Draft:Slavery in Inca Empire

The existence and nature of slaves and slavery in the Inca state, known as Tawantinsuyu, have long been contentious topics in historiography. The debate reflects the ongoing quest for theoretical frameworks for Inca history, which have primarily relied on European models and terminologies. One group often considered potential slaves is the yanacona. Various forms of dependency in the Inca empire have been analyzed within the framework of evolutionary theories of economic and social evolution. According to John Murra, the controversy surrounding the yanacona dates back to the early anthropological studies of the Inca kingdom.

Yanacona were individuals separated from their family units, exempted from paying tribute to the Inca, and employed by the Inca and local aristocracy. However, the Inca state encompassed other forms of reliance related to society and labor. Other significant social and labor groups included the mitimaes, camayoc, and mitayos. These categories represented deeply embedded, historically evolving, and overlapping social groupings. Both men and women belonged to these groups, with an additional separate category for women: acllacuna (young women) and mamacuna (older women), which were similar to the yana category.

Given the complexity of Inca social structures, it is challenging to single out one social group. However, the focus here is on the yanacona, identified in earlier studies as particularly affected by unequal reliance. It is also essential to consider how the yana category overlaps with other groupings. There is a need for a thorough investigation of the yanacona and other labor- and social-related categories in the Inca state. Since the foundational publications of Andean Studies in the 1960s to 1980s, led by John Murra, few scholars have concentrated on these subjects in general or on the yanacona specifically. This article adopts a source-rich approach, drawing on new insights from anthropology, history, and archaeology, building on the work of Andean Studies.

Written records about the yanacona emerged during the Spanish colonization period. These records included early Quechua dictionaries, chronicles, administrative documents like visitation reports (visitas), and eyewitness accounts. An early seventeenth-century dictionary defines the Quechua term yana as "criado moço de seruicio" (literally, "servant, servant youth"), with the plural form being yanacona. Spanish terms such as "criado," "indios de servicio," or simply "servicio" are generally understood to refer to yanacona but may also apply to other groups. Not every person called a "criado" (meaning "servant" or "raised") was a yana. Additionally, some yanacona were vocational experts (camayoc), with some holding leadership positions and even being part of the local elite. Because the yanacona could occupy a wide range of status positions, defining their exact degree of reliance is challenging.

Rulers of the Inca Empire
The Tawantinsuyu, the largest state in the Americas geographically, encompassed regions of present-day southern Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, northwest Argentina, and central Chile. Its diverse topography ranged from hot and fertile valleys to a dry coast, from frigid mountains to the eastern rainforest and the eastern slopes of the Andes. At its zenith, Tawantinsuyu was home to an estimated six to thirteen million people living under the rule of Inca kings. In the century preceding the Spanish invasion of Peru in 1532, the Inca kingdom expanded significantly through a process of conquest and integration.

The rapid expansion and consolidation of such a vast state can be attributed to the interconnected systems of Andean communities. Central to this process was the mincca, a system of reciprocal or mutual help closely linked to the ayllu, the basic household-based social structure of the hatun runa, or commoners. The concept of reciprocity and communal land ownership underpinned the social relations within the ayllu. Local inhabitants benefited from the mincca in various activities, such as agriculture and construction.

These communal structures were co-opted and expanded to serve the interests of the Inca state. Gradually, and almost imperceptibly to the Andean peoples, these practices evolved into the mita system. The mita was a system of rotating labor obligations to the state, modeled on the principles of mincca. To support this transformation, new redistributive forms and ideological-religious justifications were developed. The state required extended labor obligations from community members, known as mitayos, to expand its infrastructure, including roads, road stations, storehouses, and administrative centers, as well as its agricultural base.

In conclusion, the Inca monarchs leveraged existing Andean social structures and systems of reciprocity to build and sustain a state of considerable size and complexity in a relatively short period. This integration of traditional communal practices into state mechanisms facilitated the rapid expansion and consolidation of Tawantinsuyu.

The Yanacona
The yanacona originated prior to the Inca dynasty and represented a form of reliance that could develop in various ways. Historical evidence suggests that the yanacona were an integral element of the community's social structure even before the arrival of the Incas. During the Inca era, the yanacona were likely associated with Inca conquest battles and the broader progressive constitution of Tawantinsuyu. Despite the Inca expansion, indigenous organizations continued to employ pre-Inca methods, combining various ways of acquiring yana status.

During the Inca period, becoming a yana was often a result of capture in battle. The terms for "prisoner of war" in the primary Andean languages, Quechua and Aymara, and their Spanish equivalents, indicate that the concepts of "war captive," "prisoner," and "slave" had similar meanings. The historian Juan de Betanzos, fluent in Quechua, recorded that many yanacona were prisoners of war, often individuals or families taken from their districts during conquering campaigns. Betanzos provided examples by describing specific military battles and citing cases where people were seized as spoils of war and subsequently established as yanacona.

Following the initial conversion of war prisoners into yanacona, many of them were later given by the local populace as part of their tribute obligations. These individuals were often taken or recruited from various provinces and assigned to the descent groups of former rulers. These former rulers continued to exist in the form of mummified ancestors within the lives of their descendants. The buildings, land, and servants associated with these ancestors remained under the control of their descent groups, thereby supporting the social structure and perpetuating the status of yanacona within the community.

In summary, the yanacona played a significant role in the social and labor structures of both pre-Inca and Inca societies. Their status was often linked to military conquests and tribute obligations, reflecting a complex interplay of traditional practices and the expansive ambitions of the Inca state.

Releasing from Yana status
The possibilities for exiting the status of yanacona, if it was possible at all, varied significantly, much like the pathways to becoming a yana. These variations depended on whether the practices were ongoing local or regional traditions predating the Inca period or were associated with the Inca expansion and state-building processes. However, there are even fewer references on this topic compared to the origins and roles of yanacona. The social origins of the yanacona—whether they were commoners or members of the regional or local elites—and their service roles, whether subordinate to local political elites or superior at the Inca state level, were key factors influencing these differences.

For the Inca elite, the status of yanacona typically implied a lifetime of service, which, as far as historical records indicate, ended only during periods of severe political turmoil. An example of this is the conflict between Atahualpa and Huascar, grandsons of Topa Inca, over the Inca throne. This conflict led to the disintegration of yanacona groups associated with the Inca descendants and resulted in the deaths of several members. This period of unrest may have allowed some yanacona from these kinship groups to exit their status. Similarly, during this conflict, military commanders sent yanacona from Huascar’s recently established estate back to their communities, allowing them to revert to their previous status as regular community tribute payers. Other texts suggest that individuals conscripted as yanacona from lower social classes remained in this role for life, especially if they were sentenced to this status for committing crimes like theft, particularly against property owners of higher rank.

Unlike slaves in other regions, yanacona belonging to the Inca nobility did not generally require "manumission" to exit their status. Yanacona were not considered foreigners; they never fully lost their standing in the Inca state or their provincial society. They did not need reintegration into Inca culture, unlike slaves who were often viewed as existing outside the civilization they served.

Variations in the likelihood of departing yana status were influenced by the criteria mentioned earlier. Commoner yanacona typically inherited their status. Yanacona were family-oriented, and the offspring of these households remained yanacona as adults. If there were no children, the home province was required to provide a replacement. In cases of patronage, the situation differed. The yanacona, who were members of the regional elite, underwent a form of education at the ruler's house, and their status as yanacona ended at a certain point.

These variations in the heredity and exit of yanacona status likely account for their disparate and sometimes contradictory representations in historical literature. The distinctions within the large group of yanacona were often overlooked and, consequently, not addressed adequately in historical accounts.

Conclusion
Early research on the yanacona was based on limited and biased sources, leading to the misconception that they were slaves. Within the framework of European historical conceptions, it was inconceivable for the Inca kingdom to exist without slaves. However, studies initiated by John Murra and other Andean scholars since the 1960s have provided new insights. These studies demonstrated that although the yanacona were subject to a strong form of asymmetrical dependency, they could not be classified as slaves according to the terminology and models of economic and societal evolution developed in European historiography. After the 1980s, the subject of yanacona was rarely discussed.

Andeanist John H. Rowe elucidated the categories of mitimaes, yanacona, and camayoc as "not three contrasting categories of men," noting that these categories could overlap. Inca subjects could fall into one group, two categories, or none, depending on the context. According to Rowe, the distinction between these categories should not be characterized by levels of dependence or servility. Instead, the division was rooted in the Inca administration's structure, where the difference was not about freedom but rather about access to honor and privilege. The benefits provided by the Inca king were directly tied to the rank of dependents in Inca society, not the level of their reliance. The yanacona group marked the boundary between those granted privileges and those who were not.

The identification of individuals or groups was based on the privileges bestowed upon them by the Inca ruler, their service roles, and attributes linked to the yanacona, such as heritability, ability to remain in their status, and degree of disconnection and displacement from their native groups. This complexity and diversity in the dependent population were reflected in the wide variety of coercive tactics and types of dependency within the Inca labor system.

Paola Revilla Orías argued that the Spanish Crown saw significant benefit in maintaining and redefining servitude practices, which were later institutionalized as yanaconazgo during the colonial era. As a result, the "yanaconazgo institution was preserved and redefined throughout the colonial period." Colonial yanacona progressively lost their liberties, such as freedom of movement, becoming "almost slaves" due to their increasing reliance on the landowners they served.