| Date | November 2021 | Marks available | 9 | Reference code | 21N.1.BP.TZ0.8 |
| Level | Both SL and HL | Paper | Paper 1 - first exams 2017 | Time zone | TZ0 |
| Command term | Evaluate | Question number | 8 | Adapted from | N/A |
Question
Note: In Source E, the word “Indians” is used to reflect the place and time of the original source. This term is used with reference to the indigenous populations.
Source E Pedro Cieza de León, a Spanish conquistador writing in his chronicle The Discovery and Conquest of Peru. Chronicles of the New World Encounter (c1553).
The Indians made great complaints when they heard that Atahualpa was imprisoned. They did not dare to rise up in arms against the Christians because [Atahualpa] had ordered that they should not do it. When the news spread that he was imprisoned, it caused great wonder. Many rejoiced; others wept, sighing from the sorrow they felt. They were astonished at how easily 160 men were able to do it. Chalcuchima was the captain who showed the most resentment. He complained about his gods because they had allowed such a thing. He delegated the guarding of Huascar to the appropriate captains and went to the Jauja valley to calm uprisings. When the news of Atahualpa’s capture reached Cuzco, many people rejoiced. They took such an event for a miracle. They believed that their god sent his children from heaven to liberate Huascar and to restore him on the throne.
[Source: Pedro de Cieza de Leon, “About how in the morning of the following day the Spaniards went to survey the countryside, and how the news of Atahualpa’s capture spread throughout the entire realm,” in The Discovery and Conquest of Peru, pp. 217. Copyright 1998, Duke University Press. All rights reserved. Republished by permission of the copyright holder, and the Publisher. www.dukeupress.edu.]
Source F Theodor de Bry, an engraver, depicts the ransom of gold paid to the Spaniards for the rescue of Atahualpa in a detail from America. Part VI (1596).
[Source: © Luisa Vallon Fumi | Dreamstime.com.]
Source G David P Werlich, a professor of Latin American history, writing in the academic book Peru: A Short History (1978).
On 16 November 1532, Atahualpa accepted an invitation to dine with Francisco Pizarro. Entering the central plaza with a force of 5000 lightly armed men, Atahualpa was boldly attacked and captured by Pizarro and a team of 20 attackers. While the monarch remained in the hands of the Europeans, the emperor’s followers offered little resistance. Atahualpa proposed to buy his freedom with enough gold and silver to fill two rooms. The Spaniards accepted. When the emperor complied with his part of the bargain, however, his captors faced a dilemma. Once free, Atahualpa probably would have commanded his armies to destroy the invaders. Yet, if he remained a prisoner, it seemed likely that his people would attempt a rescue of their god-king. In July 1533, after receiving dubious information that a large Inca force was preparing to attack Cajamarca, the Spaniards accused Atahualpa of treacherously ordering the assault and executed him. While still a prisoner, Atahualpa had ordered the execution of his half-brother Huascar and other claimants to the Inca throne so that they could not profit from the monarch’s distress. At the same time, Atahualpa’s Ecuadorian armies continued to ravage many towns that had supported Huascar. The Spaniards exploited this internal conflict. Posing as champions of the vanquished Cuzco faction, they installed the first of a series of puppet emperors and received the support of many districts.
[Source: Werlich, D.P., 1978. Peru: A Short History. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 39–40. Adapted.
Copyright © 1978 Southern Illinois University Press.]
Source H Hanns J Prem, an historian specializing in pre-Columbian studies, writing in the academic book The Ancient Americas. A Brief History and Guide to Research (1997).
The war between the two Inca brothers had just ended when Francisco Pizarro landed in 1532 with 180 Spaniards. Pizarro and Atahualpa met in Cajamarca, where the Spaniard took the Inca ruler captive in a surprise attack. In order to avoid Huascar’s accession to rule, Atahualpa had his half-brother killed while he was on the way to Cajamarca as a captive. Despite a famous final effort by the empire to fill a room up to the ceiling with gold as ransom, Atahualpa did not gain his freedom, but was sentenced to death in a trial based on false accusations. In order to use the authority of an Inca for his own ends, Pizarro crowned Manco Inca as the new ruler. The Spaniards held Manco Inca in Cuzco under humiliating conditions. Finally, he escaped, started a rebellion, laid siege to Cuzco from April 1536 to August 1537, and established an independent state that posed a constant threat to Spanish towns and roads.
[Source: Prem, H.J., 1997. The Ancient Americas. A Brief History and Guide to Research. Translated from German by
K. Kurbjuhn. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, p. 73. Adapted.]
Using the sources and your own knowledge, evaluate the significance of Atahualpa’s fall to the conquest of Peru.
Markscheme
Apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and award credit wherever it is possible to do so. The following material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. It is neither prescriptive nor exhaustive and no set answer is required. While it is expected that there will be coverage of at least two of the sources, candidates are not required to refer to all four sources in their responses.
Indicative content
Source E Atahualpa’s fall exposed divisions within the Inca Empire. Many indigenous populations rose up against his rule and facilitated the Spanish conquest.
Source F In order to gain his freedom, Atahualpa offered the payment of a large ransom in objects made of precious metals. The ransom enriched the Spanish conquerors.
Source G The Spaniards feared renewed resistance if Atahualpa was free to lead his armies. After the execution of Atahualpa, the Spaniards were able to continue the conquest of Peru, installing puppet emperors on the Inca throne, and benefitted from the support of many districts.
Source H Despite the execution of Atahualpa, the Spaniards still encountered opposition to their conquest from other Inca leaders such as Manco Inca. Manco Inca was a constant threat to the Spanish.
Own knowledge Candidates may also mention the civil war between Atahualpa and his brother Huascar that resulted in the execution of Huascar and many members of his family. This caused a power vacuum within the indigenous populations. The civil war also produced a division within the indigenous populations and many of them helped the Spaniards. Candidates may argue that Atahualpa was considered a key ruler and also heir to the hero Manco Cápac. In consequence, his fall left his people without any guidance. Candidates may also consider that Atahualpa’s fall in Cajamarca allowed Pizarro to quickly take control over the rest of the Inca Empire, and to introduce a superior army in the region.
Examiners report
Most scripts showed an awareness of the need to give a focused response and refer to / use the sources to analyse the question. Many responses also had a degree of development. Often candidates were able to use the sources to offer an assessment of, for example, why Germany attacked Poland in September 1939 for Question 12, or to discuss the contribution of the Civil Rights and the Voting Act in ensuring that African Americans could exercise their right to vote for Question 16. Furthermore, there was some improvement in the number of candidates effectively applying and synthesizing their knowledge in conjunction with a focused use of the sources.
However, some responses were limited by a wholly descriptive approach and some lacked clear and consistent focus on the set question. A number of responses referred to the source/s but did not effectively use the content to develop or support the analysis. In addition, a number of responses lacked the inclusion of relevant knowledge, and a sizeable minority of candidates did not respond at all to the final question or gave a very limited response.
