Inca+Architecture

Incan architecture drew its influence from several cultural predecessors and because of this, Incan architecture is highly integrative. As such, by examining the methods and the manner in which buildings were constructed, it is possible to conclude that Incan imperial architecture developed out of a diversity of ethnic and historical influences.
 * Inca Architecture: Cultural Intersections**

This argument will show that, upon examination of the predecessors to Incan culture, important features of Incan architecture can be seen. Additionally, as the Inca adopt the architectural sensibilities of their forerunners, advances in technique and technology were made.


 * Aesthetics and Style of Inca Architecture**

In order to begin investigating the roots of Inca architecture, what typifies Inca architecture must first be established. A typical home or building would be rectangular shaped with a foundation made of fieldstone (stone that naturally occurs in fields) set into mortar. The walls generally consisted of more fieldstone, although adobe was sometimes used. On the interior, there would be no walls, and the roof would be thatch on wooden beams. Sometimes, the roof would be gabled, but this was not typical. Essentially, the best way to picture this structure is as a large, empty stone rectangle covered by thatch (Hyslop 1990:11-12). This is pictured in Figure 1. It should be noted that this basic floor plan was used by all socioeconomic statuses for buildings of varying purposes, from lower class homes to administrative centers (Gasparini and Margolies 1980:134).

As far as decoration is concerned, most buildings were largely unadorned. The only thing preventing these structures from resembling stone blocks were the use of trapezoidal windows and doors, which were distinctly Inca (Hyslop 1990:9-10).

However, there were some notable variations on the typical rectangular pattern. On occasion, curved walls were employed, but this was typically done beyond the borders of the empire (Hyslop 1990: 7-8). The fact that the construction in these areas can be identified as having been influenced by the Inca is a testament to the distinctive style.



Within the city, these buildings were generally arranged in a precise manner as well. A typical unit, or //kancha//, was composed of three or more buildings arranged in a rectangular pattern. This created a large, open space in the middle of the //kancha// which, presumably, was used for social gatherings. This pattern could then be repeated multiple times to create blocks within the Inca settlement, and eventually, a city (Hyslop 1990:19-20). Again, much like the basic construction of the buildings, this pattern be seen amongst people of all socioeconomic classes.

Although the image of a typical Inca structure may be one of a modest, the Inca were capable of creating employing more impressive techniques. Perhaps above all else, Inca architecture is known for its masonry and stonework. In fact, their skills in this regard are so fine that blocks simply fit together in a rigid manner without the use of mortar. In fact, the fit is so tight that a knife can often not fit between the stones (Protzen 1985:161).

Additionally, the manner in which the Inca employed their stone working skills varied. The way the blocks were cut can be divided into two groups, and from there, several subgroups can be established (Protzen 1985:170-174).

For the most part, Inca masonry can either be called coursed or polygonal. Coursed stone is stone rectangular whereas polygonal stones were irregularly shaped and employed the use of angles other than 90 degrees. It is important to remember that even while using these irregular shapes, the blocks were still held together without the aid of mortar (Protzen 1985:170). An example of such a shape can be seen in Figure 2.



Furthermore, the application of coursed or polygonal masonry varied with the function of the construction project. Again, the varying application can be broken down into groups (Protzen 1985:171).

As far as coursed masonry is concerned, it can either be sedimentary or encased. Encased coursed masonry is typified by the stone blocks not being in alignment whereas sedimentary coursed masonry is aligned. Both of these types of masonry are seen in higher status buildings or in perimeter walls (Protzen 1985:172).

On the other hand, polygonal masonry can either be considered cellular or cyclopean. Cellular polygonal masonry uses smaller blocks whereas cyclopean polygonal masonry uses much larger blocks, sometimes weighing over a ton. Both of these types of blocks would have been used in terrace walls and to aid in the construction of canals (Protzen 1985:173).


 * The Tiwanaku and Huari Cultures**



Located in what is modern day Bolivia, Peru and Chile, the society of the Tiwanaku is the most apparent architectural precursor to that of the Inca. Both societies would come to inhabit the same region, and much of what is indicative of Tiwanaku architecture can be seen in the buildings of the Inca. The being the case, an investigation of their archeological record is imperative.

The Tiwanaku culture arose somewhere between 300 BC and 300 AD in the Lake Titicaca region, and it began mostly as a religious center and a site of pilgrimage (Gasparini and Margolies 1980: 7-8).

As the region began to swell in population, the Tiwanaku began to expand their territory. However, this expansion was not based upon warfare and violence, but rather on trade and religion. This is not to say warfare-based expansion did not exist, but rather that more peaceful means were typically employed unless resistance was encountered (McAndrews et al. 1997: 68). Regardless, this economic and political based expansion allowed for the relatively peaceful integration of new cultures, and as a result, new ideas and techniques for pottery and architecture were constantly adopted (McAndrews et al. 1997: 69). This constant adoption of new techniques is a phenomenon that closely mirrors the happenings in the Inca Empire.

The Tiwanaku Empire continued to expand until roughly 950 AD. Around this time, a major climatic change occurred that created decreased rainfall in the Lake Titicaca basin. Much of the power of the Tiwanaku was based around the arable land of this region, so with the decreased rainfall, the empire began to falter. Eventually, the empire disappeared around 1000 AD (McAndrews et al. 1997: 73).

As far as the actual aesthetics of Tiwanaku architecture are concerned, most buildings were constructed of stone, rectangular blocks roughly 13 to 15 inches in height. This type of block is typically called the ashlar block. Use of this type of masonry would later be seen in Inca architecture, but unlike the Inca, the Tiwanaku fastened the blocks of ashlar together with copper “I”-shaped bars (Gasparini and Margolies 1980: 25). Regardless, the precise method of ashlar block construction is the principle thread seen between Tiwanaku and Inca architecture (Gasparini and Margolies 1980: 25).

Also worth mentioning is the Huari culture, a group that was contemporaneous with the Tiwanaku in Northern Peru. Although the Tiwanaku did a great deal of expansion, the Huari culture remained separate. This is evidenced by examining the Huari architecture, which is more uniform and homogenous. Tiwanaku architecture, on the other hand, is typically more adorned with artistic designs (Shady and Ruiz 1979).

Due to the fact that Huari buildings differed from Tiwanaku buildings, it would seem that the Huari did not influence Inca architecture, but this is not the case. Although Huari building techniques are not seen in the Inca culture, their expansive road system can be seen. It appears as though the Huari road system was a logical predecessor to the Inca road system (Shady and Ruiz 1979: 678).


 * Connections**

Considering this, the similarities between the Tiwanaku and the Inca become apparent. Both cultures used fine-cut masonry of ashlar-type blocks. However, there are differences which speak to the development of the Inca architectural style. Namely, the Tiwanaku use of I-shaped bars to fasten blocks comes to mind (Gasparini and Margolies 1980: 25). Also, the Tiwanaku used ashlar block construction for more types of buildings whereas Inca buildings were more likely to be made of fieldstones(Gasparini and Margolies 1980: 21; Hyslop 1990:11-12). Also, the Tiwanaku were not seen to use the more peculiar angled shapes of the Inca polygonal masonry. This type of stonework is, arguably, more difficult to produce. Considering this, it is possible to conclude the Inca possessed somewhat more advanced techniques.

Also, in regards to the Huari, they first introduced the notion of building houses in a rectangular settlement and used roads to connect said settlements. It is believed that this manner of urban design was then copied by the Inca to produce the //kancha//, and the road paths were then subsequently reused (Kendall 1985: 355).


 * Problems**

Lastly, of particular interest when considering the Tiwanaku and Inca is that the Tiwanaku Empire dissolved in 1000 AD, and the Inca Empire began in roughly 1350 AD. In the 200 intervening years, the technology and expertise of Tiwanaku ashlar block making was not seen, but somehow managed to persevere and influence the Inca (Hyslop 1990: 23).

Undoubtedly, this casts doubt on the notion that the Tiwanaku influenced Inca. However, it is possible that the Tiwanaku tradition were preserved in the Lake Titicaca region by the people that are responsible for the site called Tanka Tanka. At this site, there is a resemblance in the masonry and Tiwanaku masonry. Specifically, several of the walls at the site use stonework resembling the aforementioned polygonal masonry (Hyslop 1990: 23).

Additionally, it is clear that the Inca conquered the Lake Titicaca region, the seat of Tiwanaku power, early during their reign. Also, it is clear they enlisted the indigenous construction workers in doing so. However, the level of involvement that these newly acquired workers had in shaping Inca architecture is not certain (Protzen 1997: 148-150).


 * Conclusion**

Despite the minor differences in style, it can be said that the Tiwanaku architectural sensibilities influences those of the Inca. Both civilizations made use of highly precise masonry and used ashlar block like type construction, and accomplished these feats in a similar manner. And although there were indeed differences between the architectural creations of both societies, this is largely cosmetic, and reflects a more precise skill-set on behalf of the Inca. Additionally, the direct use of Huari designs is apparent when examining the //kancha// of the Inca.

Considering this, it is possible to conclude that the Tiwanaku and Huari cultures created the cultural basis for the diversity and skill seen in Inca imperial architecture.


 * Works Cited**

Gasparini, Graziano and Luise Margolies 1980 Inca Architecture. Bloomington: Indiana UP

Hyslop, John 1990 Inka Settlement Planning. Austin: University of Texas P

Kendall, Ann 1985 Aspects of Inca Architecture: Description, Function and Chronology. Oxford, England. B.A.R.

McAndrews, Et al. 1997 Regional Settlement Patterns In The Tiwanaku Valley of Bolivia. 24(1) 67-83 Protzen, Jean-Pierre 1997 Who Taught the Inca Stonemasons Their Skills? A Comparison of Tiahuanaco and Inca Cut-Stone Masonry. The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 56(2) 146-167

Protzen, Jean-Pierre 1985 Inca Quarrying and Stonecutting. The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 44(2): 161-82.

Shady, Ruth and Arturo Ruiz 1979 ** Evidence for Interregional Relationships during the Middle Horizon on the North-Central Coast of Peru. American Antiquity 44(4) 676-684 **