CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 31Latin American history and cultureArchaeology and Cultural HeritageAmazonian Archaeology and Ethnohistory

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Archaeological survey in northern highland Ecuador: Inca imperialism and the País Caranqui

Bray, Tamara L.·1992·World Archaeology
DOI 10.1080/00438243.1992.9980204
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In 1986-7, a systematic archaeological survey of a 120km 2 sector of the Paίs Caranqui in northern highland Ecuador was conducted. The purpose of the study was to examine the nature of the Inca's relationship with disparate sociopolitical groups at the edges of imperial control in order to better understand strategies of state expansion. The ceramic and settlement pattern data from this region offer some insight into the processes of Inca imperialism as manifested on the northern frontier. These data suggest that direct coercion and the weakening of horizontal linkages between local polities may have been important aspects of the imperial agenda in this sector of the empire.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00438243.1992.9980204

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • En términos geopolíticos modernos, la región del Pais Caranqui abarca los sectores de las tierras altas de las provincias de Imbabura y Pichincha, en el norte de Ecuador.

    “En términos geopolíticos modernos, esta región abarca los sectores de las tierras altas de Imbabura y Pichincha provincias del norte, Ecuador(Bray, 1992).”

    From Las tolas perdidas de caranqui y su contexto histórico y regional (2016) · cites this paper as Bray, 1992

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 17 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Acosta‐Solís M., 1982, Fitogeografía y Vegetación de la Provincia de Pichincha
  2. Athens S., 1976, Sarance, 2, 56
  3. Athens S., 1980, El Proceso Evolutivo en las Sociedades Complejas y la Ocupación del Período Tardío‐Cara en las Andes Septentrionales
  4. Borja A., 1965, Relaciones Geográficas de Indias, 248
  5. Bray T., 1991, The effects of Inca imperialism on the northern frontier
  6. Cieza de León P., 1962, La Crónica del Peru. Primera Parte
  7. DePaepe P., Miscelánea Antropolágica Ecuatoriana
  8. Espinosa W., 1983, Los Caranquis y Los Cayambes
  9. Fresco A.., Proyecto Quito de los Incas
  10. Fritz U., 1987, Institute of Archaeology Bulletin, 23, 127
  11. Goff L., 1980, An art historical and archaeological ceramic analysis from the Ecuadorian highlands
  12. Jijón, 1914, Contribución al Conocimiento de los Aborígenes de la Provincia de Imbabura
  13. Jijón, 1920, Boletín de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Estudios Históricos Americanos 4(10–11), 1
  14. Jijón, 1952, Antropologia Prehispánica del Ecuador
  15. Meyers A., 1976, Die Inka in Ekuador
  16. Meyers A., 1981, Cochasquí: Estudios Arqueológicos, 219
  17. Monroy J., 1930, Boletín de la Academia Nacional de Historia, 10, 137
  18. Morris C., 1985, Andean Ecology and Civilization, 477
  19. Murra J., 1975, Formaciones Económicas y Políticas del Mundo Andino, 59
  20. 10.2307/529298 · DOI
  21. Oberem U., 1969, Boletín de la Academia Nacional de Historia, 114, 196
  22. Oberem U., 1978, Actes du XLIIe Congres Internacional des Americanistes, 4, 51
  23. Oberem U., 1981, Cochasquí: Estudios Arquelógicos, Colección Peudoneros, No. 3
  24. Osborn A., 1974, Prehistoric earth mounds in the highlands of Ecuador: a preliminary report
  25. Paz Ponce de León S., 1965, Relaciones Geográficas de Indias
  26. Plaza F., 1976, La Incursión Inca en el Septentrion Andino Ecuatoriano
  27. Porras P., 1982, Arqueología de Quito: Fase Cotocollao
  28. Rostworowski M., 1978, El Hombre y la Cultura Andina, 91
  29. Salomon F., 1978, Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society, 9, 231
  30. Schoenfelder U., 1981, Cochasqui: Estudios Arqueológicos, 151
  31. Wurster W., 1981, Cochasquí: Estudios Arqueológicos, 79

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Bray, T. L.
Affiliations
Smithsonian Institution (US)
Corresponding author
Bray, Tamara L.
Venue
World Archaeology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
1992-10
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
218-233
ISSN
  • 0043-8243 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-1375
DOI
10.1080/00438243.1992.9980204
OpenAlex
W2134140310
Semantic Scholar
5e405124c667d9814ae08ee81b5e11178b6b106f
Cited by
31
References
17
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
World Archaeology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Latin American history and culture
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Amazonian Archaeology and Ethnohistory
Keywords
state expansion, ceramic chronology, settlement patterns, coercion, horizontal connections, Inca Empire

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