The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 12 of the 50 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Dating the Expansion of the Inca Empire: Bayesian Models from Ecuador and Argentina
Open accessAbstract
The chronology of the Inca Empire has traditionally relied on ethnohistoric dates, which suggest that a northern expansion into modern Ecuador began in AD 1463 and a southern expansion into modern Argentina began in AD 1471. We test the validity of these dates with two Bayesian models, which show that the ethnohistoric dates are incorrect and that the southern expansion began before the northern one. The first model of seven dates shows that the site of Chamical, Ecuador, was first occupied cal AD 1410–1480 (95% probability)and has a high probability of being built prior to the ethnohistoric date. The second is an outlier model of 26 14 C dates and 19 thermoluminescence (TL) dates from 10 sites along the empire’s southeastern limit in northwestern Mendoza, Argentina. Here, the Inca occupation began cal AD 1350–1440 (95% probability), also earlier than the ethnohistoric date. The model also suggests that the Inca occupation of Mendoza lasted 70–230 yr (95% probability), longer than previously thought, which calls for new perspectives on the timing and nature of Inca conquests and relationships with local groups. Based on these results, we argue it is time to abandon the traditional chronology in favor of Inca chronologies based on Bayesian models.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Two Bayesian models of radiocarbon and thermoluminescence dates challenge the traditional ethnohistoric Inca chronology, showing that Inca expansion into Mendoza, Argentina, began before the northern expansion into Ecuador. The authors argue that the traditional Cabello Balboa/Rowe chronology should be abandoned in favor of radiometric, Bayesian-based Inca chronologies.
Key findings
- At Chamical, Ecuador, the model estimates initial Inca occupation at cal AD 1410–1480 (95% probability), with an 89% probability that the site was founded before Cabello Balboa’s AD 1463 date.
- In northwestern Mendoza, Argentina, the Inca phase model estimates the start of Inca occupation at cal AD 1350–1440 (95% probability), earlier than the ethnohistoric AD 1471 date by around 70 yr (30–130, 95% probability).
- The Mendoza model suggests Inca occupation lasted 70–230 yr (95% probability) or 100–190 yr (68% probability), longer than previously thought.
- The southern expansion into Argentina/Chile began before the northern expansion into Ecuador, which the model dates to cal AD 1430–1460 (68% probability).
Methods
- Two Bayesian models were run in OxCal v4.2: one for the site of Chamical, Ecuador, using seven dates with stratigraphic priors and a mixed IntCal13/SHCal13 calibration curve; and one for Mendoza, Argentina, using 26 ¹⁴C dates and 19 TL dates from 10 sites with SHCal13.
- The Mendoza analysis used independent site models followed by an Inca phase model grouping all sites into a single phase; a General Outlier model with 5% prior outlier probability was used, 10 dates were removed as outliers, and 44 dates remained.
- Dates were rounded by 10 yr; the paper reports posterior probabilities, agreement indices, Difference queries, Order queries, a summed probability distribution, and a tempo plot.
Limitations
- The paper states that legacy data often lack relevant details, such as δ¹³C values, and that Mendoza sites generally lack enough stratigraphic information to build detailed models, so dates were modeled as single uniform phases.
- The paper states that the Mendoza ending boundary is heavily influenced by the historical AD 1595 date and “does not offer a robust estimate” of when the occupation ended; site comparisons using the Order function remain tentative because probability distributions overlap.
- The paper notes that TL ceramic styles could be better identified and described, and that models could be improved with larger samples and more explicit stratigraphic priors; it also states that the Odisa association is “admittedly less than certain.”
- Evident from the text: five TL dates from Potrero de La Chanchería were not included because their dates and ceramic styles had not been published.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
12 of 50 cited sources checked · 3 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“It also agrees well with the documented-based expectation that the Inca occupied Ecuador before Huayna Capac's birth in Ecuador in AD 1457 or 1458 (Ogburn 2012: 231), also prior to Cabello Balboa's date of AD 1463.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > 4 EJ Marsh et al.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Ogburn 2012 source
In “Refining the Traditional Chronology with Radiocarbon Dates” (p. 231), Ogburn says Huayna Capac was reportedly born at Tomebamba in Ecuador, implying the area was incorporated before his birth. The same section gives an estimated birth date of AD 1457 or 1458 and says it is consistent with the AD 1440–1455 range indicated by the Chamical dates, rather than Cabello Balboa’s post-AD 1463 date. (LLM, conf=0.92)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The growing body of calibrated 14 C and TL dates hints that Cabello Balboa's chronology underestimates the date of Inca expansions out of Cuzco, especially to the south (e.g.Pärssinen and Siiriäinen 1997;D'Altroy et al. 2007;Cornejo 2014), but Bayesian models have not been used to test this.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pärssinen and Siiriäinen 1997 source
- Not matchedcites D'Altroy et al. 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Cornejo 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods and Results sections report calibrated radiocarbon and thermoluminescence dates and conclude that the conventional 1470 CE date is too late for Inca incorporation of parts of Chile. The paper attributes that conventional date to Rowe, not explicitly to Cabello Balboa, and its analysis concerns Chile rather than Inca expansions out of Cuzco generally. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In recent years, statistical treatments of calibrated dates have shown that Inca expansion both north and south of Cuzco was earlier than Cabello Balboa's dates (Michczyński and Pazdur 2003;Ogburn 2012;Cornejo 2014).”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > DEVELOPING A CHRONOLOGY FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Michczyński and Pazdur 2003
- Partly supportedcites Ogburn 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In the Chamical section (page unavailable), calibrated dates suggest expansion into southern Ecuador at least a decade earlier than the traditional chronology. In “Abandoning the Traditional Chronology” (page unavailable), calibrated dates strongly suggest that at least some southern provinces were incorporated earlier than Cabello Balboa’s chronology indicates. The claim presents these qualified interpretations as a demonstrated finding about expansion both north and south of Cuzco generally. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Partly supportedcites Cornejo 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Cornejo’s analysis places the tentative start of Inca rule in Chile’s Norte Semiárido around 1370 CE, earlier than the conventional 1470 CE date discussed in ‘Antecedentes, datos y método’ (pages unavailable). But the paper studies Chile, south of Cuzco; these passages do not establish earlier expansion north of Cuzco or identify the comparison date as Cabello Balboa’s. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The curves differ by around 20 yr for Inca-period dates, which is a small but relevant difference (Adamska and Michczyński 1996: 38;Ogburn 2012: 223).”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > 4 EJ Marsh et al.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Adamska and Michczyński 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Ogburn 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Ogburn reports that Northern- and Southern-Hemisphere calibrations for Inca-period dates differ by about 15–20 years, and by roughly 20 years for the Chamical samples. However, the paper identifies the curves as IntCal09 and SHCal04, not IntCal13 and SHCal13; it does not establish that difference for the versions named in the claim. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“This range is similar to estimates for northern and central Chile (Schiappacasse 1999;Cornejo 2014).”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schiappacasse 1999 source
- Supportedcites Cornejo 2014 source
The paper’s concluding chronology estimates the start of Inca imposition at about 1370 CE in the Norte Semiárido, 1390 CE in the Zona Central, 1380 CE in Atacama’s second phase, and 1410 CE in Tarapacá. These are estimates for northern and central Chile, although the citing sentence does not specify what “this range” refers to, so the similarity itself cannot be checked. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The site's occupation lasted <30 yr (68% probability) and ended cal AD 1450-1500 (68% probability, End Inca occupation).”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > 4 EJ Marsh et al.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here, the Inca occupation began cal AD 1350-1440 (95% probability), also earlier than the ethnohistoric date.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The model reduces the error ranges of individual dates to 10-15 yr for six of the dates.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > 4 EJ Marsh et al.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The site's occupation lasted <30 yr (68% probability) and ended cal AD 1450-1500 (68% probability, End Inca occupation).”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > 4 EJ Marsh et al.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The model has an acceptable agreement index (121) and estimates the starting boundary as cal AD 1430-1460 (68% probability) and cal AD 1410-1480 (94% probability, Start Inca occupation).”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > 4 EJ Marsh et al.
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- It may state two separate claims as one. 30
- Probably not a substantial claim. 18
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Both are single-phase models that produced starting dates that were earlier than Balboa's chronology by 1-2 decades in Ecuador and nearly a century in Argentina.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > DEVELOPING A CHRONOLOGY FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Ogburn 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Chamical: The Inca Incursion in the Southern Highlands of Ecuador” (page unavailable), Ogburn describes a single-phase Bayesian model whose estimated start is 1–2 decades earlier than the traditional chronology. For Argentina and other southern provinces, the Discussion describes an earlier expansion by 3–6 decades, not a Bayesian model with a start nearly a century earlier. The paper therefore supports the Ecuador portion but not the claimed Argentine model or magnitude. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Not matchedcites Greco 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Only two other chroniclers proposed absolute dates for the Inca, most notably Sarmiento de Gamboa (2007), who offers an unrealistic chronology based on a subjective and eclectic mix of dates from the Bible, Greek texts, the Spanish royal line, and interviews (González Díaz 2015: 170-3).”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > DEVELOPING A CHRONOLOGY FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sarmiento de Gamboa 2007 source
- Partly supportedcites González Díaz 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusions describe Sarmiento’s use of Hebrew chronology, Plato, Spanish chronicles, and information from Cusco elites; the paper also identifies inconsistencies in his dates. It does not establish that he took dates from the Spanish royal line specifically: the royal succession appears in its discussion of Chávez’s chronology. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“It is important to include TL dates when they are available because they can directly date Inca-style ceramics and are free of the potentially ambiguous association between diagnostic ceramics and 14 C samples (Waterbolk 1971;Greco and Palamarczuk 2014).”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES FOR BAYESIAN MODELS OF INCA DATES
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Waterbolk 1971 source
- Partly supportedcites Greco and Palamarczuk 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods section says the association between radiocarbon dates and ceramics is not completely certain and evaluates degrees of date–pottery association. The paper does not address TL dating or say that TL dates directly date Inca-style ceramics; searches for TL and thermoluminescence found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The Inca Empire is mostly located in the Southern Hemisphere, so SHCal might seem appropriate, but atmospheric mixing near the equator can extend as far south as Lake Titicaca, where IntCal is a better choice (see Finucane et al. 2007:581;Marsh 2012Marsh : 205-6, 2015: 15-6): 15-6).”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > 4 EJ Marsh et al.
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Finucane et al. 2007 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods and Materials section says the authors chose IntCal04 over SHCal04 for Ayacucho because, during the relevant growing season, the valley lies within the Intertropical Convergence Zone and plant carbon is more likely to reflect Northern Hemisphere air. It does not establish that this reasoning extends as far south as Lake Titicaca or that IntCal is preferable there. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Partly supportedcites Marsh 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods section (page not specified in our copy) says IntCal may be appropriate for the Titicaca Basin because of its proximity to the Intertropical Convergence Zone, and the paper uses IntCal rather than SHCal. It does not explicitly establish that atmospheric mixing reaches Lake Titicaca or conclude that IntCal is categorically the better choice; it also notes evidence supporting SHCal for older dates. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not matchedcites Marsh 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Overall, these results strongly reinforce Ogburn's (2012: 231) call to abandon the traditional document-based chronology and give priority to 14 C dates.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Ogburn 2012 source
In “Abandoning the Traditional Chronology and Giving Priority to Radiocarbon Dates” (cited p. 231), Ogburn explicitly advocates the approach described. He argues for a chronology based primarily on radiocarbon dates, while allowing the historical record a secondary role; the citing sentence does not claim he would discard that record entirely. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: All the dates and sites belong to the same Inca phase.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Mendoza, the three principal Inca sites of Ranchillos, Tambillos, and Tambillitos as well as Cerro Penitentes have relatively shallow stratigraphy and a single occupational layer.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > Dating the Expansion of the Inca Empire 9
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The model also suggests that the Inca occupation of Mendoza lasted 70-230 yr (95% probability), longer than previously thought, which calls for new perspectives on the timing and nature of Inca conquests and relationships with local groups.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These averages were used in the site's model, which estimates the starting boundary at cal AD 660-1560 (95% probability, starting boundary) or cal AD 1360-1500 (68% probability, Start Agua Amarga).”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > Dating the Expansion of the Inca Empire 11
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The sites do not have enough stratigraphic information to build a model like the one used for Chamical.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At three other sites, Ciénaga de Yalguaraz, Agua Amarga, and Agua de la Cueva, there were pre-Inca occupations that were excluded from this analysis.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > Dating the Expansion of the Inca Empire 9
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The starting boundary of the Inca phase model represents our current best estimate of when the Inca arrived in Mendoza (Figure 3): cal AD 1380-1430 (68% probability) and cal AD 1350-1440 (95% probability, Start Inca occupation).”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: All the dates and sites belong to the same Inca phase.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In an earlier version of that model that included stratigraphic priors, the starting boundary was very similar, but as would be expected, the order of events was different.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One site, Tambillos, had a diagnostic Colonial sherd (Table 4), though this is quite limited evidence to argue for a post-Inca occupation.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedSingle caseTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite a presence lasting multiple generations, they did not build imperial centers in the valley bottom nor in the adjacent lowland valleys, both of which are agriculturally fertile areas that were occupied by local Huarpe groups.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Bayesian model estimates that the occupation lasted 70-230 yr (95% probability) or 100-190 yr (68% probability).”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: All the dates and sites belong to the same Inca phase.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At this point, the empire stopped expanding southward and occupied the area for the next 100-190 yr (68% probability).”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > CONCLUSION
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: All the dates and sites belong to the same Inca phase.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The starting boundaries for the individual Inca sites have error ranges of at least 160 yr, though the medians are within a century of each other (Table 6).”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > Dating the Expansion of the Inca Empire 11
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Despite thorough reference to historical documents (Bárcena 1994;Parisii 1994), the radiometric dates have not been critically evaluated nor have they been used to improve our understanding of Inca chronology.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > THE INCA OCCUPATION OF MENDOZA: PREVIOUS STUDIES AND CHRONOLOGY
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bárcena 1994
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Parisii 1994
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We can safely use the SHCal calibration curve, as Mendoza is well south of the area that may be affected by the Northern Hemisphere's atmosphere.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > MATERIALS AND METHODS: A BAYESIAN MODEL OF INCA DATES IN MENDOZA
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Mendoza is well south of the area that may be affected by the Northern Hemisphere's atmosphere.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rowe's chronology places the conquest of the southern quarter, Collasuyu, mostly during the reign of Topa Inca, AD 1471-93 (Figure 1).”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > DEVELOPING A CHRONOLOGY FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Bárcena (1979Bárcena ( , 1994Bárcena ( , 1998aBárcena ( , 2008) ) and his students (Cahiza and Ots 2005;Parisii 1994Parisii , 2005;;Ots and Cahiza 2013) have consistently relied on Cabello Balboa's date of AD 1471 for the Incas' arrival, often rounded to AD 1470 or 1480, even though radiometric dates from adjacent regions are consistently earlier (Stehberg 1992;Muñoz Ovalle and Chacama Rodriguez 1”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > THE INCA OCCUPATION OF MENDOZA: PREVIOUS STUDIES AND CHRONOLOGY
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bárcena 1979
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Bárcena 1994
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Bárcena 1998a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“A series of 14 C and TL dates from Inca ceramics and sites in Mendoza have been processed, but they have only been used in equivocal comparisons to Rowe's chronology (Bárcena 1998a).”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > THE INCA OCCUPATION OF MENDOZA: PREVIOUS STUDIES AND CHRONOLOGY
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bárcena 1998a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Dates were manually removed if they had a >0.05 (5%) posterior probability of being outliers and models were rerun to test for additional outliers, following Bronk Ramsey (2009b: 1023-4).”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > Dating the Expansion of the Inca Empire 9
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bronk Ramsey 2009b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Inca architecture has been identified at only three sites in the Uspallata Valley, and there is little evidence of direct Inca presence at other sites.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > THE INCA OCCUPATION OF MENDOZA: PREVIOUS STUDIES AND CHRONOLOGY
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Multiple runs of the models presented were robust, showing minor differences of no more than a decade.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES FOR BAYESIAN MODELS OF INCA DATES
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“We adopt a mixed curve because it provides more accurate dates, even though they are less precise in some parts of the curve (C Bronk Ramsey, personal communication, 2015).”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > 4 EJ Marsh et al.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites C Bronk Ramsey, personal communication, 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Currently, there are insufficient data to identify which calibration curve is most appropriate for the northern and central parts of the Inca Empire.
- Rests on an assumption: The Inca Empire is mostly located in the Southern Hemisphere.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An outlier model was appropriate for quantitatively evaluating the legacy data from Mendoza.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > 4 EJ Marsh et al.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These comparisons involve highly overlapping probability distributions, so they remain tentative.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 10 dates removed and their posterior probabilities of being outliers.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > Conquering leaders then looked north and marched on Ecuador beginning cal AD 1430-1460 (68% probability).
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two largest sites, Ranchillos and Tambillos, were probably founded last, suggesting increasing imperial interest during the 15th century, as implied by the tempo plot (Figure 5).”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: All the dates and sites belong to the same Inca phase.
In the paper
“Just south of Lake Titicaca at the Inca provincial capital Tiquischullpa (Figure 1), a preliminary Bayesian model of radiocarbon dates published by Pärssinen and Siiriäinen (1997: Table 1) suggests that the Inca occupation, associated with three 14 C dates, took place between cal AD 1310-1350 (medians of the First and Last dates of the Inca phase, with overlapping 68% probabilities of cal AD 1270-”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pärssinen and Siiriäinen 1997 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The white vertical bar indicates the span suggested by Cabello Balboa (1945) that is currently used in Inca research in Mendoza.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > Conquering leaders then looked north and marched on Ecuador beginning cal AD 1430-1460 (68% probability).
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cabello Balboa (1945)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This sacrifice may have marked the beginning of a greater commitment to the valley.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- The authors state this as an assumption: All the dates and sites belong to the same Inca phase.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Inca Occupation | | | 1400 | 1350-1440 106 | 44 | 10 |”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > Conquering leaders then looked north and marched on Ecuador beginning cal AD 1430-1460 (68% probability).
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The shape of the curve suggests a rapid accumulation of events, that most sites were occupied or founded during the 15th century, and that 6-9 events occurred before AD 1471 (at 1σ).”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dye 2016 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: All the dates and sites belong to the same Inca phase.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Better chronologies can improve our understanding of the empire's history, internal workings, the nature of expansion, and interactions with local groups.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > Conquering leaders then looked north and marched on Ecuador beginning cal AD 1430-1460 (68% probability).
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The emerging archaeological chronology of the Inca expansion confirms that dates in documentary sources are incorrect and strongly supports the argument to build an Inca chronology with radiometric dates and Bayesian models.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > CONCLUSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: All the dates and sites belong to the same Inca phase.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the agreement index is no more than a diagnostic for outlier models, as it is affected by down-weighted outliers.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > Inca phase model.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite their rapid and early expansion to Uspallata, they did not continue farther south, despite negligible armed resistance.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: All the dates and sites belong to the same Inca phase.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Next are the three smaller Inca sites with multiple dates (Ciénaga de Yalguaraz, Tambillitos, and Agua Amarga), perhaps reflecting a cautious investment in site-building, followed by the Aconcagua mountain sacrifice.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- The authors state this as an assumption: All the dates and sites belong to the same Inca phase.
In the paper
“This is a reminder that empires conquer people, not territories (Schreiber 1992: 11), and would have stopped where there were no more people worth conquering.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schreiber 1992 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It also supports the idea that the conquerors moved rapidly through large territories and then consolidated gradually, at least in the southern part of the empire where there was little armed resistance.”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: All the dates and sites belong to the same Inca phase.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“One historical document hints the Inca explored as far south as the Diamante River in central Mendoza (Figure 1), where they left a marker and turned around (Bibar 1966: 155, cited in García 2011a: 158; see Ots and Cahiza 2013: 39).”
§ DATING THE EXPANSION OF THE INCA EMPIRE: BAYESIAN MODELS FROM ECUADOR AND ARGENTINA > RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bibar 1966
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites García 2011a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Ots and Cahiza 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper relies on this without support.
Bayesian models had not been used to test whether Cabello Balboa's chronology underestimates the date of Inca expansions out of Cuzco.
“The growing body of calibrated 14 C and TL dates hints that Cabello Balboa's chronology underestimates the date of Inca expansions out of Cuzco, especially to the south (e.g.Pärssinen and Siiriäinen 1997;D'Altroy et al. 2007;Cornejo 2014), but Bayesian models have not been used to test this.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Currently, there are insufficient data to identify which calibration curve is most appropriate for the northern and central parts of the Inca Empire.
“Currently, there are insufficient data to identify which curve is most appropriate for the northern and central parts of the Inca Empire.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Inca Empire is mostly located in the Southern Hemisphere.
“The Inca Empire is mostly located in the Southern Hemisphere, so SHCal might seem appropriate, but atmospheric mixing near the equator can extend as far south as Lake Titicaca, where IntCal is a better choice (see Finucane et al. 2007:581;Marsh 2012Marsh : 205-6, 2015: 15-6): 15-6).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Mendoza is well south of the area that may be affected by the Northern Hemisphere's atmosphere.
“We can safely use the SHCal calibration curve, as Mendoza is well south of the area that may be affected by the Northern Hemisphere's atmosphere.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
All the dates and sites belong to the same Inca phase.
“The Inca phase model groups the site models within a single Inca phase, adding a simple but significant assumption to the model: all the dates and sites belong to the same phase.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The sites do not have enough stratigraphic information to build a model like the one used for Chamical.
“The sites do not have enough stratigraphic information to build a model like the one used for Chamical, so all dates from each site were modeled as a single uniform phase (Bronk Ramsey 2009a: 343).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The sites were in ruins by AD 1595.
“This boundary is heavily influenced by the historical date that the sites were in ruins by AD 1595”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Radiocarbon total exceeds the site counts
MinorThe ten site-level radiocarbon counts in Table 2 sum to 25, not the reported total of 26.
Reported 26 · recomputed 25
“| | Total | 26 | 19 |”
Modeled dates are not all rounded to 10 years
MinorThe paper says dates were rounded to 10 years, but Table 6 reports modeled starting-boundary values ending in 5, including 1395 and 1495.
“Models were run in OxCal v 4.2 (Bronk Ramsey 2009a) and dates were rounded by 10 yr.”
“| Ciénaga de Yalguaraz 1420 | 1330-1500 1440 | 1395-1495 111 | 8 | 1 |”
Citations
Cites
IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP
Reimer, P. J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. W., Blackwell, P. G., Ramsey, C. B., Buck, C. E., Cheng, H., Edwards, R. L., Friedrich, M., et al. (2013) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947 · Cited by 14,591
Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates
Bronk Ramsey, C. (2009) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200033865 · Cited by 8,725
SHCal13 Southern Hemisphere Calibration, 0–50,000 Years cal BP
Hogg, A. G., Hua, Q., Blackwell, P. G., Niu, M., Buck, C. E., Guilderson, T. P., Heaton, T., Palmer, J., Reimer, P. J., Reimer, R., et al. (2013) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16783 · Cited by 1,875
Dealing with outliers and offsets in radiocarbon dating
Bronk Ramsey, C. (2009) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200034093 · Cited by 1,204
Bayesian approach to interpreting archaeological data
(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-4522 · Cited by 517
The use of summed radiocarbon probability distributions in archaeology: a review of methods
Williams, A. N. (2011) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jas.2011.07.014 · Cited by 483
Bradshaw and Bayes: Towards a Timetable for the Neolithic
Bayliss, A., Ramsey, C. B., van der Plicht, J., & Whittle, A. (2007) · Cambridge Archaeological Journal · doi:10.1017/s0959774307000145 · Cited by 316
Rolling Out Revolution: Using Radiocarbon Dating in Archaeology
Bayliss, A. (2009) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200033750 · Cited by 315
Conventions for Reporting Radiocarbon Determinations
Millard, A. R. (2014) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200049596 · Cited by 215
Quality in Bayesian chronological models in archaeology
Bayliss, A. (2015) · World Archaeology · doi:10.1080/00438243.2015.1067640 · Cited by 187
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 34
- Durán, 1989, Ocupaciones agroalfareras en el sitio Agua de la Cueva sector norte (NO de Mendoza), Estudios Regionales, 3, 29
- García, 2011, El control incaico de las tierras bajas cuyanas. Una evaluación del modelo de encalves, Sociedades de Paisajes Áridos y Semi-áridos, 4, 39
- Bárcena JR , Terraza VV , Sabatini G , Da Peña G . 2013. Investigaciones arqueológicas recientes en el área del antiguo Potrero de La Chanchería (Valle de Uspallata, noroeste de Mendoza, Argentina). Paper presented at the 18th Conference of Argentine Archaeology, La Rioja, Argentina.
- Bárcena, 1994, Datos e interpretación del registro documental sobre la dominación incaica en Cuyo, Xama, 4–5, 11
- Greco C . 2012. Integración de los datos arqueológicos, radiocarbónicos y geofísicos para la construcción de una cronología de Yocavil y alrededores [PhD dissertation]. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires.
- Bárcena, 1990, Funcionalidad diferencial de las estructuras del tambo de Tambillos: Resultados de la excavación de los recintos 1 y 2 de la unidad A del sector III, Anales de Arqueología y Etnografía, 41–42, 7
- Bibar, 1966, Crónica y relación copiosa y verdadera de los Reynos de Chile
- Leibowicz, 2012, La conquista Inka de Humahuaca, Jujuy, Argentina. Nuevos fechados y visiones desde los desarrollos regionales, Inka Llaqta, 3, 191
- Schobinger, 2001, El santuario incaico del cerro Aconcagua
- Parisii, 1994, Algunos datos de la poblaciones prehispánicas del norte y centro oeste de Mendoza y su relación con la dominación inca del área, Xama, 4–5, 51
- Canals Frau, 1956, La cultura de Agrelo (Mendoza), Runa, 7, 169
- Cabello Balboa, 1945, Obras, Volume 1, 451
- García, 1999, Alcances del dominio incaico en el extremo suroriental del Tawantinsuyu (Argentina), Chungara, 29, 195
- Bárcena, 1998, Arqueología de Mendoza. Las dataciones absolutas y sus alcances, 413
- García, 1992, Acerca de la cultura material durante el período de dominio incaico en Mendoza: dos casos de influencia Diaguita chilena en la alfarería Viluco, Anales de Arqueología y Etnología, 46–47, 41
- D’Altroy, 2007, Variations in the Expression of Inka Power, 85
- 10.2458/azu_js_rc.v54i2.15826 · DOI
- Parisii, 2005, Dominación incaica en Mendoza, según un modelo de área periférica en la extensión de la conquista al Qollasuyu y a Cuyo
- Bárcena, 1998, El tambo real de Ranchillos, Mendoza, Argentina, Xama, 6, 1
- Tantaleán, 2015, El imperio inca: indicadores arqueológicos de un estado expansivo andino, Inka Llaqta, 4, 9
- Canals Frau, 1946, Etnología de los Huarpes. Una síntesis, Anales de Arqueología y Etnología, 7, 9
- Ots, 2013, Fronteras y periferia en arqueología e historia, 30
- Muñoz Ovalle, 1988, Cronología por termoluminiscencia para los períodos Intermedio Tardío y Tardío en la sierra de Arica, Chungara, 20, 19
- Ots MJ . 2007a. La presencia incaica en el Valle de Uco, Mendoza [PhD dissertation]. Mendoza: Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo.
- Ots, 2007, Actas del XVI Congreso de Arqueología Argentina, Volume 2, 479
- Prieto Olavarría, 2015, GlobalPottery 1. Historical Archaeological and Archaeometry for Societies in Contact, 273
- Rusconi, 1967, Restos indígenas hallados en una excavación de Las Heras (Mendoza), Revista del Museo de Historia Natural de Mendoza “Juan C. Moyano”, 19, 3
- Bárcena, 1979, Actas del VII congreso de Arqueología de Chile, 661
- Cahiza, 2005, La presencia inka en el extremo sur oriental del Kollasuyo. Investigaciones en las tierras bajas de San Juan y Mendoza, y el valle de Uco—-Rca. Argentina-, Xama, 15–18, 217
- Stehberg, 1992, El límite inferior cronológico de la expansión incaica a Chile, Xama, 4–5, 83
- Morales Guiñazú, 1938, Primitivos habitantes de Mendoza
- Williams, 1998, El sur del Tawantinsuyu: un dominio selectivamente intensivo, Tawantinsuyu, 5, 170
- García, 1996, La dominación incaica en el centro oeste argentino y su relación con el origen y cronología del registro “Viluco”., Anales de Arqueología y Etnología, 48–49, 57
- García, 2010, Arqueología Argentina en el bicentenario de la revolución de mayo, 1771
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–144 of 144
The grammar of the verb in the languages of the Central Andes
Pache, M. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198849926.003.0019 · Cited by 1
Urban, M. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198849926.003.0011 · Cited by 1
García, A., & Palacios, E. (2023) · INDIANA - Estudios Antropológicos sobre América Latina y el Caribe · doi:10.18441/ind.v39i2.133-158 · Cited by 1
DiNapoli, R. J. (2020) · Scholars' Bank (University of Oregon) · Cited by 1
Paisaje y astronomía inka en el sur del Tawantinsuyu
Corrado, G. (2022) · doi:10.35537/10915/142693 · Cited by 1
Bayesian modeling of radiocarbon and luminescence dated samples from the Reales Alcázares of Seville
Hernández, A. J., & Rodríguez, M. Á. T. (2020) · Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences · doi:10.1007/s12520-019-00990-6
The Bayesian Inferential Paradigm in ArchaeologyPreprint
Otárola‐Castillo, E., Torquato, M. G., & Buck, C. E. (2021) · SocArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/eb5gs
RDC volume 59 issue 1 Cover and Front matter
(2017) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/rdc.2017.14
Larraín, A. Á., Greco, C., & Wynveldt, F. (2018) · The Latin American studies book series · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-76729-1_1
Cruz, P. J. (2022) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-90799-6.00038-0
García, A., Gasco, A. V., & Aguilar, J. P. (2023) · Anuario de Arqueología · doi:10.35305/aa.v15i15.114
Aldao, G. D. P., Fabra, M., & Novellino, P. (2024) · Revista Argentina de Antropología Biológica · doi:10.24215/18536387e076
Ideological and cultural continuities between the ancient Tiwanaku and the ancient Inca Empire
Pärssinen, M. H., & Korpisaari, A. (2024) · Estudios Latinoamericanos · doi:10.36447/estudios2023.v43.art8
Bentivenga, E., & Lynch, J. (2025) · Journal of Archaeological Science Reports · doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2025.105049
The morphology of the nominal domain in the languages of the Central Andes
Krasnoukhova, O. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198849926.003.0018
Townend, M. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198849926.002.0021
Language and the Andean environment
Shapero, J. A. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198849926.003.0030
Townend, M. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198849926.002.0022
Coler, M. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198849926.003.0009
Contact between Indigenous languages of the Central Andes and Spanish
Escobar, A. M., & Betty, T. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198849926.003.0027
Urban, M. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198849926.002.0004
Coler, M. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198849926.003.0008
Shimelman, A. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198849926.003.0005
Shimelman, A., & Valqui, J. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198849926.003.0006
Bendezú-Araujo, R., & Acurio-Palma, J. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198849926.003.0007
Physical geography and cultural trajectory of the Central Andes
Kaulicke, P. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198849926.003.0002
Urban, M. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198849926.002.0008
Urban, M. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198849926.003.0001
Molina-Vital, C. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198849926.003.0004
Urban, M. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198849926.002.0005
Urban, M. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198849926.002.0009
Imperial Policies and Well‐Being in the Prehistoric Andes
Nash, D. J. (2025) · Economic Anthropology · doi:10.1002/sea2.70016
Toribio, R. M. L., Carhuapoma, E. T. S., Suárez, D. A. M. D. L., Sanchez, I. C. F., & Eugenio, N. C. (2025) · Russian Journal of Forensic Medicine · doi:10.17816/fm16184
Lau, G. F. (2025) · Arqueología y Sociedad · doi:10.15381/arqueolsoc.2025n42.e30547
Jones, M. B., & Tibesasa, R. (2025) · Azania Archaeological Research in Africa · doi:10.1080/0067270x.2025.2586371
Business clusters and performance in the textile industry of emerging economies
Morejón, M. N. V. (2025) · Repository of Digital Objects for Teaching Research and Culture (University of Valencia)
Silva-Pinto, V., R., M. A. S., Gayó, E. M., Méndez-Quirós, P., Castro, M., Menéndez, L. P., Rojas-Costa, G. M., Cerón, M. L., Wilson, A. S., Catalán, V., et al. (2026) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adz9055
La cronología de Tiwanaku y sus alrededores tras tres revoluciones radiocarbónicas
Marsh, E. (2025) · Conicet
Self-citationAlconini, S., & Canedo, W. S. (2026) · Cambridge Archaeological Journal · doi:10.1017/s095977432610064x
López, G. E. J. (2026) · Journal of Archaeological Science Reports · doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2026.106014
Cronología y arquitectura del Tambo Inka de Zapahuira, en la Precordillera Andina de Arica (Chile)
Zárate, J., & Castelleti, J. (2026) · Arqueología · doi:10.34096/arqueologia.t32.n3.16896
Metadata
- Authors
- Marsh, E. J., Kidd, R., Ogburn, D., & Durán, V.
- Affiliations
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR)
- Corresponding author
- Marsh, Erik J
- ORCID
- Marsh, Erik J
- Venue
- Radiocarbon
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2017-01-30
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 117-140
- ISSN
- 0033-8222 (ISSN-L)
- 1945-5755
- OpenAlex
- W2580449103
- Cited by
- 144
- References
- 64
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5
- FWCI
- 15.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Radiocarbon (publishedVersion)
- Conicet (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Funders
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
- Institut National Du Cancer
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Archeology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Latin American history and culture
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Amazonian Archaeology and Ethnohistory
- Keywords
- Inca Empire, Bayesian chronology, Mendoza, radiocarbon dating, thermoluminescence dating, Inca conquest, Ecuador, Argentina
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
