The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Chronology, Succession, and Sovereignty: The Politics of Inka Historiography and Its Modern Interpretation
Abstract
Western scholars have long identified the existence of writing systems as a near-universal characteristic of high civilization, with Tawantinsuyu, the Inka empire, representing the only significant exception.1 Although writing was absent in the pre-Hispanic Andes, there existed the means of recording administrative information and preserving narratives of the past. Inka imperial overseers and specialized record-keepers produced tribute levies, population counts, and assessments of provincial development potential, using a system of knotted cords (a khipu) as their principal device.2 Such records fulfilled bureaucratic and administrative functions that were satisfied in other societies by writing; however, the maintenance of narratives of the Inka past contrasts with these practices in its hybrid use of oral tradition in consultation with similar record keeping devices.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Wide inconsistency in the chronological information embedded in the historical sources could easily result in a profusion of conflicting chronologies.
“As shown by Covey (2006), there is wide inconsistency in the chronological information embedded in the historical sources, which could easily result in a profusion of conflicting chronologies.”
From Reconceiving the chronology of inca imperial expansion (2012) · cites this paper as Covey 2006
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reconceiving the chronology of inca imperial expansion
Ogburn, D. E. (2012) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.2458/azu_js_rc.v54i2.16014 · Cited by 118
Metadata
- Authors
- Covey, R. A.
- Venue
- Comparative Studies in Society and History
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2006-01
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 169-199
- ISSN
- 0010-4175
- 1475-2999
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review