While the qhapaq nan and its associated architecture can be identified throughout the imperial territory, considerable diversity can be noted for other Inca installations. For
The purposes of general comparison, the distinction can be made between (1) imperial enclaves established in existing local settlements; (2) secondary facilities (sensu D’Altroy 2002: 237) that were often built along the road system; and (3) new administrative centers that served as regional or provincial capitals. Architecture that was produced for imperial purposes can be contrasted with the replication or adaptation of Inca architectural forms by local elites to communicate their own positions vis-a-vis local populations.
Imperial enclaves were established in important local cities and towns where the Incas governed through existing political and religious hierarchies. Several imperial enclaves can be identified on the central coast at such sites as Cerro Azul and Tambo de Mala (Marcus et al. 1983-85; Menzel 1959). The Chincha capital at La Centinela saw the construction of an Inca palace within the core area of elite residential and religious architecture (Morris 2004). At Pachacamac, on the central coast, the Incas constructed a major Sun temple and an aqlla-wasi—a cloistered complex where female ritual specialists instructed provincial girls in state rituals and the preparation of food and drink for state-sponsored festive and ritual occasions. (This training also selected and trained a female elite who served as religious officials, married prominent imperial officials, and were assigned to the state religion and the service of dead Inca elites). Pachacamac was a pan-regional shrine and oracle that was linked to sacred locations (huaca/wak’akuna) in the neighboring valleys of the central and south coast.
Enclaves are present in other parts of the empire, particularly in the southern parts of Qollasuyu where local administration was either indirect or incompletely consolidated. Noteworthy Inca enclaves include Turi in the Atacama desert (Mostny 1949) and La Puerta in central Chile (Niemeyer 1986). Imperial enclaves are consistent with a policy of indirect rule whereby Inca representatives were embedded in local polities but oversaw a limited suite of state interests while local elites continued to manage the existing political economy. This appears to characterize regions where it would be difficult to develop high-cost, high-return administrative forms—in particular, areas with centralized political or religious hierarchies and intensified agricultural production, as well as regions with marginal environments where natural resource acquisition was important. Inca officials living in local towns and cities probably managed lower order administrative sites located nearby.
Secondary facilities are sites that demonstrate planning and construction under imperial supervision, but at a more modest scale than that seen at administrative centers. Such sites are frequently found along the road system, outside of the administrative purview of imperial enclaves or cities (e. g., Hayashida 1999). On the north coast, local architectural forms were employed in constructing some administrative sites (Conrad 1977). In other provincial regions, Inca architecture and stone masonry contrast with local traditions. Secondary facilities were built to perform economic and administrative functions, to serve as residences of labor colonists from other parts of the empire, to facilitate local religious integration, and to provide strategic military protection (e. g., Alcina 1978; Bauer and Stan-ish 2001; Burgi 1993; Earle 1994; Schjellerup 1997:242-243).
New administrative centers were established in highland regions, along the qhapaq nan running from Cuzco to Chinchaysuyu and Qollasuyu. These include Quito, Tumi-pampa (Tomebamba), Cajamarca, Huamachuco, Huanuco Pampa, Pumpu, Hatun Xauxa (Jauja), Vilcashuaman, Raqchi, Hatun Qolla, Chucuito, and Copacabana (e. g., D’Altroy et al. 2001; Gonzalez Carre et al. 1981; Hyslop 1990; Idrovo 1985; Julien 1983; Matos 1994; Morris and Thompson 1985; Sillar and Dean 2002; Topic and Topic 1993).
The establishment of these new administrative centers did not necessarily involve the permanent resettlement of large proportions of the tributary population. For instance, Craig Morris’ excavations at Huanuco Pampa indicate that only the religious and administrative
Sectors of that site are likely to have been occupied year-round. Urban construction involved laying out a large open plaza space with a central platform (usnu), as well as principal avenues and access-ways. Essential architectural complexes were constructed at the site, including administrative and elite residential compounds, a Sun temple, an aqllawasi, and storage facilities (called collqa/qollqa). Residential architecture for commoners varied in size and form, and was laid out opportunistically in the remaining open spaces.
In some regions administrative centers provided spaces for periodic administrative, festive, and ritual encounters between imperial officials and a number of ethnic groups and political units serving the center. In others, local populations shifted permanently to imperial installations, which they appear to have occupied continuously.
Local Co-option of Imperial Forms
Participation in Inca provincial administration created new strata of intermediate elites in places where they had previously not existed. Local elites appear to have modified imperial architectural forms for use at the local level, and the introduction of rectangular buildings at local settlements has been identified in the regions of Huanuco (Morris and Thompson 1985), Xauxa/Jauja (D’Altroy 2001a), the upper Vilcanota Valley (Kendall 1985), the Titicaca basin (Hyslop 1976:377-380), Moquegua (Stanish et al. 1993:83-84), and northwest Argentina (Hyslop 1990:245). The rectangular Inca form is not common and does not appear to be an imperial imposition, as there are modifications to the imperial canon and it is often found integrated into compounds of distinct vernacular architecture.
Archaeologically, the material impact of Inca provincial administration on most regions was minimal in rural areas and among commoners—local elites reproduced and modified imperial architecture and pottery styles, invoking both state and local connections to their best advantage.
Production Enclaves
In contrast with provincial areas where the Inca administrative presence targeted the management interface between the state and local administrators—as well as between local elites and the households for which they were responsible—some regions of the empire evidence a more intensive reconfiguration of economic production, with the establishment of what have been called production enclaves or state farms (D’Altroy 2002: 268-276; LaLone and LaLone 1987). Such installations tended to be concentrated in the coastal piedmont (chawpi yunga), intermontane qhichwa/quechua zones, and on the Amazonian piedmont (ceja de montana)—essentially in areas where maize and other important crops (coca, cotton) could be produced intensively. New irrigated terraces were constructed in areas where local groups had not intensified agricultural production. Even though irrigation systems were well-developed in the lower parts of most coastal valleys, the Incas frequently constructed irrigation and terrace systems in mid-valley areas (for example, in the Pisco, Colca and Osmore valleys on the south coast). While state lands in certain provinces appear to have been brought on-line as part of the imperial political economy (e. g., around Hatun Xauxa in the Mantaro Valley in the central highlands), other production enclaves appear to have been under construction at the time of the Spanish conquest (e. g., at Cotapachi in Bolivia, Coctaca-Rodero in northwest Argentina). This may indicate that state intensification of available resources was part of an administrative consolidation policy that was not completed in many peripheral regions (see Julien 1998 for a documentary illustration of this).
Storage Facilities
Concomitant with an intensification of local agricultural production was an investment in complexes of storage architecture (qollqa/collqa) throughout the empire (see D’Altroy 2002: 280-285; Huaycochea Nunez de la Torre 1994; LeVine [ed.] 1992) (Figure 40.5). Storage is an identifiable element in administrative centers, and has been noted at secondary facilities as well. In provincial regions storage buildings tend to be laid out as rows of small square or circular structures. Complexes of more than 1,000 structures are known at the administrative center of Hatun Xauxa, as well as the production enclaves at Cota-pachi in Bolivia and Campo de Pucara in northwest Argentina (Gyarmati and Varga 1998; Snead 1992). Most administrative cities appear to have had smaller numbers of structures (200-500), while lower-order sites tend to have even fewer, consistent with a more localized function for the facilities.
Fortifications
D’Altroy (2002: 209-213) has noted that Inca forts are distributed unevenly throughout the Empire, with concentrations near the northern and southern frontiers, as well as the limits of Qollasuyu, in modern Bolivia and northwest Argentina (see also Alconini 2004; Bray 1992; Hyslop 1988; 1990: 155-190) (Figure 40.6). Fortifications are concentrated in parts of the Atacama Desert, but some have pre-Inca construction dates (Hyslop 1990: 156). A lack of research prevents our stating whether a fortified frontier was a feature of eastern Antisuyu and Chinchaysuyu as well. A few fortified sites or military installations are
Figure 40.5. A qollqa complex at Ollantaytambo in the imperial heartland. (photo: Catherine Covey).
Figure 40.6. Inca forts are distributed unevenly throughout the empire. (Alan Covey)
Known along the coast, although some may be artifacts of expansion campaigns rather than functioning mechanisms for maintaining control over local populations.
Forts are often constructed along Inca roads at the interface between the Andean highlands and Amazonian lowlands. Fort size and architectural forms vary substantially,
With local construction elements often present. Inca-style structures such as great halls (commonly known as kallanka), open spaces, and ritual or ceremonial constructions are seen at the larger fort complexes (Hyslop 1990: 189). The concentration of Inca fortified sites in certain parts of the empire suggests that defense or an ongoing military presence was an important element in continuing attempts to extend Inca territory, or to establish a frontier where further expansion was not feasible (Salomon 1986; Schjellerup 1997).
Forts in some regions could promote provincial consolidation processes by protecting Inca subjects living within the frontier; in other regions systems of fortifications might facilitate economic interactions with autonomous local groups while discouraging the kind of raiding that would be expected among village societies along an important ecological and cultural frontier. Ongoing research along the Inca frontier will undoubtedly advance more dynamic perspectives on the limits of imperial territorial expansion.
World History
