The Emperor's New Body: Personhood, Ontology and the Inka Sovereign

Abstract

This article engages with current debates in archaeology with respect to matters of ontological difference — particularly in terms of bodies, personhood and the much-contested category of the individual. Drawing on early Spanish historical accounts of the material and bodily practices through which the Inka sovereign was constituted, I argue that although he was certainly not a Cartesian individual, neither was he a kind of fractal or partible person. Contrary to the growing tendency to see non-Western modes of personhood as highly ‘relational’, the Inka emperor was in my view a bounded and tightly delineated entity, albeit one not contiguous with a biological body. In archaeological theory, a growing divide appears to be emerging between relational and individual species of personhood — with the former often ascribed to non-modern societies, and the latter frequently associated with the modern West. I present a critique of this trend and argue for the need to break beyond such binaries — interpreting the Inka emperor as a form of individual that stood outside a nature/society divide and thus still very much incommensurable with Western ontologies of the person.

Relational Personhood Revisited

“…Situated in a brilliant critical reconsideration of models of relational personhood, Wilkinson's (2013) account of the personhood of the Inka Emperor Atawallpa exemplifies the value of describing the relationships fundamental to personhood in each case. He writes, 'anything Atawallpa touched was transformed into himself, through a kind of divine "contagion" .…”

“…Debates over ontology and personhood raise some parallel and sometimes intersecting questions (e.g. Alberti et al 2011;Watts 2013;Wilkinson 2013; cf. Roscoe 2015): most notably, how to compare across cultures-or even across worlds-in a way that appreciates both radical difference and also similarity?…”

Anthropological Archaeology in 2013: The Search for Truth(s)

“…In current anthropology, many scholars are questioning whether we can speak of a singular (Western) ontology—that is, “a fundamental set of understandings about how the world is: what kinds of beings, processes, and qualities could potentially exist and how these relate to each other” (Harris and Robb :668). In examining Inca imperial rule, Darryl Wilkinson () critiques these recent trends in anthropology that theorize ontological difference in personhood and concludes that by creating a polarized opposition between relational versus bounded types of persons, we risk falling into the same trap of a universalized ontology, dichotomizing “Western” individuals and relational dividuals. Similarly, Oliver Harris and John Robb () suggest that by envisioning multiple, mutually exclusive ontologies, this creates a “closed” ontology whereby different groups would never be able to communicate and understand one another in circumstances of contact, which historically we know is not the case (see also Robb and Harris ).…”

A Microhistory of Human and Gastropod Bodies and Souls During Cahokia's Emergence

“…Through this lens I examine the processing of bodies in mortuary practice by engaging with the body as multi-vocal and as a unique site of 'social action and lived experiences' (Warner et al 2014; see also Wilkinson 2013). The body as 'site' implies something acted upon, but it is also a place of invention and change.…”

“…The body as 'site' implies something acted upon, but it is also a place of invention and change. In the discipline of archaeology the body has been described as biological, relational, composite, and singular, bounded, permeable, dead or alive (see Robb 2013;Wilkinson 2013; see also Gillespie 2001). Bodies are the centre of action and material practice, and in many cases present unique contexts to access multiple levels of relationships and processes.…”