5 ms·

The extent to which the Incas did it is remarkable, but historically civil engineering had little to do with markets. The ancient Sumerians, Egyptians, Persians

• jeltz 13y ago
  Agreed, there is nothing strange about the Incan system. It is one of the oldest forms of taxes.
  • ChuckMcM 13y ago
    However I shared the paper's central question which was the complete lack of existence of a trading class. In other cultures there were always traders and markets and points of exchange. Perhaps as a mono-culture the Incans never had to develop such systems (or the need was small enough, as pointed out in the paper, that they did so on a case by case basis).
    • jeltz 13y ago
      Other than the lack of a trading class the economy is very much like the early Egyptian economy, based around the production of food and with taxes extracted in the form of labor and food. My guess for the lack of a trading class is due to too few neighbors to trade with.
  • venomsnake 13y ago
    And actually one of the fairest. We all are equally rich in time so requiring labor in equal amount makes sense. Then you can give everyone equal money for their labour and let them trade the surplus goods and services on the free market.
• Florin_Andrei 13y ago
  I think the key point is that they didn't have money at all.
  • zeteo 13y ago
    The article has two main points: 1. The Inca state had no internal trade system whatsoever. This is, if accurate, indeed unusual for a society of its size. 2. Despite this, they still managed to acquire great "wealth", which the article defines as infrastructure and public works. This is not surprising at all, since historically even societies that had markets did not usually rely on them for civil engineering projects.
    • aneth5 13y ago
      > 2. Despite this, they still managed to acquire great "wealth", which the article defines as infrastructure and public works. This is not surprising at all, since historically even societies that had markets did not usually rely on them for civil engineering projects. Wouldn't civil engineering be financed by payments in some sort of coinage, valued because of its use in markets?
  • astine 13y ago
    There were a lot of ancient societies that didn't have money but still engaged in commerce. The ancient Egyptians payed taxes in food for example. What the article stresses is that we don't have a record of the Incas' merchant class. This doesn't mean they didn't have one; they had no writing system either so it's possible that Inca trade was simply never recorded. One thing to remember about the Inca's though is that though they had no written language, they did have a record keeping system involving knots in string. Only a very few Incas knew how this system worked so it's possible that here was no efficient reckoning system available to the masses so large scale trade would have been impossible in a lot of ways. Another thing to think of, is that when talking about the 'Incas' we should avoid conflating the Incas themselves, who were relatively few in number, and the vast number of peoples that they ruled over. The bulk of the Incas themselves were soldiers in the military and were provided for directly by the government, while the conquered peoples were reputedly pressed into labor and made to wear uniforms corresponding to their social statuses. It's possible that the various tribes traded amongst themselves before they were conquered by the Incas and had their societies radically transformed.
• user9756 13y ago
  Actually I remember a documentary were it stated that the Persians paid men and women for their skills working on projects. I can't remember the name of the documentary (probably from the discovery channel). A quick google search - http://hsc.csu.edu.au/ancient_history/societies/near_east/persian_soc/persiansociety.html http://hsc.csu.edu.au/ancient_history/societies/near_east/pe... And - "Men, women and children worked in ancient Persia to support a diverse economy. Workers were paid in wine and grain, with skilled laborers paid more than unskilled, and supervisors paid more than workers. Men were paid slightly more than women, but female supervisors were paid more than the men working under them. Young women received maternity leave and were paid money for each child they had." http://www.ehow.com/about_5414474_jobs-did-ancient-persians-perform.html http://www.ehow.com/about_5414474_jobs-did-ancient-persians-...
  • dhughes 13y ago
    > skilled laborers paid more than unskilled, and supervisors paid more than workers. Men were paid slightly more than women, but female supervisors were paid more than the men working under them. Young women received maternity leave and were paid money for each child they had." It makes sense, people were paid for their ability to add to society. Men paid more possibly due to their greater strength; carry more, build more faster and women for having children.
  • zeteo 13y ago
    >Workers were paid in wine and grain That's not pay, it's logistics. Even on the worst forced labor projects they're still usually feeding the prisoners.
    • seanmcdirmid 13y ago
      Ya: free to go but free to starve isn't much of a choice. Outright slavery isn't necessary.
      • IsThisObvious 13y ago
        How is paying me money any different if my only option if I quit was live on the streets and starve?
• thomaslangston 13y ago
  I've watched one documentary which claimed the Egyptians were paid, in beer.