4 ms·

> 'How did the Incas do this' -- is that asking for the detailed specifics of their management culture and systems (mostly unknowable -- likely the subject of a

by mmooss 2y ago

> 'How did the Incas do this' -- is that asking for the detailed specifics of their management culture and systems (mostly unknowable -- likely the subject of a many past and future academic careers), or is it a statement of incredulity. I think myself and most of the other commenters have interpreted the latter, whether that was your intention or not. I understand now. No, not incredulity at all, but serious questions. It's an exceptional, very rare achievement. I was hoping for some research out there already that someone was aware of.

alephnerd 2y ago
> I was hoping for some research out there already that someone was aware of I think this thread got very heated, but fundamentally 1. Oral transmission via an apprentice system - a common method used throughout much of history, as mass illiteracy was the norm for most societies at the local level until the 18th-19th century 2. Quipus as a form of proto-writing - we know the Inca were able to codify and communicate categorical and numerical data using quipus. Hypothetically, they might have even been able to use quipu knots to represent an alphabet. We simply wouldn't know because the Spanish burnt most Quipus during the inquisition and the aftermath of the conquest of the Neo-Inca State in the late 16th century and the failure of Tupac Amaru II's rebellion against the Spanish at the end of the 18th century. The Spanish conquest of the Andes was heavily genocidal compared to their other conquests (that's saying something). It almost compared to the ferocity with which the Moriscos (Iberian Muslims) and Sephardim (Iberian Jews) were genocided in the 16th century. To this day the Quechua homeland in Bolivia and Peru remain the least developed regions of South America, with HDIs comparable to those found in poorer states of India and China, compared to much of South America's (excluding Venezuela due to their collapse) HDI converging around 0.800-0.850.
- mmooss 2y ago
  Thanks. Are you summarizing the thread or is that based on evidence and research? I don't see the explanatory power of those theories. > Oral transmission via an apprentice system Oral transmission has probably existed everywhere (apprenticeship is a matter of definition, but I get the idea), but very few have achieved anything like the Incas. > Quipus as a form of proto-writing Quipus are just numbers, as far as I know. They are great, but don't explain how the enormous amount of other necessary information is transmitted and updated across such a vast geography. With due respect, what we need is actual research based on actual evidence, not Internet comments (I'm not offering any theories myself!).
  - antiraza 2y ago
    > very few have achieved anything like the Incas. Can you be more specific? I understand they were a vibrant, far reaching empire, but I'm not sure I understand how they were so exponentially further advanced than many other past civilizations, that have each has their share of remarkable 'how the hell did they do that's.' Taken in sum, I find them all remarkable in their own ways -- but it also proves the earlier point, that human ingenuity has found ways to express itself innumerably across the eras.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      Two ways they are extraordinary: First, the great majority of 'civilizations' [1] do not achieve anything like what the Incas did. Perhaps your perspective is distorted by survivorship bias - you know about the biggest successes, not the 99.999% that you've never heard of, like someone who thinks FAANG are typical of computer businesses. There are (or were until recently) societies in the Amazon, for example, no larger than a village and living in neolithic conditions. That is how far they made it. So there is the common question - why do some 'succeed' on such a large scale and some don't? Jared Diamond's famous book, for example, looks at this issue. Second, the Inca did it with unique limitations: "Remarkably, the Inca managed to forge this vast society without the wheel, the arch, money, iron or steel tools, draft animals capable of ploughing fields or even a written language." That's from the OP. It's mysterious to me that the OP spells out this question, but nobody in the discussion seems to understand it. [1] I'm not sure that's the right word, but I'm not going to define it to precisely
      - krisoft 2y ago
        > Perhaps your perspective is distorted by survivorship bias Have you considered that perhaps it is your viewpoint who is suffering from survivorship bias? For a civilisation to be considered “great” many many things has to go just right. A wide variety of things can and do go wrong to curtail human societies. Prolonged bad weather can ruin the harvest, and the resulting unrest break up the “civilisation”. Random sparks of religuous fervour can catch and destabilise the region. The ruling class can be wrecked by succession wars. Outside threats can conquer all of them. Their civilisation can fail due to economic or demographic changes. Is it possible that when you are asking how they succeed on such a large scale while others did not you are just observing that they were lucky in many aspects until one day they were no longer lucky? And then wondering what their secret of success was is indeed just survivorship bias. Obviously it is still an interesting question to study how did they operate, how did they live and so on and so on. But searching for their “secret sauce” might be a fools errand. Because they very possibly didn’t had one.

by mmooss 2y ago

alephnerd 2y ago

> I was hoping for some research out there already that someone was aware of I think this thread got very heated, but fundamentally 1. Oral transmission via an apprentice system - a common method used throughout much of history, as mass illiteracy was the norm for most societies at the local level until the 18th-19th century 2. Quipus as a form of proto-writing - we know the Inca were able to codify and communicate categorical and numerical data using quipus. Hypothetically, they might have even been able to use quipu knots to represent an alphabet. We simply wouldn't know because the Spanish burnt most Quipus during the inquisition and the aftermath of the conquest of the Neo-Inca State in the late 16th century and the failure of Tupac Amaru II's rebellion against the Spanish at the end of the 18th century. The Spanish conquest of the Andes was heavily genocidal compared to their other conquests (that's saying something). It almost compared to the ferocity with which the Moriscos (Iberian Muslims) and Sephardim (Iberian Jews) were genocided in the 16th century. To this day the Quechua homeland in Bolivia and Peru remain the least developed regions of South America, with HDIs comparable to those found in poorer states of India and China, compared to much of South America's (excluding Venezuela due to their collapse) HDI converging around 0.800-0.850.

mmooss 2y ago
Thanks. Are you summarizing the thread or is that based on evidence and research? I don't see the explanatory power of those theories. > Oral transmission via an apprentice system Oral transmission has probably existed everywhere (apprenticeship is a matter of definition, but I get the idea), but very few have achieved anything like the Incas. > Quipus as a form of proto-writing Quipus are just numbers, as far as I know. They are great, but don't explain how the enormous amount of other necessary information is transmitted and updated across such a vast geography. With due respect, what we need is actual research based on actual evidence, not Internet comments (I'm not offering any theories myself!).
- antiraza 2y ago
  > very few have achieved anything like the Incas. Can you be more specific? I understand they were a vibrant, far reaching empire, but I'm not sure I understand how they were so exponentially further advanced than many other past civilizations, that have each has their share of remarkable 'how the hell did they do that's.' Taken in sum, I find them all remarkable in their own ways -- but it also proves the earlier point, that human ingenuity has found ways to express itself innumerably across the eras.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Two ways they are extraordinary: First, the great majority of 'civilizations' [1] do not achieve anything like what the Incas did. Perhaps your perspective is distorted by survivorship bias - you know about the biggest successes, not the 99.999% that you've never heard of, like someone who thinks FAANG are typical of computer businesses. There are (or were until recently) societies in the Amazon, for example, no larger than a village and living in neolithic conditions. That is how far they made it. So there is the common question - why do some 'succeed' on such a large scale and some don't? Jared Diamond's famous book, for example, looks at this issue. Second, the Inca did it with unique limitations: "Remarkably, the Inca managed to forge this vast society without the wheel, the arch, money, iron or steel tools, draft animals capable of ploughing fields or even a written language." That's from the OP. It's mysterious to me that the OP spells out this question, but nobody in the discussion seems to understand it. [1] I'm not sure that's the right word, but I'm not going to define it to precisely
    - krisoft 2y ago
      > Perhaps your perspective is distorted by survivorship bias Have you considered that perhaps it is your viewpoint who is suffering from survivorship bias? For a civilisation to be considered “great” many many things has to go just right. A wide variety of things can and do go wrong to curtail human societies. Prolonged bad weather can ruin the harvest, and the resulting unrest break up the “civilisation”. Random sparks of religuous fervour can catch and destabilise the region. The ruling class can be wrecked by succession wars. Outside threats can conquer all of them. Their civilisation can fail due to economic or demographic changes. Is it possible that when you are asking how they succeed on such a large scale while others did not you are just observing that they were lucky in many aspects until one day they were no longer lucky? And then wondering what their secret of success was is indeed just survivorship bias. Obviously it is still an interesting question to study how did they operate, how did they live and so on and so on. But searching for their “secret sauce” might be a fools errand. Because they very possibly didn’t had one.