Processes of State Formation in the Inca Heartland (Cuzco, Peru) Author(S): Brian S
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Processes of State Formation in the Inca Heartland (Cuzco, Peru) Author(s): Brian S. Bauer and R. Alan Covey Source: American Anthropologist, Vol. 104, No. 3 (Sep., 2002), pp. 846-864 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3567261 Accessed: 16-02-2016 23:43 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Anthropological Association and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 146.96.36.187 on Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:43:50 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BRIAN S. BAUER U;- R. ALAN COVEY Processes of State Formation in the Inca Heartland (Cuzco, Peru) ABSTRACT Thisarticle addresses Inca state formationin the centralhighlands of Peru.Using ethnohistoric materials and new ar- chaeologicalsurvey data fromthree areassurrounding Cuzco, the capitalof the Incaempire, we arguethat rapidInca expansion after C.E.1400 was made possibleby long-termprocesses of state formationand regionalconsolidation. From C.E. 1000-1400, a central- ized state developedin the CuzcoValley, extending its directadministrative control over numerousneighboring groups. Less powerful neighboringpolities accepted Incaadministration early on, perhapseven initiatingInca patronage. Strong rivals to Incacontrol main- tained their independence,at times depopulatingintermediate areas and settling in defensive sites to protect settlements and re- sources. Finally,groups of intermediatecomplexity used alliances and violence to align themselves with the strongest regional competitors.Such variability in regionalintegration strategies reveals how Incastate formationprocesses influenced later patterns of imperialconquest and administration.[Keywords: Inca, state formation,imperialism, archaeology, ethnicity] N THISARTICLE WE EXAMINEthe dramaticsocial transformations that occurred in the Cuzco region be- EQUATOR o tween C.E. 1000-1400, sometimes called the Late Interme- diate Period.1Conceptually, this encompasses regional de- nba (Cuenca) velopments following the decline of the Wari empire in the south central Andes and leading up to the first Inca PERU territorial expansion outside of the Cuzco region. As such, Chiquitoy Viejo this era represents the critical time when the Inca trans- PaIpamo..a formed themselves from one of many competing complex Uaa auxa on the into a well- Pachacamac . polities post-Wari political landscape InkawasIVIA integrated state capable of dominating the central Andean Chala highlands. I o Paz) Areq Because Inca imperialism occurred just before the Spanish conquest of the Andean highlands (C.E. 1532), some information recorded in 16th- and 17th-century co- lonial documents can be compared critically with archae- ological data recovered through excavations and settle- A ENTINA ment surveys in the Cuzco region (Figure 1). References to Inca roads ---- the interactions between Cuzco's ethnic the Modem boundaries groups during o Late Intermediate Period facilitate a more detailed discus- Important cities or sites * sion of Inca state development than would otherwise be anchillos possible. Santii In considering the ethnohistoric record, we acknow- ledge the problems inherent to the study of these docu- ments (see Bauer 1992; Julien 2000; Rowe 1946:192-197), FIGURE1. The IncaEmpire, C.E. 1532. The Incapolity expanded at the same time asserting that their anthropologicalstudy fromthe CuzcoValley in the south-centralAndes of Peru,creating can yield important perspectives on long-term regional the largestempire of the pre-HispanicAmericas. AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST 104(3):846-864. COPYRIGHT? 2002, AMERICANANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION This content downloaded from 146.96.36.187 on Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:43:50 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Bauerand Covey * Processesof State Formation 847 processes. While individual Inca rulers are often credited state-level political organization. While anthropologists, with specific events or achievements, we use the docu- archaeologists, and historians have studied how empires ments to construct multiple lines of evidence for state for- expand, few have considered the relationship between mation processes, rather than as historical facts. Our proc- processes of state formation, integration of core or heart- essual focus in this article necessarily leaves many issues of land regions, and imperial expansion. local decision making and individual agency for later dis- The development of archaic states is a hotly debated cussion, although we believe that such issues can be ad- topic in anthropological archaeology, and this article is dressed more fully once long-term, group-level interac- not intended as the forum to review such literature (see tions have been described. Fried 1967; Service 1962, 1975; Wright 1977 for classic definitions). We can note that approaches to state forma- STATEFORMATION, REGIONAL CONSOLIDATION, AND tion have included elite managerial functions (Wittfogel IMPERIALEXPANSION 1957), population pressure and violent conflict (Boserup Carneiro cf. Wilson Some of the contingencies of Inca political origins and im- 1965; 1970, 1981; 1983), ecological factors and Nichols Sandersand Price perial expansion can be hypothesized through a compara- (Sanders 1988; 1968), information and tive anthropological perspective on empires (see Alcock et exchange (Wright 1977, 1984; Wright and elite interaction Blan- al. 2001; Doyle 1986; Sinopoli 1994; Smith and Montiel Johnson 1975), (Blanton 1998; ton et al. from a theo- 2001). Empires often expand rapidly to incorporate groups 1996). Drawing neo-evolutionary retical we of varying political complexity (Schreiber 1992), particu- perspective (e.g., Flannery 1999; Spencer 1990), will consider both indicators of state for- larly in cases where territorial annexation occurs against archaeological mation Marcus small, isolated rivals or on a politically balkanized land- (e.g., Flannery 1998; Johnson 1980:249; and 1996:172-194; as scape (Marcus 1998). More noteworthy cases of rapid terri- Flannery Wright 1986:257-258), well as evidence from written to some of torial expansion include Rome (c. 264-146 B.C.E.)(Badian sources, interpret the involved in the formation of the Inca state. 1958; Harris 1979; Sands 1975; Scullard 1980), the Aztec processes These can be to other ethnohistoric cases of Triple Alliance (c. C.E. 1428-1519) (Berdanet al. 1996), Vi- compared state formation and Brown 1979; Dewar jayanagar (c. C.E. 1340-1450) (Sinopoli and Morrison expansion (e.g., and Gluckman 1995), and the Achaemenid empire (c. 550-522 B.C.E.) Wright 1993; Flannery 1999; 1960; Sidky Some transformations involve (Kuhrt 2001). Cases where vast and complex territories 1996). general territoriality, economic and of control and ad- were conquered during the reign of a single dynamic indi- management, intensity ministration. vidual include the Macedonian expansion of Alexander the Great (336-324 B.C.E.)and Mongol imperialism under Territorial of State Formation Genghis Khan (C.E. 1206-1227). Aspects Individual rulers do oversee the rapid acquisition of One important factor in state formation is the estab- new imperial territory,but as Carneiro argues, "the actions lishment of a well-integrated territory, a process often oc- of individuals, no matter how gifted, count for naught in curring within a relatively small region. As Spencer (1990: the absence of certain enabling conditions," (2000:178). 6-8, 1998) has noted, personal and nonspecialized ad- Without preexisting patterns of political interaction, mar- ministration of a complex polity precludes the delegation riage alliance, and regional consolidation, Alexander's of authority, limiting effective control to less than a day's campaigns would not have been as successful, while Ro- walk from a paramount leader's own community. Ethno- man incorporation of the Mediterranean region might not graphic observations of polity size in such groups are actu- have occurred had the Italian peninsula not shared an Ital- ally somewhat smaller than Spencer's idealized estimates, ian identity as Rome challenged processes of Punic imperi- and it is rare for centralized, but not internally specialized, alism. Cultural and ecological conditions influence and administration to extend successfully beyond 1,000 square enable individual action, so that charismatic individuals kilometers (Spencer 1990:7; see also Goldman 1970:169; can affect the tempo of (or come to embody) major social Helms 1979:53; Redmond and Spencer 1994; Renfrew and transformations without actually being personally respon- Cherry 1986). Although conditions of extreme environ- sible for creating the conditions for such changes (Flannery mental circumscription appear to promote larger territory 1999:18; Giddens 1984; see Boyd and Richerson 1985). sizes for some prestate polities (e.g., Carneiro 1991; Earle One condition for rapid imperial expansion is a well- 1978; Kirch 1984), we consider a 20-kilometer radius to be integrated