5 ms·

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.
dsizzle 13y ago
The story of Atahualpa’s Ransom (http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/theconquestofperu/p/The-Ransom-Of-Atahualpa.htm http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/theconquestofperu/p...) -- the king offered a ransom of gold -- seems to cast doubt on the claim the Incans didn't have money.
- jdmichal 13y ago
  First, it depends on whether the gold was considered a currency. If it was just another good, then it's really just a bartering -- life for some good, which in this case happens to be gold. Second, that story is post-conquistador. It is in fact the Spanish who are demanding the gold and silver, which is of course what the Spanish used for currency. So it's really an observation on the Spanish, not the Incans.
  - dsizzle 13y ago
    It may be that the Inca never used gold as currency, but it would be hard to substantiate that claim, I would think. The reason the Spanish valued it as currency is not because of some quirk of the Spanish, however -- it's univerally a good currency (though not the best). Unlike bartered goods or services, gold is readily divisible and transportable, transfers without any skill, and stores indefinitely.
    - bobbydavid 13y ago
      Incidentally, so is salt.
      - lostlogin 13y ago
        Not unrelated, Salinas de Maras. If you're going to Cusco, make the side trip. It's fascinating. http://breakoutofbushwick.org/a-visit-to-the-salinas-de-maras-or-the-salt-pans-of-maras-of-peru/?wprptest2=0 http://breakoutofbushwick.org/a-visit-to-the-salinas-de-mara...
      - cturner 13y ago

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.

dsizzle 13y ago

The story of Atahualpa’s Ransom (http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/theconquestofperu/p/The-Ransom-Of-Atahualpa.htm http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/theconquestofperu/p...) -- the king offered a ransom of gold -- seems to cast doubt on the claim the Incans didn't have money.

jdmichal 13y ago
First, it depends on whether the gold was considered a currency. If it was just another good, then it's really just a bartering -- life for some good, which in this case happens to be gold. Second, that story is post-conquistador. It is in fact the Spanish who are demanding the gold and silver, which is of course what the Spanish used for currency. So it's really an observation on the Spanish, not the Incans.
- dsizzle 13y ago
  It may be that the Inca never used gold as currency, but it would be hard to substantiate that claim, I would think. The reason the Spanish valued it as currency is not because of some quirk of the Spanish, however -- it's univerally a good currency (though not the best). Unlike bartered goods or services, gold is readily divisible and transportable, transfers without any skill, and stores indefinitely.
  - bobbydavid 13y ago
    Incidentally, so is salt.
    - lostlogin 13y ago
      Not unrelated, Salinas de Maras. If you're going to Cusco, make the side trip. It's fascinating. http://breakoutofbushwick.org/a-visit-to-the-salinas-de-maras-or-the-salt-pans-of-maras-of-peru/?wprptest2=0 http://breakoutofbushwick.org/a-visit-to-the-salinas-de-mara...
    - cturner 13y ago