we have gone about as far as we can place any
reliance on tradition. However, the third chief, going backwards, was
also called Yupanqui, sometimes denominated "Yupanqui the Great," and
his reign (?) takes us back to about the year 1400. "Beyond this point,"
says M. Castaing, "we fall into a mythological era." We fully agree with
him. We can not think there is any special value in accounts of events
said to happen before that time--that is, for historical purposes.

That there were victorious chiefs, conducting victorious forays before
that date, is, of course, admitted. That the names of many of the chiefs
have come down to us, as well as some of their notable achievements is
quite possible. It is also evident that some mythological personages
would appear in tradition as "reigning Incas." It is equally plain that
neither Garcillasso, nor any of the Spanish writers, had any clear ideas
of these ancient times or events. All traditions finally settle on Manco
Capac as the first chief of the Incas. M. Castaing says he "is but an
allegory of the period of formation."<21> The date of the accession of
this mythological chief is given by most authorities as about the year
1000. M. Castaing thinks it was in the middle of the twelfth century.
It does not make much difference which date the reader concludes to
accept--one will do as well as the other.<22>

Let us turn our attention to the culture of the Incas, and their state
of government. Here we would expect to be on firm ground. We would
expect the Spanish writers to give us reliable accounts of the state of
society of the people they conquered. But, as Mr. Squier remarks, the
overthrow of the Peruvian government "was so sudden and complete that
the chroniclers had hardly time to set down the events which took place
before their own eyes, and had little leisure, or perhaps inclination,
to make a careful investigation into the principles of their civil and
religious polity. As a consequence, this work has devolved upon the
laborious student and archaeologist of a later time." In other words,
we are to compare the accounts given us by the early writers with our
present knowledge of Indian society.

We have already made the statement that the Inca were a tribe of
Indians. But, if they were a tribe, did they have the usual subdivisions
of a tribe--which, we remember, are the phratry and gens? The Spanish
writers say nothing about such divisions. This is not strange. They said