A Network Analysis of Inka Roads, Administrative Centers, and

Storage Facilities
David Jenkins

Ethnohistory, Volume 48, Number 4, Fall 2001, pp. 655-687 (Article)

Published by Duke University Press

For additional information about this article

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/eth/summary/v048/48.4jenkins.html

Access provided by Illinois @ Chicago, Univ Of (23 Feb 2014 17:25 GMT)
A Network Analysis of Inka Roads, Administrative
Centers, 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 the
analysis of the Inka road network. It proposes that the Inka built storage facilities
and/or administrative centers at regions of high centrality and at regions of low
centrality, based on the structural properties of two different exchange networks.
These networks were themselves based on staple finance and on wealth finance. The
article concludes with a discussion of how network models may prove useful for
the 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 of
both highland and coastal communities under Inka rule. In the archaeo-
logical and historical literature on the Inka there are numerous references
to the favorable network position of regional administrative centers, such
as 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, by
further archaeological and historical investigation that focuses on the eco-
nomic and communicative links between points in the road network, and
theoretically, by the application of appropriate models for the analysis of
network position. Given Topic and Topic’s () stimulating discussion of
network position in coast-highland relations in northern Peru and given the
many references to the relative locational advantage of Inka sites through-
out the Inka empire, it is somewhat surprising that network analysis has
been rarely undertaken by Andeanists. Although subsystems of exchange
have been of great interest to archaeologists (e.g., Shimada ; Browman
et al. ; Aldenderfer ), and although there have been significant ad-
vances in understanding and classifying the kinds of exchange relations that
have developed among various ecological zones (e.g., Murra ; Mayer
; Brush ; Salomon ), the global properties of Inka exchange
networks have not been well analyzed.
Recent studies of networks, centrality, and exchange relations that
focus on other parts of the world provide clear theoretical motivation for
undertaking a network analysis for Inka exchange relations. One must
cite 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 of
Lapita exchange; Peregrine’s () discussion of the relative centrality of
Cahokia sites in the Mississippi River drainage; Hage and Harary’s ()
development of centrality models for the analysis of voyaging and exchange
in western Micronesia; Santley’s () analysis of network connectivity in
the Aztec road system; Milicic’s () demonstration of the relation be-
tween network position and social stratification in eastern Adriatic ports
between 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 order
to calculate the relative network position of fifty-four Inka sites scattered
along the Inka road network. The analytical advantage of such measures
for studying the Inka road network and its associated facilities is that they
allow for the precise characterization of the relative centrality of every
point in the network, which in turn provides the basis for analyzing other
significant factors in the organization of local sites, such as population size
and 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, based

on 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 an

anomalous early state (Bauer ) of about twenty thousand people with a
fairly simple social organization based on kinship ties and ruling hereditary
chiefs. Initially their territory was limited, centered on what would become
the 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 some
eighty distinct polities into the Inka state. These conquered groups included
other expansive empires, such as the highly socially stratified Chimu on the
north 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 many
people, for example, the , to , Wanka who lived in the
Xauxa 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, cloth
production, metal working, and pottery making. Others remained on their
lands but were required to participate in a system of rotating labor assessed
at the household level. This rotating labor, called mit’a, involved traveling
far from one’s community to farm, mine, weave, build roads, or participate
in other state-oriented activities (Murra ; Wachtel ; LeVine ).
Extracting both labor and tribute, the Inka constructed a vast road
system centered on Cuzco that connected coastal and highland regions and
stretched some thirty-two hundred kilometers from Quito in the north to
Santiago in the south. All together there were more than thirty thousand
kilometers of Inka roads, which linked twelve million subjects, allowed for
their 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 with
important 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 ).

Inka Roads, Administrative Centers, and Storage Facilities 

finance provided the means to tie local elites of conquered groups to the
Inka political economy ( D’Altroy and Earle ). Staple finance resulted
in various storage complexes scattered throughout the empire, the con-
tents of which—maize, chicha (maize beer), coca, hot peppers, cloth and
clothing, sandals, pottery, weapons, and so on—were used to pay for state
activities, including military excursions, elaborate ceremonial displays of
Inka 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 twelve
and fifteen thousand persons, most of whom were not permanent residents
(Morris : ; Morris and Thompson , : ).2 Wealth finance,
by contrast, was based on easily transportable, high-prestige objects, such
as 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 by
a ruling elite, the Inka. Local access to land, water, and other resources
was granted in exchange for local labor, which produced surplus subsis-
tence goods on state-owned lands. Individual communities and individual
households within them were allowed to maintain their own productive
self-sufficiency, provided that they participated in the mit’a, the system of
rotating labor that generated state surpluses (see Murra  [], ).
In this system, local descent groups (ayllus) were obligated to provide each
year 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 ). One
of 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 centers
required the construction of storage complexes and administrative facili-
ties to govern them (Morris ). Hatun Xuaxa, for example, had about
twenty-seven hundred individual storage units in its vicinity with overall
storage capacities estimated at more than , cubic meters (D’Altroy
and Earle ). Goods flowed into and were stored at regional centers,
such as Hatun Xuaxa, Huánuco Pampa, and Pumpu, but rarely flowed
from regional storage center to regional storage center (Morris , ,
).
The extent of storage astonished the Spanish conquistadors and later
chroniclers. Pedro Pizarro ( []: ) thought that the supplies were
so extensive that they could never in his lifetime be exhausted. Pedro San-
cho de la Hoz ( [–]: –), one of Francisco Pizarro’s men, noted
of 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 and
other arms of diverse types, and clothing for soldiers assembled here
from all parts of the land subject to the Lords of Cuzco. . . . [There
are] storehouses full of textiles, wool, arms, metal and clothes, and of
all things grown and made in their land. There are storehouses where
the tributes brought by the vassals to the lords are kept, and there is a
house 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 and
breastplates to provision the soldiers, in such quantity that reason is
inadequate to understand how they could give such a great tribute of
so many and diverse things. (Morris : –; his translation)

One conservative estimate of the total volume of storage throughout the

empire is one to two million cubic meters (Morris : ; see also Murra
 [] for a discussion of historical sources on state storage).
Staple finance is fairly common for chiefdom-level societies and early
states. 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 relatively
small, geographically compact polities. When polities based on staple
finance are geographically extensive, however, they must be decentralized,
simply because of the exorbitant costs of transporting heavy and bulky
subsistence goods to a single center. A number of subcenters are required
to store and disburse such goods. When decentralized, however, societies
based on staple finance are politically vulnerable: Local administrators in
charge of an independent source of wealth could easily fund a rebellion.
The Inka used several mechanisms to forestall rebellion. First, the
overall administrative structure of the empire was hierarchical: Each re-
gional center answered directly to Cuzco. Each local community similarly
answered directly to its regional center. Officials in this hierarchy, often
recruited from local elites, had jurisdiction over, in descending order, ten
thousand heads of households, five thousand heads of households, one
thousand, five hundred, one hundred, fifty, and ten (Means : ; Rowe
: ; Niles : ). In return for their labors, officials of these
groups of households were granted various rights and privileges, including
the expectation of receiving status markers, such as fine cloth appropriate
to the official’s position in the hierarchy. As the span of control is quite
small, six officials or fewer, the flow of information is reasonably efficient.
Inka Roads, Administrative Centers, and Storage Facilities 

With this system the Inka intended to control communication and to pre-
clude the exchange of both goods and information between communities
and between regional centers, thus emphasizing vertical ties at the expense
of horizontal ties (D’Altroy ). (There was some variation in the hier-
archical structure, especially on the peripheries of the empire, where the
number 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 kilometers
from their homes. The result was a form of internal colonization, which
produced in state farms, regional centers, and in the capital at Cuzco a
social mosaic in which individual ethnic identities were maintained. Those
from the same locations lived together in ethnic settlements, maintaining
their languages and styles of dress (Murra  []; Wachtel ).
The third and perhaps most important means to avoid conflict was
a form of wealth based on relatively lightweight, easy-to-transport, high-
prestige goods, which were given to regional and local leaders in exchange
for their continued allegiance (Murra ,  [], ; Morris ;
Wachtel ; D’Altroy and Earle ; LeVine ).
This form of exchange, called wealth finance, also flowed through the
Inka road network but transcended regional boundaries and regional cen-
ters. It was oriented toward the transportation of status objects, such as
Spondylus shells from the north coast, bird feathers from the eastern tropi-
cal regions, fine cloth spun from llama and alpaca wool from the central
highlands, and gold, silver, and copper from various highland and coastal
locations, all of which were sent to Cuzco. Inkan wealth finance was pri-
marily based on mitmaq labor, that is, on the work of permanent state
laborers, 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 central
storage of status goods, and the centralized system of redistribution com-
bined to bring wealth finance directly under state control. By rewarding
local and regional officials with fine cloth, for instance, the Inka intended
to tie their economic well-being directly to the Inka state (Murra ). In
general, however, high-prestige goods, as markers of social status, allowed
elites access to subsistence goods but could not be exchanged for subsis-
tence goods (Earle ). Staple finance and wealth finance thus circulated
in 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 and
many (perhaps as many as two thousand) intermediate way stations, called
tampu. In this system, goods were regionally stable, while people were mo-
bile; the military, royal retinues, mit’a laborers, and so on moved through
the road network and had their subsistence needs supplied along the way.
The other circuit of exchange was empire-wide and was based on the move-
ment of lightweight, high-prestige goods into and then out of Cuzco. As
Murra () and Morris () have suggested, long-distance movement
itself probably conferred added value to the already high-prestige goods.

Centrality: Basic Definitions

As defined in Harary () and Hage and Harary (, ), a graph is
a mathematical structure consisting of a set of points, pairs of which are
joined by lines. Formally, in set theoretic terms, a graph G consists of a
finite 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 line
of G; e consequently joins u and v. In this notation, e = uv, which means
that u and v are adjacent points and that point u and line e are incident with
each other, as are point v and line e. If two distinct lines are incident with
a 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 connected
if every pair of points is joined by a path. A labeled graph is one that has
numbers  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 depends
upon 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 of
a site. For the Inka road network, degree centrality sums the number of
roads incident with, that is, connected to, an administrative center or stor-
age complex. Sites with high degree centrality have the potential for the
greatest 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 lengths
of the shortest paths between a point and all other points in a connected
graph. The shortest paths are called geodesics. This measure is used as an
Inka Roads, Administrative Centers, and Storage Facilities 

index of the efficiency of communication or exchange, based on the idea

that 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 other
center 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 thick
of things, as it were; sites with high closeness centrality, by contrast, are
relatively marginal.
Betweenness centrality refers to the frequency that each point on a
geodesic occurs between all pairs of points. Central points, proportionally
more frequent on the paths between points, have a greater potential for
the control of communication or exchange between all points. Betweenness
centrality 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 between
any 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 and
complex Inka road network is first needed in order to calculate the relative
centrality 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 specific
administrative, storage, or other sites, which are summarized in Table. For
example, number  stands for Huamachuco,  for Hatun Xuaxa,  for
Cuzco. Figure  shows the two primary roads—the roughly north-south
road 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 (), are
included 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 Castro
Cavellero ( []: ), and Hyslop (), nor to include the many
Inka 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.
Inka Roads, Administrative Centers, and Storage Facilities 

Table . Degree centrality of administrative sites, productive enclaves, storage

centers, and way stations (adapted from Snead )

# Storage Degree
Site Units Facilities Roads centrality
1. Quito ? extensive primary 1
2. Paradones 38 extensive secondary 2
3. Ingapirca ? large tampu primary 2
4. Tomebamba ? extensive primary 2
5. Huancapampa ? tampu primary 3
6. Cajamarca ? extensive primary 4
7. Chachapoyas 23 large tampu secondary 2
8. Huamachuco 144 extensive? primary 4
9. Taparaku 20 tampu primary 2
10. Huánuco Pampa 496 extensive primary/junction 4
11. Tunsukancha 24 tampu primary 2
12. Pumpu 325 extensive primary/junction 3
13. Chacamarca 118 large tampu primary/junction 3
14. La Cima, Telarnoij 32 tampu primary 2
15. Tarma 38 large tampu primary 2
16. Hatun Xuaxa and 2,726 extensive primary/junction 4
Mantaro Valley
17. Vilcas Huaman ? extensive primary 4
18. Cuzco ? extensive primary 3
19. Raqchi 40 extensive primary 3
20. Hatunqolla ? extensive primary 4
21. Chuquiabo ? ? primary 3
22. Paria (Anocariri) ? extensive primary 4
23. Cotapachi 2,400 domestic secondary 2
24. Kullku Tampu 4 tampu secondary 2
25. Kharalaus Pampa 80 tampu secondary 2
26. Pocona 21 tampu secondary 3
27. Tumuyo 63 domestic? secondary 1
28. Inkallajta 20 extensive secondary 1
29. Yacoraite 4 tampu primary 4
30. Inkahuasi ? tampu primary 3
31. Aqua Hedionda 103 tampu secondary 1
32. Campo del Pucara 1,717 domestic? secondary 2
33. Corral Blanco 19 tampu primary 2
34. Portrero de ? extensive primary 2
Payogasta
35. Hualfin 23 tampu secondary 1
36. Navado del ? extensive primary 3
Aconquija
 David Jenkins

Table . Continued

# Storage Degree
Site Units Facilities Roads centrality
37. Ranchillos ? tampu primary 3
38. Tamillitos ? tampu primary 2
39. Santiago ? ? secondary 2
40. Tumbes ? ? primary 2
41. Chiquitoy Viejo ? extensive primary 4
42. Pachacamac ? pre-Inka primary 3
43. Centenila ? extensive primary 3
44. Inkawasi 202 extensive secondary 2
45. Tambo Colorado 5 large tampu secondary 3
46. Tambo Viejo 40 extensive secondary 3
47. Culluma Baja 46 none secondary 2
48. Inka Tampu 25 tampu secondary 2
49. Millpu 16 none secondary 2
50. Quebrada de la 27 large tampu primary 4
Vaca
51. Camata 43 tampu secondary 2
52. Turi ? extensive primary 2
53. Catarpe ? extensive primary 2
54. Capis-Cerrellos 200 ? primary/junction 3

portant role in the road network have been included, however, such as Cen-
tinela (Rostworowski ; Wallace ), Chiquitoy Viejo (Conrad ),
and Catarpe (Lynch ), which functioned as control points in the flow
of goods from the coast to the highlands. Some sites that are geographically
close to one another are treated as one point, such as the tampu La Cima
and Telarnoij, and the administrative center Hatun Xuaxa and the stor-
age complexes in the Mantaro valley. Other economically important sites
are not included, for example, royal estates along the Urubamba/Vilcanota
river valley near Cuzco (Niles ) such as Ollantaytambo (Protzen ).
The intention is not to provide an encyclopedic account of Inka sites but to
construct a model, necessarily simplified, of the Inka road network, and to
study its properties.
Table , adapted from Snead (), shows the relative degree cen-
trality of fifty-four sites throughout the Inka empire. Snead classifies the
forty-four sites he discusses as lying on primary roads, secondary roads, or
on primary road junctions. The advantage of using degree centrality, rather
than 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
Inka Roads, Administrative Centers, and Storage Facilities 

central sites are the following: Cajamarca, Huamachuco, Huánuco Pampa,

Hatun Xuaxa, Vilcas Huaman, Hatunqolla, Paria (Anocariri), Chiquitoy
Viejo, Yacoraite, and Quebrada de la Vaca. These are all major Inka admin-
istrative or storage centers, with the exceptions of Yacoraite (point ), a
small 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 that
controlled the flow of information or goods between coast and sierra
(Conrad ). Anocariri (point ), a site eight kilometers west-northwest
of modern-day Paria, Bolivia, was probably associated with the Inka pro-
vincial capital of the same name (Cieza de León  []: ) through
which 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 (Gasparini
and 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 Inka
administration (Topic and Topic ; Topic and Chiswell ).
Degree centrality, as an index of exchange or communicative activity,
appears to capture the locational importance of many but not all major Inka
sites. Cuzco (point ), Pumpu (point ), Tomebamba (point ), and Quito
(point ), for example, were significant storage or administrative centers but
do not have the highest degree centrality. Other centrality, network, envi-
ronmental, or cultural variables may have contributed to their importance
in the overall road network.
Table  compares measures of closeness and betweenness centrality.
Closeness centrality measures the relative efficiency with which a center
can communicate with any other center. As a site’s geodesics (shortest
paths between it and all other points) increase in length, the centrality of
that 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 central
site, 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 control
the 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 Betweenness
Site centrality Rank centrality Rank
1. Quito 572 51 0.00 50=
2. Paradones 520 50 52.00 42
3. Ingapirca 470 48 102.00 33
4. Tomebamba 422 45 200.00 28
5. Huancapampa 376 35= 296.67 18
6. Cajamarca 334 25 306.83 17
7. Chachapoyas 376 35= 31.17 43
8. Huamachuco 335 26 216.83 25
9. Taparaku 380 37 7.50 47
10. Huánuco Pampa 383 38= 57.00 41
11. Tunsukancha 425 46 1.67 49
12. Pumpu 378 36 91.00 35
13. Chacamarca 354 30 171.00 30
14. La Cima, Telarnoij 330 23 219.67 24
15. Tarma 298 16 282.67 21
16. Hatun Xuaxa, Mantaro Valley 258 4 1029.58 3
17. Vilcas Huaman 245 2 1157.91 1
18. Cuzco 243 1 1135.33 2
19. Raqchi 261 5 844.08 5
20. Hatunqolla 269 8 312.25 16
21. Chuquiabo 277 10 585.91 9
22. Paria (Anocariri) 286 13 981.42 4
23. Cotapachi 328 22 470.00 11
24. Kullku Tampu 372 34 384.00 13
25. Kharalaus Pampa 481 44 294.00 19
26. Pocona 466 47 202.00 27
27. Tumuyo 518 49= 0.00 50=
28. Inkallajta 518 49= 0.00 50=
29. Yacoraite 315 20 553.92 10
30. Inkahuasi 352 29 213.25 26
31. Aqua Hedionda 404 42 0.00 50=
32. Campo del Pucara 383 38= 93.25 34
33. Corral Blanco 356 31 138.17 32
34. Portrero de Payogasta 393 40 72.42 39
35. Hualfin 367 33 0.00 50=
36. Navado del Aconquija 361 32 195.83 29
37. Ranchillos 394 41 74.17 38
38. Tamillitos 411 43 16.25 45
39. Santiago 390 39 64.33 40
40. Tumbes 344 28 156.00 31
Inka Roads, Administrative Centers, and Storage Facilities 

Table . Continued

Closeness Betweenness
Site centrality Rank centrality Rank
41. Chiquitoy Viejo 302 17 783.67 7
42. Pachacamac 278 11 823.00 6
43. Centenila 282 12 219.75 23
44. Inkawasi 305 18 3.67 48
45. Tambo Colorado 266 7 259.42 22
46. Tambo Viejo 263 6 287.92 20
47. Culluma Baja 311 19 29.50 44
48. Inka Tampu 331 24 8.50 46
49. Millpu 293 15 77.00 37
50. Quebrada de la Vaca 256 3 586.83 8
51. Camata 276 9 79.33 36
52. Turi 290 14 416.58 12
53. Catarpe 320 21 362.58 14
54. 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 relatively
more between all other sites. This measure shows which sites are advanta-
geously located to act as intermediaries. Vilcas Huaman ranks the highest in
betweenness 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 as
an intermediary.
The central location of Cuzco, confirmed by two different centrality
measures, is especially noteworthy: It has the highest centrality in terms
of the relative efficiency with which it could communicate with any other
point in the network and the second highest centrality in terms of its ability
to control the flow of information or goods between any two points. Such
relative 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 from
Cuzco 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 control

the flow of information throughout the empire. The famed chasques (Cobo
 []: –), messengers stationed at regular intervals along the
road network, are a spectacular example of this control. Cobo, impressed
by the speed with which messages could travel from point to point, noted
that orders from Cuzco could be sent to Quito and return to Cuzco in ten
or twelve days. Cieza de León ( []: ), similarly impressed, noted
that ‘‘in this way the lords were informed of everything that occurred in
their kingdom and dominion and [thereby] determined what appeared to
be in their best interests.’’ Cuzco’s central location facilitated such infor-
mational control.
The main storage/administrative site with high centrality is Hatun
Xuaxa (point ), which had , storage units near the administrative
center itself and in the surrounding Mantaro valley. Hatun Xuaxa ranks
first 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 high
centrality. Cotapachi, with , storage units, ranks twenty-second in
closeness centrality and eleventh in betweenness centrality. Campo del Pu-
cara, with , storage units, ranks thirty-eighth in closeness centrality
and thirty-fourth in betweenness centrality. Neither of these two major
sites have the grand administrative complexes found in the highlands north
of Cuzco. Low centrality may partially account for why large adminis-
trative complexes are not associated with either Cotapachi or Campo del
Pucara.
The Inka appear to have constructed massive storage complexes at
two 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 demographic
characteristics of Huánuco Pampa, which had no permanent population
and 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 areas
of 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
Inka Roads, Administrative Centers, and Storage Facilities 

demographic variables in the location and construction of storage sites in

the highlands.
The hypothesis that highland storage was greatest at the two extremes
of network centrality may be tested by archaeological investigation at Inka
centers such as Chuquiabo, Tomebamba, and Quito, listed in early Spanish
reports as important storage sites (e.g., Cieza de León  []). Chu-
quiabo ranks first in degree, tenth in closeness, and ninth in betweenness
centrality. By contrast, Tomebamba and Quito both have very low centrality
and were thus relatively independent from the influence of any other cen-
ter.3 Inka sites at these locations, however, are buried under the modern
cities of La Paz, Cuenca, and Quito, making confirmation or disconfirma-
tion of this hypothesis difficult. How many storage units are associated
with these sites is unknown and perhaps unknowable. In these instances,
however, administrative complexes and storage centers probably existed
together.

Prestige Goods

Prestige goods, as part of the system of wealth finance, also circulated

through the road network. Spondylus shells, honey, tropical wood, birds
and bird feathers, fine cloth, gold, silver, copper, and in some instances
maize flowed into Cuzco, and some portion was redistributed to regional
and local elites (Cobo  []: ). Figure  shows a digraph of this
exchange 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  []: ). Called
mullu in Quechua, Spondylus shells and the objects fashioned from them
held great religious significance for the Inka (Murra ; Rostworowski
, ). They appear in many pre-Inka sites in the northern and cen-
tral Andes and may have entered into central Andean exchange networks as
early as  .. (Paulsen ). Spondylus was not a significant trade item
in the preceramic period, however; only a few instances of its preceramic
occurrence in the highlands have been documented (Rick : ).
The habitat of two Pacific species of Spondylus, Spondylus princeps and
Spondylus calcifer, range from the Gulf of Guayaguil in Ecuador to the Gulf
of California. Both species live in waters twenty-five to sixty meters deep
(Marcos ). As Murra () notes, millions of Spondylus must have
been 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 from Tumbes to the highlands. In
 David Jenkins

terms of wealth finance, then, Tumbes and the road that linked it with the
sierra were particularly important. Cobo ( []: –) noted that
the road from Tumbes to the sierra was one of the two most significant
lateral 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 part
on its network position in the system of wealth finance. Although Tumbes
has relatively low centrality in the Inka road network, its removal would
have effectively cut off the flow, or at least much of the flow, of Spondylus to
the highlands. As an outer point in the system of wealth finance, Tumbes’s
importance 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 the
system of wealth finance. Turi (point ), for example, was an Inka adminis-
trative center that controlled the flow of precious metals from the Atacama
desert 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 Inka
administrative centers were built and located according to environmental,
demographic, cultural, and political criteria. Lynch (: ) suggests
another possibility:
I am tempted to turn the usual interpretation around and visualize the
Inca road as a connector of administrative centers, rather than of the
nuclei of densest population, which often lay a bit off to the side on
lateral access routes (Lynch : ). Following this line of reasoning,
we might expect the administrative centers to be built more according
to 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 invasion
and destruction of the Inca core.’’
Catarpe was a site where copper (Lynch : ) and perhaps other
precious materials (Niemeyer and Schiappacasse ) were worked for
Inka purposes and then sent to Cuzco via Turi. It may have also been an
intermediate station for controlling the flow of precious goods from the
Inka Roads, Administrative Centers, and Storage Facilities 

Copiapó valley, although this seems unlikely, given the harsh desert envi-
ronment south of Catarpe (Hyslop : –) and the alternate route
from the Copiapó valley to the highlands. Lynch argues that Catarpe’s stra-
tegic location and classical Inka design can be understood best in terms of
an exchange network. The question is what kind of network.
Catarpe’s location and design and Tumbes’s location and importance
suggest a hypothesis about network position in terms of the Inka-imposed
system 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 network
position, rather than demographic or environmental variables, may account
for the location of smaller administrative centers along the coast—a point
suggested by Lynch (: ). Figure  shows Catarpe and Tumbes as
endpoints of such an exchange network.
This hypothesis can be tested by investigating other sites at endpoints
in the Inka road network. In the northeastern highlands of Peru, Chacha-
poyas (point ), for example, ranks thirty-fifth in closeness centrality and
forty-third in betweenness centrality. It was a region of Inka interest be-
cause of its proximity to tropical prestige goods, such as feathers and exotic
wood. 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 control
of the region’s gold and silver mines (Gonzalez ). Hualfin comprises
seventy structures, twenty-three (Snead : ) to thirty-three (Gonzalez
: ) of which were storage units. Gonzalez (: ) shows Hualfin
as 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 small
administrative 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 Valley
may 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 shell
was 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 wealth
finance.
Inka Roads, Administrative Centers, and Storage Facilities 

manufactured wealth was exported from the valley, presumably to Cuzco

as 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 locations
of high centrality and at highland locations of low centrality. These re-
quirements included the capacity to feed, clothe, and otherwise care for
the 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, storage
facilities without associated major administrative complexes were built in
locations of low centrality—for example, Campo del Pucara. Tomebamba
and 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 smaller
administrative complexes with no or little storage capacity at locations of
low 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-distance
movement itself conferred added value to prestige goods. Network position
thus reinforced ideology.
These two distinct circuits of exchange correspond to what Earle and
D’Altroy (), following Hassig (: –), call strategies of terri-
torial control and strategies of hegemonic control. They argue that Inka
imperial power is best conceptualized as a continuum of strategies, with
hegemonic control at one end and territorial control at the other:

With hegemonic control, the core Inka polity ruled indirectly, through
clients who retained considerable autonomy in management of local
affairs, 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 of
such hegemonic relationships were found in the relatively low costs of
control 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. Control
was high, permitting a high level of extraction, but the degree of inter-
vention was tempered by the high costs of direct administration. (Earle
and D’Altroy : )

Hegemonic control requires minimal administrative investment. The

intent 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 welfare
of local populations directly to the state. In the Inka empire, territorial
control was strongest in the central highlands between Cuzco and Quito,
where there were large populations and high agricultural productivity, and
weakest along the northern and southern coasts and in the eastern tropical
regions. Wealth finance with its centrality correlates would facilitate hege-
monic control, whereas staple finance, with its different set of centrality
correlates, would facilitate territorial control.

Research Potential of Network Models

Network models of the global properties of staple finance and wealth

finance provide one means 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, of
the sort that has in fact been accumulating over the last several decades, one
could attempt to calculate the flow of staple goods into regional centers, as
well as the flow of high-prestige goods into and out of Cuzco. The Ford-
Fulkerson (, ) Max-flow Min-cut Theorem provides one means
to begin such an analysis. This theorem specifies the network conditions
under which the maximum flow of some unit, based on the capacity of lines
(in this case, roads), can reach a point called the receiver r from a point
called the transmitter t. The capacity of a line is the largest number of units
that can flow through a given line during a specified time period. Since in
a network there are often several paths from t to r, it is important to know
what flow capacity exits for all such paths, what the sum of such capacities
may be, and whether there is an optimal flow capacity from t to r through
a set of lines. Clearly, the flow capacity of a set of lines cannot exceed the
Inka Roads, Administrative Centers, and Storage Facilities 

smallest flow capacity of an individual line in that set. The usefulness of

the Max-flow Min-cut Theorem is that the maximum flow is measured by
the minimum cut set, that is, by the smallest flow capacities of the set of
lines 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 several
alternative 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 the
Spanish 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 of
Chalcuchima’s army, the string would have stretched out to  km.
If a llama is allowed  m in the train, about  llamas take up  km of
road. A llama caravan of, say, , accompanying the troops would
have extended an additional  km. The entourage would likely have
regrouped, rather than travel single file, of course, and Inka armies
were typically deployed in sections, rather than as single bodies. As a
unit, however, moving at a rate of  km per hour (i.e.,  league/hour),
it would have taken this army and entourage  hours to pass through
the narrowest point of the road or across a bridge. Traveling constantly
from 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 flows
that are possible from point to point. If, as with D’Altroy’s example, the
capacity of all lines in the Inka network were estimated, then it would be
possible to calculate the maximum flow of the Inka road network N from
t to r, that is, the largest number of some unit that can reach r from t. This
would then provide another conceptual tool for analyzing the distribution
of storage sites scattered throughout the Inka empire. Clearly the Inka must
have known that environmental constraints on the flow of goods limited
the 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 the
roads that linked them with adjacent administrative centers or provincial
capitals.
Road widths, as outlined by Hyslop (), would provide another
means 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 the many references in the Spanish chronicles of long-distance
movement 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 throughout
the Inka empire. In principle, based on flow capacity, energetic constraints,
and storage characteristics of different goods, one could calculate how long
n number of human bearers with n number of llamas would take to com-
pletely fill the storehouses at, say, Huánuco Pampa. Such a number would
provide further insight into the social organization of storage in the Inka
empire.
) The evolution of the Inka road network may also be investigated
by using graph theoretic models, algorithms, and theorems. For example,
Minimum Spanning Tree (MST) algorithms have been used to model the
evolution of highland-coast exchange networks in northern Peru (Jenkins
n.d.) and may also prove valuable for analyzing the evolution of the Inka
road network. MSTs provide one means to simulate network growth and
to 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 also
proceed by constructing centrality models of each stage of Inka expansion
(Irwin ). As the Inka incorporated other polities and other networks of
exchange, the relative centrality of each point in the overall network would
alter. Shifting relative centrality of a point may account for why the Inka
abandoned one administrative location in favor of another—for example,
abandoning Inkawasi (point ) after the conquest of the Cañete valley in
favor of Cerro Azul, a site that could better control the northward flow of
goods and information in the larger network (Hyslop : –).
One could also study the disarticulation of the Inka network after the
arrival of the Spanish. The Spanish made use of existing exchange relations
as they solidified control over the Andes (Stern ; Ramírez ) but did
not continue to use all Inka administrative installations to do so. Some of
these 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, and
storage facilities could be constructed, which would take into account not
Inka Roads, Administrative Centers, and Storage Facilities 

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, which
was clearly important on the central and northern coasts (Rostworowski
, ; Mosely ; Paulsen ; Marcos ), would need to be
incorporated into the model. Such a model may not significantly alter the
centrality characteristics of important highland Inka sites such as Cuzco,
Hatun Xuaxa, and Cotapachi, but it may reveal that coastal sites such as
Tumbes and Pachacamac were much more central in the overall exchange
network 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, productive
enclaves, 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 centrality
and large storage facilities without administrative centers at regions of low
centrality, based upon the requirements of staple finance. The results also
indicate that the Inka built smaller administrative centers with little or no
storage capacity at regions of low centrality, based on the requirements of
wealth finance. These findings are suggestive but preliminary. They await
confirmation or disconfirmation based upon new archaeological and archi-
val research that focuses on the communicative and exchange links between
points in the road network. Such research would in turn allow for a more
complete model of Inka exchange relations, which would incorporate sec-
ondary roads and centers and include elements of ocean travel. It would
also provide the basis for a better understanding of the global patterns of
the Inka political economy.

Notes

I would like to thank Per Hage, Robert Zeitlin, and two anonymous Ethnohistory
reviewers 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 early
Spanish accounts see, e.g., Betanzos  [],  []; Cobo  [];
Sarmiento de Gamboa  []; Garcilaso de la Vega – []; Cieza de
León  []. 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 can
be stored in a space as small as . cubic meters.
 Perhaps the Inka northward expansion accounts for the storage complexes at the
northern margins of the Inka empire. But the north’s relative independence from
Cuzco should not be ignored as a contributing factor. Quito, for example, which
was relatively independent from the influence of Cuzco, was an appropriate site
for Atahuallpa to stage a war against his half brother, Huáscar, who had been
crowned king in Cuzco just prior to the Spanish arrival.
 A digraph is a graph with arrows on its lines indicating relational direction.
 Cobo’s ( []: –) six most important lateral roads, apparently in order
of importance, are ) Cuzco to Arequipa region, ) Tumbes to sierra, ) valley
of Trujillo to Cajamarca, ) valley of Paramonga to Xuaxa, ) valley of Lima to
Xuaxa, 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,
Inka Roads, Administrative Centers, and Storage Facilities 

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 Chicama Valley,
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 of
Oklahoma 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 in
Honor 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 textual
analysis, Jorge L. Urioste. Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno.
Hage, Per, and Frank Harary
 Exchange in Oceania: A Graph Theoretic 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 Oklahoma
Press.
Hunt, T. L.
 Graph Theoretic Network Models for Lapita Exchange: A Trial Ap-
plication. In Archaeology of the Lapita Cultural Complex: A Critical
Review. P. V. Kirch and T. L. Hunt, eds. Pp. –. Burke Museum
Research 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
Inka Roads, Administrative Centers, and Storage Facilities 

of Economic Specialization in Papuan Prehistory. World Archaeology

: –.
Jenkins, David
N.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 California
Press.
La Lone, Mary B., and Darrell E. La Lone
 The Inka State in the Southern Highlands: 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. Michigan
Discussions 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 Anthropological
Society : –.
Mayer, Enrique
 Las reglas del juego en la reciprocidad Andena. In Reciprocidad e inter-
cambio en los andes peruanas. Georgio Alberti and Enrique Mayer, eds.
Pp. –. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
Means, Philip
 Ancient Civilizations of the Andes. New York: 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 Illinois
University 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: Cambridge

University Press.
 Huánuco Pampa and Tunsukancha: Major and Minor Nodes in the
Inka 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. In Visita de la provincia de León de Huánuco
en , Iñigo Ortiz de Zúñiga, visitador. John V. Murra, ed. Vol. , pp.
–. Huánuco, Peru: Universidad Nacional Hermilio Valdizán.
 Formaciones económicas y políticas del mundo andino. Lima: Instituto
de Estudios Andinos.
 The Mit’a Obligations of Ethnic Groups to the Inka State. In The Inca
and Aztec States, –: Anthropology and History. George A.
Collier, Renato I. Rosaldo, and John D. Wirth, eds. Pp. –. New
York: 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 de
Zúñiga, 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.
Inka Roads, Administrative Centers, and Storage Facilities 

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 Andean
Ecological Complementarity. Shozo Masuca, Izumi Shimada, and Craig
Morris, eds. Pp. –. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
 Native Lords of Quito in the Age of the Incas. Cambridge: Cambridge
University 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 a
la 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 New World. Charles D. Trom-
bold, ed. Pp. –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sarmiento de Gamboa, Pedro
 [] Historia Indica. In Obras 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 Central
Andes: Some Approaches and Results. Ann Kendall, ed. Pp. –.
 International Series, vol. . Oxford: British Archaeological Re-
ports.
Shimada, Izumi
 Horizontal Archipelago and Coast-Highland Interaction in North 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 in North 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 of
Oklahoma 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. Serie Histórica, No. . Córdoba, Argen-
tina: Instituto de Estudios Americanistas, Universidad Nacional de Cór-
doba.
Topic, John R., and Coreen E. Chiswell
 Inka Storage in Huamachuco. In Inka Storage Systems. Terry Y. LeVine,
ed. Pp. –. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Inka Roads, Administrative Centers, and Storage Facilities 

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. Richard M. Lev-
enthal and Alan L. Kolata, eds. Pp. –. Albuquerque: University of
New Mexico Press.
 Huamachuco Archaeological Project: Preliminary Report on the Third
Season, 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. In Ancient Road Networks
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.