Humanities desk
< April 5	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 7 >

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.

April 6

Mesoamerican trade

Did the pre-Columbian Mesoamerican civilizations engage in long-distance trade with their neighbors? It's not unusual for ancient Chinese, Roman, Arabic etc artefacts to be found in excavations miles from any area those empires controlled, but I never hear of (for instance) Aztec objects turning up in California, or Mayan contact with the Caribbean islands. Is it just that the archeological record in Europe, Asia and North Africa is better preserved, or did the American civilizations actually not have dealings with anyone outside their immediate spheres of influence? 71.42.241.101 (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Aztecs apparently did trade, according to the article Long-distance Trade Under the Aztec Empire: The archaeological evidence. It's just that "There are two reasons for the lack of attention to material evidence for Aztec trade: (I) the existing data are widely scattered, much of it in obscure publications; and (2) most of the evidence is of poor quality, consisting simply of statements that particular trade goods were found at a site." Clarityfiend (talk) 03:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)A bit further north, but I remember reading that the Mississippian culture (who were not bottlenecked) traded pretty far and wide.

Beyond material culture, the Navajo Skin-walker and the Nagual are comparable, as are the Horned Serpent and Quetzalcoatl. This may be due to all those ideas deriving from some earlier culture (the skin-walker also shares some motifs with the Wendigo) rather than later cultural exchange, but later cultural exchange is still possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Define "Long distance" and "neighbors". Several Mesoamerican states and empires mentioned in Pre-Columbian Mexico traded with and/or directly controlled all of the land from the land now known as the Desert southwest of the U.S. (the long stretch of desert composed of the Mojave desert, the Sonoran desert, and the Chihuahuan desert all the way down into the core of what we now call Central america. It should be noted that these barriers are pretty formidable; crossing those deserts to trade with, say the Mississipian culture was probably outside of the realm of possibility, and even in 2016, there is no overland route into South America from Central America (see Darien gap). So, internally there was a lot of trade and communication; but it seems unlikely that much went on between the Mesoamerican sphere and its neighbors. I will look for some sources, though, but that should give one some things to read regarding the geography involved. --Jayron 32 15:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some pretty good reading. It does not state outright, but seems to imply by its lack, that trade in Pre-Columbian America occurred within one of four geographic zones (Caribbean, North American (Hopewell and Mississipian), Mesoamerican, and South American, with little to no communication between those zones. --Jayron 32 15:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This states that there is some evidence for trade between Mesoamerican groups and some groups of the U.S. southwest, such as the Anasazi and the Hohokam. But mentions no contact between those of the Eastern seaboard or great plains. --Jayron 32 15:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article is pretty good, and also discusses the lack of a lot of intercontinental trading, though does assert that there is evidence for some trading between coastal S. America and Coastal Pacific Mexico, as well as the same contact noted immediately above between Mesoamerica and the Anasazi et al. However, it otherwise confines itself to the same four geographic divisions noted in the first source. --Jayron 32 15:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all that. I guess that part of the difference will also be that there's no Mesoamerican equivalent to the horse or camel, so a North American version of the Silk Road wouldn't have made economic sense. 71.42.241.101 (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The llama was used as a pack animal - it makes a fairly serviceable alternative to horses and camels for that purpose. SteveBaker (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A llama in Mexico?!? --Jayron 32 00:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this book, the driving force of the Silk Road trade was the politics and economy of the Central Eurasian peoples, where the prestige of a chief or noble (and the size of the war-band he could muster) depended on how much treasure (gold, silks, etc) he could give out as gifts to his followers, and the size and impressiveness of feasts he could hold. Rulers would encourage traders so they could acquire these goods, and a lot of their wars were fought to gain access to markets or control over trade routes. Did such cultures or economies exist in Mesoamerica? If not, that might be one reason for the lack of long-distance trade.Iapetus (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

W.A.C.A. 29a-A50

What does this cryptic citation "W.A.C.A. 29a-A50" mean? It has something to do with the history of London, but what? See Harache family for the reference.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The citations were all added in one go here, by an unregisterred user. That's the best lead I can give you based on my research. I can find no organization or publication known as W.A.C.A which seems likely. --Jayron 32 14:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The statement in question may be sourced from this publication (or it may just be quoting from the same source), which cites the source as "WAC (A50)". Chasing up the first reference to "WAC" in that publication shows that it is being used as an abbreviation for "Westminster Archives Centre", which I think is the correct source. You may wish to correct the article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article about this abbreviation: WACA. More appropriate than ever: WP:WHAAOE. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And which of those six DAB entries do you suggest relates to a reference for the address of someone living in turn of the 18^th century London? -- ToE 16:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of those entries in the DAB, nor anything I find on Google fits the article. That is why I am asking you.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syrett's "The Royal Navy in European Waters During the American Revolutionary War"

Does anyone have access to a copy of David Syrett's "The Royal Navy in European Waters During the American Revolutionary War"? Specifically I'm in need to discover what the "G" reference means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustuiop (talk • contribs) 14:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried WP:REX? --Jayron 32 15:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]