Humanities desk
< July 14	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 16 >

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.

July 15

Mana Expedition to Easter Island

Who were the people who were part of the Mana Expedition to Easter Island of the besides Katherine Routledge and William Scoresby Routledge? Also if there was an employed photographer for the expedition or would the Routledge have taken the photographs by themselves? KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check the referenced book by Van Tilburg. It describes the expedition quite fully, and explains that by the time they got to Easter Island the Routledges had alienated their colleagues, and there were no other scientific staff included. I can see no mention of a photographer. Rojomoke (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Were North American Indians aware of Incas Mayans and relation communication trade etc between Americans of Plains and Canada with Incas Mayas and Aztec Empire

Were North American Indians aware of Incas Mayans and relation communication trade etc between Americans of Plains and Canada with Incas Mayas and Aztec Empire and the reverse and what key words should I use to Google to find detailed information on this matter.Ver helpful if some learned Wikipedian share his knowledge.I have googled but not found anything so please help me.That is has there been any relation between these two groups .Were the Mayans, Incas and Aztec empire aware of the existence of people similar to them residing in what is now North America Canada and also Carribean and Cuba.This should be an important research area but I cannot find anything so please help me with an explanation and links in the internet where I can find answer in detail to this intriguing question.Wrogh456 (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Wrogh456 (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) - There certainly was pre-Columbian trade between between Mesoamerican and North American cultures when considering Mexico/Southwest US region as "North American". See pochteca, for example. Including Plains Indians (Indigenous people of the Great Plains and Canadian Prairies) is another matter. The scarcity of evidence suggests that contact/trade was indirect at best. —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is very strong evidence of pre-Columbian trade in today's American Southwest; macaw bones have been found in Chacoan communities, and anthropologist Stephen Lekson has theorized that Chaco was a (largely failed) attempt at establishing a Mesoamerican-style organized polity in the region. As to whether there was trade farther afield is sketchier, but I lean toward believing that indigenous peoples were more capable than mainstream anthropology thus far gives them credit for. At the least, it's very likely there was some level of knowledge of what was going on. These peoples travels great distances; the idea that they *didn't* know something was going on strikes me as simplistically underestimating them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cf: ~~Camino Real~~→ [1] & Hopewell Exchange System —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chester S. Chard. "PRE-COLUMBIAN TRADE BETWEEN NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA" (PDF).
Michael E. Smith (2010). "Trading Patterns, Ancient American" (PDF). Berkshire Encyclopedia of World History, 2nd ed. —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Pueblo societies certainly had some cultural affinities with Mesoamerica, and some kind of trade contacts (though whether directly with central and southern Mexico is perhaps a difficult question to answer). The Wikipedia article on this is Oasisamerica (a term which I don't think I've ever seen before).

Areas of North America from the Mississippi river east were strongly affected by maize (corn) being imported from Mesoamerica and adapted to grow in a more temperate climate, which led to local population increases and the rise of "mound builder" cities/towns, but I would doubt whether mound builders had any very definite knowledge of Mesoamerica... AnonMoos (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we armchair archeologists can speculate about ancient cultural contact (between Plains Indians and South American cultures), but there is little evidence to suggest much beyond indirect trade and Trans-cultural diffusion. —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC) . . . It also should be noted that pre-Colombian American cultures did not have horses or even the wheel -- all land travel was by foot. -Interestingly, however, the Mayans used wheels for toys (only).[reply]

The only evidence (that I could find) for ancient North/South American sea trade is from Ecuador to the west coast of Mexico: [2] —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So many thanks for your answers but as I asked the question I expected more hyperlink references as I myself scoured the internet but links are very scarce and subject of contacts between Plains Indians and Incas/Aztecs/Mayans have not been researched probably because of limited archaeological evidence but again I must point to you Incas/Mayans/Aztecs ancestors were the same people who crossed the Bering Strait and strolled into new lands crossed Alaska/Canada/Plains/deserts over long long period spanning generations and I suspect that in lore of North American and Canadian and Plains Indians there must be references to stories of relatives going South and not returning. This is an enigma and should a subject of research though little has been found in this matter as evidenced by the paucity of material.Wish there were more material and also answer from Wikipedians of Indian origin.Wrogh456 (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Under the conventional three migrations theory ("Amerind", Na-Dene, and Inuit-Aleut), speakers of Southern Athabaskan languages (such as Navajo and Apache) did not belong to groups from which migrants to Mesoamerica split off. AnonMoos (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"sue the EU"

Having seen on the BBC that Trump suggested to sue the EU made me wonder... Now, i obviously realise that it is just a populist trumpism but if that were to be done, which court would deal with an issue between two entities like the UK and the EU? Surely a court in either of the two would be seen as biased? Are there precedents for similar entities suing eachother? I have found something about 14 caribbean nations suing Britain, France and the Netherlands which is brought to the U.N.'s International Court of Justice. Would the same court deal with any hypothetical legal battles between the EU and UK? And please, while i realise that my question touches on two divisive topics, trump and brexit, just ignore them. They are not part of my question. 37.138.78.220 (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Until Britain gets out it would be in the European Court of Justice. Britain has done it before and won over some financial thing for istance. AFter Brexit I guess it would be the International Court of Justice. There's nothing to sue about,[redacted] And by the way the US tends to just ignore whatever the international court of justice says. Dmcq (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course he is, i rolled my eyes at first but then just wondered before which court such a case would be brought. Cheers anyway, this basically answers/confirms what i wanted to know. 37.138.78.220 (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it would be possible to sue the EU in the ICJ. Contentious cases only deal with cases between states. The EU is not a state ~~(are they even a party to the court?)~~ and so couldn't be sued in it. It would be possible for the UK to some some EU state, issues of EU law have come up in the court before e.g. [3], but this would still not be a case against the EU per se. Also, the UK could only sue some state if they either agree at the time, or have agreed in the past to accept the courts jurisdiction in the matter. See Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, interesting. I actually thought the eu, while obviously not a federated state, was considered as a legal entity. A quick search brought me to: " Article 47 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) explicitly recognises the legal personality of the European Union, making it an independent entity in its own right." Does that only apply to member states then, in a judicial sense anyway? Like for example the UK suing the EU in the european court of justice, as has happened in the past? Or potentialy also for external judicial matters? 37.138.78.220 (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing Mr Trump's tendency to inflate matters, I suspect he's already got one lined up down under. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Ignore my comment on "party" above, I misunderstood something in our article.) Note that I did not say or intend to imply the EU was not a legal entity. It's perhaps worth reading both the ICJ and the contentious case jurisdiction articles. And maybe article 93 [4]. The EU may be a legal entity, but it they were to be a direct party, that would likely imply that the EU should be the only party and EU members would no longer be direct members.

Remember that the ICJ is part of the UN. It's maybe worth reading European Union and the United Nations in addition. While the EU has enhanced observer status at the UN including many rights not given to other observers, they are still just an observer state and for example, don't have a vote. As with all areas of international law and especially the UN, I'm sure there's nothing stopping the UN from deciding to allow the EU to be a direct party to the ICJ (or a full member of the UN) in addition to the member states. (Other of course than the potential unwillingness of UN members to allow it.) I just don't think it has ever happened. For example, I'm fairly sure it would be mentioned here [5] if it was.

Every organisation will of course treat the EU however they decide. The EU is a member of the World Trade Organization in addition to the EU member states and so can and has brought disputes or has disputes brought against them. See Dispute settlement in the World Trade Organization and [6].

This [7] seems to be a decent overview of the EU's involvement in international dispute settlement mechanisms. This may also be interesting from a different angle [8], it sounds like it deals at least in part with the earlier Belgium vs Switzerland case and it seems it deals with the problems an EU member may have in bringing an ICJ case against a non member in areas with exclusive competence of the EU. This meanwhile deals with the relates issue of conflicts between the EU justice system and non EU disputes systems [9].

Nil Einne (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, all quite strightforward, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC) ... seems that last source was published here [reply]

Ah, i will give those things a read. Some heavy reading never hurts Martin... well, now that i think about it... That should be enough to feed my curiosity anyway, so thank you for the links. I guess this can be closed now as i will be busy, haha 37.138.78.220 (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remind me. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like only something like WTO would have be eligible to deal with it after Brexit. If there's precious little that can be brought to the ECJ I'd say there's less than nothing that could be brought to the WTO. I still think the only option would be the ICJ, I think the EU would be willing to deal with it reasonably using some legal jiggery pokery rather than just tying it in knots like it would be entitled to. Still wouldn't be anything to sue about, it is all very silly. Dmcq (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is not clear to me, and has not been elucidated by anyone that I've seen, is what Trump imagines the UK could or should sue the EU for.

IANAL, but my understanding is that one entity usually sues another seeking compensation for some sort of loss or damage arising from a breach of civil law or a breach of contract. Since the whole Brexit question is about terminating or renegotiating treaties and agreements previously entered into freely, I can't see how the concept of sueing is in any way relevant. Did Trump's ~~minders~~ staff really allow him to make a suggestion that legally was completely inapplicable, or have I missed something? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.163.217 (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do populists care about feasibility or truthfulness? It was just a statement to rouse the Daily Mail reading horde, no thought was given to anything other than that. It still made me wonder what if though, lol. But of course anything that comes out of that mans mouth, or any other populists, is very unlikely to be in any way feasible or even thought through. That is the point of such statements in the end, offer short one liner 'solutions' to compliacted issues. Obviously does not work like that but as long as enough people fall for it... sigh... 91.248.245.71 (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If one is willing to imagine his comments in the best possible light, one might suppose that he meant it as a metaphor. In other words, that one should treat Brexit as an aggressive adversarial process, and look for ways to obtain leverage and compensation for damages that he might argue were unfairly inflicted on the UK. (Even I rather doubt that he actually meant it that way, but that is one possible interpretation given that we don't have a lot of context.) Dragons flight (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]