 53—what is the “importance of the relationship btwn state and local knowledge” what is the “dialectical arena in which state ideologies could be negotiated”

Reply: Fixed. A long sentence has been added to deepen the conceptual terms pointed out, which stands as follows (see lines 53-62): In this regard, we address the importance of the relationship between state and local knowledge, which brought agents into a dialectical arena in which state ideologies could be negotiated. The importance lies in the fact that, despite the scale of the social and military structure of the Inka State, its expansive, economic and ideological success depended to a large extent on the agreements reached, peacefully or belligerently, with the local communities of the provinces integrated into the empire. Among the dialectical scenarios was the textile industry, in whose production the technical and idiosyncratic canons of the state were negotiated with those of the communities themselves. In this context, the unku, as symbols of imperial power, are key elements for materially visualizing the dialectical relationship between the state and the local communities.

For the analysis of this dialectical arena, we use the concepts of metis and techne [1] to facilitate an understanding of the dialectical relationship between these agents.

Query 4: Line 79: suggest removing first clause, re: “we recognize style …tool of social action” and beginning sentence with “The State-produced textiles” b/c what ‘style’ encompasses is vague here and subsequent sentences elaborate on a variety of things besides style that become ‘tools of social action’…technical aspects, manufacture/process, etc..

Reply: Agree and fixed. The paragraph was rewritten and stands as follows (see lines 86-90): The technological styles and symbolic structures of the textiles produced for the state constituted an active tool of social action [5] insofar as their production depended on the weavers of the local communities who had to follow the state model. In this active role of perpetuating state canons, local weavers had the insight to introduce subtle technical and stylistic changes throughout Tawantinsuyu.

Query 5: Lines 109-121--these do not seem necessary to the text and maybe muddle the direction the discussion is headed in. If anything, the quoted text (re: “technology, as embodied…”) might be preserved but moved to a different section, prob. somewhere in previous pages;

Reply: Agree and fixed. Part of the text of this paragraph was moved to a previous page, which stands as follows (see lines 101-106): Technology links social productive activities and their interactions with material culture [8], which means that “technology, as embodied material practice, is a socially charged and materially grounded arena in which agents express and negotiate social relationships, establish and express value systems, and give meaning to the object world” [9:162]. Technology, then, is recognized as a meaningful social activity, driven through agency processes [10].

Query 6: Line 168…sentence “This would explain,..” is confusing, would delete;

Reply: Agree and fixed. The full sentence was deleted.

Query 7: Line 196 “discontinuous warps and wefts …woven for the elite” is a confusing phrase;

Reply: Agree and fixed. The sentence was rephrased as follows (lines 203-206): Discontinuous warps and wefts were presumably woven “to signal the office of the person who wore that class of garments” [48:230]. Consequently, Dransart, has suggested that “it is possible to see different levels of social articulation in these garments” [48:230].

Query 8: Line 469…the different ‘stages’? vs. ‘uses’ of a textile’s life history?;

Reply: Agree and fixed. The sentence was rephrased as follows (lines 475-476): This analytical process makes it possible to identify the different stages of the textile's life history [101].

Query 9: Lines 546-550—this is so interesting about the half dark brown/half very dark brown squares, but can there be elaboration here as to why this would be local hallmark versus other explanation? Do we see examples of this kind of chromatic duality locally, that can be pointed to here for support? Also, the statement is that these half-squares are not conspicuous but they’re located or seem to be located toward the center of the textile panel, which would seem to be more conspicuous than not (?)

Reply: We particularly appreciate this comment, and we, added the following phrase to clarify this issue (lines 554-566): This characteristic of two squares with chromatic duality in the brown range is exemplified on a large scale (i.e., the entire surface of the textile) in two unku defined as provincial in the collection of the Ethnological Museum of Berlin (VA 16630 and VA 4576) [105]. Another case, but with curved figures, is observed with a duality of blue range (VA 62696). The CV unku, a piece that integrates imperial and provincial morphologies, technologies, and styles, is a perfect example of syncretism, which transforms it into a local product. The detail of the chromatic duality in a single square of a checkered surface has not been noted in any other unku of the BW type, with which this piece would be associated. Therefore, we suggest investigating this feature as an element of the creation of local weavers who, following the state templates, introduced distinctive hallmarks. As for the prominence of this feature, although it is located on the front flange of the garment, due to slight tonal differences, it is not readable. Similarly, it occurs with the intersection of the stripes at shoulder height, which are in less conspicuous positions. We identified both features as having low-visibility.

Query 10: Line 566, a little unclear-- what is the ‘new’ role that the mending presumably highlights, apart from the original role the piece would have had before the mending…

Reply: The whole paragraph was rewritten as follows (lines 577-587): Repairs to the piece were made by intricately and delicately emulating the original technique. As such, they are not immediately apparent and would have been barely perceptible to observers. For this careful repair work, the mender used composite yarns of different colors to those of the original textile, thus disclosing the intention to modify the conservation of the piece and unveil his hallmark as a mender. The repairs were intended to prolong the lifespan of the piece and thus give way to the second usage (reuse) of its life history. The CV unku was a singular piece in which, at first glance, state and provincial canons are identified, which thus made it an object valued locally and representative of a social, cultural, geographical, and temporal context. In this sense, this piece was transformed into an inheritable and desirable object given its ideological and political charge, which was to be maintained in perpetuity through reparations, thus endorsing the position of the character or family lineage in which the piece fell, to the extent that it continued to be part of the structure of the political relationship between the state and this local community.

Query 11: Line 621—in the context of broader Andean cultural practices, another way of saying this might be the ‘tradition of giving and receiving ‘coopted’ by the state” rather than “‘established’ under the state”

Reply: Agree and fixed.

Query 12: Line 626-628 and ‘syncretic conditions’ in textiles that cannot be found or repeated in textiles—but in other parts of the paper the comment seems to be that ceramics can also display hallmarks of local tradition along with state aspects (e.g. pp. 11, 27)

Reply: Agree and fixed. The sentence was rephrased as follows (lines 646-649): This syncretic condition of the textile could also be repeated in other goods produced by and for the state. For example, despite the rigid production processes of ceramics, artisans managed to introduce technical and aesthetic variations that resulted in a diversity of vessels defined as local or provincial Inka.

Query 13: Line 632—but what comes up in the content is that not all are ‘masked hallmarks’...that should be included here for clarity/nuance

Reply: Agree and fixed. The sentence was rephrased as follows (lines 652-654): The tension embodied by weavers in having to explicitly reproduce state patterns, and mask or subtly unveil their local hallmarks are well represented and expressed in this unku.

Reply to Reviewer #3:

Query 1: Thank you for your detailed and careful attention to the revisions. It is now a well-written, clearly organized, and tightly focused argument. I look forward to seeing the final product in print. Please note though the phrase "Error! Reference source not found" that appears in line 401 (page 18). That is the only one I found.

Reply: Agree and fixed.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

John P Hart

3 Jan 2023

Inka Unku: Imperial or Provincial? State-Local Relations

PONE-D-22-00867R2

Dear Dr. Correa-Lau,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

John P. Hart, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

John P Hart

11 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-00867R2

Inka Unku: Imperial or Provincial? State-Local Relations

Dear Dr. Correa-Lau:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. John P. Hart

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. List of unku from around the world.

    Register of unku located in museums in Europe, the United States of America and South America.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Standard analytical parameters and attributes.

    Description of the 9 analytical parameters and 26 attributes.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File. CV unku parameters and attributes.

    Supplementary description that characterize the CV unku.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Fig

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reply to reviwers_PLOS_Final.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES