The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 8 of the 29 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Reconceiving the Chronology of Inca Imperial Expansion
Open accessAbstract
The basic chronology of Inca imperial expansion in Andean South America derives from historical accounts from the Spanish Colonial era, but several issues with this traditional chronology have arisen in recent decades. Advances in radiocarbon dating and calibration now give us some ability to refine or rebuild the chronology, and guidelines for obtaining the most useful dates are discussed. Dates recently obtained from the site of Chamical in the southern highlands of Ecuador are evaluated according to those guidelines, and they suggest Inca expansion to the north began 1 to 2 decades earlier than allowed in the traditional chronology. The chronology of Inca expansion presented in the Spanish chronicles is called into question by these and other dates, and by a reconsideration of the nature of sources of Inca history utilized by Spanish writers. Evidence suggests a primary Inca form of recording provincial conquests resulted in lists that were ordered geographically. However, those records were interpreted by colonial writers as being chronologically ordered, which led to written histories of Inca expansion that are not consistent with the actual historical sequence of events. As a result, the preferred approach to building a chronology of Inca expansion should be based on 14 C dates, with historical sources used to supplement rather than structure the timeline.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Ogburn argues the traditional Inca expansion chronology based on Cabello Balboa and Rowe is unreliable because Inca conquest records were ordered geographically, not chronologically. New AMS 14C dates from Chamical, Ecuador, and southern-province dates suggest Inca expansion occurred earlier, supporting a 14C-first chronology with historical sources supplemental.
Key findings
- Seven AMS 14C dates from Chamical, in the southern highlands of Ecuador, produced a Bayesian start boundary for the Inca occupation phase of AD 1432–1451 (1σ) and AD 1412–1457 (2σ) using IntCal09; with SHCal04 the ranges were AD 1446–1477 (1σ) and AD 1416–1495 (2σ). Ogburn interprets this as Inca expansion into southern Ecuador 1 to 2 decades earlier than the traditional mid-AD 1460s timeframe.
- The paper concludes Inca expansion into southern Ecuador occurred sometime in the range of AD 1440–1455, and that parts of Argentina and Chile were incorporated sometime prior to AD 1440, which is 3 to 6 decades earlier than the traditional chronology.
- The traditional chronology, derived from Cabello Balboa and promoted by Rowe, places Pachacuti’s imperial campaigns from AD 1438, Topa Inca’s campaigns from AD 1463–1471, and Huayna Capac’s death at AD 1525. Ogburn argues this sequence is undermined because Inca conquest lists were structured by the four imperial quarters—Chinchaysuyu, Antisuyu, Collasuyu, and Condesuyu—rather than by chronological order, and colonial writers misinterpreted them as chronological.
- Ogburn recommends abandoning the traditional chronology as the structuring framework and building a chronology primarily from 14C dates, using historical sources supplementally rather than as the timeline’s backbone.
Methods
- Design: a methodological critique and case study of Inca imperial chronology, combining proposed criteria for useful 14C dating with a new radiocarbon series from the Inca site of Chamical in the southern highlands of Ecuador.
- Data and sample: seven samples from test excavations at Chamical, a small fieldstone compound at 1225 m, 14 km west of Oña, with Inca imperial-style ceramics and no evidence of pre-Inca activity; samples were dated by AMS at the University of Georgia Center for Applied Isotope Studies.
- Analysis: dates were calibrated with OxCal v4.1 using both IntCal09 and SHCal04; Bayesian modeling in OxCal estimated the start boundary of the Inca occupation phase, assuming six dates represented a single occupation phase and the most recent date postdated Inca occupation. The paper also reviews published 14C dates from Argentina and Chile and critiques colonial historical sources.
Limitations
- Stated: 14C dating cannot establish the actual order of provinces conquered within the same decade; the paper says differences of 30 to 40 years should be discernible, and under the best circumstances differences of about 20 years.
- Stated: calibration is complicated by the hemispheric offset—during the period of interest, IntCal09 dates can be 15–20 years earlier than SHCal04 dates—by ITCZ-driven mixing of Northern and Southern Hemisphere air, by no consensus on curve choice, and by poorer calibration resolution after about AD 1470.
- Stated and evident: the Chamical interpretation depends on calibration-curve choice and comes from a single small site with limited test excavations and a limited occupation; the paper also states that refining the traditional chronology by selecting among inconsistent historical facts is problematic and could produce conflicting chronologies.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
40 Own interpretation · 23 No basis given · 9 Own result · 6 No full text of the sources · 5 Supported · 5 Sources not found · 3 Not checked yet · 2 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“As Finucane et al. (2007) argue for the Ayacucho region of Peru, due to the southward shift of the ITCZ in the primary growing season, the austral summer, much of the CO 2 absorbed by plants should represent the Northern rather than the Southern Hemisphere.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > D E Ogburn
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Finucane et al. (2007) source
The Methods and Materials section says that during Ayacucho plants’ growing season—the austral summer—the valley lies within the ITCZ. It concludes that CO₂ taken up during photosynthesis is more likely representative of the Northern than the Southern Hemisphere atmosphere, matching the cited argument. (LLM, conf=0.91)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“This complicates choosing the appropriate calibration for 14 C dates because in some regions the seasonal movement of the ITCZ brings CO 2 from the Northern Hemisphere for part of the year and from the Southern Hemisphere during the other part (McCormac et al. 2004(McCormac et al. :1088)).”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > D E Ogburn
What the sources say
- Supportedcites McCormac et al. 2004 source
The Discussion states that the seasonal shift of the ITCZ may bring atmospheric CO2 to a site from the Northern Hemisphere for part of the year and from the Southern Hemisphere for another part. It also says this creates uncertainty when calibrating radiocarbon dates from tropical and neotropical sites. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“As a result of the offset, during the timeframe of interest (~AD 1400-1532) dates calibrated with the Northern Hemisphere curve (IntCal09; Reimer et al. 2009) can be between 15-20 yr earlier than those calibrated with the Southern Hemisphere curve (SHCal04; McCormac et al. 2004).”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > D E Ogburn
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Reimer et al. 2009 source
The citation to Reimer et al. identifies the Northern Hemisphere IntCal09 curve, and this paper presents that curve. The IntCal09 Curve section points to its data and Figure 2 (pp. 1120–1138). The separate citation to McCormac et al. identifies SHCal04; the 15–20-year comparison is not what the Reimer citation alone is used to identify. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Partly supportedcites McCormac et al. 2004 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and Calibration Curve Construction sections describe a variable interhemispheric radiocarbon offset, and the Discussion identifies SHCal04 as a Southern Hemisphere calibration curve. But the paper compares SHCal04 with IntCal04, not IntCal09, and does not establish that calibrated dates for AD 1400–1532 are 15–20 calendar years later with SHCal04. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The key concern for calibrating 14 C dates is the predominant source of air during the growing season, as this affects the uptake of CO 2 (and thus 14 C) in plants ( McCormac et al. 2004McCormac et al. :1088)).”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > D E Ogburn
What the sources say
- Supportedcites McCormac et al. 2004 source
The Discussion (cited p. 1088) says the relevant atmospheric boundary should be considered during growing seasons and that seasonal shifts can bring CO₂ from different hemispheres to a site. It identifies this as a complication for calibrating radiocarbon dates, particularly at tropical and neotropical sites. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
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
“Inca imperial-style ceramics were found distributed on the surface outside the compound walls, which included sherds with polychrome decoration (Figure 2) as well as neck fragments and rope nubbins from aribalo-style vessels.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > CHAMICAL: THE INCA INCURSION IN THE SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS OF ECUADOR
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 date (UGa-3460) was associated with rubble that blocked the entrance into the compound and appears to represent activity during the early Colonial era.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > CHAMICAL: THE INCA INCURSION IN THE SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS OF ECUADOR
hedgedcorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“However, even a basic review of the dates as calibrated with the SHCal04 curve strongly suggests Inca incorporation of at least some southern provinces sometime between AD 1410 and 1440.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > Abandoning the Traditional Chronology and Giving Priority to Radiocarbon Dates
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Dates recently obtained from the site of Chamical in the southern highlands of Ecuador are evaluated according to those guidelines, and they suggest Inca expansion to the north began 1 to 2 decades earlier than allowed in the traditional chronology.”
- Also stated in: § CHAMICAL: THE INCA INCURSION IN THE SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS OF ECUADOR · hedged
“Whether we rely on that estimate or entirely on the Northern Hemisphere calibration, the ramifications of the dates from Chamical are that the Incas seem to have expanded into southern Ecuador a decade or more earlier than presumed in the traditional chronology.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > Abstract
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The main body of six dates from Chamical represented a single occupation phase.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The most recent date (UGa-3460) postdated the Inca occupation at Chamical.
- Also stated in: § CHAMICAL: THE INCA INCURSION IN THE SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS OF ECUADOR · hedged
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
“Instead, the “Incas nietos” listed the conquests of their ancestors in geographical order according to the 4 quarters of the empire, beginning with Chinchaysuyu, then proceeding through Antisuyu, Collasuyu, and Condesuyu.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > Abandoning the Traditional Chronology and Giving Priority to Radiocarbon Dates
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 limited excavation finds included a sling stone and several bone arrow points, suggesting a military focus for Chamical, as does the walled enclosure plan with a single entrance.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > CHAMICAL: THE INCA INCURSION IN THE SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS OF ECUADOR
hedgedcorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 40
- Probably not a substantial claim. 24
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Moreover, the division between the hemispheric air masses is not the Equator, but the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), where tradewinds from north and south converge and mix the air masses.The ITCZ is not fixed, but moves seasonally as influenced by the position of the sun and the topography of the landforms it passes over.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > D E Ogburn
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites McCormac et al. 2004 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion says the atmospheric distinction lies along the thermal equator or ITCZ rather than the geographic Equator, and describes a seasonal shift in the ITCZ. It does not say that the sun and landform topography drive that shift, or explain the boundary in terms of converging trade winds. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
“Because Chamical lies within the climatic zone of the highlands that is greatly influenced by the ITCZ, the Northern Hemisphere calibration curve IntCal09 (Reimer et al. 2009) is seen as the most suitable for interpretation of the dates.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > CHAMICAL: THE INCA INCURSION IN THE SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS OF ECUADOR
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Reimer et al. 2009 source
The paper’s section “The IntCal09 Curve” presents IntCal09 as a radiocarbon calibration curve, confirming the identification for which Reimer et al. (2009) is cited. The statement about Chamical, the ITCZ, and which curve is most suitable is the citing authors’ rationale, not a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirectn = 7- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“This difference exists because the greater extent of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere leads to a greater exchange of CO 2 between ocean and atmosphere compared to the Northern Hemisphere.This produces an offset between calibrated ages, which varies over time rather than staying constant (McCormac et al. 2002).”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > D E Ogburn
What the sources say
- Supportedcites McCormac et al. 2002 source
The Introduction attributes the hemispheric radiocarbon difference to the Southern Hemisphere’s larger expanse of ocean and atmosphere–ocean CO2 exchange. The Abstract reports that the offset varied rather than remaining constant over AD 950–1850. Our copy does not provide page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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
“The choice of calibration curve makes a difference of roughly 20 yr in these dates, with the Northern Hemisphere calibration producing dates earlier than the Southern Hemisphere curve.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > CHAMICAL: THE INCA INCURSION IN THE SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS OF ECUADOR
plaindirectn = 7- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Of most relevance are the 3 earliest dates, which cluster together and likely represent the construction phase of the site.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > CHAMICAL: THE INCA INCURSION IN THE SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS OF ECUADOR
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“The second most recent date (UGa-8802) falls mostly within late Inca imperial times, suggesting limited use of the site may have continued for several decades.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > CHAMICAL: THE INCA INCURSION IN THE SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS OF ECUADOR
hedgedconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“There were no traces of Inca roads leading to the site, making it unlikely that Chamical served as an administrative site.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > CHAMICAL: THE INCA INCURSION IN THE SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS OF ECUADOR
hedgedconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Test excavations conducted within the main compound in 2008 uncovered shallow deposits with few remains, indicating a limited occupation with no evidence of pre-Inca activity.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > CHAMICAL: THE INCA INCURSION IN THE SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS OF ECUADOR
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“This impacts dating of expansion during what is thought to be the latter part of Topa Inca's reign, and the entire reign of Huayna Capac seems to fall in this calibration”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > D E Ogburn
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
“Another issue to consider is the nature of the materials dated and whether they were exposed to Northern Hemisphere air while they were growing.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > D E Ogburn
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
“This can be challenging to determine because any individual site or building could have been constructed at any time during the Inca occupation of the area, and the lowest excavated Inca strata will not necessarily date the Inca arrival.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > D E Ogburn
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
“Plus, much of Inca territory lies within transitional areas, such as the Peruvian western slopes near the coast, which fall between climate regimes heavily influenced by the seasonal movement of the ITCZ and those dominated by Southern Hemisphere air masses.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > D E Ogburn
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The heart of the traditional chronology (Table 1, Figure 1) focuses on 4 phases of Inca imperial expansion and dominance, beginning with the creation of the empire by the Inca leader Pachacuti (Inca Yupanqui) after he assumed rule from his father in AD 1438, and ending with the death of his grandson, Huayna Capac in AD 1525.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE TRADITIONAL CHRONOLOGY
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cabello Balboa (1945)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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 would have encompassed most, if not all, of the duration of Inca imperial expansion, but not all of Inca territory.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > D E Ogburn
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“In the end, however, this approach is very problematic because it hinges on arguing that specific pieces of information are more accurate than others.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > Refining the Traditional Chronology with Radiocarbon Dates
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
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 present, radiocarbon dating is the only method that has the potential for providing data of sufficient precision and accuracy.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > INTRODUCTION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
- Also stated in: § HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE TRADITIONAL CHRONOLOGY · plain
“Rowe proposed a chronology of the Inca Empire based on Cabello Balboa's dates for the reigns and conquests of the last several emperors, with the assumption that dates supplied for earlier rulers were not credible.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE TRADITIONAL CHRONOLOGY
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Rowe 1944
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Rowe 1945 source
- Not matchedcites Cabello Balboa (1945)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE TRADITIONAL CHRONOLOGY · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Most historical accounts, including chronicles whose authors gathered most of their evidence from Cuzco sources (e.g.Betanzos 1987; Sarmiento de Gamboa 2007) and others who had first-hand experience in Ecuador (Cabello Balboa 1945;Cieza de León 1985), agree that the southern highlands of Ecuador were conquered by Topa Inca during the reign of Pachacuti.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > CHAMICAL: THE INCA INCURSION IN THE SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS OF ECUADOR
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Betanzos 1987
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sarmiento de Gamboa 2007 source
- Not matchedcites Cabello Balboa 1945
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- 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
“However, if Cabello Balboa's dates are not grossly inaccurate and most Inca conquests outside the Cuzco region occurred during the reigns of Pachacuti and Topa Inca, as most historical accounts suggest, then much of Inca imperial expansion would have occurred within the optimal calibration window of AD 1410/15 to AD 1460/70.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > D E Ogburn
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. 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
“But refinements in 14 C dating and calibration methods, a growing database of dates from diverse parts of the former Inca realm, and a reconsideration of the sources of information used to create accounts of Inca expansion in the Spanish Colonial period together point to a need to take a different approach to Inca imperial chronology.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > CONCLUSIONS
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
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
“Most importantly, because the conquests were grouped in this formalized geographical order and the list lacked chronological references, we have no way of knowing if the conquests in one quarter were conducted before or after those in another quarter.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > Abandoning the Traditional Chronology and Giving Priority to Radiocarbon Dates
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The conflict between those 14 C dates and the traditional chronology cannot be easily explained by drawing from other historical information, and indicates a clear need to reconsider both the nature of Inca history (D'Altroy et al. 2007) and the extent to which we can reliably draw from the recorded accounts for our archaeological reconstructions of Inca imperial expansion.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > Abandoning the Traditional Chronology and Giving Priority to Radiocarbon Dates
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites D'Altroy et al. 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“The basic chronology of Inca imperial expansion in Andean South America derives from historical accounts from the Spanish Colonial era, but several issues with this traditional chronology have arisen in recent decades.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. 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
“However, those records were interpreted by colonial writers as being chronologically ordered, which led to written histories of Inca expansion that are not consistent with the actual historical sequence of events.”
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · plain
“This resulted in data that were mismatched with the linear narratives of Inca history that writers sought to create D E Ogburn during the Spanish Colonial era, i.e. this created fundamental problems with the accounts that have been our principal sources for understanding the chronology of Inca expansion.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · plain
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
“Because the dates from Chamical indicate an earlier Inca expansion into southern Ecuador, they point to a need to revise the traditional chronology, but not necessarily to dismiss it entirely.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > DISCUSSION: RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA EXPANSION
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
“Furthermore, not all Inca forts were associated with expansion.Many were constructed to defend the borders of the empire, house garrisons, or maintain control over strategic locales over the long term, and would not necessarily mark the arrival of the Incas in an area.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > D E Ogburn
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It 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
“Also, the Incas moved massive quantities of foods, clothing, and other materials between different climatic zones, which means sometimes we will not know if the same calibration curve can even be applied to all excavated remains within a single Inca site.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > D E Ogburn
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“In particular, it could allow for much greater integration of a region and its people into the Inca state.It also allows for another generation to grow up under imperial control, and provides more time for imperial forms of organization to become embedded in local culture.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > DISCUSSION: RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA EXPANSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Possible approaches to that problem vary depending on how much credence is given to details of recorded Inca history, which is a challenging question because the historicity of the chronicles and other sources treating the Inca Empire has been subject to much debate (e.g.Zuidema 1964;Julien 2000).”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > DISCUSSION: RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA EXPANSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zuidema 1964 source
- Not matchedcites Julien 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
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
“The upper limit restricts the potential for refining the dates for provinces incorporated much later than ~1460-1470 and also makes it difficult to distinguish events of the early Spanish Colonial era from late Inca imperial times.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > D E Ogburn
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Also, we could add that they expanded into parts of Argentina and Chile sometime prior to AD 1440.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > CONCLUSIONS
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
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
“For many regions, including the Peruvian and Ecuadorean highlands, the air is going to represent some level of mixture between the Northern and Southern Hemisphere atmospheres, but we currently have no way of gauging the level of mixture.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > D E Ogburn
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably 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.
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
“This area was populated by a subgroup of Cañaris, who apparently resisted incorporation into the Inca Empire.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > CHAMICAL: THE INCA INCURSION IN THE SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS OF ECUADOR
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably 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.
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
“Of course, the statistical nature of 14 C dating will not give us the level of precision to be able to establish the actual order of incorporation of different provinces that may have been conquered within the same decade.But we should be able to discern differences of 30 to 40 yr, and under the best circumstances we may be able to discern differences in the range of 20 yr or so.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > D E Ogburn
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Thus, if it were constructed during the Inca military advance rather than as a later, internal control point, Chamical could help to establish the date of imperial expansion into the southern sierra of Ecuador.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > CHAMICAL: THE INCA INCURSION IN THE SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS OF ECUADOR
hedgedconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
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
“Thus, the historical record can neither be accepted uncritically nor dismissed outright.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > DISCUSSION: RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA EXPANSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It 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
“Archaeologists have seldom relied to any significant extent on 14 C dates for understanding Inca imperial chronology on the larger scale; nonetheless, numerous dates have been obtained from excavated Inca contexts.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > RADIOCARBON DATES AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA EXPANSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It 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
“On one hand, Inca historical narratives were clearly subject to a variety of alterations because of the passage of time before being written down, translation and filtering through differing languages and cultures, manipulation by competing Inca factions, and alteration to fit differing agendas of Spanish writers, among other things.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > DISCUSSION: RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA EXPANSION
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The more practical approach would be to obtain as many 14 C dates as feasible, and try to fill in the blanks in the map by critically analyzing the historical record to ascertain which provinces were conquered together in specific campaigns, similar to the analysis of Pärssinen (1992).”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > Abandoning the Traditional Chronology and Giving Priority to Radiocarbon Dates
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pärssinen 1992
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
“In essence, there appears to have been a mismatch between a primary Inca form of record keeping and Spanish forms of historical narrative, which led to a standard history of Inca expansion that is actually more disordered (or imprecise) than inaccurate.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > Abandoning the Traditional Chronology and Giving Priority to Radiocarbon Dates
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
“Clearly, the geographical spread of the Inca realm means that a single calibration curve is not going to be appropriate for all parts of the empire, but no consensus has emerged on how to deal with this situation.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > D E Ogburn
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to the traditional chronology, this would have been sometime between AD 1463 and 1471.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > CHAMICAL: THE INCA INCURSION IN THE SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS OF ECUADOR
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cabello Balboa 1945
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- 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
“Moreover, we do not have a good sense of how long after conquest the Incas began constructing imperial administrative sites, way stations, etc. within a province-it could have been immediate, or after a delay of a decade or more.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > D E Ogburn
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
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
“The great majority of Inca territory was said to have been incorporated by Topa Inca (Figure 1), both during the rule of his father, Pachacuti, and after the latter's death.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE TRADITIONAL CHRONOLOGY
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. 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
“A difference of a few decades is not major in many archaeological contexts.But in terms of Inca expansion and the implementation of imperial strategies of control, that timespan can be quite significant.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > DISCUSSION: RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA EXPANSION
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
“In both cases, the estimates of Huayna Capac's birth run counter to the post-AD 1463 date from Cabello Balboa, but are consistent with the AD 1440-1455 range indicated by the 14 C dates from Chamical.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > Refining the Traditional Chronology with Radiocarbon Dates
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Pushing this stage of expansion back in time suggests the need to reassess the AD 1438 date for the commencement of imperial conquests led by Pachacuti outside of the Cuzco region.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > Refining the Traditional Chronology with Radiocarbon Dates
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
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 lower limit for good resolution in calibrated dates could be problematic for improving the chronology of Inca expansion if any conquests outside the Cuzco region actually occurred prior to ~AD 1410; fortunately, there is little to suggest any significant expansion at such an early date.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > D E Ogburn
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“This resistance could have led to the construction of temporary outposts by the Inca army.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > CHAMICAL: THE INCA INCURSION IN THE SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS OF ECUADOR
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“But on a finer scale, it appears the ITCZ may have shifted to its southernmost position during the Little Ice Age, from ~AD 1420 to 1560/1640 (Sachs et al. 2009) and subsequently retreating to its current position.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > D E Ogburn
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sachs et al. 2009 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 is this compilation of multiple campaigns within each quarter that creates another significant chronological problem: even if the military campaigns and resulting conquests were basically ordered in time within each quarter, we have no way of comparing the sequence of campaigns between the different quarters.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > Abandoning the Traditional Chronology and Giving Priority to Radiocarbon Dates
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“This is a significant deviation from the post-AD 1471 timeframe of the traditional chronology and points to a sequence of provincial expansion out of line with that described in most accounts.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > Abandoning the Traditional Chronology and Giving Priority to Radiocarbon Dates
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Instead, we must base our chronology on 14 C dates, and evaluate the historical record in relation to them.”
§ RECONCEIVING THE CHRONOLOGY OF INCA IMPERIAL EXPANSION > Abandoning the Traditional Chronology and Giving Priority to Radiocarbon Dates
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The main body of six dates from Chamical represented a single occupation phase.
“The only assumptions included in the Bayesian modeling were that the main body of 6 dates represented a single occupation phase and that the most recent date (UGa-3460) postdated the Inca occupation.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The most recent date (UGa-3460) postdated the Inca occupation at Chamical.
“The only assumptions included in the Bayesian modeling were that the main body of 6 dates represented a single occupation phase and that the most recent date (UGa-3460) postdated the Inca occupation.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing 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).”
From Dating the expansion of the inca empire: bayesian models from Ecuador and Argentina (2017) · cites this paper as Ogburn 2012
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing 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.”
From Dating the expansion of the inca empire: bayesian models from Ecuador and Argentina (2017) · cites this paper as Ogburn 2012
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing 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).”
From Dating the expansion of the inca empire: bayesian models from Ecuador and Argentina (2017) · cites this paper as Ogburn 2012
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing 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.”
From Dating the expansion of the inca empire: bayesian models from Ecuador and Argentina (2017) · cites this paper as Ogburn 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing 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.”
From Dating the expansion of the inca empire: bayesian models from Ecuador and Argentina (2017) · cites this paper as Ogburn 2012
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
IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 years cal BP
Reimer, P. J., Baillie, M. G. L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. W., Blackwell, P. G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C. E., Burr, G. S., Edwards, R. L., et al. (2009) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200034202 · Cited by 4,290
SHCal04 Southern Hemisphere calibration, 0-11.0 cal kyr BP
McCormac, F. G., Hogg, A. G., Blackwell, P. G., Buck, C. E., Higham, T. F. G., & Reimer, P. J. (2004) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200033014 · Cited by 955
Handbook of South American Indians
Brand, D. D., & Steward, J. H. (1947) · Geographical Review · doi:10.2307/210779 · Cited by 945
Garreaud, R. D. (2009) · Advances in geosciences · doi:10.5194/adgeo-22-3-2009 · Cited by 699
Millennial-scale dynamics of southern Amazonian rain forests
Mayle, F. E., Burbridge, R., & Killeen, T. J. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.290.5500.2291 · Cited by 419
Southward movement of the Pacific intertropical convergence zone AD 1400-1850
Sachs, J. P., Sachse, D., Smittenberg, R. H., Zhang, Z., Battisti, D. S., & Golubic, S. (2009) · Nature Geoscience · doi:10.1038/ngeo554 · Cited by 380
Ceque system of Cuzco: The social organization of the capital of the Inca
Zuidema, R. T. (1964) · doi:10.1163/9789004612402 · Cited by 309
Stages and Periods in Archaeological Interpretation
Rowe, J. H. (1962) · Southwestern Journal of Anthropology · doi:10.1086/soutjanth.18.1.3629122 · Cited by 199
The Inca Occupation of the South Coast of Peru
Menzel, D. (1959) · Journal of Anthropological Research · doi:10.1086/soutjanth.15.2.3628802 · Cited by 133
Guide to documentary sources for Andean studies, 1530-1900
(2008) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.46-0662 · Cited by 116
The Development of the Inca State
(1993) · University of Texas Press eBooks · doi:10.7560/715639 · Cited by 115
Absolute Chronology in the Andean Area
Rowe, J. H. (1945) · American Antiquity · doi:10.2307/275130 · Cited by 98
Calibration of the radiocarbon time scale for the Southern Hemisphere: AD 1850-950
McCormac, F. G., Reimer, P. J., Hogg, A. G., Higham, T. F. G., Baillie, M. G. L., Palmer, J., & Stuiver, M. (2002) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200032094 · Cited by 87
(2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-4032 · Cited by 79
Probanza de los incas nietos de conquistadores
Rowe, J. H. (1985) · Histórica · doi:10.18800/historica.198502.003 · Cited by 74
The application of LEPS technique for Quantitative Precipitation Forecast (QPF) in Southern Italy
Federico, S., Avolio, E., Bellecci, C., & Colacino, M. (2006) · Advances in geosciences · doi:10.5194/adgeo-7-1-2006 · Cited by 71
de Murúa, M., & Gaibrois, M. B. (2001) · Dastin eBooks · Cited by 66
Julien, C. (2009) · University of Iowa Press eBooks · doi:10.1353/book6797 · Cited by 63
Distant Provinces in the Inka Empire
Alconini, S., & Malpass, M. A. (2010) · University of Iowa Press eBooks · doi:10.1353/book641 · Cited by 60
Sarmiento de Gamboa, P. (2007) · doi:10.7560/714137 · Cited by 54
Murra, J. V., de Betanzos, J., & Rubio, M. D. C. M. (1990) · Ethnohistory · doi:10.2307/481952 · Cited by 50
Ogburn, D. E. (2004) · Latin American Antiquity · doi:10.2307/4141586 · Cited by 35
Self-citationThe Logic of Culture: Advances in Structural Theory and Methods.
Barley, N., & Rossi, I. (1983) · Man · doi:10.2307/2801470 · Cited by 32
Finucane, B. C., Valdez, J. E., Calderon, I. P., Pomacanchari, C. V., Valdez, L. M., & O'Connell, T. (2007) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s003382220004248x · Cited by 27
Covey, R. A. (2006) · Comparative Studies in Society and History · doi:10.1017/s0010417506000077 · Cited by 18
Fritze, R. H. (2008) · Sixteenth Century Journal · doi:10.2307/20479067 · Cited by 8
Schiappacasse Ferretti, V. (1999) · Estudios atacameños · doi:10.22199/s07181043.1999.0018.00011 · Cited by 8
Inkas and Yumbos at Palmitopamba in Northwestern Ecuador
Lippi, R. D., & Gudiño, A. M. (2018) · University of Iowa Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctt20mvff8.13 · Cited by 6
A QUESTION OF TIME: JUAN DE BETANZOS AND THE NARRATIVE OF THE INCAS
Rowe, J. H., & Julien, C. (2008) · Ñawpa Pacha · doi:10.1179/naw.2008.29.1.006 · Cited by 5
(1992) · Medical Entomology and Zoology
(1944) · University of Michigan Library Repository
(1946)
(1992) · Doria (University of Helsinki)
Crónica del Perú : segunda parte
de León, P. D. C., Estrada, M. M., & Franklin Pease, G. Y. (1986) · doi:10.18800/9788489292758
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Levillier, 1940, Don Francisco de Toledo, supremo organizador del Perú; su vida, su obra (1515-1582), Tomo II, 646
- Cabello Balboa, 1945, Obras,, Volume 1, 451
- Williams, 1998, El sur del Tawantinsuyu: un dominio selectivamente intensivo, Tawantinsuyu, 5
- D'Altroy, 2007, Variations in the Expression of Inka Power, 85
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Post-invasion demography of prehistoric humans in South America
Goldberg, A., Mychajliw, A. M., & Hadly, E. A. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature17176 · Cited by 216
Dating the expansion of the inca empire: bayesian models from Ecuador and Argentina
Marsh, E. J., Kidd, R., Ogburn, D., & Durán, V. (2017) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/rdc.2016.118 · Cited by 144
Self-citationMarsh, E. J., Bruno, M. C., Fritz, S. C., Baker, P., Capriles, J. M., & Hastorf, C. A. (2018) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/rdc.2018.16 · Cited by 109
AMS Radiocarbon Dates from Prehispanic Fortifications in the Huaura Valley, Central Coast of Perú
Vega, M. B., Craig, N., Culleton, B. J., Kennett, D. J., & Lindo, R. (2013) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200047767 · Cited by 95
Ecuadorian Highland Quichua and the Lost Languages of the Northern Andes
Floyd, S. (2022) · International Journal of American Linguistics · doi:10.1086/717056 · Cited by 55
Metadata
- Authors
- Ogburn, D. E.
- Venue
- Radiocarbon
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2012
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 219-237
- ISSN
- 0033-8222 (ISSN-L)
- 1945-5755
- OpenAlex
- W2087556780
- Semantic Scholar
- 305997c12757ddde3077c76c045df651d890a8f6
- Cited by
- 118
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2025: 5 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 7.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Radiocarbon (publishedVersion)
- UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Institut National Du Cancer
- University of North Carolina at Charlotte
- 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
- chronology, radiocarbon dating, Spanish colonial chronicles, Ecuadorian highlands, colonial historiography
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
