1491 - the prequel

1,926 Views | 7 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by HDeathstar
McInnis
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
In the thread about historical oddities, CanyonAg77 referenced "1491" by Charles Mann and I've been reading it since.

I think the story about the Inca civilization is one of the most fascinating things I have ever read. Spoiler alert, I'm about to summarize it, so if you don't know this story you might want to check out the book first. But I'm hoping people who do know it and more of its details will chime in.

In 1438 the Incas were one of many tribal villages scattered among the Andes mountains at 10,000-14,000 ft. elevation which in itself is interesting because no other civilizations have thrived at such high elevations as they did, although the book gives insight into an advantage of living in the Andes.

That year the Incas fought a battle against a neighboring tribe the Chankas and a leader of the Incas evolved, Pachukati. He started to grow the empire by assimilating nearby villages, generally by enticement rather than coercion. He would offer other tribal leaders gifts and offer the local residents land near Inca. He got these new villages to adapt the Incan language. His rule lasted 25 years.

His son, Thupa, continued this practice and expanded the new empire further. He also began the practice of Incan emperors of marrying their sisters to maintain genetic purity. If this trend had continued long term, surely nothing good would have come from it.

By the third generation expansion shifted more towards the aggressive rather than the enticement mode. Large palaces and temples were built as well as roads, some of which are still useable today (by llamas, not cars). The empire had great wealth in silver and gold. Hunger was eradicated. By 1491 they are considered to have been the greatest empire on earth.

Thupa's son Wayna Qhapaq continued the aggressive empire building. His successor, after some controversy, was Atawapalla. During his reign in 1532, foreigners were seen near the coastline. They had hairy faces and were riding large animals. Emissaries were sent to them to arrange a meeting. The foreigners were Fransisco Piazarro, a Spanish conquistador, and 167 men under his command. A meeting was arranged at Cajamarca. There the Spanish waited in ambush for Atawapalla and 5,000+ of his soldiers.

When the Spanish attacked, the Incans, who had never seen horses or guns, panicked and the route ended with Atawapalla being captured. He told the Spanish that he could raise a 17x22 ft. room filled with gold objects and two other similar rooms with silver for his freedom. He kept his end of the bargain but Pizarro had him killed anyway. The Inca empire had grown quickly to become the greatest on earth but lasted only about 100 years and was defeated by 168 Spaniards. Incas tried to fight off the Spaniards for another 40 years but it was hopeless. They were vanquished.

To help understand the quick demise, two things are important to know. About 25 years before the Spanish arrived the Incas were devasted by a virus. Diseases brought by Europeans often spread faster than the newcomers themselves and areas that settlers found (as with the Pilgrims) had already been depopulated by the time they arrived. Speculation is that the virus that affected the Incas could have come from either Mexico or perhaps the Carribean. And then during the outbreak, there was a bloody civil war between the followers of Atawapalla and another of Wayna Chupa's heirs.

The author explains why the problem of estimating the populations of the Americas before Europeans arrived is so difficult. As mentioned, disease spread faster than the explorers for that when the settlers arrived in an area it had usually already been depopulated. Current populations could be estimated and then fatality rates applied to estimate previous populations but those fatality rates were generally just guesses.


CT'97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Great book, I feel just the tip of the spear when getting into the history of the America's. Lots of very interesting things being found that have happened since that book was written even.
HeightsAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
While I'm sure the book is entertaining, let's not pretend that Charles Mann is a historian. His key premise which is that in 1491 the Incan were the greatest empire in the world is a laughable claim. Of course "greatest" is completely subjective but I don't know of any parameters where that'd be true.

From a land mass standpoint, most scholars would agree that the Incan empire at its greatest extent covered a sliver of western South America that is basically modern day Peru plus parts of Bolivia, Chile, and Colombia. Ming China was much larger and it's not even close.

From a technology perspective, Incans were still in the bronze age (btw, it took Europe 1000 years to go from Bronze to Iron), didn't have a written language nor seaworthy ships, and as already stated no gunpowder or even crossbows for that matter. Population wise, they didn't stack up to Ming China either.

Sure the Incans had great accomplishments and are worthy of us learning more about their history but I am not a fan of Mann (or anyone for that matter) passing off an overly dramatic and apparently lightly vetted book as being historically accurate.

McInnis
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I kind of wondered about his statement that the Incan empire was the greatest in the world at the time. He doesn't define "greatest" but specifically lists the Ming Dynasty, Ivan the Great's Russia, the Ottoman Empire and others. He cites as a reference Fernandez-Armesto. I'm not familiar with him. Is he considered credible?

Smeghead4761
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I wasn't aware any of the civilizations in the Americas had even figured out bronze.

The Inca did have the most advanced metallurgy in the Americas, but I don't think they had managed to make bronze.

It's hard to say they were Stone Age, since they were smelting metal, but it was mostly precious metals and copper.
McInnis
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
To have a great empire it seems that a succession plan to give some hope of stability when transitioning from one generation to the next would be needed. The Incas had a big gap there. In just the five generations that they lasted, twice a leader anointed a successor then changed his mind on his deathbed which led to strife. In one case a full blown civil war.

Without a written language I wonder how we know that the first ruler of the empire came to power in exactly 1432? It seems they did have a crude system of counting, using knots in pieces of rope. I guess that along with verbal historians?

One thing that it seemed like Mann kind of brushed over was the practice of human sacrifices. To show the Incas weren't much more barbaric than European nations he compared the number of deaths in those nations due to capital punishment. That doesn't seem like a very good comparison.
McInnis
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
HeightsAg said:

While I'm sure the book is entertaining, let's not pretend that Charles Mann is a historian. His key premise which is that in 1491 the Incan were the greatest empire in the world is a laughable claim. Of course "greatest" is completely subjective but I don't know of any parameters where that'd be true.

From a land mass standpoint, most scholars would agree that the Incan empire at its greatest extent covered a sliver of western South America that is basically modern day Peru plus parts of Bolivia, Chile, and Colombia. Ming China was much larger and it's not even close.

From a technology perspective, Incans were still in the bronze age (btw, it took Europe 1000 years to go from Bronze to Iron), didn't have a written language nor seaworthy ships, and as already stated no gunpowder or even crossbows for that matter. Population wise, they didn't stack up to Ming China either.

Sure the Incans had great accomplishments and are worthy of us learning more about their history but I am not a fan of Mann (or anyone for that matter) passing off an overly dramatic and apparently lightly vetted book as being historically accurate.




I decided to keep an open mind about your criticisms until I finished reading the book, which I now have.

You tell us not to pretend that Mann is a historian, but who has done that? Not him. He's a writer and author who interviewed dozens of anthropologists and archeologists for this book, often giving their opposing views on a matter.

You say his "key premise" is that the Incan empire was greatest in the world, and I wish he had stated in more detail why he thinks that is. But I wouldn't say it's a key premise. That thought is contained in one short paragraph and his coverage of the Incas is occupies less than 10% of the volume of the book.

I am curious about your statement that is an "apparently lightly vetted" book. What is your basis for saying that? Is there a better book you can recommend to learn about what the Americas were like pre-Columbus?

Overall I found this book enlightening. If you can tell us where we can find a better resource please do, I would definitely look into it.

You say "I'm sure the book is entertaining". I have a gentle suggestion. Why not consider reading it then come here and share your thoughts?
HDeathstar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Most impressive thing about the Incas, is what they accomplished without large beasts of burden. Very impressive.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.