Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 December 27

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 27

About US Congress

Please help me to answer this: What representative assemblies set the stage for the US Congress? Thank you so much! :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thick thi sock (talk • contribs) 01:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The British Parliament for one. Hot Stop ^UTC 01:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Are Model Parliament and British Parliament the same? Thick thi sock (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Continental Congress and House of Burgesses come to mind, even though the later didn't include Burgess Meredith. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

What are the documents that laid the foundation for the US Constitution and where did they come from? Both British and American. Please help me! Thank you! :D Thick thi sock (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights for one. Also the Treason Act 1695 was responsible for the treason clause in Section 3 of Article 3. Hot Stop ^UTC 01:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You may also find Iriquois#Influence_on_the_United_States interesting to read. --Jayron32 03:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Also Virginia Declaration of Rights, Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, and Mayflower Compact for early U.S. documents. Other important British documents not already mentioned include the Instrument of Government and the Provisions of Oxford. --Jayron32 03:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Massachusetts Constitution too. It's actually the oldest one still in effect in the world. Hot Stop ^UTC 12:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The constitution of San Marino is actually the oldest effective in the world, preceding Massachusetts by 180 years. Raskssinger (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

How popular is the emperor in Japan?

Well, (to my knowledge), the Emperor of Japan is the least powerful monarch in the world; he is (to my knowledge) the only monarch without any reserve powers; he might as well be written out of the constitution and make the prime minister a president and there would be minimal changes to the government. But despite his lack of political power, how well-revered is he within Japan? Is he held in high regard like the King of Thailand or not? Is there great support for him or are people indifferent to him? Is he well respected by the general populace? As a side question, is he really the only head of state in the world without reserve powers? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your final question, the powers of the King of Sweden are equally limited. There is scant info on this on Wikipedia, but there is an English translation of the Instrument of Government that you can inspect. Gabbe (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This page says: "public opinion polls, like that of the Asahi Shimbun, still register a rating of 85 per cent of uyamai (esteem) and aijo (attachment) for and to the Emperor and Empress" Alansplodge (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Emperor not having any Reserve Powers isn't what I find so exceptional. The far more baffling thing is watching how the Emperor and his family get bossed around by their household staff. The servant becomes the master, in this bizarre family. The emperor and his family become the servants instead! Something I simply can never get my head around. Is there any parallel in the world to this bizarre situation? 58.111.186.225 (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

How did the descendants of Cain survive the flood?

How did the descendants of Cain survive the flood? I assume they did. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

They built an ark. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the J document, anyway. In the final version of Genesis, Noah and his family are descendants of Seth, but Seth's line is probably an intrusion from the Book of generations. Genesis follows J as far as Cain's line, which ends in Lamech, then the Book of generations for Seth's line, which also ends in Lamech, then J resumes with Lamech being Noah's father, so it's very likely that in J Noah was a descendant of Cain.

Although that doesn't explain how the Nephilim survived the flood to appear in Canaan in the Book of Numbers. Best not to take these things too literally. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia's Nephilim article calls those post-flood Nephilim sightings unreliable. Look who's talking. Testovergian (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait, I thought the Bible was inerrant? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The fictional Cainite Heresy holds that vampires are the descendents of Cain, having survived the Noachian Deluge (by some means). I think a few other such fictionalised mythologies similarly have their baddies be flood-dodging Cain-weans. Testovergian (talk) 10:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

As said earlier, Noah may have been a descendant of Cain, but if he was a descendant of Seth, and only his relatives were allowed to survive the flood, then none of Cain's descendant survived. It's as simple as that. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

And there shall in that time be rumours of things going astray, and there will be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia work base, that has an attachment . . . at this time, a friend shall lose his friends’s hammer and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before around eight o’clock . . . Ericoides (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You'll observe that the Bible never says that the Nephilim were in Cain's line, rather than that of Seth's. In my reading, the only text that speaks specifically of anyone post-Flood being the descendents of Cain is Beowulf, since Grendel and his mother are both descendents of Cain.

þanon untydras ealle onwocon,/eotenas ond ylfe ond orcneas/swylce gigantas, þa wið gode wunnon/lange þrage; he him ðæs lean forgeald

Lines 111-114 of Beowulf. Are you thinking of another text? Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Why can't a relative of Noah be a descendent of Cain? --99.237.252.228 (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it was mentioned in the Bible that Noah was descended from Seth, and since (I think) Cain was not mentioned to have any children, he wouldn't have had descendants at all, let alone have descendants who survived until the flood. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Cain did have descendants. The last mention was Tubal-cain. How was Noah also descendant of Cain when he was suppose to be chosen by God while the descendants of Cain were suppose to be outcasts?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Then that means that all of Cain's descendants drowned, since only Noah's relatives were allowed to survive. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

From what I remember learning, no one in the patriarchal line of Cain's family survived the flood. However, one of Noah's wives (or possibly one of his children's wives) was a decedent of his. See Naamah (Genesis). Therefore, Cain does indeed have living descendants.58.111.186.225 (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

As to the Nephilim, there are opinions on how they survived. Og, one of the giants, apparently survived outside the ark, with Noah making a whole through which he could breathe 58.111.186.225 (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question. Drawing together some of the material above, here's a summary: Noah and his sons were descendants of Seth, which presumably you knew from your question. As such, a simple answer would be that Cain's line died out there and then. However, that leaves some interesting others. We don't really know what the bible means by Nephilim, although plenty of scholars down the years have had a stab. (Nor do we know what the Rephaim were - see on). Og is the odd one out. Traditional midrashic sources give various versions of how Og apparently survived the flood - he was one of the Rephaim. Later, he became king of Bashan. Our article on Og states that he was an Amorite. The text isn't so obvious. Bashan may or may not have been an Amorite kingdom in his day. If it was and he was an Amorite, well, that makes him yet another descendant of Seth - see Descendants of Adam and Eve. However, a) Bashan may not have been Amorite and b) sources, as I say, describe him as one of the Rephaim, a giant, and therefore, presumably, an outsider they made king. In which case, he may have descended from Cain. Or he may not have been human at all. Hope that helps. Sorry about the remaining question marks, but this isn't a science... and as one of my teachers once put it, a good question is better than a bad answer. This is a good question. --Dweller (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So you don't hold of my view that there was a woman from Cain's line amongst Noah's wives? 58.111.186.225 (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Biblical lineage runs through patrilineal lines, so while your answer is interesting, it's not really answering the question. --Dweller (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It is seldom worthwhile to try to apply logic to myths. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It's like asking how Santa Claus manages to keep his clothes clean after going through billions of chimneys, never mind that he has flying reindeers.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 04:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I have lived in dozens of houses and apartments, and visited many many more, and I have never seen one where the chimney provides access to the inside of the house. I believe he has washed his clothes at least once since the 19th century (plus, early Santa Claus was always portrayed in brown clothes, anyway. It's Coca Cola that made him red to tie in with their marketing plan). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank good that nonsense has been removed. Now grow up children.

Parents who left their children behind in the care of family while moving to another country

In the past few months, I have expanded two biographies of musicians whose parents left them behind at a young age to be cared for by other family members when they moved to another country, Joan Armatrading and Annie Ross. I'm wondering how common this has been historically among the general population, and does it still occur now? It must have been a gut-wrenching decision for the parents to leave their young children behind, and it probably had a profound effect on the kids as well. In both of the above cases, money was probably a big factor in the decision (but in Annie Ross' case, her musical talent must have had something to do with it). Graham87 13:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama was raised by his grandmother while his mom was in Indonesia. Hot Stop ^UTC 14:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course! How could I have forgotten that one? Graham87 14:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

In U.S. immigration, it was not terribly uncommon for the father and perhaps oldest sons to come here first to find work/make enough money to buy tickets for the rest of the family. From a publisher of park visitor guides:

The practice of one member of a family going to America first and then saving to bring the others over was common. From 1900 to 1910, almost 95 percent of the immigrants arriving at Ellis Island were joining either family or friends. Sometimes the father would come alone—to see if the streets really were paved with the gold of opportunity—before sending for his wife and family. Sometimes the eldest son immigrated first and then sent for the next oldest, until the entire family was in America. Often those who arrived first would send a prepaid ticket back home to the next family member. It is believed that in 1890, between 25 and 50 percent of all immigrants arriving in America had prepaid tickets. In 1901, between 40 and 65 percent came either on prepaid tickets or with money sent to them from the United States.

Rmhermen (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I get the impression that this still happens these days, particularly with emigration from third-world countries to Europe, North America, Australis, etc. However, more often, just one parent (usually the father) emigrates, leaving their partner and children. They then send money home so the rest of the family can afford to make the journey. This can sometimes take a long time, especially if the costs are high such (as paying people smugglers to facilitate the journey). Astronaut (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

What does the OP mean by "does it still occur now"? With tens of millions of immigrants, the answer is certainly "yes". I grew up with my grandparents in China, for example, while my parents went to the U.S. For some reason, I was denied a U.S. visa. My parents decided to take me to Canada 6 years later, when I was 7 years old, but I obviously had no idea who they were or why we were going to Canada.

Was it a gut-wrenching decision for my parents? I'm still quite young, so I wouldn't know what a parent's mindset is, but how attached can you get to a 1-year-old? Did it have a profound effect on me? Surprisingly, I was very excited to leave with random strangers for a country I had never heard of. In the next few years I started missing my grandparents, but that was mostly due to problems with my parents' relationship (sometimes violent), and not because of any romantic longing for the past. Additionally, I've always had a cold relationship with my parents. I've never called them "mom" or "dad', never had much respect for them, and rarely spent time together. This is just an unscientific anecdote, and I don't know how much of our cold relationship is due to the fact that I didn't spend my childhood with them, so take it with a grain of salt. --99.237.252.228 (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Just on one point mentioned above, you can get extremely attached to a 1 year old. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Parental bonding can be very strong even before birth (miscarriage can devastate people), it would be an extremely difficult decision for most parents to leave a 1 year old child with someone else (although many will do so anyway if they think it is best for the child). --Tango (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Foster care takes many forms and does not always go through the state social services. In looking into this for you, I came across our article on Grandfamilies:

a family where grandparents, great-grandparents, other relatives, or close family friends are raising a child because the biological parents are unwilling or unable to do so. Legal custody of a child may or may not be involved, and the child may be related by blood, marriage or adoption. This arrangement is also known as "kinship care", "kincare" or "relative care".

Informal systems of fosterage can work well, or can, in the most extreme circumstances, lead to infanticide, as with Victoria Climbié in 2000 in London. It is common in some countries for parents to leave the child with grandparents or other relatives in the familial village when they go to the big city to seek employment. Our article Migration in the People's Republic of China doesn't mention this specifically, but the scholarly literature sometimes calls them "left behind children". See INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION AND EDUCATION OF LEFT BEHIND CHILDREN IN FUJIAN, CHINA.

Historically, some women paid to place their babies with wet nurses - sometimes this was simply outside the household but nearby (as with Jane Austen and her siblings, who didn't live with their birth family for several years), but if the mother lived in a city, she might send the infant to the countryside for what she hoped were healthier air and food. In the worst cases this could be outright baby farming. In the best cases, a sort of milk kinship was recognised.

In poor countries or poor conditions some parents want to give the child away: e.g. in Haiti now, the system of Restavec; under communism, Romanian orphans. Sometimes parents are persuaded the child will do better in an orphanage, but this may be a scam. One extreme is child abandonment (see also foundling), although I realise this is not what the OP refers to. Boarding schools used to take very young children, and if their parents were living abroad (or simply negligent) they might not see their children for most of their childhood. This was common in the British Empire -- the sons of officials in the India Civil Service were sent "home", i.e. to a school such as Haileybury and Imperial Service College. In short, in cultures across place and time, it is quite common for a child to be raised by people not its parents, and to be reunited with them later.

The OP asks also about the psychology of a child in this situation. Some clues may be found in Attachment theory and Reactive attachment disorder. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, everybody! This is fascinating reading ... the practice obviously occurs/occurred far more often than I realised. Graham87 04:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

An astonishing proportion of nationals of the Philippines work abroad (see Overseas Filipino). Given that most OFs are in their 20s, 30s or 40s, this skews the distribution further, meaning a very large number of Filipino children have at least one parent who is abroad most of the time. It's common for both parents to be OFs, leaving their children in the long-term care of aunts and uncles. I don't know if there's a massive detrimental effect of this on all these kids; the Philippines is still a fairly socially conservative country with large families and a strong extended-family network - so kids of parents who aren't abroad are also brought in part by the extended family too (which means the kids of OFs aren't as deprived as the statistics might at first suggest). Testovergian (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(e/c but I was about to say the same thing, heh) The Philippines which has a large population of overseas workers have an estimated 9 million children (a staggering 27% of the youth in the country) who are left behind by one (usually the mother) or both parents who are working abroad (data from UNICEF). This is usually because the family can not be taken with them due to VISA requirements (some require waiting a few years before the children can be brought with the parents) or because the costs of raising a family in other countries is far higher. They are either raised by the remaining parent or relatives. But yes, Filipino families are quite unlike that of most other countries though, kinship ties are very strong and "family" means extended family more often than not.

"G.I. babies" in Vietnam, South Korea, and the Philippines is also worth mentioning. apl.de.ap of The Black Eyed Peas is one of them. Born to an American soldier stationed in an American base in the Philippines and abandoned when his father's tour ended. The phenomenon is particularly poignant as the subject of the song "Straight to Hell" by The Clash ("Lemme tell ya 'bout your blood, bamboo kid. It ain't Coca-Cola it's rice.")-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

female scholars of Islam

who were the female scholars of Islam from the past? Everybody is saying that Ayesha, Prophet Muhammad's wife was one and then his daughter Fatima was. When I mean past I mean during the times like Abu bakr's time, Ali's time, Umar's time and Uthman's time and such and such etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.32.98 (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Women in Islam#Women in religious life mentions a few, such as the Sufi Rabia Basri, and several recent ones. The article also has a few useful links like this NY Times article about a book on the subject. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

From our article on Mohammad Akram Nadwi, a scholar at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies:

Most recently he has completed a 53-volume biographical dictionary of the muhaddithat, the female scholars of hadith. Expecting to find a handful, after eight years he had discovered more than 8000, from as long ago as Umm al-Darda, the wife of one of the companions of the Prophet.

You may also be interested in List of Islamic studies scholars, Women as imams, Women_as_theological_figures#Islam, and possibly Islamic feminism. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Afro-Latin Americans slavery

How many Latin American nations have significant population Black people due to history of slavery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.32.98 (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You may find Slavery in the Spanish New World colonies an interesting read. Also, since it was Portuguese and not Spanish, and since it is sometimes included in Latin America, Slavery in Brazil may also help. --Jayron32 15:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Brazil is sometimes includes in Latin American? I think that among geographically literate people, it's always included. 88.8.76.47 (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

There is some disagreement over the issue, as to whether Latin America includes Brazil or not. Some definitions include Brazil, some include all countries south of the U.S./Mexico border (including Belize and Suriname and others without a history of Spanish and Portuguese colonization) and some which only include countries colonized by the Spanish. It varies, so I wanted to cover all bases. The most common definition would absolutely include Brazil, but I don't know which definition the OP is working from. --Jayron32 15:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

There is some disagreement due to confusion between Latin America and Hispanic America, I suppose, but not within the field of geography. These are not two valid definitions of the term.The exclusion of former French colonies from the definition is, on the other hand, more mainstream. 88.8.76.47 (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No, there is no disagreement among professional geographers. Not every person is one, however, and when conversing with an unknown person, one would be more often correct if guessing that the random person one is conversing with is not a professional geographer. Given that, one must account for multiple possibilities, not just for what professional geographers would hold to be true. --Jayron32 18:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that from an educational perspective, it makes sense to consider that often people have other definitions, which could be wrong, but exist. 88.8.76.47 (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong? Maybe you mean they have other definitions, which have validity in their own contexts. Geographers don't get to decide what terms mean for all people at all times and in all contexts. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to defend the exclusion of Brazil from the concept of Latin America. It is not used among geographers (but apparently they are not good enough for you), it's not common among educated people, it's not historically correct and it's confusing, since you already have the term Hispanic America. Besides that Wikipedia does not endorse it. However, to understand people better, you'll sometimes have to try to construe their use as meaning Hispanic America without Brazil, but I don't see any point at using the term with this meaning. 88.8.76.47 (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

At this point, everybody should note that this conversation has absolutely nothing to do with the OP's question. Aside from the very first response, nobody has provided any information about slavery or blacks in Latin America, with or without Brazil. --99.237.252.228 (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Point of order: I did. --Jayron32 03:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, Jayron provided the two lines of useful information on this amusing thread. 88.8.76.47 (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There is also Slavery in the British and French Caribbean, and (very specifically, but thoroughly) Slavery in the British Virgin Islands. The OP may be interested in browsing through Category:Slavery in the New World. Whether or not these cover "Latin America" is another question. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

A taxable value of two geld units

Today's featured article, Knowle West, Bristol says it "was a rural area assessed at a taxable value of two geld units." However, the Weregild article doesn't give a specific value to a "geld unit". To the contrary, it says "The size of the weregild was largely conditional upon the social rank of the victim." So, what does that sentence even mean? — Sebastian 17:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is probably the same thing as a hide (unit). Looie496 (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that is a very poor omission of definition for a featured article. Looking at a book here, Looie496 is probably right, it appears to be something of variable quality/quantity dependent on location, which the assessors deem worth the same thing, and if you tax them, say at 50p per unit, then Knowle, having 2 units, would be expected to generate £1 tax. Knowle's entry on Domesday Online uses the precise same wording with no explanation, but the curators might be able to help provide a clearer definition. --Saalstin (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Who are the curators? — Sebastian 21:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

About and Contact details for the Domesday project at the University of Hull are at the bottom of the page I linked to --Saalstin (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I've retargeted the "geld" link so that it leads to Danegeld#Norman era rather than to Weregild. Deor (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. — Sebastian 23:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Mayan Civilization and Technology?

The Mayans are supposed to have been great astronomers, but were they able to make glass for telescopes? What was their most advanced technological development. --CGPGrey (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

They did not have telescopes. Nobody did until the invention of the telescope in the 17th century, well after the Mayan heyday. They did not use advanced technology for their astronomy. They simply observed and kept records (as did most European astronomers; it was not until the late 16th century that very elaborate technology was used to make these observations even in Europe, and even these were pretty crude before the telescope). See the Dresden Codex for an example of the kinds of records they kept. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

As for general technologies of theirs: they were impressive builders given their limitations (no draft animals, no metal tools). They had a very advanced written language, which is probably more high-tech than you realize. (Having a detailed form of writing was a prerequisite for their being good astronomers!) They had a reasonably advanced mathematical system. They probably had rubber. They probably had domesticated potatoes, which are one of the most significant (and under-appreciated) technologies in human history. By even early modern (e.g. 17th century) standards all of this looks rather paltry, but for 900AD or so it is pretty notable. Not "the best in the world," but "better than a lot of civilizations at that time." --Mr.98 (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) See Mayan civilization. The Mayans' technology was far behind that of even the first civilizations in the Old World (like Mesopotamia or China). They never invented smelting (and therefore had no metal), didn't have any draft animals like the horse, and didn't invent simple machines like the pulley or wheel. --99.237.252.228 (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If you compare the Mayans with other New World civilizations, they come out pretty good. But not very many folks compare to the Eurasian civilizations, who got a pretty good luck of the draw when it came to biology (domesticatable animals) and geography. I'm not sure it's true they didn't have some metallurgy (see Metallurgy in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

They did have the wheel, just it wasn't much use in mountains. Dmcq (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The basic idea of the wheel was known in Mesoamerica in some times and places, but all evidence is that it remained a miniature toy or curiosity and did not see significant practical use -- since such practical use would have been very difficult without draught animals. (I don't think mountains had much to do with it -- there are very few mountains in the Yucatan.) AnonMoos (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The wheel is hard to use without animals? When was the last time you saw someone use a shopping cart, a wheelbarrow, a garden cart, a baby trolley or a pulley (a simple version of a wheel & axe)? If you wanted to transport, say, a 200 kg stone from one side of Tenochtitlan to the other without wheels, you'd need quite a few strong men. Actually, if the stone is oddly shaped, I'm not sure it would be easy to transport no matter how many men you have. Put the stone on a cart with metal wheels & axles (metal is stronger & has less friction than wood), and a girl could probably transport it across the city with no problem.

Also, how is Eurasian geography better than Mesoamerican geography? I'm not saying it isn't, but I don't see any obvious reasons why the geography of Mesoamerica would impede the Mayan civilization more than, say, the geography of the Fertile Crescent impeded Eurasian civilization. --99.237.252.228 (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking they mean the accidents of geography being the tropical rain forest that was the homeland of much of the Mayan peoples. Or maybe they mean the orientations of continents east/west vs north/south, which plays a large part of Guns, Germs, and Steel, the Jared Diamond book. This was a problem for civilizations in the Americas vs Eurasia because domesticated plants were easier to move east west because the length of the day and growing season would be more similar than a north south transfer, it took much longer for cultivated plant species to be adapted to the shorter seasons and daylight hours. Some of the other accidents Diamond discusses are the very few domesticable animal species in the Americas, which means fewer draft animals and fewer exposures to diseases, possibly the greatest advantage the Eurasians had over Americans when they met. It is an interesting read. Heiro 02:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed what I had in mind. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

To take this idea to probably its greatest extreme, think about the crappy deal the Australian Aboriginal people got being faced with the kangaroo as their continent's large mammal. Quite a challenge to visualise as a beast of burden. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Which is why they never regarded any animals as being means of transportation, a concept they would probably have considered absurd if they had ever been introduced to it. They did not have that frame of reference with which to form the view they were less well-served by nature than their foreign cousins, of whose existence they knew nothing. They managed to survive and thrive in the world's harshest environment for somewhere between 40,000 and 100,000 years. The last 200 years (between 0.2% and 0.5% of their existence) have been disastrous for them. So much for progress. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

99.237.252.228 -- Wheelbarrows would have been convenient for certain types of work, but on their own they really would not have been able to serve most of the functions which wheeled vehicles pulled by animals served in Eurasian civilizations. If you don't have any use of iron, then a flatbed trolley may not have any great advantage over a sledge or rollers in moving heavy stones short distances... AnonMoos (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)