Inca Anthropology

Colonial Period documents and archaeology shed light on different domains of Inca life. Over the last few decades, anthropology has divided empires into a core and periphery approach. The core is viewed as the economic, political, and cultural heartland of the empire and has a heavy reliance on documentary record as the main source of information. The periphery is comprised of the societies that are dominated and exploited by the core and understood best by archeology (D’Altroy, 2015, p.9).

Written documents are very beneficial because they provide data and explanations from numerous individuals revealing information, attitudes, and motivations on a more personable level. Such documents shed light in understanding certain domains of Inca

Archaeology is beneficial for understanding the Inca life because it examines the changes that have occurred within their culture over time by the artifacts and land left behind. Archeology was best used to understand the geographical characteristics in the Andes which helps us view the life of the Incas. D’Altroy explains how the Incas created staggered agrarian cycles to take advantage of diverse zones. Archeologist observed how the Incas created artificial microclimates in amphitheater gardens to mimic the lower altitude climates to expand the range of cultivation. The physical evidence of archeology is often seen in the lens of the written record meaning these analyses were centered on the core and imperial elites. D’Altroy explains that the investigators were primarily concerned with monumental sites describing the material culture and working out cultural sequences (D’Altroy, 2015, p. 28). However, The Provincial perspectives taken place in the 1960s enriched our understanding of the domestic life in the provinces (the Huánuco Project) by taking a look at a broader regional perspective rather than just a small area. The recent application of regional perspectives was key for understanding large-scale political dynamics by examining the periphery societies which is often seen less sophisticated than the core (D’Altroy, 2015, p. 29). Through archaeology, we have a better understanding of Inca imperialism as negotiated practice. It is not unified front in its content, instead, it is composed of numerous competing interpretations that are repetitively being negotiated and