RESEARCH IN ECONOMIC ANTHROPOLOGY ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE PREHISPANIC NEW WORLD Editors: VERNON L. SCARBOROUGH University of Cincinnati BARRY L. ISAAC University of Cincinnati SUPPLEMENT? « 1993 JAI PRESS INC. Gremsick, Connect Landon Eland THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF PREHISPANIC RAISED FIELD AGRICULTURE IN THE LAKE TITICACA BASIN (Clark L. Erickson INTRODUCTION When yng or walking ove tne pais pompas) ofthe high Andean plates (alplano) of the nother Lake Tiseaea basa, one i imped by the immensity of landscape mosifcation underaken by pre-Columbian farmers Hides of thousands of fae fel platforms tha extend ine.) ction are a stunning testimony, even in thee eroded state, to Andean Insttions forthe seciopoitie! organization of labor and land (see Figure 1 The ighy reeset patterning the lndscape reflects an explic concer ith order, noth of land nd society. The scope oft sophisticated engineering lof water management itu momumental It woul be easy to interpret ee carthworks as the enterprise of highly centralized sate. After extensive "sch won Anrep Sop 7, pa 8.06 {Copyiete 1A Pe ne ‘ip tron any on a Sinisa eoated Raed Fels (Lighter areas ar eld Jarker are are canals between fields) ‘Pampa Landscape near Hutt, Peru, Showing ators Fieure 1 Prchispanie and Rehabil : i ; i eka isi hab Ta Basin ™ arenacological survey aed excavation of raised fields and asioiatd Seulemens, and alter working with contemporary Andean farmers on ‘ehabiltatng the ancient raed ids, have become consneed others, T rave hee tha various Soares of evidence strongly nda hat rad isl farming was organied tas nally and probably throughout it history. tbe ocal evel. These precolumbian aprcltura work ze the accumulation ‘ofthe actives ef many generations of farmers, precing totally huma= ‘made landscape, “Two major theories have been cotinully addressed in sti of the evolution of intensive agrcural ystems, but only ree in tems of ‘ase fields. The most conspicuous hasbeen te relationship between soda Cegaizason and agscatre, in parGclar, the amount of centralization necessary To cay out intensive agriculture. If raised flds reguire ‘Mainistaton coordination aod planning, and mative amounts of Iabor. one ‘would expect to find them ineviblyssocatd with centralized bureaucratic overt. The other ise involves the causes of agricultural evoltion and ‘ritual incesication If ised fields were labor ntensiv, they Would not have been adopted unis the farmers were forced to do uo by popuation pressure (accoding tothe Boserup [1965] mode) or by state demands for ‘urls producton. Thee two ser are inerclate, although arly disease sssuch “Traditionally, archaeologists have closely associated intensive aviutural ssstems with highly centralized political conto. Inthe case of raised eld ‘rite, an analogy is often made to le irgation systems, assumed to be assist with centralization and bureaucracy inthe planning and ‘operation of such ystems, az argued by Karl Witfoge! (857) many years ao, “othe comuay, have found that petapaic raised ld [Lake Titieaca Basin developed aly ea 1000 B.C), pps of population sess and tate organization, Largethat even duting evans peviods when state poifes were present in the one, raed fields were built Sn managed by local communities. Ethnographic analogy, experimental farchacology, ground survey, aerial photographic interpretation, and Excavation provide evidence that eased fl technology was well within the teams of smallscas organization. ‘A usefl clasification forthe analysis of social organization associated with ssater management hasbeen presented by Searborough (1991120), based on {Chambers (1980), He contrasts the "Yop down view" with the "bottom up view." The top down view i in many ways similar tothe elitefocused perspective taken by Witfogel (987) regarding inigation systems. The boton-up view takes he pespetve of the farmer andthe communitleelinstitetione which ‘make iergation systems work Indiscusng te case ofthe Lake Titicaca raised ek, Kota (1991-100, U12-U1) aes the terms, “bottom up perspective" (or “ie fly oa eel organizacion hypothesis) and "op down perspective.”m (CLARK L ERICKSON 2 similar perspective is used hereto contrast azchaclogzal interpretations ot the social organization of prebispanic raise field agriculture in the Lake “Tiicaca Basin. T would alo lke to show that asthe of hese opposing proaches is possbie ‘THE TOP-DOWN APPROACH TO INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE ‘The Witfogel Hypothesis and lis Critique ‘The relationship between sociopolitical organization and intensive agicltare has long been an importa topic i athropslogy, istry, and ‘eopraphs. The most important eaten of the abject was Witfopel’s Oniomal Desprione A Comparative Study of Total Power (9ST, aso 360 Witogl 1988, 1972) and the subsequst eric respone by scholars from ‘many disciplines. Wittoge (1955, 1957) argued that lange-sealhydeaic agricul required a high depres of admiitraive centralization in order ‘Mobilize and coordinate labor for iigton actives, 1 plan hydra nginceing, and to provide capital Overtime, the need for ceutraized amination give rise to the stagnant “despotic societies” or “agro: ‘managerial despotism” (adapted from Mar’ concept of te Asati Mode of Predtion) found hstrieall in many pars ofthe word, Witoqs sa Inevitable deterinisiclinks between water manage and cntalizd soil systems, In is comparasve studi, be argued that centralized despotic Sites arsing to elianceonitristionagclture could be documented inthe preistorireord, ‘Wipe!’ hypothesshad wie rangingimpicatons for comparative suits ‘ofthe origins ofthe sat snd has ad lating impact on chaeoogial and ‘thnlogial interpretation eg, Stenard 955) Ethnographers provided richly ‘dtd studies othe soil and echnical elements of contemporary iigation ‘ystems (Leah 988, Fernea 1970, Gay 1963, Gert 98D, Palerm 1958, 973; Hunt & Hun 1974, 176, Hunt 1985, Mitel 1973, 1996, 197, 1991; Gilet 1987, 1982; Glee 186, 1990, nd. Lewis 1991; Key 1983, Spooner 1974, Setting 1974) and archaeologists provided cases with time depth vo ts he hypothesis (Woodbury 1961, Earle 197; Hunt & Hunt 1974, 1976; Pie 1971, Steward 1985, Sander & Prize 198, Doolile 1990, Adams 1966, Bute 977, Millon 1962, Wheatley 1971, Dowsing & Gibwon 1974, Park 1982, Sanders tal 1979, and others), These studies are generally crtcal of Wittfogel ‘dscrminisis,unlineal model of causality and the secesary reatonsip ‘ewe despotic societies and igatin, Instead they argue hat commits have tacitonal informal means of drpute rltion and cooperation that ‘emit argeeid igation outside of state apparatus, This poston does Raed sine Late Tas Basin ES ‘not deny tat the state canbe dicey involved in intensive agriculture, but ‘athe lms tht tere have een some instances ie wtih the tate was cary not involved. _Neo-Witffogelian Thinking Applied to Prehispanie Raised Fields Although most scholars focusing on agricultural ystems have rejected the ‘causal relationship betwen hydraui arculure and the re ofthe sae, certain archacologies and geographers tll support the assumption that ‘tensive agricukue, uch as raised eld (Kolata 1983, 1986759, 1987, 199 Wilkerson 7985:64; Matheny 1978:296.210; Durch 19832; Turner 158215; ‘Aumils 197160; Dookie 1980-11-13, 19,1, Moore 1985, Starish n.d Boch de Lameias 1988; Palerm 1955:37-39, 1973, Matheny & Garr 1983, Parsons 1991; Brunel 191; Sanders etal. 1979280261), terraces Sanders ‘tal 197, Conrad & Demarest 1984), and large iigntion systems (Kes 1980, Matheay 1978209, Matheny & Garr 1983, Sanders & Price 1968, Orff et al, 198) ae, by necesity, associated with centralized forms ofsoioplial ‘orzanization, i ot sates. Tis perspective coud be considered typial ofthe “iopdown approach” to prehispaic agile “Many scholars ted above would deny that they are following Witfogets slams, agresing, at lest theoretically, that male agricultural landscapes ould have beun created by nonstate organizations. However, excep fot Kolata (1986, 1991), heir use of terme such a8 “entaletion”enalied irection,” “centralized. administration,” and “centrally organized” in eseribing eased field agentur vague and impreste (or examples, ee Wilkerson 198364, Boehm de Lameiras 198892, Parsons 1991-2, 34, Brune! 199144, “Moore 1988274, Armilas 1971660, arch. 19832, Matheny & Garr 198398). As a esl, the eral question of causality and neces is avoided, but customary asiumptions about intensive agriculture an sill beembraced comfortably. Inthe ent of raed eld scalars, many ofthese scholars acept the assumptions that (I) rated fields are labor intensive form of agriculture, (2) eased fed planning, constuction, and ‘maintenance requite acertain depres of centralized bureaucratic managene, and @) a result, farmers would not (and could not) adopt the raked field saricltural sytem unes Tored to and dirsted by authoritative ceneazed polities. stats. ‘Much of the classical debate involving Witfogst® hydraulic hypotbess evolves around the problem of temainology. What do. we mean by "centralization"? Can non-ates be “entrained”? Can iigetion and soi ‘onpanization be quantified and eompared erosecultualy? Several scholars have atempted 0 grapple wth thse ists (Millon 1962, Leach 1959, Kelly 1983, Hunt hum 19% Hunt 1985, Gers 1980, Gels 19%), buts beyond the ope ofthis pape to fulyaddsese these queions, I recognize thatthe