book chapter

Provincial power in the Inka empire

Smithsonian Institution PressWashingtonPublished In 1992 • Pages:

By: D'Altroy, Terence N..

AbstractBrief abstract written by HRAF anthropologists who have done the subject indexing for the document
This study is an analysis of Inka military, political and economic power, based on historical sources and data from the Upper Mantaro Archaeological Research Project (UMARP). After considering a number of political economy models, D'Altroy settles on a 'territorial-hegemonic' model, which he argues best suits Inka military strategy and Inka-ethnic elite social relations. The Upper Mantaro region was a fertile region close to Cuzco and source of food for the army. The archaeological record shows how Inka increased the efficiency of surplus production by moving the local population down from the hills and into the valleys, where they created specialized farming communities. Extensive storage facilities on hillsides provided rations for a mobile army. Household refuse patterns reveal that local elites also shared in this surplus. According to D'Altroy this is evidence of how ethnic elites were integrated into the Inka Empire, using state surplus to underwrite local feasting and rituals.
SubjectsDocument-level OCM identifiers given by the anthropology subject indexers at HRAF
Internal migration
Business structures
Production and supply
Warehousing
Ethnic stratification
Social relationships and groups
Territorial hierarchy
Taxation and public income
Government enterprises
Strategy
Logistics
cultureCulture name from the Outline of World Cultures (OWC)
Inka
HRAF PubDateThe date HRAF published the document
2005
RegionThe area the document pertains to
South America
Sub RegionThe more specific area the document pertains to, which is located within the Region
Central Andes
Document TypeMay include journal articles, essays, collections of essays, monographs, or chapters/parts of monographs
book chapter
Evaluation
Creator TypeThe type of person writing the document, e.g. Ethnographer, Missionary, Archaeologist, Folklorist, Linguist, Indigenous Person, and so on.
Archaeologist
Document Rating A ranking done by HRAF anthropologists based on the strength of the source material on a scale of 1 to 5, as follows: 1 - poor; 2 - fair; 3 - good, useful data, but not uniformly excellent; 4 - excellent secondary data; 5 - excellent primary data.
4: Excellent Secondary Data
5: Excellent Primary Data
AnalystThe HRAF anthropologist who subject indexed the document and prepared other materials for the eHRAF culture/tradition collection
Ian Skoggard ; 2003
Field DateThe date the researcher conducted the fieldwork or archival research that produced the document
1977-1983
Coverage DateThe date or dates that the information in the document pertains to
1460-1580
Coverage PlaceLocation of the research culture or tradition (often a smaller unit such as a band, community, or archaeological site)
Mantaro Valley, Peru
NotesAdditional notes
Terence N. D'Altroy
Includes bibliographical references (p. 249-266) and index
LCCNLibrary of Congress Control Number
91017476
LCSHLibrary of Congress Subject Headings
Incas