In fact, the Incans did know about wheels, it's just that wheels are considerably less useful when you don't have any large pack animals to pull things. It's an accident of geography, and the article would be better off without the vaguely racist opening about how the "primitive" Incans were able to do amazing things with fibres even though they never "figured out" this other stuff.
In fact, the Incans did know about wheels, it's just that wheels are considerably less useful when you don't have any large pack animals to pull things.
The Incans did not have the wheel (when we refer to people having the wheel, we mean with an axle). They used wood beams to roll things around, but that's not a wheel. As far as I know, the only group that had the wheel in the Americas were the ancient Mexicans.
Further, devices like wheel barrows and carts are incredibly useful with or without pack animals. Doubly so if you had the incredible manpower that the Incans had where you can easily just use humans to pull them instead of pack animals. Wheels aren't just for hauling things around either, it is hard to express how incredibly useful potter's wheels has been for the last five thousand years.
To be honest, I've always found the evidence that ancient Mexicans had the wheel rather dubious. All we have that supports this claim are small clay fired figurines that allegedly had wheels on them. The problem with the claim is that the axles would have been made of wood so they no longer exist. So all you have are some clay fired figures with 4 round disks... If they really did have wheels, then it's rather mind boggling (and rather implausible) that they didn't apply the technology to something more practical.
I think it's important to approach history/art-history of ancient cultures with a health dose of skepticism - especially ones that didn't have a written language. These academic fields sometimes promote theories that are based on rather wild speculations.
I think Incans lived in the mountains and lacked lots of flat ground with which to roll things around. So they did develop some wheel-like devices, but they never applied them in things like wheel barrows or carts because those are just not that useful going up and down mountains.
On well worn paths on moderate to even heavy inclines, a cart is still highly effective at reducing manpower necessary to move heavy objects (like the giant stones the Incans moved).
The Incans didn't not have the wheel because they wouldn't have found it useful. The Incans didn't have the wheel and axle because it wasn't an obvious invention.
All evidence points to the wheel in the "old world" (ugh, I hate that term) being invented in one place at one time. It wasn't obvious. It wasn't simultaneously invented by hundreds of people across Europe, Asia and Africa. It was simply copied everywhere and Europe, Asia and Africa were fortunate enough to be connected.
It's not a bunch of jagged rock. The Altiplano, where this bridge is built, is a plateau between two parts of the Andes infilled with sediment over the past 30m years. Wheels would be quite useful there.
Arguing over technological superiority or lack thereof has absolutely nothing to do with race.
Would it be racist to say that cavemen were primitive because they lacked the steam engine? No, it's merely acknowledging the fact of their state of technology. And it should be noted, primitive in this sense exists on constantly shifting sand: Americans from 1776 were primitive as well. Saying so is not racist.
By our standards today, George Washington was killed by medical malpractice, having been bled to death. It all sounds so barbaric by comparison to what we take for granted now. I'm sure our chemotherapy of today will sound like primitive barbarism tomorrow.
The idea of 'primitive cultures' historically was used to intimate that certain groups were closer to animals, hence sub-human, and usurp them out of their land.
Wiki says "The term is generally no longer used in mainstream writing as it is widely considered racist and many groups, including Survival International, have campaigned to stamp it out. The term continues to be used in everyday speech among older inhabitants of former colonial powers and by far right groups, particularly those with a white supremacist ideology."
Many (most?) US-icans from 2013 are unable to grow their own food, find clean drinking water, build tools and shelter, hunt, fight etc. Primitive is a judgment against the technology or skills required to survive in the world you inhabit on a daily basis. So if it is has racist undertones and is entirely non-descriptive / non-meaningful.. why use it?
Edit: In response to child comment (thanks), to make clear I was referring to the parent comment, not the article. It was the characterisation of 'superior technologies' and 'primitive' people I was responding to.
Not just fibre, as I'm sure you're aware. Their stonework is awe inspiring and seemingly quite earthquake resistant too. I spent hours admiring their walls and terraces.
Being a few thousand years behind in technological development is nothing on a geological and evolutionary timescale. That such drift would occur without convenient paths for diffusion of ideas and technology is probably unavoidable.
Give uncontacted peoples (say the Sentinalese) a few thousand years and they would eventually die out or develop. What is a bit sad is that the world is converging into one basic level of development that limits diversity; e.g. beyond just fibre, the Incans had stone building technology that we have no idea how to replicate.
In fact, the Incans did know about wheels, it's just that wheels are considerably less useful when you don't have any large pack animals to pull things. It's an accident of geography, and the article would be better off without the vaguely racist opening about how the "primitive" Incans were able to do amazing things with fibres even though they never "figured out" this other stuff.