“The Huacas of the Spanish”: Expressions of Indigenous Religion in the Mythologies and Aesthetics of Colonial Andean Religious Sculpture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early scholarship on the colonial arts of the Andes assumed that the Spanish conquest and its accompanying missionary activity resulted in a complete destruction of Inca artistic tradition, and that the indigenous conception of art and representation had little to no effect on works produced during the colonial period. Since then, scholars have recognized a tremendous amount of indigenous influence on the stylistic, iconographic and representational aspects of colonial art forms. My paper examines the influence of two aspects of indigenous culture in particular, identified by the words huaca (sacred thing) and qillca (surface decoration), which were used by the Quechua, an Andean indigenous ethnic group, to describe religious objects in the pre-Hispanic era. They were then in turn appropriated and discouraged by colonial missionaries in an attempt to make their imported Catholicism more understandable to new converts. In examining the multiple, ambiguous meanings of these words in the minds of the Quechua people and colonial missionaries as evidenced in contemporary sermons and miracle tales, I will argue that they influenced the indigenous conception of colonial religious statuary. I will then conduct a visual analysis of ‘The Virgin of Cocharcas’, an 18th century Peruvian ‘statue painting’ (two dimensional depiction of a statue) to demonstrate how concepts of huaca and qillca influenced the aesthetics of colonial statuary.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".