CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 98

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Absolute Chronology in the Andean Area

Rowe, John Howland·1945·American Antiquity
DOI 10.2307/275130
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although a reliable relative chronology, based chiefly on the sequence of pottery types, is rapidly being built up for the Andean area, no method has so far been devised for turning the relative dates into absolute ones. As far as we know at present, no permanent method of dating, comparable to the Maya Long Count or even to the Mexican fifty-two-year cycle, was in use in any part of South America, and no one has yet investigated the possibility of building up a tree-ring sequence, even in the drier regions of Peru. Furthermore, the distances that separate the Andean area from the Maya area have so far prevented any correlation of the early pottery types of the two areas, so that we cannot even estimate the age of Peruvian remains in terms of the insecurely correlated Maya calendar.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/275130

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Archaeologists have long relied on Rowe's interpretation that privileges Cabello Balboa's dates.

    “Archaeologists have long relied on Rowe's (1944Rowe's ( , 1945) ) interpretation that privileges Cabello Balboa's dates (see Tantaleán 2015: 14).”

    From Dating the expansion of the inca empire: bayesian models from Ecuador and Argentina (2017) · cites this paper as Rowe's (1944Rowe's ( , 1945) )

  • The traditional chronology of Inca expansion is based on John H. Rowe's work, which used Cabello Balboa's dates for the reigns and conquests of the last several emperors, assuming that dates supplied for earlier rulers were not credible.

    “For decades, scholars have relied on the chronology of Inca expansion proposed by John H Rowe (initially in Rowe 1944, then more fully developed in Rowe 1945).”

    From Reconceiving the chronology of inca imperial expansion (2012) · cites this paper as Rowe 1945

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. IMBELLONI, 1941, La Capaccuna de Montesinos después de cien afios de discusiones e Hipótesis., Anales del Institute) de Etnografia Americana, 2, 259
  2. BENNETT, 1939, Archaeology of the North Coast of Peru, 37
  3. ACOSTA, 1940, Historia natural y moral de las Indias
  4. SANCHO, 1917, Relación para S. M. de lo sucedido en la conquista y pacificación de estas provincias de la nueva Castilla, 5, 122–202
  5. ROWE, 1944, An Introduction to the Archaeology of Cuzco, 28
  6. LEVILLIER ROBERTO 1940. Don Francisco de Toledo, Supremo Organizador del Perú, Vol. 2, Sus informaciones sobre los Incas. Buenos Aires.
  7. ROMAN Y ZAMORA, 1897, Reptibúcas de Indias, 14
  8. POLO DE ONDEGARDO, 1916, Relación de los fundamentos acerca del notable dafto que resulta de no guardar a los Indios susfueros, 3, 45–188
  9. RIVA AGUERO, 1937, Civilización tradicional peruana. Lecciones VI a X., Revista de la Universidad Católica del Perú, 5, 611–664
  10. CASTRO, 1934, Relación y declaracidn del modo que este valle de Chincha y sus comarcanos se gobernaban Antes que hobiese ingas y despuls que los hobo hasta que los cristianos entraron en esta tierra. Valle de Chincha, 22 de hebrero de 1558, 10, 134–149
  11. COBO, 1890, Historia del Nuevo Mundo
  12. A. L., 1942, The Uhle Collections from Chincha, 21, 1–54
  13. JIJON Y CAAMASO, 1934, Los orfgenes del Cuzco., Anales de la Universidad Central, 52, 205–376
  14. MEANS, 1928, Biblioteca Andina, Part One, 29, 271–525
  15. CIEZA DE LEON, 1880, Segunda parte de la crónica del Peru, 4
  16. MEANS, 1921, Aspectos estético-cronológicos de las civilizaciones andinas., Boletin, de la Academla Nacional de Historia, 1, 195–226
  17. FRAY, 1920, Discurso sobre la descendencia y gobierno de los Incas, 3, 1–53
  18. A. L., 1924, The Uhle Pottery Collections from lea, 21, 95–133
  19. MEANS, 1917, Culture Sequence in the Andean Area., Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Americanists, 236–252
  20. PACHACUTI, 1927, Relacidn de antigUedades deste reyno del Perú, 9
  21. GARCILASO DE LA VEGA, 1723, Primera parte de los commentaries reales,…
  22. ULLOA MOGOLLóN, 1885, Relaciones Geográficas de Indias, 2, 38–50
  23. MONTESINOS, 1930, Memorias antiguas historiales y politicas del Perú, 6
  24. POLO DE ONDEGARDO, 1916, Los errores y supersticiones de los indios, sacados del tratado y aueriguacidn que hizo el licenciado Polo, 3, 1–43
  25. VAZQUEZ DE ESPINOSA, 1942, Compendium and Description of the West Indies, 102
  26. OLIVA, 1895, Historia del reino y provincias del Perú
  27. BETANZOS, 1880, Suma y narración de los Incas, 5
  28. MORUA, 1922, Historia de los Incas Reyes del Perú, 4
  29. POLO DE ONDEGARDO, 1940, Informe del Licenciado Juan Polo de Ondegardo al Licenciado Briviesca de Munatones sobre la perpetuidad de las encomiendas en el Perú., Revista Histdrica, 13, 125–196
  30. LAS CASAS BARTOLOME DE 1939. Las antiguas gentes del Perú. Colección de libros y documentos referentes a la historia del Peró, Series 2, Vol. 11. Lima.
  31. MOLINA, 1916, Relación de las fábulas y ritos de los Incas, 1, 1–103

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Rowe, J. H.
Venue
American Antiquity
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
1945-01
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
265-284
ISSN
  • 0002-7316
  • 2325-5064
DOI
10.2307/275130
Cited by
98
References
0
Language
en
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 26322 d)

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.

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