The Incas, second edition

CLAIM CONNECTIONS / 5

Where this source is used

• Historical and scholarly uses of Inka can refer to rulers, royal and privileged groups, or the wider polity, so the term does not identify every incorporated person in the same way.

  • supports · chapter 1, pp. 1–20

• Subject communities, state institutions, shrines, and royal estates held distinct claims on labor and resources; calling all land simply communal or state-owned erases those divisions.

  • supports · chapter 8, ‘The Political Economy’, pp. 267–305

• Households owed rotating mit’a service for farming, construction, transport, military, craft, and other state projects; this was a labor obligation, not adequately described as a wage contract or a uniform tax in goods.

  • supports · chapter 8, ‘The Political Economy’, pp. 267–305

• Imperial authorities relocated mitmaq populations for production, security, colonization, and political control, making mobility both an administrative instrument and a source of coercion.

  • supports · chapter 9, ‘The Imperial Order’, pp. 306–342

• This imperial case does not embody socialism, communism, statelessness, or timeless Andean collectivism: it joined communal institutions and reciprocal idioms to ranked authority, conquest, compulsory labor, royal estates, and local variation.

  • supports · chapters 7–9, pp. 233–342