Phillip,
You're right that most have interpreted the meso-american trade and exchange
systems as markets and that there were extensive monies used in
pre-Columbian times. Schele and Freidel wrote in "Forest of the Kings",
"The ancient Maya used various precious commodities for money--carved and
polished greenstone beads, beads of red spiny oyster shell, cacao beans,
lengths of cotton cloth, and measures of sea salt. Such currenciues were in
wide demand throughout the Mesoamerican world." They also state "In turn,
different people produced and controled different commodities, and traded
regularly over long distances to obtain those that were outside their
political domains." I recognize that my original statements were somewhat
exaggerated and feel the need to clarify a few things. (1) I doubt that
there was any money that functioned as an equivalent for all trade objects
but most likely there were different restricted domains of exchange within
which certain "currencies" functioned against others as units of exchange;
there were no coins and I have never heard any demonstration of universal
currencies. (2) The idea that monies, insofar as they existed in their
probable limited form, had any direct effect in controlling the process of
the economy, as in market economies, is very dubious. There utilization and
importance to the society was most clearly associated to political power and
had not separated themselves out as a separate domain, just as the math
itself was totally embedded within systems of mythological relations. (3)
Not much is known about the measure of the currencies, they most certainly
functioned as ritual goods, probably along patterns described for other
indigenous currencies such as the Yurok use of dentalia shell and woodpecker
scalps up here in northern California. These items would be used for a
variety of purposes but rarely if ever would be used to purchase what we
think of as "commodities" although perhaps luxury goods, in a sense they
were luxury goods that circulated. Such items were most certainly used to
pay off personal injuries, as brideprice, etc. They were used to establish
social relations rather than to directly acquire goods. Robert Crump's
excellent study, The Phenomenon of Money, describes seven functions that
money peforms (Marx explicitly only discussed three: medium of exchange,
store of value, and measure of value). He describes how different forms of
money prior to those associated with minting precious metals often filled
one or two of these functions and how many of these might exist to fill all
of the various functions. I am somewhat out of the loop on this but from
what I know, there has not been an full blown study of these forms of
currency in meso-america.
In the Andes there was simply no money or currency. Exchange and
redistribution were accomplished strictly on the basis of what we could
fairly call "entitlements" and barter. Studies of extant barter systems in
the Andes demonstrate some basis in the calculation of labor times although
scarcity did contribute to the calculation of equivalencies in the case of
certain resources that were notably scarce: e.g., salt.
The reason I think all this might be important concerns the fundamentality
of the calculation of values in the process of exchange. Whereas this
becomes central when money is measured in units and there are homogeneous
bases for calculation: what Marx called the money-commodity, such is
probably not the case in earlier forms of particularly limited currencies.
There is a very interesting study by Jerry Martien, "Shell Game: A True
Account of Beads and Money in North America" that explores how wampum
functioned in indigenous societies from the Long Island Sound to the Great
Lakes and how it was manipulated and sublated within the capitalist form of
money with the establishment of the colonies.. It's a great read, written
by a poet/carpenter yet historically quite well researched and full of
wonderful anecdotes and illustrations.
Paul H. Dillon
----- Original Message -----
From: Phillip White <Phillip_White@ceo.cudenver.edu>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Cc: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 9:08 AM
Subject: Re(2): Activity and Money (2)
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu writes:
>
> Paul scrobe:
>
> > meso- and south american cultures developed very
> >sophisticated mathematical systems but did not have money or markets and
> >were most certainly not capitalist cultural systems.
> >
> first, what you wrote, Paul, i found very interesting and now want to go
> do some reading of the authors your referenced. it sounds really great!
>
> second, please help me with what you mean by the word "market" in the
> above quote - because i'm thinking about the far-flung trading system of
> the Aztecs and the traders (which if i remember correctly was a profession
> dominated by women) who moved from the now american south west to the
> yucatan and central american jungles. is my definition of "market" a
> naive one to include this system of trade?
>
> thanks,
>
> phillip
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> * * * * * * * *
> * *
>
> The English noun "identity" comes, ultimately, from the
> Latin adverb "identidem", which means "repeatedly."
> The Latin has exactly the same rhythm as the English,
> buh-BUM-buh-BUM - a simple iamb, repeated; and
> "identidem" is, in fact, nothing more than a
> reduplication of the word "idem", "the same":
> "idem(et)idem". "Same(and) same". The same,
> repeated. It is a word that does exactly what
> it means.
>
> from "The Elusive Embrace" by Daniel
> Mendelsohn.
>
> phillip white
> third grade teacher
> doctoral student http://ceo.cudenver.edu/~hacms_lab/index.htm
> scrambling a dissertation
> denver, colorado
> phillip_white@ceo.cudenver.edu
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 27 2004 - 11:29:00 PST