14 Power and Practice in the Prehispanic Andes: Final Comments Jerry D. Moore California State University Dominguez Hills Keywords: Andes, power, authority, practice theory, Eric Wolf A s Conlee and Ogburn note in the introduction to this vol- ume, the concept of power has been an implicit thread in Andean archaeology for decades. For example, John Rowe could sketch power relationships in the Inca Empire in the following: The Inca emperors were absolute rulers with power checked only by the influence of ancient custom and the fear of revolt. They not only ruled by divine right, but claimed lineal descent from the Sun and were worshipped as divine during their lifetimes. While the Emperor and his government were merciless toward their enemies and demanded an obedience which amounted to virtual slav- ery from their subjects, they were in theory obliged to care for their people in every sort of need and keep them comfortable and happy. This obligation is reflected in many of their laws and illustrated by a number of anec- dotes. The unquestionable success of the system is due chiefly to a sincere effort by the Imperial Government to live up to its theoretical obligation [1946:257]. In his classic overview, “Inca Culture at the Time of the Spanish Conquest,” Rowe regularly touched on is- sues of power, discussing matters of political organization (1946:257–274), warfare (1946:274–279), penal displays (“After a particularly notable victory, the captives were led in triumphal procession through the streets of Cuzco, and the Emperor trod upon their necks in the temple of the Sun as a symbol of his power over them” [1946:279]), and the role of cosmogonies as mythic charters of dynastic relation- ships (1946:316–318). Power, however, is treated as simply another domain of Inca culture; it is not in the foreground nor does it permeate social life. This example, among others (e.g., Murra 1980), suggests that while Andeanists have not ignored power, it has not been an explicit line of inquiry, a point that Conlee and Ogburn make in the introduction. This implicit theory of power is reflected in the present volume, with several divergent theoretical strands. Sev- Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, Vol. 14, pp. 261–274, ISBN 1-931303-20-7. C  2005 by the American An- thropological Association. All rights reserved. Permissions to photocopy or reproduce article content via www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm. eral authors employ a taxonomy of power domains— distinguishing between physical, economic, and ideological power—and then identify which domain is more relevant for a specific archaeological case. Thus, one line of implicit theory is that power is derived from distinct sources that can be disaggregated. Another strand of implicit theory posits that power is dyadic. This perspective counter poses leaders versus subjects, elites versus nonelites, as those with access to power versus those who lack it. This dyadic approach to power contrasts with alternative approaches that view power as permeating all social relations and insist that power is thus “situated.” Finally, the majority of the essays, explicitly or implic- itly, draw on a theory of practice (Ortner 1984:144–160) (al- though one from which Pierre Bourdieu is curiously absent). This is explicit in Janusek’s excellent chapter on Tiwanaku but equally present—though implicit—in most of the oth- ers. Many authors recognize and explore the central issues of structure and agency, in which “the structural properties of social systems are both the medium and outcome of the practices that constitute those systems” (Giddens 1979:69). The role of the social actors is alluded to in the essays by Bandy, Schreiber, Conlee, Jennings, Vaughn, and Nash and Williams, and it is given more extensive treatment in Rick’s discussion of historical consciousness and intentionality at Chav´ ın de Hu´ antar. To varying degrees, these authors ac- knowledge what Giddens (1979:3) called “the essential re- cursiveness of social life.” In the balance of this chapter, I will attempt to make several points. First, I suggest that an approach to power based on a theory of practice provides us with useful ana- lytical tools, and I will attempt to summarize elements of such a theory drawn from the work of Eric Wolf, with es- sential additions from the ideas of Pierre Bourdieu. Second, I summarize the essays in this collection and argue that they