Inheritance and Land Tenure in the Inca Ayllu

The Inca system did not recognize individual alienable title to land: the Sapa Inca owned all land in the Tawantinsuyu in a formal sense, but the state allotted use rights to ayllus and households on a roughly equal per-household basis, and the land could not be sold, mortgaged, or given away outside the ayllu’s corporate structure. Within this framework, three kinds of inheritance were distinguished: the inheritance of use rights to land, the inheritance of movable property, and the inheritance of ritual and political office. The detailed rules governing each kind, as reconstructed from the visitas of 1558–1570 and from the chronicles of Garcilaso de la Vega, Pedro Cieza de León, and Bernabé Cobo, form the subject of this article; the family and the ayllu together constituted the institutional framework within which Andean life was reproduced from one generation to the next, and the inheritance system was the principal mechanism by which that reproduction was achieved.

The tripartite division of land

The ayllu’s territory was divided into three principal portions, and the division is the point of departure for any account of Andean inheritance. The first portion, the Sapa Inca’s portion, was worked for the direct support of the Sapa Inca and the imperial administration; the produce of this portion was sent to the state qollqas at the provincial capital. The second portion, the Inti’s portion, was worked for the support of the Temple of the Sun and its priests; the produce of this portion was sent to the Temple of the Sun in Cusco. The third portion, the ayllu’s portion, was worked for the direct support of the kin group itself; the produce of this portion was consumed by the ayllu’s households and used to maintain the ayllu’s ritual life. Beyond the three portions, certain lands were reserved for the mallkis (mummified ancestors) of the ayllu, whose perpetual well-being was held to require a continuous supply of offerings.

The tripartite division was a state institution imposed by the Inca after their consolidation of the central highlands, and it was a substantial innovation on the pre-Inca pattern of land tenure. The chronicler Cieza de León, who recorded the three portions in detail in 1553, noted that the Sapa Inca’s portion was typically one-third of the ayllu’s arable land, the Inti’s portion was one-sixth, and the ayllu’s portion was one-half. The ayllu’s portion was subdivided among the constituent households on a roughly equal per-household basis, and each household’s allotment was reassigned by the ayllu at intervals of several years to compensate for changes in household size and for variations in the productivity of different plots. The colonial visitas record that the curaca of the ayllu was responsible for the periodic reassignment of household plots, and that the reassignment was performed in a public ceremony at the principal plaza of the ayllu, with the senior household heads present.

The tripartite division did not preclude the use of other categories of land. The ayllu held, in addition to the three portions, the tiana — the plot immediately around the household’s house — which was held in perpetuity by the household and was exempt from periodic reassignment. The ayllu also held the canchas (enclosed courtyards) of the senior panaca families, the aqhahuas (lands set aside for the support of widows and orphans), and the chakras (cultivated fields) of the mallkis. The detailed treatment of the ayllu’s land tenure and of the ayllu structure is given in the related article; the Sapa Inca’s ownership of the underlying land and the mit’a labor obligation are treated in the related article on the Inca social hierarchy.

Partible inheritance of land

The inheritance of use rights to land followed the principle of partible inheritance, in which the deceased’s lands were divided among his heirs. A man with three sons, for example, would typically leave each son a portion of his lands sufficient to support a household, with the youngest son often receiving the house and the plot immediately around it. The colonial visitas of 1558–1570 record many cases in which a man with several sons divided his lands into roughly equal portions, and the chronicler Cobo recorded that the division was typically performed in a public ceremony presided over by the curaca of the ayllu, in which the camayoc (ritual specialist) used a quipu to record the division. The portion assigned to each son was calibrated to the productivity of the land: a son who received a portion in the lower, warmer valleys might receive a smaller plot than a son who received a portion in the higher, cooler valleys, on the grounds that the productivity per unit area was higher at the lower altitudes.

Partible inheritance of land applied to the three portions of the ayllu’s territory as well as to the household’s own allotment. The Sapa Inca’s portion and the Inti’s portion were inherited by the ayllu as a whole and were reassigned by the curaca to a household that had lost its principal worker; the ayllu’s portion was divided among the heirs in the same way as the household’s own allotment. The mallkis’ lands were not partible but were held in perpetuity by the ayllu for the support of the ancestors’ cult; the mummies themselves were inherited by the eldest son, who was responsible for the continuation of the ritual offerings.

The partible inheritance of land was supplemented by a system of mit’a labor that allowed households with insufficient land to compensate by working the land of wealthier households. A household that had received a small plot in the inheritance, for example, might work the larger plots of a wealthier household in exchange for a share of the harvest. The system of ayni — the exchange of equal quantities of labor between households — and the system of minka — communal labor undertaken for the benefit of the wider community — provided further mechanisms for the redistribution of labor and produce within the ayllu.

The q’epi dowry and the inheritance of movable property

Daughters generally did not inherit land, but they received a substantial dowry of textiles, household goods, and sometimes camelids at the time of their marriage. The dowry, known as q’epi in Quechua, was the principal mechanism by which a father transmitted wealth to his daughters, and the size of the q’epi was calibrated to the status of the family and to the size of the bridewealth that the bride’s family would be required to give in return. A q’epi for the daughter of a highland commoner might include several cumbi tunics, a set of gold or silver jewelry (typically a tupu pin and a pair of small earrings), one or two llamas, and a quantity of household goods. A q’epi for the daughter of a panaca nobleman might include dozens of cumbi tunics, several head of llama and alpaca, a set of gold jewelry, and a substantial quantity of household goods.

The marriage customs of the ayllu dictated that the q’epi was given to the bride at the time of the betrothal ceremony and was supplemented by the bridewealth that the groom’s family gave to the bride’s family. The detailed accounting of the q’epi and the bridewealth was recorded on a quipu by the quipucamayoc of the ayllu, and the two together constituted a substantial transfer of wealth between the two families. The colonial visitas record several cases in which the size of the q’epi was disputed after the marriage, and the chronicler Cobo recorded that the ayllu had a formal mechanism for resolving such disputes.

The inheritance of movable property — clothing, jewelry, tools, and household goods — was governed by rules similar to those governing the inheritance of land. A man’s movable property was divided among his heirs, with the eldest son typically receiving the principal items (the household’s t’oqapu textile, the bundle of quipus recording the family’s history, the principal tupu pin) and the younger sons and daughters receiving smaller items. A woman’s movable property — including the textiles she had woven, the household goods she had brought as dowry, and the camelids she had been given at marriage — was divided among her daughters at the time of her death, with the eldest daughter typically receiving the principal items.

Inheritance of ritual and political office

The inheritance of ritual and political office was largely confined to the male line. The principal ritual offices of the ayllu — the camayoc (ritual specialist), the pacaricuc (keeper of the pacarina), the villcac (seer) — were inherited by the eldest son of the previous office-holder, although the ayllu retained the right to remove an office-holder who was incompetent or who had failed to perform his ritual duties. The principal political office of the ayllu — the curaca — was inherited by the eldest son of the previous curaca in a line of descent that, in the rural ayllus, often stretched back to the pre-Inca period. The colonial visitas record several curaca lines that claimed descent from the pre-Inca rulers of the local polity, and the chronicler Murúa recorded that the Inca state was generally careful to confirm the existing curaca in his position after the conquest of his territory.

The inheritance of office was not automatic: the curaca’s eldest son was required to demonstrate his fitness for office by a series of ritual tests, and the ayllu retained the right to remove him in favor of a brother or nephew if he was found incompetent. The chronicler Cobo recorded several cases in which the eldest son of a curaca was passed over in favor of a younger brother, and the colonial visitas record several cases in which the curaca’s line was broken by the failure of the eldest son to produce an heir. In such cases, the office passed to the eldest son of the previous curaca’s eldest daughter, or to a brother or nephew of the curaca selected by the ayllu.

The ayllu’s right of reversion

A distinctive feature of Andean land tenure was the ayllu’s right of reversion — the right to reassign the land of a household that had died out. The colonial visitas record several cases in which a household that had lost all its adult members had its lands reassigned by the ayllu to a household that had suffered a similar misfortune, and the chronicler Murúa recorded that the reassignment was typically performed in a public ceremony presided over by the curaca. The ayllu’s right of reversion ensured that the total amount of land under cultivation remained roughly constant and that no household was permanently dispossessed. The system, in effect, was a form of social insurance against the frequent droughts, frosts, and hailstorms of the highland environment.

The ayllu’s right of reversion was supplemented by a system of ayni — the exchange of equal quantities of labor between households — and by a system of minka — communal labor undertaken for the benefit of the wider community. The colonial visitas record several cases in which the ayllu intervened to provide labor to a household that had suffered a particularly bad harvest, often in exchange for a small payment in textiles or labor. The detailed treatment of the ayllu’s role in the imperial administration is given in the related article on the ayllu and the mit’a system; the ayllu structure and the Sapa Inca’s role are treated in the related articles.