a network analysis of inka roads, administrative centers, and storage facilities

A Network Analysis of Inka Roads, AdministrativeCenters, and Storage Facilities

David Jenkins, University of Arizona

Cada pueblo cabeza de Provincia tenía su cifra.—Antonio de la Calancha ()

Abstract. The purpose of this article is to show how three centrality measures—degree centrality, closeness centrality, and betweenness centrality—can advance theanalysis of the Inka road network. It proposes that the Inka built storage facilitiesand/or administrative centers at regions of high centrality and at regions of lowcentrality, based on the structural properties of two different exchange networks.These networks were themselves based on staple finance and on wealth finance.Thearticle concludes with a discussion of how network models may prove useful forthe analysis of the global properties of exchange relations in the Inka empire.

Research on Inka road systems (Hyslop ), settlement patterns (Hys-lop ), and storage facilities (LeVine ) indicates that locational ad-vantage may be more significant than demographic or environmental vari-ables in determining the economic potential and social organization ofboth highland and coastal communities under Inka rule. In the archaeo-logical and historical literature on the Inka there are numerous referencesto the favorable network position of regional administrative centers, suchas Hatun Xuaxa (D’Altroy and Hastorf ; D’Altroy and Bishop ;D’Altroy ), Pumpu (LeVine , ), Huánuco Pampa (Morris, ; LeVine ), and Hatunqolla (Julien ); productive en-claves, such as Cochabamba (Wachtel ; La Lone and La Lone );and storage sites related to both administration and production (Snead).

In order to analyze the significance of locational advantage relative

Ethnohistory : (fall )Copyright © by the American Society for Ethnohistory.

David Jenkins

to the Inka network of roads, administrative centers, productive enclaves,and storage sites, research can be advanced in two ways: empirically, byfurther archaeological and historical investigation that focuses on the eco-nomic and communicative links between points in the road network, andtheoretically, by the application of appropriate models for the analysis ofnetwork position. Given Topic and Topic’s () stimulating discussion ofnetwork position in coast-highland relations in northern Peru and given themany references to the relative locational advantage of Inka sites through-out the Inka empire, it is somewhat surprising that network analysis hasbeen rarely undertaken by Andeanists. Although subsystems of exchangehave been of great interest to archaeologists (e.g., Shimada; Browmanet al. ; Aldenderfer ), and although there have been significant ad-vances in understanding and classifying the kinds of exchange relations thathave developed among various ecological zones (e.g., Murra ; Mayer; Brush ; Salomon ), the global properties of Inka exchangenetworks have not been well analyzed.

Recent studies of networks, centrality, and exchange relations thatfocus on other parts of the world provide clear theoretical motivation forundertaking a network analysis for Inka exchange relations. One mustcite in particular Irwin’s (, ) archaeological reconstruction of ex-change relations in Papuan prehistory; Hage et al.’s () analysis of cen-trality and chieftainship in the Kula ring; Hunt’s () network models ofLapita exchange; Peregrine’s () discussion of the relative centrality ofCahokia sites in the Mississippi River drainage; Hage and Harary’s ()development of centrality models for the analysis of voyaging and exchangein western Micronesia; Santley’s () analysis of network connectivity inthe Aztec road system; Milicic’s () demonstration of the relation be-tween network position and social stratification in eastern Adriatic portsbetween the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries; and Hage and Harary’s() centrality models for analyzing Lauan trade networks and the emer-gence of politically powerful islands.

This article advances three measures of centrality—degree centrality,closeness centrality, and betweenness centrality (Freeman )—in orderto calculate the relative network position of fifty-four Inka sites scatteredalong the Inka road network. The analytical advantage of such measuresfor studying the Inka road network and its associated facilities is that theyallow for the precise characterization of the relative centrality of everypoint in the network, which in turn provides the basis for analyzing othersignificant factors in the organization of local sites, such as population sizeand density, environmental constraints, and productive potential. The re-sults indicate that the Inka built storage facilities or administrative centers

Inka Roads, Administrative Centers, and Storage Facilities

or both at regions of high centrality and at regions of low centrality, basedon the structural properties of two different exchange networks. These net-works were themselves based on staple finance and on wealth finance.

Staple Finance and Wealth Finance

The Inka in the early fifteenth century were a chiefdom or perhaps ananomalous early state (Bauer) of about twenty thousand people with afairly simple social organization based on kinship ties and ruling hereditarychiefs. Initially their territory was limited, centered on what would becomethe city of Cuzco. Over the course of a hundred years, from about until the Spanish arrived in , the Inka dramatically expanded their em-pire, incorporating by political maneuvering and outright conquest someeighty distinct polities into the Inka state.These conquered groups includedother expansive empires, such as the highly socially stratified Chimu on thenorth coast, as well as small-scale states, chiefdoms, tribes, and autono-mous communities scattered throughout the highlands.1

As part of their strategy of conquest, the Inka forcibly resettled manypeople, for example, the , to , Wanka who lived in theXauxa region of the Peruvian highlands and who were subjugated around (D’Altroy and Hastorf ). Some resettled people, called mitmaq,became a source of permanent state labor and engaged in farming, clothproduction, metal working, and pottery making. Others remained on theirlands but were required to participate in a system of rotating labor assessedat the household level. This rotating labor, called mit’a, involved travelingfar from one’s community to farm, mine, weave, build roads, or participatein other state-oriented activities (Murra; Wachtel ; LeVine).

Extracting both labor and tribute, the Inka constructed a vast roadsystem centered on Cuzco that connected coastal and highland regions andstretched some thirty-two hundred kilometers from Quito in the north toSantiago in the south. All together there were more than thirty thousandkilometers of Inka roads, which linked twelve million subjects, allowed fortheir efficient relocation, and proved essential for the maintenance of politi-cal rule (Regal; Strube Erdmann; Hyslop; Stehberg and Car-vajal ). Figure shows Hyslop’s () map of the road system withimportant Inka sites indicated.

Two distinct forms of exchange flowed through the Inka road system,both imposed by the state and both disguised in Inka ideology as recipro-cal exchange. As systems of exchange, however, they had different struc-tural properties. Staple finance (Polanyi : –) was the infrastruc-tural basis of military expansion and administrative control, while wealth

David Jenkins

Figure . The Inka road system (after Hyslop ).


finance provided the means to tie local elites of conquered groups to theInka political economy ( D’Altroy and Earle ). Staple finance resultedin various storage complexes scattered throughout the empire, the con-tents of which—maize, chicha (maize beer), coca, hot peppers, cloth andclothing, sandals, pottery, weapons, and so on—were used to pay for stateactivities, including military excursions, elaborate ceremonial displays ofInka beneficence, and administration itself. Huánuco Pampa, for example,with extensive storage facilities totaling as much as , cubic meters,could support a population engaged in state activities of between twelveand fifteen thousand persons, most of whom were not permanent residents(Morris :; Morris and Thompson,: ).2Wealth finance,by contrast, was based on easily transportable, high-prestige objects, suchas feathers and shells, and resulted in an exchange network that encom-passed the entire Inka empire (D’Altroy and Earle ).

Staple finance was based on a simple logic. All resources were held bya ruling elite, the Inka. Local access to land, water, and other resourceswas granted in exchange for local labor, which produced surplus subsis-tence goods on state-owned lands. Individual communities and individualhouseholds within them were allowed to maintain their own productiveself-sufficiency, provided that they participated in the mit’a, the system ofrotating labor that generated state surpluses (see Murra [], ).In this system, local descent groups (ayllus) were obligated to provide eachyear a quota of adult males from their communities for state projects.

The collection and storage of staple wealth was regionally focused.With a few exceptions, subsistence goods were moved short distances only,usually no farther than a hundred or so kilometers (D’Altroy ). Oneof the exceptions was maize from the Cochabamba valley, which appar-ently was transported eight hundred kilometers by llama caravan to Cuzco(Wachtel ). To accommodate the goods transported to regional centersrequired the construction of storage complexes and administrative facili-ties to govern them (Morris ). Hatun Xuaxa, for example, had abouttwenty-seven hundred individual storage units in its vicinity with overallstorage capacities estimated at more than , cubic meters (D’Altroyand Earle ). Goods flowed into and were stored at regional centers,such as Hatun Xuaxa, Huánuco Pampa, and Pumpu, but rarely flowedfrom regional storage center to regional storage center (Morris , ,).

The extent of storage astonished the Spanish conquistadors and laterchroniclers. Pedro Pizarro ( []: ) thought that the supplies wereso extensive that they could never in his lifetime be exhausted. Pedro San-cho de laHoz ( [–]:–), one of Francisco Pizarro’s men, notedof the region around Cuzco:

David Jenkins

All of the fortress of Sacsayhuaman was a warehouse of arms, clubs,lances, bows, arrows, shields, strong jackets padded with cotton andother arms of diverse types, and clothing for soldiers assembled herefrom all parts of the land subject to the Lords of Cuzco. . . . [Thereare] storehouses full of textiles, wool, arms, metal and clothes, and ofall things grown and made in their land. There are storehouses wherethe tributes brought by the vassals to the lords are kept, and there is ahouse in which are kept more than one hundred thousand dried birds,because clothing is made from their feathers that are of many colors,and there are many houses for that. There are bucklers and shields,beams for roofing, knives, and other tools. [There are] sandals andbreastplates to provision the soldiers, in such quantity that reason isinadequate to understand how they could give such a great tribute ofso many and diverse things. (Morris : –; his translation)

One conservative estimate of the total volume of storage throughout theempire is one to twomillion cubic meters (Morris:; see alsoMurra [] for a discussion of historical sources on state storage).

Staple finance is fairly common for chiefdom-level societies and earlystates. It has been found in Mississippian chiefdoms, the Aztec empire,Hawaiian chiefdoms, the Yamota court of sixth-century Japan, and else-where (Brumfiel and Earle ). It is especially well suited to relativelysmall, geographically compact polities. When polities based on staplefinance are geographically extensive, however, they must be decentralized,simply because of the exorbitant costs of transporting heavy and bulkysubsistence goods to a single center. A number of subcenters are requiredto store and disburse such goods. When decentralized, however, societiesbased on staple finance are politically vulnerable: Local administrators incharge of an independent source of wealth could easily fund a rebellion.

The Inka used several mechanisms to forestall rebellion. First, theoverall administrative structure of the empire was hierarchical: Each re-gional center answered directly to Cuzco. Each local community similarlyanswered directly to its regional center. Officials in this hierarchy, oftenrecruited from local elites, had jurisdiction over, in descending order, tenthousand heads of households, five thousand heads of households, onethousand, five hundred, one hundred, fifty, and ten (Means: ; Rowe: ; Niles : ). In return for their labors, officials of thesegroups of households were granted various rights and privileges, includingthe expectation of receiving status markers, such as fine cloth appropriateto the official’s position in the hierarchy. As the span of control is quitesmall, six officials or fewer, the flow of information is reasonably efficient.


With this system the Inka intended to control communication and to pre-clude the exchange of both goods and information between communitiesand between regional centers, thus emphasizing vertical ties at the expenseof horizontal ties (D’Altroy ). (There was some variation in the hier-archical structure, especially on the peripheries of the empire, where thenumber of officials and thus the number of links between them were fewer;see Salomon .)

As a second means to avoid conflict, the Inka forcibly moved rebel-lious groups to different regions, sometimes a thousand or more kilometersfrom their homes. The result was a form of internal colonization, whichproduced in state farms, regional centers, and in the capital at Cuzco asocial mosaic in which individual ethnic identities were maintained. Thosefrom the same locations lived together in ethnic settlements, maintainingtheir languages and styles of dress (Murra []; Wachtel ).

The third and perhaps most important means to avoid conflict wasa form of wealth based on relatively lightweight, easy-to-transport, high-prestige goods, which were given to regional and local leaders in exchangefor their continued allegiance (Murra, [],;Morris;Wachtel ; D’Altroy and Earle ; LeVine ).

This form of exchange, called wealth finance, also flowed through theInka road network but transcended regional boundaries and regional cen-ters. It was oriented toward the transportation of status objects, such asSpondylus shells from the north coast, bird feathers from the eastern tropi-cal regions, fine cloth spun from llama and alpaca wool from the centralhighlands, and gold, silver, and copper from various highland and coastallocations, all of which were sent to Cuzco. Inkan wealth finance was pri-marily based on mitmaq labor, that is, on the work of permanent statelaborers, which resulted in the accumulation of prestige goods in Cuzco,some portion of which was redistributed to local elites throughout the em-pire (D’Altroy and Earle ).

Wealth finance was a means to stabilize the politically unstable sys-tem of decentralized staple finance. The use of mitmaq labor, the centralstorage of status goods, and the centralized system of redistribution com-bined to bring wealth finance directly under state control. By rewardinglocal and regional officials with fine cloth, for instance, the Inka intendedto tie their economic well-being directly to the Inka state (Murra ). Ingeneral, however, high-prestige goods, as markers of social status, allowedelites access to subsistence goods but could not be exchanged for subsis-tence goods (Earle ). Staple finance and wealth finance thus circulatedin different spheres of exchange.

In broad outline, this is the system I wish to place in a network per-

David Jenkins

spective: two distinct circuits of exchange with different structural proper-ties. One resulted in a massive storage complex with large subcenters andmany (perhaps as many as two thousand) intermediate way stations, calledtampu. In this system, goods were regionally stable, while people were mo-bile; the military, royal retinues, mit’a laborers, and so on moved throughthe road network and had their subsistence needs supplied along the way.The other circuit of exchangewas empire-wide and was based on the move-ment of lightweight, high-prestige goods into and then out of Cuzco. AsMurra () and Morris () have suggested, long-distance movementitself probably conferred added value to the already high-prestige goods.

Centrality: Basic Definitions

As defined in Harary () and Hage and Harary (, ), a graph isa mathematical structure consisting of a set of points, pairs of which arejoined by lines. Formally, in set theoretic terms, a graph G consists of afinite nonempty set V = V(G) of p points together with a set E of q un-ordered pairs of distinct points of V. Each pair e= {u,v} of points E is a lineof G; e consequently joins u and v. In this notation, e = uv, which meansthat u and v are adjacent points and that point u and line e are incident witheach other, as are point v and line e. If two distinct lines are incident witha common point, then they are adjacent lines.

A path in G is an alternating sequence of distinct points and lines, v,e, v, e, v, . . . , vn-, vn. A cycle is derived from a path when the begin-ning and end points v and vn are joined by a line. A graph G is connectedif every pair of points is joined by a path. A labeled graph is one that hasnumbers to p assigned to its points.

Depending upon empirical considerations, centrality can be inter-preted and defined in various ways (Freeman ; Buckley and Harary). As Freeman () points out, the choice of a definition dependsupon the structure being analyzed.

Degree centrality is a measure that refers to the number of lines inci-dent with a given point. It reflects the direct communication activity ofa site. For the Inka road network, degree centrality sums the number ofroads incident with, that is, connected to, an administrative center or stor-age complex. Sites with high degree centrality have the potential for thegreatest communication or exchange activity in the network, simply be-cause they have relatively more direct connections to other sites.

Closeness centrality is a measure that refers to the sum of the lengthsof the shortest paths between a point and all other points in a connectedgraph. The shortest paths are called geodesics. This measure is used as an


index of the efficiency of communication or exchange, based on the ideathat a point with fewer links between it and all other points has as a conse-quence a relative locational advantage. In terms of the Inka road network,closeness centrality can be interpreted in two ways: as a measure of an ad-ministrative center’s relative efficiency at communicating with any othercenter and as a measure of a center’s relative independence from the influ-ence of any other center. Sites with low closeness centrality are in the thickof things, as it were; sites with high closeness centrality, by contrast, arerelatively marginal.

Betweenness centrality refers to the frequency that each point on ageodesic occurs between all pairs of points. Central points, proportionallymore frequent on the paths between points, have a greater potential forthe control of communication or exchange between all points. Betweennesscentrality is thus an index for the control of communication or exchange.In the Inka road network, betweenness centrality measures an administra-tive center’s relative potential to control the flow of information betweenany two other administrative centers.

Each measure of centrality requires explicit mathematical definition(Freeman ; Hage and Harary , ). Based on Freeman (),all centrality measures of the Inka network have been calculated using - Version . software (Borgatti et al. ). A graph of the large andcomplex Inka road network is first needed in order to calculate the relativecentrality of administrative centers and storage facilities (Figure ).

Inka Road Network

The graph in Figure is derived from data in Hyslop (, ), Regal(), Strube Erdmann (), Gasparini and Margolies (), LeVine(), and Malpass (), supplemented with data from various site re-ports and Spanish chronicles, as indicated below.Numbers indicate specificadministrative, storage, or other sites, which are summarized inTable. Forexample, number stands for Huamachuco, for Hatun Xuaxa, forCuzco. Figure shows the two primary roads—the roughly north-southroad on the coast and the north-south road in the highlands—and impor-tant secondary roads that linked up with the primary roads.

Forty-four known storage sites, as enumerated by Snead (), areincluded in Figure , with the exception of those sites lacking clear road as-sociations.There has been no effort to include in Figure all known tampu,as listed in Guaman Poma de Ayala ( []: –), Vaca de CastroCavellero ( []: ), and Hyslop (), nor to include the manyInka sites whose function is ambiguous. Nonstorage sites that played an im-

David Jenkins

Figure . Graph of the Inka road network emphasizing the system of staple finance.


Table . Degree centrality of administrative sites, productive enclaves, storagecenters, and way stations (adapted from Snead )

# Storage DegreeSite Units Facilities Roads centrality

1. Quito ? extensive primary 12. Paradones 38 extensive secondary 23. Ingapirca ? large tampu primary 24. Tomebamba ? extensive primary 25. Huancapampa ? tampu primary 36. Cajamarca ? extensive primary 47. Chachapoyas 23 large tampu secondary 28. Huamachuco 144 extensive? primary 49. Taparaku 20 tampu primary 210. Huánuco Pampa 496 extensive primary/junction 411. Tunsukancha 24 tampu primary 212. Pumpu 325 extensive primary/junction 313. Chacamarca 118 large tampu primary/junction 314. La Cima, Telarnoij 32 tampu primary 215. Tarma 38 large tampu primary 216. Hatun Xuaxa and 2,726 extensive primary/junction 4

Mantaro Valley17. Vilcas Huaman ? extensive primary 418. Cuzco ? extensive primary 319. Raqchi 40 extensive primary 320. Hatunqolla ? extensive primary 421. Chuquiabo ? ? primary 322. Paria (Anocariri) ? extensive primary 423. Cotapachi 2,400 domestic secondary 224. Kullku Tampu 4 tampu secondary 225. Kharalaus Pampa 80 tampu secondary 226. Pocona 21 tampu secondary 327. Tumuyo 63 domestic? secondary 128. Inkallajta 20 extensive secondary 129. Yacoraite 4 tampu primary 430. Inkahuasi ? tampu primary 331. Aqua Hedionda 103 tampu secondary 132. Campo del Pucara 1,717 domestic? secondary 233. Corral Blanco 19 tampu primary 234. Portrero de ? extensive primary 2

Payogasta35. Hualfin 23 tampu secondary 136. Navado del ? extensive primary 3

Aconquija

David Jenkins

Table . Continued

# Storage DegreeSite Units Facilities Roads centrality

37. Ranchillos ? tampu primary 338. Tamillitos ? tampu primary 239. Santiago ? ? secondary 240. Tumbes ? ? primary 241. Chiquitoy Viejo ? extensive primary 442. Pachacamac ? pre-Inka primary 343. Centenila ? extensive primary 344. Inkawasi 202 extensive secondary 245. Tambo Colorado 5 large tampu secondary 346. Tambo Viejo 40 extensive secondary 347. Culluma Baja 46 none secondary 248. Inka Tampu 25 tampu secondary 249. Millpu 16 none secondary 250. Quebrada de la 27 large tampu primary 4

Vaca51. Camata 43 tampu secondary 252. Turi ? extensive primary 253. Catarpe ? extensive primary 254. Capis-Cerrellos 200 ? primary/junction 3

portant role in the road network have been included, however, such as Cen-tinela (Rostworowski;Wallace), ChiquitoyViejo (Conrad),and Catarpe (Lynch ), which functioned as control points in the flowof goods from the coast to the highlands. Some sites that are geographicallyclose to one another are treated as one point, such as the tampu La Cimaand Telarnoij, and the administrative center Hatun Xuaxa and the stor-age complexes in the Mantaro valley. Other economically important sitesare not included, for example, royal estates along the Urubamba/Vilcanotariver valley near Cuzco (Niles ) such as Ollantaytambo (Protzen).The intention is not to provide an encyclopedic account of Inka sites but toconstruct a model, necessarily simplified, of the Inka road network, and tostudy its properties.

Table , adapted from Snead (), shows the relative degree cen-trality of fifty-four sites throughout the Inka empire. Snead classifies theforty-four sites he discusses as lying on primary roads, secondary roads, oron primary road junctions. The advantage of using degree centrality, ratherthan Snead’s typology, is that it provides an index of the potential for ex-change or communicative activity. In terms of degree centrality, the most


central sites are the following: Cajamarca, Huamachuco, Huánuco Pampa,Hatun Xuaxa, Vilcas Huaman, Hatunqolla, Paria (Anocariri), ChiquitoyViejo,Yacoraite, andQuebrada de laVaca.These are all major Inka admin-istrative or storage centers, with the exceptions of Yacoraite (point ), asmall tampu with four storage units, and Quebrada de la Vaca (point ),which may have been a small administrative center with twenty-seven stor-age units.

Chiquitoy Viejo (point ) has been identified as an Inka site thatcontrolled the flow of information or goods between coast and sierra(Conrad). Anocariri (point ), a site eight kilometers west-northwestof modern-day Paria, Bolivia, was probably associated with the Inka pro-vincial capital of the same name (Cieza de León []: ) throughwhich people and goods flowed between Cuzco and the Cochabamba val-ley (Espinoza Soriano). Hatunqolla (point ), Vilcas Huaman (point), Hatun Xuaxa (point ), Huánuco Pampa (point ), and Cajamarca(point ) were all major Inka administrative and storage centers (Gaspariniand Margolies ; Julien , ; D’Altroy ; Morris and Thomp-son ). Huamachuco (point ), a smaller storage center probably ori-ented toward local consumption only, may have been associated with Inkaadministration (Topic and Topic ; Topic and Chiswell ).

Degree centrality, as an index of exchange or communicative activity,appears to capture the locational importance ofmany but not all major Inkasites. Cuzco (point), Pumpu (point), Tomebamba (point ), and Quito(point), for example, were significant storage or administrative centers butdo not have the highest degree centrality. Other centrality, network, envi-ronmental, or cultural variables may have contributed to their importancein the overall road network.

Table compares measures of closeness and betweenness centrality.Closeness centrality measures the relative efficiency with which a centercan communicate with any other center. As a site’s geodesics (shortestpaths between it and all other points) increase in length, the centrality ofthat site decreases. This measure shows that Cuzco (point ) is most cen-tral, followed closely by Vilcas Huaman (point ). Quebrada de la Vaca(point ) is third most central, which may partially account for its twenty-seven storage structures. Hatun Xuaxa (point ) is fourth most central,Raqchi (point ) is fifth, and Tambo Viejo (point ) is sixth. Pacha-camac (point ), on the central coast, emerges as the eleventh most centralsite, which, in addition to its religious associations and economic potential(Rostworowski ) indicates its relative locational advantage.

Betweenness centrality provides an index of the potential to controlthe flow of information or goods from one center to any other center. It is

David Jenkins

Table . Relative centrality of sites on the Inka road network

Closeness BetweennessSite centrality Rank centrality Rank

1. Quito 572 51 0.00 50=2. Paradones 520 50 52.00 423. Ingapirca 470 48 102.00 334. Tomebamba 422 45 200.00 285. Huancapampa 376 35= 296.67 186. Cajamarca 334 25 306.83 177. Chachapoyas 376 35= 31.17 438. Huamachuco 335 26 216.83 259. Taparaku 380 37 7.50 4710. Huánuco Pampa 383 38= 57.00 4111. Tunsukancha 425 46 1.67 4912. Pumpu 378 36 91.00 3513. Chacamarca 354 30 171.00 3014. La Cima, Telarnoij 330 23 219.67 2415. Tarma 298 16 282.67 2116. Hatun Xuaxa, Mantaro Valley 258 4 1029.58 317. Vilcas Huaman 245 2 1157.91 118. Cuzco 243 1 1135.33 219. Raqchi 261 5 844.08 520. Hatunqolla 269 8 312.25 1621. Chuquiabo 277 10 585.91 922. Paria (Anocariri) 286 13 981.42 423. Cotapachi 328 22 470.00 1124. Kullku Tampu 372 34 384.00 1325. Kharalaus Pampa 481 44 294.00 1926. Pocona 466 47 202.00 2727. Tumuyo 518 49= 0.00 50=28. Inkallajta 518 49= 0.00 50=29. Yacoraite 315 20 553.92 1030. Inkahuasi 352 29 213.25 2631. Aqua Hedionda 404 42 0.00 50=32. Campo del Pucara 383 38= 93.25 3433. Corral Blanco 356 31 138.17 3234. Portrero de Payogasta 393 40 72.42 3935. Hualfin 367 33 0.00 50=36. Navado del Aconquija 361 32 195.83 2937. Ranchillos 394 41 74.17 3838. Tamillitos 411 43 16.25 4539. Santiago 390 39 64.33 4040. Tumbes 344 28 156.00 31


Table . Continued

Closeness BetweennessSite centrality Rank centrality Rank

41. Chiquitoy Viejo 302 17 783.67 742. Pachacamac 278 11 823.00 643. Centenila 282 12 219.75 2344. Inkawasi 305 18 3.67 4845. Tambo Colorado 266 7 259.42 2246. Tambo Viejo 263 6 287.92 2047. Culluma Baja 311 19 29.50 4448. Inka Tampu 331 24 8.50 4649. Millpu 293 15 77.00 3750. Quebrada de la Vaca 256 3 586.83 851. Camata 276 9 79.33 3652. Turi 290 14 416.58 1253. Catarpe 320 21 362.58 1454. Capis-Cerrellos 343 27 342.17 15

a measure of the number of times a point occurs on the geodesics in a con-nected graph. A large betweenness centrality implies that a site is relativelymore between all other sites. This measure shows which sites are advanta-geously located to act as intermediaries.VilcasHuaman ranks the highest inbetweenness centrality, followed by Cuzco, Hatun Xuaxa, Paria, and Raq-chi. Somewhat surprisingly, Pachacamac emerges as the sixth most cen-tral site. With clear religious associations and strong economic potential,Pachacamac was the only coastal site where prestige goods were collected,rather than being transported to the sierra (Cieza de León []: ;Hyslop : ; Rostworowski ), perhaps because of its position asan intermediary.

The central location of Cuzco, confirmed by two different centralitymeasures, is especially noteworthy: It has the highest centrality in termsof the relative efficiency with which it could communicate with any otherpoint in the network and the second highest centrality in terms of its abilityto control the flow of information or goods between any two points. Suchrelative locational advantage gives support to Morris’s (: ) obser-vation about the ideological position of the Inka capital: ‘‘One reason[prestige goods] went to Cusco was so that they could come from Cusco.’’Cuzco’s high closeness centrality made the movement of goods to and fromCuzco relatively efficient.

Because Cuzco lies on the second highest number of shortest paths

David Jenkins

between any two points, it is also in an advantageous position to controlthe flow of information throughout the empire. The famed chasques (Cobo []: –), messengers stationed at regular intervals along theroad network, are a spectacular example of this control. Cobo, impressedby the speed with which messages could travel from point to point, notedthat orders from Cuzco could be sent to Quito and return to Cuzco in tenor twelve days. Cieza de León ( []: ), similarly impressed, notedthat ‘‘in this way the lords were informed of everything that occurred intheir kingdom and dominion and [thereby] determined what appeared tobe in their best interests.’’ Cuzco’s central location facilitated such infor-mational control.

The main storage/administrative site with high centrality is HatunXuaxa (point ), which had , storage units near the administrativecenter itself and in the surrounding Mantaro valley. Hatun Xuaxa ranksfirst in degree centrality, fourth in closeness centrality, and third in be-tweenness centrality, which indicates its clear locational advantage vis-à-vis the overall road network. Cotapachi (point ) and Campo del Pucara(point ), both major storage sites, do not have a correspondingly highcentrality. Cotapachi, with , storage units, ranks twenty-second incloseness centrality and eleventh in betweenness centrality. Campo del Pu-cara, with , storage units, ranks thirty-eighth in closeness centralityand thirty-fourth in betweenness centrality. Neither of these two majorsites have the grand administrative complexes found in the highlands northof Cuzco. Low centrality may partially account for why large adminis-trative complexes are not associated with either Cotapachi or Campo delPucara.

The Inka appear to have constructed massive storage complexes attwo extremes of the road network: at highland locations with high cen-trality and at highland locations with low centrality.Comparably large stor-age complexes do not seem to have been constructed on the coast. Morris(: ) argues that ‘‘the necessity of storage is greatest in areas of mar-ginality.’’ Although Morris refers to the environmental and demographiccharacteristics of Huánuco Pampa, which had no permanent populationand was in fact built some distance away from the region’s population cen-ter, his observation, coupled to the clear central location of important high-land sites, may be generalized as a network hypothesis: In the highlands,the necessity of storage is greatest in areas of high centrality and in areasof low centrality. Large storage facilities in areas of high centrality (points, , and , for example) correspond with the location of major admin-istrative centers; large storage facilities in areas of low centrality (points and ) do not. Network position may thus outweigh environmental or


demographic variables in the location and construction of storage sites inthe highlands.

The hypothesis that highland storage was greatest at the two extremesof network centrality may be tested by archaeological investigation at Inkacenters such as Chuquiabo, Tomebamba, and Quito, listed in early Spanishreports as important storage sites (e.g., Cieza de León []). Chu-quiabo ranks first in degree, tenth in closeness, and ninth in betweennesscentrality. By contrast,Tomebamba andQuito both have very lowcentralityand were thus relatively independent from the influence of any other cen-ter.3 Inka sites at these locations, however, are buried under the moderncities of La Paz, Cuenca, and Quito, making confirmation or disconfirma-tion of this hypothesis difficult. How many storage units are associatedwith these sites is unknown and perhaps unknowable. In these instances,however, administrative complexes and storage centers probably existedtogether.

Prestige Goods

Prestige goods, as part of the system of wealth finance, also circulatedthrough the road network. Spondylus shells, honey, tropical wood, birdsand bird feathers, fine cloth, gold, silver, copper, and in some instancesmaize flowed into Cuzco, and some portion was redistributed to regionaland local elites (Cobo []: ). Figure shows a digraph of thisexchange system, with the origin points of certain goods indicated.4

Tumbes (point ), on the Ecuadorian coast, was a significant con-duit for Spondylus shells destined for Cuzco (Cobo []:).Calledmullu in Quechua, Spondylus shells and the objects fashioned from themheld great religious significance for the Inka (Murra ; Rostworowski, ). They appear in many pre-Inka sites in the northern and cen-tral Andes andmay have entered into central Andean exchange networks asearly as .. (Paulsen). Spondyluswas not a significant trade itemin the preceramic period, however; only a few instances of its preceramicoccurrence in the highlands have been documented (Rick : ).

The habitat of two Pacific species of Spondylus, Spondylus princeps andSpondylus calcifer, range from the Gulf of Guayaguil in Ecuador to the Gulfof California. Both species live in waters twenty-five to sixty meters deep(Marcos ). As Murra () notes, millions of Spondylus must havebeen harvested to satisfy Inka needs. Tumbes, as part of an exchange net-work stretching into Central America, was at the southern edge of Spon-dylus habitat. Thus, to ensure that a supply of Spondylus reached Cuzco,the Inka required open lines of exchange fromTumbes to the highlands. In

David Jenkins

terms of wealth finance, then, Tumbes and the road that linked it with thesierra were particularly important. Cobo ( []: –) noted thatthe road from Tumbes to the sierra was one of the two most significantlateral roads linking coast and highland.5 And Francisco de Xérez ([]: –), one of the European invaders who landed in , ob-served several storehouses near Tumbes filled with sufficient cloth and food‘‘to maintain themselves for three or four years.’’

The importance that the Inka attributed to Tumbes was based in parton its network position in the system of wealth finance. Although Tumbeshas relatively low centrality in the Inka road network, its removal wouldhave effectively cut off the flow, or at least much of the flow, of Spondylus tothe highlands. As an outer point in the system of wealth finance, Tumbes’simportance was based not on its central location but rather on its margin-ality, or what might be called its strategic marginality.

Other locations with similarly low centrality were important in thesystem of wealth finance.Turi (point ), for example, was an Inka adminis-trative center that controlled the flow of precious metals from the Atacamadesert to the highlands. It was linked to Catarpe (point ) seventy kilo-meters to the south, which has been described as ‘‘the largest, most clas-sically designed and strategically located tambo on the Atacama frontier’’(Lynch:). Turi, through Catarpe, was linked to the Copiapó valley(point ), some four hundred kilometers farther south.

In a survey of Inka settlement patterns, Hyslop () argues that Inkaadministrative centers were built and located according to environmental,demographic, cultural, and political criteria. Lynch (: ) suggestsanother possibility:

I am tempted to turn the usual interpretation around and visualize theInca road as a connector of administrative centers, rather than of thenuclei of densest population, which often lay a bit off to the side onlateral access routes (Lynch : ). Following this line of reasoning,we might expect the administrative centers to be built more accordingto formula or master plan, than substantial towns or cities would be.Given the largely artificial origin and political purpose of such admin-istrative centers (rather than economic origin and basis), it is no won-der that many centers were abandoned soon after the Spanish invasionand destruction of the Inca core.’’

Catarpe was a site where copper (Lynch : ) and perhaps otherprecious materials (Niemeyer and Schiappacasse ) were worked forInka purposes and then sent to Cuzco via Turi. It may have also been anintermediate station for controlling the flow of precious goods from the


Copiapó valley, although this seems unlikely, given the harsh desert envi-ronment south of Catarpe (Hyslop : –) and the alternate routefrom the Copiapó valley to the highlands. Lynch argues that Catarpe’s stra-tegic location and classical Inka design can be understood best in terms ofan exchange network. The question is what kind of network.

Catarpe’s location and design and Tumbes’s location and importancesuggest a hypothesis about network position in terms of the Inka-imposedsystem of wealth finance. The hypothesis is that the Inka built and main-tained small but important administrative centers at sites of greatest mar-ginality, frequently at the endpoints of exchange networks. Thus networkposition, rather than demographic or environmental variables, may accountfor the location of smaller administrative centers along the coast—a pointsuggested by Lynch (: ). Figure shows Catarpe and Tumbes asendpoints of such an exchange network.

This hypothesis can be tested by investigating other sites at endpointsin the Inka road network. In the northeastern highlands of Peru, Chacha-poyas (point ), for example, ranks thirty-fifth in closeness centrality andforty-third in betweenness centrality. It was a region of Inka interest be-cause of its proximity to tropical prestige goods, such as feathers and exoticwood. Archaeological remains of Inka design in this marginal location in-clude twenty-three storage structures and possibly an administrative center(Schjellerup –, ).

Hualfin (point ), in the Catamarca Province of northwest Argentina,ranks thirty-third in closeness centrality and fiftieth in betweenness cen-trality. It was probably built for the exploitation and administrative controlof the region’s gold and silver mines (Gonzalez ). Hualfin comprisesseventy structures, twenty-three (Snead: ) to thirty-three (Gonzalez: ) of whichwere storage units.Gonzalez (: ) showsHualfinas an endpoint on the Inka road network.

Portrero de Payogasta (point ), in the Calchaquí valley of northwest-ern Argentina, also appears to support the idea that the Inka built smalladministrative centers at sites of greatest marginality. Although not an end-point, Portrero ranks fortieth in closeness centrality and thirty-ninth in be-tweenness centrality. Hyslop (: ) suggests that Calchaquí Valleymay have been used by the Inka for food production, but Earle (: )notes that no large-scale Inka storage structures have been found there.Staple finance was probably inoperative or unelaborated. By contrast, evi-dence for wealth finance is compelling. Earle () shows that the manu-facture of wealth in the form of worked bone, copper, turquoise, and shellwas directly associated with Inka facilities. Finished wealth objects, how-ever, are comparatively rare in the same facilities.This pattern suggests that

David Jenkins

Figure . Graph of the Inka road network emphasizing the system of wealthfinance.


manufactured wealth was exported from the valley, presumably to Cuzcoas part of the system of wealth finance.

Summary

The two hypotheses about staple finance, wealth finance, and network posi-tion presented above can now be restated.

) Based on the requirements of staple finance, the Inka built mas-sive administrative centers and/or storage complexes at highland locationsof high centrality and at highland locations of low centrality. These re-quirements included the capacity to feed, clothe, and otherwise care forthe subsistence needs of military personnel, administrators, mit’a and mit-maq laborers, and others involved in state-oriented projects. In this system,staples were regionally focused, and people were mobile. Major adminis-trative centers and associated storage facilities were typically built in loca-tions of high centrality—Hatun Xuaxa, for example. By contrast, storagefacilities without associated major administrative complexes were built inlocations of low centrality—for example, Campo del Pucara. Tomebambaand Quito, on the margins of the Inka empire, had both storage and ad-ministrative structures.

) Based on the requirements of wealth finance, the Inka built smalleradministrative complexes with no or little storage capacity at locations oflow centrality or at endpoints in the road network. Many coastal and high-land locations that generated high-status goods—Spondylus shells, gold, sil-ver, copper, feathers, exotic wood, and so on—were thus strategically mar-ginal. As Murra () and Morris () have remarked, long-distancemovement itself conferred added value to prestige goods. Network positionthus reinforced ideology.

These two distinct circuits of exchange correspond to what Earle andD’Altroy (), following Hassig (: –), call strategies of terri-torial control and strategies of hegemonic control. They argue that Inkaimperial power is best conceptualized as a continuum of strategies, withhegemonic control at one end and territorial control at the other:

With hegemonic control, the core Inka polity ruled indirectly, throughclients who retained considerable autonomy in management of localaffairs, but were forced to accept military submission, tributary pay-ments in labor and special products, and truncation of economic rela-tions with neighboring ethnic groups. For the core, the advantages ofsuch hegemonic relationships were found in the relatively low costs ofcontrol and in the minimal internal security duties.

David Jenkins

With territorial control, the core Inka polity extended direct state pres-ence into the dominated regions through a comprehensive restructur-ing of economic and political relationships, a supervisory administra-tive presence, and often a series of dramatic cultural changes. Controlwas high, permitting a high level of extraction, but the degree of inter-ventionwas tempered by the high costs of direct administration. (Earleand D’Altroy : )

Hegemonic control requires minimal administrative investment. Theintent is to produce a surplus from local populations simply by usurping,under threat of attack, a portion of the labor or products that would other-wise have been consumed by that population. By contrast, territorial con-trol requires high administrative investment. Its intent is to tie the welfareof local populations directly to the state. In the Inka empire, territorialcontrol was strongest in the central highlands between Cuzco and Quito,where there were large populations and high agricultural productivity, andweakest along the northern and southern coasts and in the eastern tropicalregions. Wealth finance with its centrality correlates would facilitate hege-monic control, whereas staple finance, with its different set of centralitycorrelates, would facilitate territorial control.

Research Potential of Network Models

Network models of the global properties of staple finance and wealthfinance provide onemeans to discover the ‘‘macropatterns’’ (D’Altroy:) of Inka settlement planning. These models may be extended and clari-fied in at least three ways.

) Given sufficiently rich archaeological and ethnohistorical data, ofthe sort that has in fact been accumulating over the last several decades, onecould attempt to calculate the flow of staple goods into regional centers, aswell as the flow of high-prestige goods into and out of Cuzco. The Ford-Fulkerson (, ) Max-flow Min-cut Theorem provides one meansto begin such an analysis. This theorem specifies the network conditionsunder which the maximum flowof some unit, based on the capacity of lines(in this case, roads), can reach a point called the receiver r from a pointcalled the transmitter t. The capacity of a line is the largest number of unitsthat can flow through a given line during a specified time period. Since ina network there are often several paths from t to r, it is important to knowwhat flow capacity exits for all such paths, what the sum of such capacitiesmay be, and whether there is an optimal flow capacity from t to r througha set of lines. Clearly, the flow capacity of a set of lines cannot exceed the


smallest flow capacity of an individual line in that set. The usefulness ofthe Max-flow Min-cut Theorem is that the maximum flow is measured bythe minimum cut set, that is, by the smallest flow capacities of the set oflines from t to r the removal of which would result in a disconnected graph.It also shows whether a network has a unique minimum cut set or severalalternative cut sets with equivalent flows.

In the Inka road network, constriction points or bottlenecks were fre-quent. D’Altroy (: ) provides a vivid example of environmental in-fluences on the capacity of one line in the Inka network:

To illustrate the effects of terrain on military movements, Chalcu-chima’s army of , stationed at Hatun Xuaxa at the time of theSpanish arrival may be taken as an example. Single file, about sol-diers take up km (cf. Hassig : –). If the porters, soldiers’wives, and other camp followers composed a group about the size ofChalcuchima’s army, the string would have stretched out to km.If a llama is allowed m in the train, about llamas take up km ofroad. A llama caravan of, say, , accompanying the troops wouldhave extended an additional km. The entourage would likely haveregrouped, rather than travel single file, of course, and Inka armieswere typically deployed in sections, rather than as single bodies. As aunit, however, moving at a rate of km per hour (i.e., league/hour),it would have taken this army and entourage hours to pass throughthe narrowest point of the road or across a bridge.Traveling constantlyfrom dawn to dusk, the human force would have consumed more than, kg of food and the llamas , kg of forage—just to get km outside of Hatun Xuaxa toward the coast.

Environmental factors such as gorges or deserts constrain the flowsthat are possible from point to point. If, as with D’Altroy’s example, thecapacity of all lines in the Inka network were estimated, then it would bepossible to calculate the maximum flow of the Inka road network N fromt to r, that is, the largest number of some unit that can reach r from t. Thiswould then provide another conceptual tool for analyzing the distributionof storage sites scattered throughout the Inka empire. Clearly the Inka musthave known that environmental constraints on the flow of goods limitedthe number of goods that any one center could receive. Perhaps the loca-tions of some of those sites were chosen because of the flow capacity of theroads that linked them with adjacent administrative centers or provincialcapitals.

Road widths, as outlined by Hyslop (), would provide anothermeans to attempt to measure flow capacity in the road network. As Hyslop

David Jenkins

has shown, the most important roads—between Quito and Cuzco, for ex-ample—typically were wider than less-important roads. Using D’Altroy’s() calculations of the load-bearing capacity of humans and llamas,coupled with themany references in the Spanish chronicles of long-distancemovement of goods (e.g., Atienza [?]; Ortíz de Zúñiga []: –, []: –; Diez de San Miguel []: –), one may be able to begin to understand the logistical, environmental,and energetic constraints on the amassing and storing of goods throughoutthe Inka empire. In principle, based on flow capacity, energetic constraints,and storage characteristics of different goods, one could calculate how longn number of human bearers with n number of llamas would take to com-pletely fill the storehouses at, say, Huánuco Pampa. Such a number wouldprovide further insight into the social organization of storage in the Inkaempire.

) The evolution of the Inka road network may also be investigatedby using graph theoretic models, algorithms, and theorems. For example,Minimum Spanning Tree (MST) algorithms have been used to model theevolution of highland-coast exchange networks in northern Peru (Jenkinsn.d.) and may also prove valuable for analyzing the evolution of the Inkaroad network. MSTs provide one means to simulate network growth andto analyze, as a network phenomenon, clusters of culturally similar re-gions. MST algorithms are an improvement over Renfrew and Sterud’s() close-proximity analysis, since they simplify computation of net-work growth (Hage and Harary ).

Network analysis of the evolution of the Inka road system may alsoproceed by constructing centrality models of each stage of Inka expansion(Irwin). As the Inka incorporated other polities and other networks ofexchange, the relative centrality of each point in the overall network wouldalter. Shifting relative centrality of a point may account for why the Inkaabandoned one administrative location in favor of another—for example,abandoning Inkawasi (point ) after the conquest of the Cañete valley infavor of Cerro Azul, a site that could better control the northward flow ofgoods and information in the larger network (Hyslop : –).

One could also study the disarticulation of the Inka network after thearrival of the Spanish. The Spanish made use of existing exchange relationsas they solidified control over the Andes (Stern; Ramírez) but didnot continue to use all Inka administrative installations to do so. Some ofthese locations, such as Catarpe, were not sufficiently central to the emerg-ing Spanish exchange networks and so were abandoned.

) A more complete model of Inka roads, administrative centers, andstorage facilities could be constructed, which would take into account not


only the primary and secondary roads and centers, as in Figure , but ter-tiary and smaller roads and centers as well. In addition, ocean travel, whichwas clearly important on the central and northern coasts (Rostworowski, ; Mosely ; Paulsen ; Marcos ), would need to beincorporated into the model. Such a model may not significantly alter thecentrality characteristics of important highland Inka sites such as Cuzco,Hatun Xuaxa, and Cotapachi, but it may reveal that coastal sites such asTumbes and Pachacamac were much more central in the overall exchangenetwork than has previously been acknowledged.

Conclusion

The three models of centrality presented above provide a means to calcu-late the favorable network position of administrative centers, productiveenclaves, and storage sites related to both production and administration.The results indicate that in the highlands the Inka built grand administra-tive centers and large storage facilities at regions of high and low centralityand large storage facilities without administrative centers at regions of lowcentrality, based upon the requirements of staple finance. The results alsoindicate that the Inka built smaller administrative centers with little or nostorage capacity at regions of low centrality, based on the requirements ofwealth finance. These findings are suggestive but preliminary. They awaitconfirmation or disconfirmation based upon new archaeological and archi-val research that focuses on the communicative and exchange links betweenpoints in the road network. Such research would in turn allow for a morecomplete model of Inka exchange relations, which would incorporate sec-ondary roads and centers and include elements of ocean travel. It wouldalso provide the basis for a better understanding of the global patterns ofthe Inka political economy.

Notes

I would like to thank Per Hage, Robert Zeitlin, and two anonymous Ethnohistoryreviewers for their helpful comments on this article. A preliminary version was pre-sented at the International Social Network Conference, London, England, July.

The story of Inka expansion has been told and retold a number of times. For earlySpanish accounts see, e.g., Betanzos [], []; Cobo [];Sarmiento de Gamboa []; Garcilaso de la Vega– []; Cieza deLeón []. For modern summaries, see Rowe; Conrad and Demarest; Rostworowski ; Patterson ; and Bauer .

David Jenkins

As Morris () citing Burton () points out, a metric ton of potatoes canbe stored in a space as small as . cubic meters.

Perhaps the Inka northward expansion accounts for the storage complexes at thenorthern margins of the Inka empire. But the north’s relative independence fromCuzco should not be ignored as a contributing factor. Quito, for example, whichwas relatively independent from the influence of Cuzco, was an appropriate sitefor Atahuallpa to stage a war against his half brother, Huáscar, who had beencrowned king in Cuzco just prior to the Spanish arrival.

A digraph is a graph with arrows on its lines indicating relational direction. Cobo’s ( []:–) sixmost important lateral roads, apparently in orderof importance, are ) Cuzco to Arequipa region, ) Tumbes to sierra, ) valleyof Trujillo to Cajamarca, ) valley of Paramonga to Xuaxa, ) valley of Lima toXuaxa, and ) through Chuquiabo from the seacoast to the provinces of Chun-chos.

References

Aldenderfer, Mark S. Domestic Space, Mobility, and Ecological Complementarity: The View

from Asano. In Domestic Architecture, Ethnicity, and Complemen-tarity in the South-Central Andes. Mark S. Aldenderfer, ed. Iowa City:University of Iowa Press.

Atienza, Lope de [?] Compendio historial del estado de los indios del Perú. In La reli-

gion del imperio de los Incas. Jacinto Jijón y Caamaño, ed.Vol..Quito:Escuela Tipográfica Salesiana.

Bauer, Brian The Development of the Inca State. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Betanzos, Juan de [] Suma y narración de los Incas. In Crónicas peruanas del interés

indígena. F. Esteve Barba, ed. Biblioteca de autores españoles, vol. .Pp. –. Madrid: Ediciones Atlas.

[] Suma y narración de los Incas. María del Carmen Martín Rubio,ed. Madrid: Ediciones Atlas.

Borgatti, S. P., M. G. Everett, and L. C. Freeman IV Version .. Columbia, : Analytic Technologies.

Browman, David, Richard L. Burger, and Mario A. Rivera, eds. Social and Economic Organization in the Prehispanic Andes. Inter-

national Series, vol. . Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.Brumfiel, Elizabeth M., and Timothy K. Earle, eds. Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.Brush, Steven B. Man’s Use of an Andean Ecosystem. Human Ecology : –.

Buckley, Fred, and Frank Harary Distance in Graphs. Redwood City, : Addison-Wesley.

Burton, W. G. The Potato: A Survey of Factors Influencing Its Yield, Nutritive Value,


Quality and Storage. Wageningen, Netherlands: H. Veenman and Zo-nen.

Cieza de León, Pedro [] El señorío de los Incas. Carlos Aranibar, ed. Lima: Instituto de Es-

tudios Peruanos.Cobo, Bernabé [] Historia del nuevo mundo. In Obras del Padre Bernabé Cobo.

Francisco Mateos, ed. Pp. –. Madrid: Ediciones Atlas.Conrad, Geoffrey W. Chiquitoy Viejo: An Inca Administrative Center in the ChicamaValley,

Peru. Journal of Field Archaeology : –.Conrad, Geoffrey W., and Arthur Demarest Religion and Empire: The Dynamics of Aztec and Inca Expansionism.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Costin, Cathy L., and Timothy K. Earle Status Distinction and Legitimation of Power as Reflected in Changing

Patterns of Consumption in Late Prehispanic Peru. American Antiquity: –.

D’Altroy, Terence N. Provincial Power in the Inka Empire.Washington, : Smithsonian In-

stitution Press.D’Altroy, Terence N., and Ronald A. Bishop The Provincial Organization of Inka Ceramic Production. American

Antiquity : –.D’Altroy, Terence N., and Timothy K. Earle Staple Finance,Wealth Finance, and Storage in the Inka Political Econ-

omy. Current Anthropology : –. Inka Storage Facilities in the Upper Mantaro Valley, Peru. In Inka Stor-

age Systems. Terry Y. LeVine, ed. Pp. –. Norman: University ofOklahoma Press.

D’Altroy, Terence N., and Christine A. Hastorf The Distribution and Contents of Inca State Storehouses in the Xuaxa

Region of Peru. American Antiquity : –.Diez de San Miguel, Garci [] Visita hecha a la Provincia de Chucuito por Garci Diez de San

Miguel en al año . Lima: Casa de Cultura.Earle, Timothy K. Specialization and the Production of Wealth: Hawaiian Chiefdoms and

the Inka Empire. In Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies.Elizabeth M. Brumfiel and Timothy K. Earle, eds. Pp. –. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wealth Finance in the Inka Empire: Evidence from the Calchaqui Val-ley, Argentina, American Antiquity : –.

Earle, Timothy K., and T. D’Altroy The Political Economy of the Inka Empire: The Archaeology of Power

and Finance. In Archaeological Thought in America. C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, ed. Pp. –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Espinoza Soriano, Waldemar El memorial de charcas: ‘‘Cronica’’ inédita de . Cantuta : –.

David Jenkins

Ford, L. R., and E. Fulkerson A Simple Algorithm for Finding Maximal Network Flows and an Ap-

plication to the Hitchcock Problem. Canadian Journal of Mathematics: –.

Flows in Networks. Princeton, : Princeton University Press.Freeman, L. C. Centrality in Social Networks. I: Conceptual Clarification. Social Net-

works : –.Garcilaso de la Vega [El Inca]– [] Comentarios reales de los Incas. In Obras completas del Inca

Garcilaso de la Vega. Vols. –. Pp. :–, :–, :–.Madrid: Ediciones Atlas.

Gasparini, Graziano, and Luise Margolies Inca Architecture. Patricia J. Lyons, trans. Bloomington: Indiana Uni-

versity Press.Gonzalez, Alberto Rex Inca Settlement Patterns in a Marginal Province of the Empire: Socio-

cultural Implications. In Prehistoric Settlement Patterns: Essays inHonor of Gordon R. Willey. Evon Z. Vogt and Richard M. Leventhal,eds. Pp. –. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Guaman Poma de Ayala, Felipe [] El primer nueva corónica y buen gobierno. vols. Critical edition,

John V. Murra and Rolena Adorno; Quechua translation and textualanalysis, Jorge L. Urioste. Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno.

Hage, Per, and Frank Harary Exchange inOceania: AGraphTheoretic Analysis.Oxford: Clarendon. Island Networks: Communication, Kinship and Classification Struc-

tures in Oceania. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hage, Per, Frank Harary, and Brent James Wealth and Hierarchy in the Kula Ring. American Anthropologist :

–.Harary, Frank Graph Theory. Reading, : Addison-Wesley.

Hassig, Ross Trade, Tribute and Transportation: The Sixteenth-Century Political

Economy of the Valley of Mexico. Norman: University of OklahomaPress.

Hunt, T. L. Graph Theoretic Network Models for Lapita Exchange: A Trial Ap-

plication. In Archaeology of the Lapita Cultural Complex: A CriticalReview. P. V. Kirch and T. L. Hunt, eds. Pp. –. Burke MuseumResearch Report, No. . Seattle, : Burke Museum.

Hyslop, John The Inka Road System. New York: Academic. Inka Settlement Planning. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Irwin, Geoffrey The Emergence of a Central Place in Coastal Papuan Prehistory: A

Theoretical Approach. Mankind : –. Pots and Entrepôts: A Study of Settlement, Trade and the Development


of Economic Specialization in Papuan Prehistory. World Archaeology: –.

Jenkins, DavidN.D. Highland-Coast Relations in Northern Peru: Optimal Route Location,

Networks and the Minimum Spanning Tree Problem.Julien, Catherine J. Hatunqolla: A View of Inca Rule from the Lake Titicaca Region. Pub-

lications in Anthropology, Vol. . Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

La Lone, Mary B., and Darrell E. La Lone The Inka State in the SouthernHighlands: State Administrative and Pro-

duction Enclaves. Ethnohistory : –.LeVine, Terry Inka Labor Service at the Regional Level: The Functional Reality.

Ethnohistory : –. Inka State Storage in Three Highland Regions. In Inka Storage Systems

Terry LeVine, ed. Pp. –. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Lynch, Thomas F. Regional Interaction, Transhumance, and Verticality: Archaeological

Use of Zonal Complementarity in Peru and Northern Chile. MichiganDiscussions in Anthropology : –.

The Identification of Inca Posts and Roads from Catarpe to Rio Frio,Chile. In Provincial Inca: Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Assess-ment of the Impact of the Inca State. Michael A. Malpass, ed. Pp. –. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.

Malpass, Michael A., ed. Provincial Inca: Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Assessment of the

Impact of the Inca State. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.Marcos, Jorge G. Cruising to Acapulco and Back with the Thorny Oyster Set: A Model

for a Lineal Exchange System. Journal of the Steward AnthropologicalSociety : –.

Mayer, Enrique Las reglas del juego en la reciprocidad Andena. InReciprocidad e inter-

cambio en los andes peruanas.Georgio Alberti and EnriqueMayer, eds.Pp. –. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.

Means, Philip Ancient Civilizations of the Andes. NewYork: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Milicic, Bojka Exchange and Social Stratification in the Eastern Adriatic: A Graph-

Theoretic Model. Ethnology : –.Morris, Craig Storage in Tawantinsuyu. Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago. State Settlements in Tawantinsuyu: A Strategy of Compulsory Urban-

ism. In Contemporary Archaeology: A Guide to Theory and Contribu-tions. Mark P. Leone, ed. Pp. –. Carbondale: Southern IllinoisUniversity Press.

Storage, Supply, and Redistribution in the Economy of the Inka State.In Anthropological History of Andean Polities. John V. Murra, Nathan

David Jenkins

Wachtel, and Jacques Revel, eds. Pp. –. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Huánuco Pampa and Tunsukancha: Major and Minor Nodes in theInka Storage Network. In Inka Storage Systems. Terry Y. LeVine, ed.Pp. –. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Morris, Craig, and Donald E. Thompson Huánuco Viejo: An Inca Administrative Center. American Antiquity

: –. Huánuco Pampa: An Inca City and Its Hinterland. New York: Thames

and Hudson.Mosely, Michael E. Maritime Foundations of Andean Civilization. Menlo Park, : Cum-

mings.Murra, John V. [] The Economic Organization of the Inka State. Greenwich, : . Cloth and Its Functions in the Inca State. American Anthropologist :

–. El ‘control vertical’ de un máximo de pisos ecológicos en la economía

de las sociedades andinas. InVisita de la provincia de León de Huánucoen, Iñigo Ortiz de Zúñiga, visitador. JohnV.Murra, ed.Vol. , pp.–. Huánuco, Peru: Universidad Nacional Hermilio Valdizán.

Formaciones económicas y políticas del mundo andino. Lima: Institutode Estudios Andinos.

TheMit’a Obligations of Ethnic Groups to the Inka State. In The Incaand Aztec States, –: Anthropology and History. George A.Collier, Renato I. Rosaldo, and John D. Wirth, eds. Pp. –. NewYork: Academic.

Niemeyer, Hans, and Virgilio Schiappacasse Patrones de asentamiento incaicos en el Norte Grande de Chile. In La

frontera del estado inca. Thomas H. Dillehay and Patricia J. Netherly,eds. International Series, vol. . Pp. –. Oxford: British Ar-chaeological Reports.

Niles, Susan A. Callachaca: Style and Status in an Inca Community. Iowa City: Univer-

sity of Iowa Press. The Provinces in the Heartland: Stylistic Variation and Architectural

Innovation Near Cuzco. In Provincial Inca: Archaeological and Ethno-historical Assessment of the Impact of the Inca State. Michael A. Mal-pass, ed. Pp. –. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.

Ortiz de Zúñiga, Iñigo [] Visita de la provincia de León de Huánuco en , Iñigo Ortiz de

Zúñiga, visitador. John V. Murra, ed. Vol. . Huánuco, Peru: Universi-dad Nacional Hermilio Valdizán.

[] Visita de la provincia de León de Huánuco en, Iñigo Ortiz deZúñiga, visitador. John V. Murra, ed. Vol. . Huánuco, Peru: Universi-dad Nacional Hermilio Valdizán.

Patterson, Thomas C. The Inca Empire: The Formation and Disintegration of a Pre-Capitalist

State. New York: Berg.


Paulsen, Allison C. The Thorny Oyster and the Voice of God: Spondylus and Strombus in

Andean Prehistory. American Antiquity : –.Peregrine, Peter A Graph-Theoretic Approach to the Evolution of Cahokia. American

Antiquity : –.Pizarro, Pedro [] Relación del descubrimiento y conquista de los reinos del Peru.

Biblioteca de autores Españoles, vol..Madrid: Real Academia Espa-ñola.

Polanyi, Karl Primitive, Archaic and Modern Economies: Essays of Karl Polanyi,

George Dalton, ed. Garden City, : Anchor.Protzen, Jean-Pierre Inca Architecture and Construction at Ollantaytambo. New York:

Oxford University Press.Ramírez, Susan Elizabeth The World Upside Down: Cross-Cultural Contact and Conflict in

Sixteenth-Century Peru. Stanford, : Stanford University Press.Regal, Alberto Los caminos del Inca en el antiguo Perú. Lima: Sanmartí.

Renfrew, Colin, and J. Sterud Close-Proximity Analysis: A Rapid Method for the Ordering of Ar-

chaeological Materials. American Antiquity : –.Rick, John W. The Character and Context of Highland Preceramic Society. In Peru-

vian Prehistory. Richard W. Keatinge, ed. Pp. –. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Rostworowski de Diez Canseco, Maria Mercaderes del Valle de Chincha en la época prehispanica: Un docu-

mento y unos comentarious. Revista Española de Antropología Ameri-cana : –.

Pescadores, artesanos y mercaderes conteños en el Perú prehispánico.Revista del Museo Nacional : –.

Etnía y sociedad costa peruana prehispánica. Lima: Instituto de Estu-dios Peruanos.

Historia del Tahuantinsuyu. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.Rowe, John Howland Inca Culture at the Time of the Spanish Conquest. In Handbook of

South American Indians. Julian Steward, ed. Vol. , pp. –.Wash-ington, : Bureau of American Ethnology.

Salomon, Frank The Dynamic Potential of the Complementarity Concept. In Andean

Ecology and Civilization: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on AndeanEcological Complementarity. ShozoMasuca, Izumi Shimada, andCraigMorris, eds. Pp. –. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.

Native Lords of Quito in the Age of the Incas. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

David Jenkins

Sancho de la Hoz, Pedro [–] Relación para SM de los sucedido en la conquista y pacificación

de estas provincias. In Colección de libros y documentos referents ala história del Peru. Horacio H. Urteaga, ed. Pp. –. Lima: San-martí.

Santley, Robert S. The Structure of the Aztec Transport Network. In Ancient Road Net-

works and Settlement Hierarchies in the NewWorld. Charles D. Trom-bold, ed. Pp. –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sarmiento de Gamboa, Pedro [] Historia Indica. InObras Completas del Inca Garcilaso de la Vega.

Biblioteca de Autores Españoles, vol. , pp. –. Madrid: Edi-ciones Atlas.

Schjellerup, Inge– Documents on Paper and in Stone: A Preliminary Report on the Inca

Ruins in Cochabamba, Province of Chachapoyas, Peru. Folk –:–.

Cochabamba—An Incaic Administrative Centre in the Rebellious Prov-ince of Chachapoyas. In Current Archaeological Projects in the CentralAndes: Some Approaches and Results. Ann Kendall, ed. Pp. –. International Series, vol. . Oxford: British Archaeological Re-ports.

Shimada, Izumi Horizontal Archipelago andCoast-Highland Interaction inNorth Peru:

Archaeological Models. In El Hombre y su ambiente en los Andes Cen-trales. Luis Millones and Hiroyasu Tomoeda, eds. Pp. –. Osaka:Musio Nacional de Etnologia.

Horizontal and Vertical Dimensions of Prehistoric States inNorth Peru.In The Origins and Development of the Andean State. Jonathan Haas,Shelia Pozorski, and Thomas Pozorski, eds. Pp. –. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Snead, James E. Imperial Infrastructure and the Inka State Storage System. In Inka Stor-

age Systems. Terry Y. LeVine, ed. Pp. –. Norman: University ofOklahoma Press.

Stehberg, Rubén, and Nazareno Carvajal Road System of the Incas in the Southern Part of Their Tawantinsuyu

Empire. National Geographic Research : –.Stern, Steve J. Peru’s Indian People and the Challenge of Spanish Conquest. Madison:

University of Wisconsin Press.Strube Erdmann, Leon Vialidad Imperial de los Incas. SerieHistórica, No. .Córdoba, Argen-

tina: Instituto de Estudios Americanistas,UniversidadNacional de Cór-doba.

Topic, John R., and Coreen E. Chiswell Inka Storage in Huamachuco. In Inka Storage Systems.TerryY. LeVine,

ed. Pp. –. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.


Topic, John R., and Theresa Lange Topic Coast-Highland Relations in Northern Peru: Some Observations on

Routes, Networks, and Scales of Interaction. In Civilization in the An-cient Americas: Essays in Honor of Gordon R.Willey. RichardM. Lev-enthal and Alan L. Kolata, eds. Pp. –. Albuquerque: University ofNew Mexico Press.

Huamachuco Archaeological Project: Preliminary Report on the ThirdSeason, June–August . Trent University Occasional Papers in An-thropology, No. . Peterborough, : Department of Anthropology,Trent University.

Vaca de Castro Cavellero, Cristóval [] Ordenanzas de tambos. Revista Histórica : –.

Wachtel, Nathan The Mitimas of the Cochabamba Valley: The Colonization Policy of

Huayna Capac. In The Inca and Aztec States, –: Anthro-pology and History. George A. Collier, Renato I. Rosaldo, and John D.Wirth, eds. Pp. –. New York: Academic.

Wallace, Dwight T. Chincha Roads: Economics and Symbolism. InAncient RoadNetworks

and Settlement Hierarchies in the New World. Charles D. Trombold,ed. Pp. –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Xérez, Francisco de [] Verdadera relación de la conquista del Perú y provincia del Cuzco

llamada la Nueva Castilla. Lima: Sanmartí.