Pictures of Aztec Money

[somehiker]

Joe:

I didn't know you held the Smithsonian in such low regard.
Personally,I'm glad they have such a website,and more can be found by clicking on the "home" button.
The description dates the artifact at about 1500,prior to the arrival of the Spanish.
Similar finds,in caches of from 120-500 pieces,have not been rare,and seem not to have been used as tools.
One author though,states that he can "imagine" them being used as such.

From one of the other sources I've linked:
"The earliest reference to these is in a document dated Oct. 31, 1548, in which a Spanish resident of Antiquera de Oaxaca, Francisco Lopez Tenorio, not only described the piece but also attached a drawing with the notation: "This is the form of copper coins that were in use in New Spain. The value placed and at which these were commonly accepted was of four such pieces, if new, for five Spanish reales. If worn, many refused to accept them, and they were sold to be melted at ten pieces for one Spanish Real.""
This document is also cited here....
Axe-monies and their relatives - Google Books Result

More here as well....Microsoft Word - Hoe Money of AmericaNI2.doc

Too bad the authors did not have the benefit of your expertise.

Regards:SH.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[cactusjumper]

Joe:

I didn't know you held the Smithsonian in such low regard.
Personally,I'm glad they have such a website,and more can be found by clicking on the "home" button.
The description dates the artifact at about 1500,prior to the arrival of the Spanish.
Similar finds,in caches of from 120-500 pieces,have not been rare,and seem not to have been used as tools.
One author though,states that he can "imagine" them being used as such.

From one of the other sources I've linked:
"The earliest reference to these is in a document dated Oct. 31, 1548, in which a Spanish resident of Antiquera de Oaxaca, Francisco Lopez Tenorio, not only described the piece but also attached a drawing with the notation: "This is the form of copper coins that were in use in New Spain. The value placed and at which these were commonly accepted was of four such pieces, if new, for five Spanish reales. If worn, many refused to accept them, and they were sold to be melted at ten pieces for one Spanish Real.""
This document is also cited here....
Axe-monies and their relatives - Google Books Result

More here as well....Microsoft Word - Hoe Money of AmericaNI2.doc

Too bad the authors did not have the benefit of your expertise.

Regards:SH.

Wayne,

"Not saying the copper did not have value, just don't believe it was used as "Aztec money". The Aztec had a lot of copper."

That was an opinion base on the research I have done into the history of the Aztec people. Many other people have a different opinion, and they are probably correct.....to a point, just as I may be.

All things in a primitive culture have some value. Because of that, they may use, just about anything, for money/barter/trade.

"Too bad the authors did not have the benefit of your expertise."

I'm no expert but I do have an interest in Aztec history. Your comment hints that you believe you have more expertise than I. That's not saying much, so you will forgive me if I don't relinquish my opinion too easily.

In "Aztecs of Mexico", George C. Vaillant writes this on page128: "Quills of gold dust sometimes were used as an exchange medium, as were crescent-shaped knives of thin-beaten copper. These last had not the common acceptance or the utility of cacao beans, although they represented easily portable value."

In that respect, I suppose you could call Beaver pelts, shells, blue rocks and obsidian......money. In each case, its worth would depend on the desire of the person receiving it. Do those things meet the definition of "money"? I suppose it depends on who is doing the defining.

As far as I know, there remains some debate over "Aztec hoe money". I looked into "Axe Money" some time ago, and have "Axe-Monies and Their Relatives".

Take care,

Joe

 

[somehiker]

Joe:

I am not trying to claim that Cacao was not considered the highest valued trade item by the Aztec.
Only that the existence of this "Hoe Money",and it's use in trade,may have been a late step in evolution of the monetary system of the Aztec.


I have also looked into the subject of Aztec copper artifacts,some time ago.While I as well,may be skeptical of some of the opinions/conclusions I read during my research,I do not consider either of us to be experts on the subject.Certainly not more than those at the Smithsonian.Currency can be many things,and trade goods are anything which two parties may exchange,be it cacao beans,fabrics used as "money",precious metals,etc.etc.
The fact that gold dust,in transparent quills,was used as trade currency,does seem to be at odds with claims that the Aztec placed no value on gold,other than for religious purposes,doesn't it?

The use of the term "money" seems to apply mainly to currency for which there is a set value,unlike many of the other items you mentioned,where the value was determined by the "barter" system.
Both Cacao Beans and copper Hoe Money apparently had set value in the Aztec market.
That value may diminish however,for hoe money,as mentioned by Tenorio,with age and condition being a factor.
I suspect this would have applied to Cacao Beans as well.

Regards:SH.

 

[cactusjumper]

Joe:

I am not trying to claim that Cacao was not considered the highest valued trade item by the Aztec.
Only that the existence of this "Hoe Money",and it's use in trade,may have been a late step in evolution of the monetary system of the Aztec.


I have also looked into the subject of Aztec copper artifacts,some time ago.While I as well,may be skeptical of some of the opinions/conclusions I read during my research,I do not consider either of us to be experts on the subject.Certainly not more than those at the Smithsonian.Currency can be many things,and trade goods are anything which two parties may exchange,be it cacao beans,fabrics used as "money",precious metals,etc.etc.
The fact that gold dust,in transparent quills,was used as trade currency,does seem to be at odds with claims that the Aztec placed no value on gold,other than for religious purposes,doesn't it?

The use of the term "money" seems to apply mainly to currency for which there is a set value,unlike many of the other items you mentioned,where the value was determined by the "barter" system.
Both Cacao Beans and copper Hoe Money apparently had set value in the Aztec market.
That value may diminish however,for hoe money,as mentioned by Tenorio,with age and condition being a factor.
I suspect this would have applied to Cacao Beans as well.

Regards:SH.

Wayne,


It seems we are both moving, slowly, to the middle on this subject. It was a late step in the Aztec monetary system. Could it have been a desperate attempt by the Aztecs to convince the Spaniards that the copper, of which they had plenty, was more valuable than the gold and precious stones which they used for religious reasons?


As I have stated before, I don't for a second consider myself any kind of expert. As for my feelings about the Smithsonian, I have had contact with them a number of times in the past and always found them to be helpful and knowledgeable. Once it was to provide myself
with the list of items in the Ales Hrdlicka Collection. They sent me what I was interested in, some of which was concerning the Adolph Ruth investigation.

Once again, what I said about the "Aztec Hoe Money" was strictly my uninformed opinion, based on the small amount of research I have done into the Aztec culture. One does not need to be an "expert" to form and express an opinion. I can assure you, my opinion on this matter is not based on a single source, and I doubt yours are either.

Cacao beans did fluctuate In value, depending on if they were "full" beans or "shrunken". If they were the smaller beans, It was possible to roast the shrunken bean to make them appear like the "full" beans. The same holds true for the quachtli. There were three common grades worth, 65, 80 and 100 cacao beans. Of course, we have left out the feathers of the Quetzal.


These kinds of conversations are always interesting for me, as well as being informative.

Thanks for the replies,

Joe

 

[somehiker]

Joe:

" Could it have been a desperate attempt by the Aztecs to convince the Spaniards that the copper, of which they had plenty, was more valuable than the gold and precious stones which they used for religious reasons? "

I don't recall any historical reference to the Aztec having "plenty" of copper.There was a copper source,I believe not far from Tenochtitlan,where Cortez obtained metal from which to cast cannon,so it was something that the Spanish were interested in.The Aztec had traded copper bells for some time as well,and as artifacts,these bells have been found far to the north in many pre-columbian digs.These "celts",as they are sometimes called,have been dated (where found during archaeological excavations) as pre-conquest as well.
Historically,I don't think the Aztec received much of anything from the Spanish for their copper....or their gold(which they did have plenty of).
Other than the point of a sword.
So it would seem unlikely that they would have made any such attempt.

What was a "quill of gold" worth,I wonder ?
In the markets,as well as for "tribute" (taxes).

From :
"Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and Republican, Volume 1 By Brantz Mayer" pub.1853

Pg.106


"But all this expensive machinery of state and royalty was not supported without ample revenues from the people There was a currency of different values regulated by trade which consisted of quills filled with gold dust of pieces of tin cut in the form of a T of balls of cotton and bags of cacao containing a specified number of grains The greater part of Aztec trade was nevertheless carried on by barter and thus we find that the large taxes which were derived by Montezuma from the crown lands agriculture manufactures and the labors or occupations of the people generally were paid in cotton dresses and mantles of featherwork ornamented armor vases of gold gold dust bands and bracelets crystal gilt and varnished jars and goblets bells arms and utensils of copper reams of paper grain fruits copal amber cochineal cacao wild animals birds timber lime mats and a general medley in which the luxuries and necessaries of life were strangely mixed It is not a little singular that silver which since the conquest has become the leading staple export of Mexico is not mentioned in the royal inventories which escaped destruction"...

Vases of gold and gold dust are two of the commodities also mentioned in the passage quoted above,as having been used to pay tribute to Montezuma.
I find that interesting.
Other sources,including inventories of Spanish plunder, also mention "chips of gold" or tejuelo ,each worth 50 ducats (Cortez's Letters).
They would therefore have been about 5 1/2 troy oz. each.
Also interesting.

Regards:Wayne

 

[cactusjumper]

Wayne,


Michael Coe writes in "Mexico", that "The large axe-money is from Mitla, Oaxaca." Since Milta Oaxaca did not fall to the Aztecs until 1494, it might be that what is being called "hoe money" may actually be tribute from Mitla Oaxaca. Metallurgy was being used by many of the tribes of Mexico, but came to the Aztec very late. That might explain why there was arsenic in the copper.


One of the kingdoms that were using metallurgy, was Michoacan. Because they had been able to equip their warriors with copper weapons, they were able to turn back the Aztecs.

There is more on the Aztec sources for copper, but it's late.


Take care,

Joe

 

[somehiker]

Joe:

The Aztec had a short history in central Mexico,relative to the city state civilizations who preceded them.
Most of what they had,at the time of the conquest had been adopted/adapted from those who occupied the valley at the time of their arrival or prior to it.
We could probably create a long list of things "not really Aztec" from the historical record,dating back to their days as a wandering tribe of homeless drifters.
While none of these pre-hispanic civilizations would be labelled as a "copper culture",they had certainly discovered the metal and it's properties,and had found a number of practical applications for it.

Regards:Wayne

 

[cactusjumper]

Wayne,

"By this time, copper alloys were being explored by West Mexican metallurgists some because the different mechanical properties were needed to fashion specific artefacts like particularly axe monies".

Since there is arsenic present in the "hoe money", that indicates that the copper has been alloyed, making it more suitable for tools. That makes it look more and more like the "hoe money" was not produced by the Aztec, and was confiscated from defeated tribes or given as tribute.

I think the doubts that have been expressed by some archaeologist, have considerable merit. Of course, that and five dollars will get me an average cup of coffee.

Take care,

Joe

 

[somehiker]

Joe:

Are you saying that the presence of arsenic in these copper artifacts was deliberate ?
How would this prove the "hoes,axes,scrapers,or chisels",as they have been called by various theorists,as NOT being of Aztec manufacture ?

Regards:Wayne

 

[Mackaydon]

I'd call these tools a form of 'commodity money' since they have value in themselves as well as for use as money.
Coins did not come to the New World until the Spanards got to Mexico, built the first mint and created the first coin--in about 1536.
Don.......

 

[tomjiggy]

Not saying that it was or wasn't a form of money, but just a theory to toss out there. Lets say for sake of argument that all people had a common origin and that when they became separated they didn't lose all of what they had in common. The Chinese used spear money, fish money, bridge money, and all made of copper or brass. They used this form of currency for hundreds of years because it was easier to use when trading in bulk...(I have a ship with a ton of fresh fish, I can't carry it all around with me so I'm using this fish money as a trade token good for 100 fish...). Starting to get what I mean? In Meso-America they might have used something similar as there were several Myan/Aztec settlements. They might have all been ruled by one person, maybe not. What about trade, though? They might all have something they can trade each other, and carrying it around to find out who needed it was a real task sometimes. Just saying, what was found and looks like common tools(but made of copper) may have been a form of currency. It's really not all that unlikely...

 

[somehiker]

I'd call these tools a form of 'commodity money' since they have value in themselves as well as for use as money.
Coins did not come to the New World until the Spanards got to Mexico, built the first mint and created the first mint--in about 1536.
Don.......

Don:

This fairly well describes where both coins and "Aztec Hoe Money" fall within the definition of "money",IMO :

Money - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many countries do not manufacture their own money,instead contracting the production to an outside source,such as De La Rue,in the UK.

De La Rue - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Belize,for example,is on the list.Only one of many.
Yet I doubt that anyone would call the Belize dollar a British dollar.

I therefore have no problem with the description of these artifacts as "Aztec Hoe Money",regardless of who may have made them.

Regards:SH.

 

[cactusjumper]

Joe:

Are you saying that the presence of arsenic in these copper artifacts was deliberate ?
How would this prove the "hoes,axes,scrapers,or chisels",as they have been called by various theorists,as NOT being of Aztec manufacture ?

Regards:Wayne

Wayne,

It seems almost a sure bet that the constant presence of a small percentage of arsenic in the "hoe money" was deliberate and was done to create an early version of bronze. 2 to 5 percent arsenic added to copper was being used in Western Mexico, and many other places to create bronze tools. Higher percentages were use for other artifacts such as, bells.



At the time of the Spanish Conquest bronze metallurgy was just coming into use by the Aztecs. Prior to that, the process was being used by their Tarascan foes. When the Aztec conquered lands on the Tarascan border they captured metalsmiths and major copper deposits. Prior to that, there does not seem to be that much of a copper industry by the Aztec, although they did some work in the metal. Once that happened, they had plenty of copper, which really had minimal value in their culture.


I can see them trying to interest the Spaniards in that copper. It would seem to be a pretty smart move.

Take care,

Joe

 

[somehiker]

Joe:

"I can see them trying to interest the Spaniards in that copper. It would seem to be a pretty smart move."

Don't know about that.All those gifts of gold from Moctezuma to Cortez didn't work out too well........did they ?

Regards:

 

[cactusjumper]

Joe:

"I can see them trying to interest the Spaniards in that copper. It would seem to be a pretty smart move."

Don't know about that.All those gifts of gold from Moctezuma to Cortez didn't work out too well........did they ?

Regards:

Wayne,

Yes, it "didn't work out too well.....". After giving them all the gold they had, the gold they could beg borrow or steal from their neighbors, they were still being killed, tortured and having their gods and temples desecrated. The "hoe money" was "tribute items" from tribes the Aztecs had conquered.

The idea for these items came from the south, places like Peru and Ecuador, where they were produced for burial, funerary goods. They originally had little monetary worth and their number in the graves reflected on the "social status of the buried person. All metal items were valued in that place and time, not necessarily for monetary value, but often for religious reasons.

It seems unlikely that the Aztecs produced much, if any, "axe money". My guess is that it was a rare item, somewhat revered, and they might have assumed the Spaniards would fine it a worthwhile substitute for their dwindling supply of gold.

It's all just my opinion based on what I have read. Much of the above can be found in a book by Dorothy Hosler, Heather Lechtman and Olaf Holm. It's title is "Axe-Monies And Their Relatives".

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

Wayne,

Maybe you can answer this question......If the Aztec "hoe money" was created strictly as a medium of exchange, why did they add arsenic to each and every artifact? The only reason that comes to mind, is that the artifacts were made for tools or weapons.

Thanks,

Joe

 

[somehiker]

Wayne,

Maybe you can answer this question......If the Aztec "hoe money" was created strictly as a medium of exchange, why did they add arsenic to each and every artifact? The only reason that comes to mind, is that the artifacts were made for tools or weapons.

Thanks,

Joe

Joe:

I don't recall expressing the opinion that the Aztec "hoe money" was "created strictly as a medium of exchange".
Nor,as I recall,do any of the references I cited previously.
The addition of arsenic to copper was known to make copper more suitable for use as tools or weapons,just as elimination of arsenic from copper ore,during the refining process,can increase ductility/workability.
Such alloys would be more durable when used as money,IMO.
Arsenical bronze - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Has "each and every artifact" of this type been tested for arsenic content ?

Regards:Wayne

 

[Monette]

Good response, Joe, that would have been my guess as well. What I wonder is where were these found? I saw several examples of these tools at Gilcrease in Oklahoma.

Monette Bebow-Reinhard
Home - Monette Bebow-Reinhard

 

[cactusjumper]

Wayne,

It was a simple question. I didn't claim you had said anything at all.

As I have mentioned many times, I don't know $#!t about rocks. Just trying to get my uninformed mind wrapped around the subject.

Perhaps I should have said "each and every artifact"........that was tested.

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

Good response, Joe, that would have been my guess as well. What I wonder is where were these found? I saw several examples of these tools at Gilcrease in Oklahoma.

Monette Bebow-Reinhard
Home - Monette Bebow-Reinhard

Monette,

Welcome to TNet. It's good to see someone with your credentials joining in the conversation. I like your Website.


I'm not really sure just how good my response was, as I am badly uninformed on the subject. Native American history, pre-history and archaeology is something I enjoy researching, as a hobby. That does not seem to inhibit my commenting on those subjects, sometimes to my detriment.

The "hoe money" seems to have been more prevalent in Western Mexico and South America, as opposed to being a major player in the Aztec culture. At least, that is what I have gleaned from the small amount of research I have done. I realize a good argument can be made for both sides of the debate.

What's your take on the subject?

Thanks for your reply.

Take care,

Joe