The Inka State in the Southern Highlands: State Administrative and Production

Enclaves
Mary B. La Lone; Darrell E. La Lone
Ethnohistory, Vol. 34, No. 1, Inka Ethnohistory. (Winter, 1987), pp. 47-62.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-1801%28198724%2934%3A1%3C47%3ATISITS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V
Ethnohistory is currently published by Duke University Press.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/duke.html.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
http://www.jstor.org
Mon Nov 26 17:00:46 2007
The Inka State in the Southern Highlands:
State Administrative and Production Enclaves
Mar y B. La Lone, DePauw University, and
Indianapolis University-Purdue University at Indianapolis,
and Darrell E. La Lone, DePauw University
Abstract. Inka state expansion was financed by a command economy which was able
to mobilize production for the state on a vast scale. As the empire grew and required
greater resources t o finance its expansion, the state elaborated upon special combina-
tions of land tenure and labor organization which brought increased production for
state ends. This paper examines a particularly powerful combination of land and
labor organization used by the Inka: the establishment of state enclaves for production
and administration and the mobilization of mi t maq labor for service on those en-
claves. Documentary evidence is presented for the sites of Guaiparmarca/Ocomarca,
Raqchi, Abancay, and Cochabamba in the southern Andean highlands.
The lnca busied himself for four years wi t h the government and welfare o f his
subjects. Then, deeming it wrong t o devote so much time t o the quiet enjoy-
ment o f peace u~i t hout giving an opportunity for martial exercise, he gave
orders that supplies and weapons should be collected wi t h special care and his
soldiers summoned for the following year. Garcilaso de la Vega (1966
[16091: 159)
Garcilaso's portrayal of the Inka who deemed it "wrong to devote so much time
-
to the quiet enjoyment of peace" aptly epitomizes the expansionist state. It was
precisely through the relatively infrequent enjoyment of peace that in such a
short time the Inka state expanded from the Cuzco Valley as far south as what
are today parts of Chile and northwest Argentina, and as far north as regions
now bordering Colombia. Whatever gains the state harvested from absorbing
such vast regions presupposed hardly less vast costs in supporting such military
adventure and in maintaining vigilance against rebellions.
Support of such a military enterprise would inevitably exceed the capacity
of the traditional tribute system. Mobilization of a massive army created
formidable food demands, while simultaneously removing tribute payers from
Ethnohistory 34:1 (Winter 1987). Copyright B by the American Society for Ethno-
history. ccc 0014-1801/87/$1.jo,
48
Mary B. La Lone and Darrell E. La Lone
food production. We believe that what we document in this paper is change
in organization of land and labor to meet the requirements for state expansion.
We do not intend t o explore the whys of Inka expansionism here, but
we can offer some observations and data on the bows. We, and others, have
previously discussed Inka economy as a mobilization economy in which goods
and services were channelled upward from the general populace to finance the
state ~ol i t i cal structure and state expansion (D. La Lone 1982; Earle and
D'Altroy 1982). The Inka state seems to have financed itself primarily through
direct managerial command of land, labor, and storage systems, rather than
through a market exchange system (D. La Lone 1982 details this argument).
The organization of state land tenure, the mobilization of labor for state
production (through tribute service known as mit 'a, and through the resettle-
ment of service groups known as mitmaq), and the storage and movement of
goods within the empire were the important components of the Inka com-
mand economy. The state economy was able t o command production on a
scale vastly beyond what might be expected from communities seeking general
self-sufficiency through local or small regional networks of reciprocity and
redistribution organized around the principle of vertical ecology. In short, the
development of the Inka command economy required a shift from the satis-
ficing strategies of the domestic mode of production (Sahlins 1972) toward
surplus production for state purposes. Extensive state expansion in the Andes,
in turn, required corresponding elaborations upon forms of land tenure and
labor organization which would guarantee surplus production for state finan-
cial support. Thus, t o understand the processes of state expansion, we need a
better understanding of corresponding developments in the organization of
state lands and productive labor on those lands.
Licenciado Juan Polo de Ondegardo (1916-17 [ I S ~ I ] : 61), a sixteenth-
century jurist who presided over land cases in southern Peru, recognized the
Inka pattern of state land ownership. Polo clearly distinguished lands com-
mitted to the state mobilization economy from those claimed as personal
estates of the rulers. He argued that the Inka ruler levied tribute as a head of
state rather than as a private person. He observed that much of the tribute
from state lands went t o fill state storehouses with foodstuffs, clothing, and
especially military provisions (ibid., 66). And he recognized that the provi-
sions kept in the storehouses were then distributed for such explicit state
purposes as support for the military (ibid., gq), hospitality for visiting lords
(ibid., 59), and supply for corvke laborers doing tribute service for the state
(ibid., 60).
That the state storage system was organized in the interest of the state-
mobilization economy rather than for community welfare seems now to be
clearly established both through ethnohistorical and archaeological evidence
(Murra 1980; Morris 1967, 1972, 1974, 1982; D'Altroy 1981; Earle and
D' Altroy 1982; D. La Lone 1982). State storage on such a massive scale as we
find in HuAnuco, the Mantaro Valley, or Cochabamba clearly implies that
Inka State in Southern Highlands
49
the expanding Inka state made substantial demands to increase production
beyond ordinary subsistence needs. Since, furthermore, tribute was not t o be
taken from the "taxpayer's" own or community lands (Polo de Ondegardo
1916-17 [ I S ~ I ] : 67), this implies substantial expansion of lands dedicated to
the state and labor to service those lands.
In this paper, we shall document the existence of a particularly powerful
combination of land and labor organization used by the Inka for state finance:
the establishment of state enclaves for production and administration, and the
mobilization of mitmaq labor for service on those enclaves. Our primary
sources are sixteenth-century legal documents on land-tenure cases irom three
sites in southern Peru. The legal materials include testimony from elderly
Indian witnesses on the prehispanic organization of land and labor at the sites.
State Lands in the Mobilization Economy
We have known for some time, through the reports of sixteenth-century
Spanish chroniclers, that the Inka state set aside lands in each community of
the realm to be worked as the community's tribute obligation to the state. But
examination of sixteenth-century archival records shows us a second form of
Inka land tenure which supported the state and its expansion. We might best
refer to these lands as enclaves, relatively large tracts of land isolated speci-
fically for fulfilling state administrative and production needs.
From our ethnohistorical research, we find that the Inka established two
types of state enclaves with different functions: ( I )production enclaves geared
toward intensive agricultural production; and ( 2) administrative enclaves for
control of people and tribute in different regions. Large-scale production en-
claves were established in fertile valleys and other sites suited for food cultiva-
tion, especially for maize. Administrative enclaves were established at locations
considered strategic for transportation and communication, tribute collection,
and military control in the empire. These state enclaves were staffed by
mitmaq, individuals removed from their local communities and resettled at
state sites to serve the Inka as a permanent, fulltime labor force. Thus, two
features which characterize Inka state enclaves are: ( I ) the expropriation of
large tracts of land for state purposes; and ( 2) the mobilization of substantial
amounts of mitmaq labor to service the enclaves. This combination of state
enclaves serviced by mitmaq labor seems to have been expanded during the
time of the last Inkas, the years of greatest state expansion, and some records
document the relationship of this land-labor arrangement t o finance for state
expansion. The following sections present discussion of production and ad-
ministrative enclaves in the southern highlands.
Production Enclaves
Some state enclaves were established in fertile valley locations for the sole pur-
pose of large-scale agricultural production. Production was primarily handled
5 0
:Mary B. La Lone and Darrell E. La Lone
by fulltime mitmaq labor which occasionally was supplemented with mit'a
labor. Two cases, Cochabamba and Abancay, offer detailed information on
large-scale state production enclaves organized to support the late Inka expan-
sion into the north (Tomebamba). The state levies at these sites were of such
vast scale that they might best be described as state farms. To establish these
enclaves, the state removed the local populations, brought in mitmaq colonists
as a permanent labor force, and augmented their force with substantial num-
bers of mit'a laborers.
Cochabamba. The Cochabamba Valley (elevation 2400 to 2600 meters)
provides the best-known case of a state-production enclave. Sixteenth-century
descriptions of the Inka state's activity in Cochabamba have come to our
attention through the archival research of Nathan Wachtel (1982) and the
publication of 15 56-70 land litigation from the Cochabamba Valley (Morales,
comp., 1977, containing the text of AHC, AR 1570).
Cochabamba is remarkable as the largest Inka production enclave known.
The Cochabamba production enclave was made possible because the valley is
a very large, fertile region providing agricultural opportunities far exceeding
those of most other locations in the southern highlands. The Inka recognized
its environmental potential, especially for maize cultivation, and developed a
state-administered means of exploiting the region.
According to sixteenth-century testimony, Topa Inka conquered the
valley and began its reorganization. Huayna Capac is then credited with a
major reorganization of land tenure in which large tracts of valley maize land
were claimed for the state. The local population, with the exception of one
group of herders (the Sipe Sipe), was removed from the valley and a multiethnic
labor force of fourteen thousand was brought in for production (Wachtel 1982:
201-2). Mitmaq provided the permanent labor force charged with maintaining
the storehouses, and the rotating groups participating in mit'a service were
charged with sowing and harvesting the fields (Wachtel 1982: 213-14). The
laborers were under the supervision of two Inka administrators and a hierarchy
of leaders (kurakas).
The prime maize lands in the western section of the Cochabamba Valley
were understood to belong to the Inka. The land was subdivided into seventy-
seven suyus, narrow bands that crossed the valley from northwest to southeast.
Mitmaq and mit'a groups were permanently assigned to handle cultivation,
harvesting, and storage for specific suyus (Wachtel 1982: 206-9). Other lands
were assigned to the workers to use for their own subsistence. Wachtel esti-
mates that the labor force was given the use of approximately ten percent of
the valley's cultivated area for its own subsistence, and it was allowed to
supplement this by using the margins of the Inka fields. (For further discus-
sion of mitmaq land tenure see Wachtel 1982; see also M. La Lone 1985.)
The maize produced on the Inka lands was placed in the storehouses
5 1
lnka State in Southern Highlands
located at Cotapachi and throughout the valley. This maize was then taken t o
the tampu at Paria, and from Paria it was transported by llamas to Cuzco.
As witnesses discussing the Yllaurcu field said:
[Ell dicho maiz que se cojia en esta chacara de Yllaurcu y suyus colin-
dantes llevaban a Paria todo e de alli a1 Cuzco a orden de Guayna Capa.
(Morales, comp., 1977 [I5701 : 20)
([Tl he maize that was harvested from this field of Yllaurcu and neigh-
boring suyus was carried to Paria and from there to Cuzco by order of
Huayna Capac.)
Similarly, for the Colchacollo field:
[Vlenian de sus pueblos a1 beneficio de las chacaras de Guayna Capa y
aqui se acaba la chacara de Colchacollo y el maiz que de ello se coxia
declararon que se lievaba a Paria y a1 Cuzco como el maiz de las demas
chacaras con ganados del Inca. (Ibid., 22)
([Tlhey came from their pueblos to work the fields of Huayna Capac;
they harvested the field of Cochacolio, and they said that the harvest was
taken t o Paria and t o Cuzco, like the maize of the other fields, with
llamas of the Inka.)
What was this maize used for? It seems that a substantial portion went
to feed the army fighting for Huayna Capac:
[Los testigos] conforman en que el maiz que se sembraba en 10s dichos
suyus que asi repartieron para todas las naciones de indios que andaban
en la guerra con el dicho Inca Guayna Capa. (Ibid., 26)
([The witnesses] confirmed that the maize grown i n these fields was for
all the nations of Indians that marched in the war with Inka Huayna
Capac.)
Archaeology readily validates the importance of Cochabamba as seen
through documentary evidence. Over one hundred Inka sites are identified in
the Department of Cochabamba, and at one of them, Cotapachi, we find
2,400 storehouses or qollqas (Gasparini and Margolies 1980: 118).
Although the state production enclave at Cochabamba is our most im-
pressive example of alienation of lands for the state and mobilization of labor
to support state expansion, it was not unique. Another well documented
example comes from Abancay.
Abancay. Sixteenth-century litigation shows that the Inka state had agricul-
tural lands under production in the Abancay Valley at 2300 meters elevation
(Espinoza Soriano 1973: 267-95 contains the text of a 157s legal suit, AGN,
5 2
Mary B. La Lone and Darrell E. La Lone
PRyU, L2, CZS) . Testimony from this suit emphasizes that a tract of fertile
river bottomland containing the lands named Lucmapampa, Pomachachaclla,
Chuquipaclla, and Sacapa was held as Inka state land. These lands
eran antiguamente y heron moyas de 10s Incas y como tales moyas las
tuvo Guayna Capa Inca, hijo de Topa Inca Yupanque, y las poseyb e
go26 e puso muchos mitimaes naturales de muchas naciones, como son
Guancas [sic], y Yauyos, e Yungas y otras naciones, 10s cuales dichos
indios labraban y sembraban las dichas tierras de coca, y aji y algodbn y
otras cosas para el dicho Inca. (Espinoza Soriano 1973 [1575]: 289)
(were from old times and were moyas [lands] of the Inkas; and being
moyas, Huayna Capac Inka, son of Topa Inka Yupanque, held and used
them and put [on them] many mitmaqs, natives of many nations like
Guancas, Yauyos, Yungas and other nations; they worked and sowed
these lands of coca, aji and cotton and other things for the Inka.)
Coca, aji, and cotton were the principal crops cultivated on the lands.
Lucumas, pacaes, michca, and sacapa were also grown. Lucuma and pacae
are temperate zone fruits, and sacapa is described as a large tree producing
seed pods that the Inkas used as rattles (ibid., 283, 285, 286, 287, 289, 291,
293).
Mitmaq from multiple etnias (polities) were permanently moved to
Abancay from the Cuzco region, the south coast and as far north as Huan-
cavilca (ibid., 289). The state organized these mitmaq according to the Inka
decimal system so that each pachaka (unit of IOO households) was composed
of a single etnia, and a waranqa (1,000 households) grouped together pacha-
kas from multiple etnias. The mitmaq were in Abancay to serve as agricultural
workers (ibid., 283, 293). They were
indios puestos por 10s dichos Incas por camayos. Los cuales cogian el
fruto dellas para 10s dichos Incas. (Ibid., 283)
(Indians put [there] by the Inkas as camayos; those who harvest the
produce of the land for the Inkas.)
Although assigned to work the Inka lands in Abancay for the state, the
mitmaq population had no use rights to what were clearly reserved as state
lands (ibid., 283, 289, 290-91, 292, 293). Instead, the mitmaq were given
the use of different lands located nearby in the valley. Each mitmaq was given
one or two tupus (unit of land measurement) of this separate tract to use for
his own subsistence (ibid., 287, 288, 290, 292).
Products harvested from the Abancay state fields went into state store-
houses from which supplies were taken as needed to support the state's wars.
The war in Tomebamba is mentioned in particular (ibid., 287, 293):
53
Inka State in Southern Highlands
E que estando en Tomebamba el dicho Guayna Capa envib un indio
llamado Sacapacha para que le llevase todo el algodbn y aji y otras cosas
que se habian cogido y estaban en depbsito para el sustento de la guerra
que tenia entonces. (Ibid., 287)
(And being in Tomebamba, Huayna Capac sent an Indian named
Sacapacha to bring all the cotton and aji and other things that had been
harvested and put in storage in order to support the war then underway.)
Thus, the cases of the Cochabamba and Abancay state lands shed light
on a major source of state finance. They show how the Inka state managed
land and labor to establish large production enclaves, veritable state farms.
Furthermore, they support Polo de Ondegardo's (1916-17 [1571]: 59) asser-
tion that agricultural products harvested from state lands were put in state
storehouses and sometimes moved great distances to support garrisons and
military activities in the realm. They underscore the tremendous amounts of
energy that were mobilized for investment in a seemingly endless campaign in
the northern marches of Tawantinsuyu in late Inka times. This capacity of the
state to mobilize energy on such a vast scale was, of course, a prerequisite for
its investments in building formidable agricultural and hydraulic works as
well as state centers.
Administrative Enclaves
A second type of state enclave housed the government's administrative facilities.
These were located throughout the empire at locations considered strategic
from a variety of perspectives: transportation and communication, tribute
collection, defense of the empire, and regional policing.
As one of the chroniclers commented:
especially in those on the two royal highways [coast and highland], there
is or were royal quarters of the Inca or Sun, with his retinue of Indian
men and women to serve him and the nobles and captains and mes-
sengers that he sent here and there, and quarters and houses of worship
for the Sun, with its retinue of women called mamacunas, who were
like holy women who remained chaste. . . . They were very meticulous,
and in the tribute to the Inca such accounts [were kept] that each town
of these provinces had accountants who kept account of the tribute and
of what tribute each Indian gave and served, so that the work might be
allocated and no one serve more than any other. . . . Likewise each town
of these had a great quantity of storehouses wherein were gathered the
maize and other supplies that were paid in tribute to the Incas, and the
clothing and looms where the rich clothing for the Inca and caciques
and the other common cloth for the warriors was woven and many
Mary B. La Lone and Darrell E. La Lone
storehouses of wool for it. (Cristobal de Molina [actually Segovia], 1943:
21-2.2, as quoted in Gasparini and Margolies 1980: 100)
Although our knowledge of the Inka administrative centers is greatly
furthered through work such as that of Craig Morris (1972,1982) in Huanuco
or Earle, D'Altroy et al. (1980) in the Mantaro Valley, we would hope also
to explore the smaller, more modest state centers to advance our understanding
of the state mobilization system. For example, our own interest in the Vil-
canota Valley draws our attention to Raqchi (San Pedro de Cacha), an impor-
tant site along the road from Cuzco to the altiplano.
Raqchi (Cacha). The ruins of Raqchi stand 118 kilometers southeast of Cuzco,
on the Collasuyu road. Today this archaeological site is named Raqchi, but
sixteenth-century sources called it Cacha. The site was best known for its
spectacular "Temple of Viracocha," said to be dedicated to the deity Viracocha
Pachayachachi. Architectural analysis suggests that the temple and surrounding
structures were built in the Late Horizon, during the rule of Topa Inka
(Gasparini and Margolies 1980: 253; Cieza de Leon 1959 [ 1~53( i ) : Ch. 981:
264).
Part of the complex seems to have been a cult center. The building
identified as a temple was a large rectangular structure (measuring 92 meters
long by ~ 5 . ~ 5 meters wide) constructed of cut stone and adobe. Nearby was a
spring, a large building with fine masonry, and a pool or bath.
Other features of Raqchi's layout are suggestive of a state administrative
center. Were it not for this admittedly extraordinary temple, we might expect
this site also to be described as a fortaleza (fortress). Although it is not
situated on a promontory, the entire 80-hectare site is enclosed within a wall
extending some 3500 meters, up to two meters in height, and wide enough to
walk on. It is difficult to believe that such a large wall would have been con-
structed around Raqchi in the absence of some perceived need for defense. If
such a need existed, some personnel housed at Raqchi must have been in charge
of maintaining and guarding the wall and enclosed site.
Aside from the temple area, other structures were built at the site. A
row of structures and courtyards was located just south of the temple. This
grouping consisted of 24 rooms (each measuring 12 by 4.5 meters), facing six
rectangular courtyards (about 27 by 31 meters each). These structures may
have housed religious and administrative personnel, or perhaps were even
barracks (as suggested by Chavez B. 1963 and Pardo 1937). In addition, a
substantial number of circular buildings appear to be storehouses, perhaps as
many as 220 (Chavez B. 1963). In ethnohistorical records, the site was listed
as one of the state tampus (reststops) on the Collasuyu road (Vaca de Castro
1908 [1543]: 432). The Raqchi complex was probably provisioned with food
from several large irrigated agricultural terraces, which are still in use today.
Inka State in Southern Highlands
55
Unfortunately, Raqchi has received only limited archaeological publica-
tion (Pardo 1937; Chavez B. 1963; Gasparini and Margolies 1980; Ballesteros
G. 19791, and despite its obvious importance as a state and cult center, we
have been unable thus far to find documents concerning the site, apart from the
extensive discussion of the "Temple of Viracocha" in the Spanish chronicles.
We have, however, found a document which discusses another modest state site
also in the Vilcanota Valley, approximately one hundred kilometers from
Raqchi. Discussion of the state, mitmaq and Sun cult lands at Guaiparmarca/
Ocomarca may be instructive for understanding Raqchi and other adminis-
trative sites.
Guaiparmarca and Ocomarca. In our archival research, we found litigation
from the 1570s involving two adjoining pieces of land known as Guaipar-
marca and Ocomarca. These lands were located in the heights above the
mitmaq settlement of Guasao, approximately sixteen kilometers southeast of
Cuzco.' The settlement of Guasao still exists today, and the nearby hilltop
site is today known by the local placename Pucara (meaning fortress in
Quechua). This placed Guaiparmarca/Ocomarca close to the Inka tampu of
Quispicancha, above the Collasuyu road running southward from Cuzco.
The sixteenth-century suit (AGN, TP, L I ~ , C348, 1590 [ I571-901)
concerned land rights to a tract of land named Mayobamba, which was
located on the hillside with Guaiparmarca and Ocomarca. The testimony
recorded during the litigation provides a picture of the prehispanic organi-
zation of land and labor at the hillside site.
In the litigation, the Indians of the pueblo of Guasao claimed prehispanic
rights to the land named Mayobamba which had been given to them for their
service as mitmaq. The mitmaq colonists had been placed at the hilltop site to
serve as a labor force for the Inka state lands which they identified as Guai-
parmarca and Ocomarca. According to tradition passed on from the elders,
these mitmaq were moved there by Topa Inka Yupanqui (ibid. [I5771: 21v).
They had originally been natives of Cuzco (ibid., 37v) and other unidentified
places (ibid., 4or). Witnesses stated that 300 to 400 mitmaq were at this site
in Huayna Capac's time (ibid., 21v, 36r, 37v, 38r, 38v, 40). One account
read:
[Elste testigo vi6 que en tiempo de Guaina Capa Inca que cuatrocientos
indios mitimaes de 10s Incas vivian en un pueblo que llaman Guasao 10s
cuales tenian a cargo la fortaleza e paredones del dicho Inca se llaman
Guaiparmarca y Ocomarca. (ibid., 21v)
(This witness saw that in the time of Huayna Capac Inka, 400 Indian
mitmaq of the Inkas lived in the settlement named Guasao. They had
charge of the fortress and walls of the Inka, named Guaiparmarca and
Ocomarca.)
Mary B. La Lone and Darrell E. La Lone
All witnesses agreed that Guaiparmarca and Ocomarca were lands that
belonged to the Inka (ibid., zIr, zj r , 24r) and were quite distinct from any
lands claimed by the mitmaq of Guasao. This tenure distinction was said to
be a matter of public knowledge (ibid., zzr, zj r , z4r, zj r , 26r, 3 jr, 3%). For
example,
[Elste testigo vi6 que lo que era del Inca e fortaleza suya es solamente 10s
corrales e terrados que llaman Guaiparmarca y Ocomarca y estas son
muy diferentes de las tierras de 10s Indios de Guasao. (ibid., zt r )
([Tlhis witness saw that what belonged to the Inka and his fortress is only
the corrals and lands named Guaiparmarca and Ocomarca and these are
very different from the lands of the Indians of Guasao.)
Similarly, the lands of Guaiparmarca and Ocomarca were said to be distinct
from nearby lands held by the Sun cult (ibid., 34v, 36r, 37r).
The site of Guaiparmarca and Ocomarca contained a fortaleza, walls,
caserones (buildings), terrados (lands), and corralones (enclosures), all be-
longing to the Inka (ibid., Lor, zIr, ZIV, zzr, z3r, z4r, zj r , 34v). The wit-
nesses clearly stressed that the ~ r i n c i ~ a l architectural features on the site were
the fortaleza and walls (ibid., z ~ v , zzr, ZLV, z3r, z4r, 34v) In contrast, less
mention is made of the agricultural lands, suggesting that this was not princi-
pally intended as a production site. Although the witnesses use the term
fortaleza, it is difficult to know whether the structure was actually a fortress
with military functions or if the term reflects a Spanish assumption that the
hilltop structure was defensive. The testimony contains one statement sug-
gesting the structure's use for defense in a pre-Incaic context. An elderly
Indian witness, calling on oral tradition, testified that many times he had
heard the elders say that the fortaleza had been used by the local people to
defend themselves against Viracocha Inka, who nonetheless defeated them
(ibid., 37v).
The mitmaq of pueblo Guasao were said to be in charge of the fortaleza,
walls, lands, and other Inka structures on Guaiparmarca/Ocomarca (ibid.,
zov, ZIV, 34v, 36r, 40r). Although specific duties were not mentioned, this
probably meant that they cared for and maintained the state's structures. In
particular, the emphasis is on their service to the fortaleza and walls. This
suggests possibilities for understanding how the facilities and wall at Raqchi
were maintained also. It seems likely that the mitmaq also had duties in
provisioning the fortaleza by cultivating the terrados, probably irrigated terraces
like those at Raqchi.
Although the witnesses for both sides were clearly in agreement that the
fortaleza, wall, and other structures on Guaiparmarca and Ocomarca belonged
to the Inka, there was a dispute over the tenure of the adjoining tract named
Mayobamba. The mitmaq of pueblo Guasao claimed that they had been
Inka State in Southern Highlands
5 7
given use rights to cultivate Mayobamba, as well as other lands (Pilpinto,
Colca urco, Naue puquio, Chilca puquio) located next to the state lands and
fortaleza. The mitmaq called it a matter of public knowledge (i.e., oral tradi-
tion) that Topa Inka had given them rights to the named lands for their
subsistence (ibid., zj r , 24r, zj r , z6r) in return for their service at the fortaleza.
These rights had been reconfirmed by Huayna Capac (ibid., zzv). However,
some Inka elite witnesses (orejones) indicated that these adjoining lands had
been pastures dedicated to the Sun where llamas were kept (ibid., 34v, 37r,
jgv). As one elderly witness said:
[Dlichas tierras y estancia del Mayobamba fue moyas del sol donde
tenian sus ganados. (Ibid., 37r)
([Tlhese lands of Mayobamba were lands of the sun where they had
their animals.)
From other sixteenth-century sources, we know that the Sun cult often held
tenure rights to pastures located near Inka state lands, and that llamas were
raised for sacrificial use in Sun cult rituals (M. La Lone 198 5). These alter-
native claims, then, suggest that the Sun cult may also have had tenure claims
to some portion of the hillside near the fortaleza. Again, Raqchi is brought to
mind, as another site with temple and administrative functions side by side.
An important point is that this sixteenth-century legal dispute never
challenged the fact that the mitmaq had received usufruct rights to some
hillside lands in return for their service on the state lands of Guaiparmarca/
Ocomarca. In fact, it is clear from the testimony that all witnesses on both
sides agreed that the mitmaq had indeed been given the use of lands to grow
maize and potatoes and to use wood from those lands (AGN, TP, L I ~ ,
C348, 1590 [1577]: 23, 24, zj r , 26r, 36r, 37v, 38r). The disagreement was
only on whether the particular tract of Mayobamba was included in the
assignment to the mitmaq.
The testimony presented in this litigation suggests a pattern similar to
that at Cochabamba and Abancay. This hillside was designated for state
administrative use, in this case as the site for a fortaleza, wall, and related
facilities. Mitmaq were then brought in to care for the state lands and
facilities, and these mitmaq were allotted land use rights to provide for their
own subsistence. In this way the state would not have had to support the
mitmaq working its lands. It is significant that the mitmaq made no claim to
the Inka state lands of Guaiparmarca or Ocomarca, which were "very differ-
ent from the lands of the Indians of Guasao" (ibid., 21, zzr). It is also
significant that no one challenged the mitmaq's claim that they were allotted
use rights to lands to provide for their subsistence, but only challenged the
claim to a specific tract (and the witnesses' statements may have been influ-
enced by the Spaniard challenging the mitmaq for title to Mayobamba; see
5 8
"vlary B. La Lone and Darrell E. La Lone
M. La Lone 1985: 271-81). In this case, too, the Sun cult seems also to have
had land tenure claims to part of the hillside. It would be difficult now, how-
ever, to know whether Mayobamba was held exclusively by the Sun cult or
mitmaq, or whether both parties actually held overlapping rights to different
land uses at different times of the year (a common aspect of the Inka land
tenure system; see M. La Lone 1985). We should not be surprised to find
state and state cult lands and functions closely interrelated at Guaiparmarca/
Ocomarca or other administrative sites, since each may have served equally in
demonstrating the power of the Inka state.
Cochabamba, Abancay and Guaiparmarca/Ocomarca Compared
These documented cases of Inka state enclaves show us an important com-
bination of land and labor arrangements which supported the financial and
administrative needs of an expansionist state. To be sure, our cases are not
meant to be precisely comparable. Cochabamba and Abancay are substantial
state production enclaves explicitly intended to provision Inka military adven-
turism in the northern marches of the empire. Guaiparmarca/Ocomarca gives
us a tantalizing glimpse of how the state organized a more modest center, but
a case no less important to us, since it may be more representative of the state
mobilization system. Although they differ in scale, our cases seem to present
some common features:
I. The state expropriated sites commanding critical resources or strategic
positions and created enclaves by removing the local population and replacing
it with mitmaq colonists from other regions of Tawantinsuyu. These state
lands were recognized as distinct from lands held by either mitmaq or the Sun
cult, and this tenure distinction was recorded through oral tradition and public
knowledge. On lands secured by this tenure distinction, the state invested
labor toward building administrative centers and irrigation systems needed for
agricultural intensification.
2. The labor for these state-organized enclaves was assigned to resident
mitmaq populations. The mitmaq, brought in from distant locations and
resettled near an enclave, provided a permanent labor force which had advan-
tages of stability and fulltime exclusive service to the state. Additional mit'a
labor was used at Cochabamba, but was not mentioned for the smaller sites
of Abancay and Guaiparmarca/Ocomarca.
3. The Inka state provided the mitmaq with usufruct privileges to cul-
tivate and forage on lands adjacent to state lands. In this way, mitmaq sub-
sistence was assured with little cost to the state, and the Inka showed his
"generosity" by providing land privileges. This may have been mutually
understood as a reciprocal relationship, in which the mitmaq received usu-
fruct in return for services given to the state. In the cases discussed, everyone
recognized the fact that usufruct privileges had been allotted to mitmaq, even
when they disagreed on the particular tract allotted. Tenure distinctions be-
59
Inka Srate in Sourhern Highlands
tween state lands and mitmaq usufruct privileges were recorded through oral
tradition.
4. The records on all three cases indicate concurrence of oral traditions
that these particular state land enclaves date to the time of Topa Inka Yupan-
qui, and in Cochabamba enclave organization expanded during the adminis-
tration of Huayna Capac. In the Cochabamba and Abancay cases, witnesses
in the litigation testified that products from these state enclaves went into the
state storehouses and were used to support state ventures. More specifically,
the Cochabamba and Abancay documents tell us that Huayna Capac was
using each enclave's production to support the war in Tomebamba.
Conclusions
Our discussion began with Garcilaso's depiction of an Inka ruler who seems
to have decided that although he could "devote so much time to the quiet
enjoyment of peace without giving an opportunity for martial exercise," it
would be wrong. In its brief history, the Inka empire had little time for quiet
enjoyment of peace. It emerged from a legendary war in which the stones
themselves were mobilized as Inka allies against the Chanka. Then, according
to theofficial version of Inka history recorded by Betanzos (1924 [ I ~ S I ] (XIII):
I ~ z ) , the Inka Pachacutec generously traded gifts and feasts for the labor of
local lords so that "none of them would ever rebel, and between them and the
city of Cuzco there would be eternal friendship and confederation."
The realities of Inka political economy are encapsulated in this very
image of a population being mobilized under threat of war and the promise
of gifts to perform monumental works for the state. The Inka, with good
reason, feared rebellion and attempted to forestall it with "generosity." The
fact is, however, that rebellions did occur repeatedly, and it seems likely that
the empire was afforded little enjoyment of peace without opportunity for
martial exercise.
The cases we have examined document how the state commanded sub-
stantial amounts of land as well as labor. The Inka state's power to extract,
and at the very same time to proclaim its generosity, was the source of its
strength. Faced with financing political expansion as well as maintaining
order in the empire, the state seems to have placed increasing emphasis on
developing institutional landholding and the mitmaq labor system. By com-
bining these land and labor arrangements, as in our examples, the state created
administrative and production enclaves staffed with permanent, fulltime care-
takers and cultivators. One type of enclave provided multiple kinds of military
and administrative functions for the state. Walled fortalezas, even small ones
such as Guaiparmarca/Ocomarca, may have been important simply as a daily
reminder of the state's presence. Another type of enclave, production sites
such as Cochabamba and Abancay, provided the state with financial support
60 Mar yB. La Lone and Darrell E. La Lone
beyond what it obtained through the traditional mit' a tribute system. The
Cochabamba and Abancay examples demonstrate the use of a mobilization
economy in thelast years of theInka empiret osupport substantial military
exercises in thenorth.
Our study sites, while different in sizeand functions, reveal somecom-
mon organizational features in Inka state facilities. We might, then, expect
t o find similar combinations of land and labor arrangements-state lands,
mitmaq labor, and mitmaq usufruct privileges-at other Inka installations,
ranging fromextensivecenterssuchasCochabambat osmaller, moremodest
centerssuch as Guaiparmarca/Ocomarca. Further exploration of statel and/
laborstrategiesadvancesourunderstandingof thespecificprocessesof growth
andchangeinthemobilizationeconomy.
Notes
I Thesiteof Guaiparmarca/Ocomarca discussedindocuments maybethearchaeo-
logical site known as Tipon, and if not, Guaiparmarca/Ocomarca is another
walledhilltop sitenot fartothenorthwestof Tipon.
References
BallesterosGaibrois, Manuel
1979
Mito,leyenda,tergiversacibnentornoaCachayel "templo" deRacchi.
HistoriayCultura 12:7-26. Lima.
Betanzos,Juande
1924
[ I ~ S I ] Sumaynaracion de10s Incas.ColecciondeLibrosyDocumentos
ReferentesalaHistoriadel Peru,8.
ChavezBallon,Manuel
1963
El sitio de Raqchi en San Pedrode Cacha. Revista Peruana de Cultura
I: 105-11. Lima.
CiezadeLeon,Pedro
1959
[1553] The Incas of Pedro de Cieza de Leon. Harriet de Onis, trans.
VictorVon Hagen,ed.Norman: Universityof OklahomaPress.
D'Altroy, TerenceN.
1981 EmpireGrowthandConsolidation:theXauxa Regionof Peruunderthe
Incas. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
California, LosAngeles.AnnArbor: UniversityMicrofilms.
Earle,TimothyK. andTerenceN.D'Altroy
1982 StorageFacilitiesand StateFinance in the Upper MantaroValley, Peru.
I n ContextsforPrehistoricExchange.Jonathon E. EricsonandTimothy
K. Earle,eds. Pp. 265-90. New York:AcademicPress.
Earle,TimothyK., TerenceN. D'Altroy, CatherineJ.LeBlanc,ChristineA. Hastorf,
andTerryY. LeVine
1980 Changing SettlementPatterns in theUpper MantaroValley, Peru.Jour-
nal of New WorldArchaeology4:1. Institute of Archaeology,University
of California,LosAngeles.
InkaStatein Southern Highlands
Espinoza Soriano, Waldemar
1973
Coloniasdemitmas multiples enAbancay,siglos XVyXVI. Revista del
MuseoNacional 39:225-299. Lima.
GarcilasodelaVega
1966 [1609]Royal Commentaries of the Incas and General History of Peru,
PartsIand11.H.V. Livermore, trans. Austin:University of TexasPress.
Gas~ar i ni . Graziano. andLuiseMargolies
1$80 ' Inca~rchi t ect ure. PatriGaJ. Lyon, trans. Bloomington:Indiana Univer-
sity Press.
La Lone,Darrell E.
1982 TheIncaasaNonmarket Economy: SupplyonCommandVersusSupply
andDemand. In ContextsforPrehistoricExchange. Jonathon E. Ericson
andTimothyK. Earle,eds. Pp. 291-316. NewYork: AcademicPress.
La Lone, MaryB.
1985
Indian Land Tenure in Southern Cuzco, Peru: From Inca t o Colonial
Patterns. Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, University of
California, LosAngeles. Ann Arbor:University Microfilms.
Morales,Adolfode,comp.
1977
Repartimiento de tierras por el Inca Huayna Capac (Testimonio de
un Documento de I556).Cochabamba, Bolivia: Universidad Boliviana
Mayor de San Simon, Departamento de Arqueologia, Museo Arqueo-
Iogico.
Morris, Craig
1967
Storage in Tawantinsuyu. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department
of Anthropology, University of Chicago. Ann Arbor: University Micro-
films.
1972
StateSettlementsinTawantinsuyu:AStrategyof CompulsoryUrbanism.
In Contemporary Archaeology. Mark P. Leone, ed. Pp. 393-401 Car-
bondale: SouthernIllinoisUniversity Press.
1974
Reconstructing Patterns of Non-agricultural Production in the Inca
Economy. In Reconstructing Complex Societies. C. B. Moore, ed. Pp.
49-60. Chicago:AmericanSchoolof OrientalResearch.
1982 TheInfrastructureof Inka Control in the Peruvian Central Highlands.
In TheInca and Aztec States, 1400-1800: Anthropology and History.
George A. Collier, Renato I. Rosaldo, and John D. Wirth, eds. Pp.
153-71. NewYork:AcademicPress.
Murra,John V.
1980 [1956] TheEconomic Organization of the Inka State. Greenwich, CT:
JAIPress.
1982 TheMit'a Obligations of Ethnic Groupst othe Inka State.In TheInca
and Aztec States, 1400-1800: Anthropology and History. George A.
Collier, Renato I. Rosaldo, andJohn D. Wirth, eds. Pp. 237-62. New
York: AcademicPress.
Pardo. Luis A.
1937
Exposicion delasruinasdelsantuariodeHuiraccocha. Revista del Insti-
tutoArqueol6gicodelCusco,atio ~ ( 2 ) : 3-32.
PolodeOndegardo,Juan
1916-17 [ I S ~ I ]Relaci6n de 10s fundarnentos acerca del notable datio que
resulta de no guardar a 10s indios sus fueros. Horacio Urteaga, ed.
Colecci6n de Libros y Documentos Referentes a la Historia del Peru,
Ser. I, Vol. 3.Lima: Sanmarti.
~blaryB. La Lone and Darrell E. La Lone
Sahlins, Marshall
1972
Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Aldine.
Vaca de Castro, Cristbbal
1908 [1543]Ordenanzas de tambos. Revista Historica 3: 427-92.Lima.
Wachtel, Nathan
1982 The Mitimas of the Cochabamba Valley: The Colonization Policy of
Huayna Capac. In The Inca and Aztec States 1400-I800:Anthropology
and History. George A. Collier, Renato I. Rosaldo, and John D. Wirth,
eds. Pp. 199-235.New York: Academic Press.
Manuscripts Cited
For Guaiparmarca/Ocomarca:
Peru, Archivo General de la Nacibn, Titulos de Propiedad, Leg. 13,Cuad. 348,1590
[1571-901.
Titulos de la estancia y tierras de Mayobamba, en terminos del asiento de
Quiquijana . . .
Selected passages published in:
La Lone, Mary B.
1985
Indian Land Tenure in Southern Cuzco, Peru: From Inca to Colonial
Patterns. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
California, Los Angeles. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.
For Cochabamba:
Bolivia, Archivo Hist6rico de Cochabamba, AR 1570.
[ I S ~ O ]
Repartimiento de tierras por el Inca Huayna Capac.
Published on pages 19-31in:
Morales, Adolfo de, comp.
1977
Repartimiento de tierras por el Inca Huayna Capac (Testimonio de un
Documento de 1556).Cochabamba, Bolivia: Universidad Boliviana
Mayor de San Simon, Departamento de Arqueologia, Museo Arqueo-
16gico.
For Abancay:
Peru, Archivo General de la Nacibn, Propiedad Rlistica y Urbano, Leg. 2,Cuad. 25,
1575.
Informacibn sobre las chacaras de coca, aji, algodbn y otros frutos
que cultivan 10s mitimaes del valle de Pachachaca en la provincia de
Abancay . . .
Published on pp. 267-95in:
Espinoza Soriano, Waldemar
1973
Colonias de mitmas multiples en Abancay, siglos XV y XVI. Revista del
Museo Nacional (Lima) 39:27-5-99.