"They did not sell… nor did they buy… they thought it was a needless operation" and all universally planted what they needed to support their households and thus did not have to sell foodstuffs, nor raise prices nor did they know what high prices were…(Garcilaso 1960 [1609]: 153; cited in Murra 1980: 142).

Was obsidian exchanged through a market system reflecting supply and demand in the prehispanic Andes? Were exchange specialists present in the prehispanic Andean highlands? If so, when did they appear and what did they transport? While extensive exchange has been documented in the prehispanic Andes, it is widely believed by Andeanists that exchange in the prehispanic central Andes was not based on market institutions. Building on the typology developed in Chapter 2 following Renfrew(1975)and Salomon(1985), differing degrees of specialization and independence can be expected to have existed among actors in exchange relationships (Figure 2-2andFigure 3-3). If specialized traders were present in prehispanic Andes, how did they interface with state authority during the Middle Horizon and Late Horizon, and what was their position during periods of regional conflict like the Late Intermediate Period?

Much of the evidence supporting the alleged lack of market-based exchange is derived from studies of Inka economic organization, where ethnohistorical accounts and archaeological datasets converge. A great deal has been written on the topic of Inka economy, and obsidian exchange was relatively diminished during this period, therefore this discussion will be limited to a few relevant issues regard exchange specialization. Several of the sixteenth century chroniclers are clear that while barter was widespread, the barter values of goods did not reflect fluctuations in supply and demand as in a market economy. However, the lack of consensus on the issue of markets and commerce during the Inka period stems from inconsistency in the cronistasthemselves. As reviewed by Murra(1980: 139-152)and LaLone(1982)the denial of a market exchange by Garcilaso de la Vega (quoted above) can be contrasted with numerous accounts of large and small markets, and a long tradition of barter exchange of various types.

The issue of Late Horizon marketplaces and market exchange is explored here because one of the principal questions that may be considered with changing obsidian distributions through time is the possible role of commercialism in prehispanic Andean exchange. The appearance of exchange specialists, such as freelance caravans moving certain commodities and responding to the changes in barter values that result from surpluses and shortages, would have presented a mode of transport distinctive from that of local reciprocal exchange or regional or state redistribution.

The vertical archipelago model functioned as an alternative to trade for goods from neighboring areas because "regional differences in production were, by preference, handled by means of colonization instead of through barter or trade."(Murra 1965: 201). As mentioned, Stanish argues that Murra initially excluded exchange mechanisms because of a perceived association between exchange and market economies. Further it can be argued, building on Appadurai(1986: 33), that in certain contexts of ranked or stratified societies with elaborate redistribution mechanisms, market systems of exchange represent a threat to the centralized ideological power of redistribution. "There is great advantage to leaders who are able to portray their resource-control strategies as reciprocity, redistribution, and generosity. Non-centralized resource-control strategies are, by definition, not 'control' strategies"(LaLone 1982: 296). If centralization is a principal determinant of state control on market exchange, were the peripheries involved in greater numbers of barter transactions?