Submitted by AutoModerator t3_zu9d4g in history
Type31971 t1_j1i03oo wrote
Reply to comment by Deep-Site-8326 in Simple/Short/Silly History Questions Saturday! by AutoModerator
Even more importantly, why didn’t the Americas learn to properly utilize the wheel? They knew how to use wheels for milling grain, but didn’t apply it further.
anarchysquid t1_j1i8bga wrote
There's two* main areas in the Americas that had dense urban cultures, Mesoamerica and Peru. Both areas are generally mountainous, with sharp changes in elevation, where wheels wouldn't be bery useful. In addition, Mesoamerica didn't have any large domesticated animals to pull carts, and Peru had llamas, which are fairly dainty and weak. Between the lack of draft animals and the steep terrain, there just wasn't a good use for the wheel.
*there was also the Mississppians, but we don't know a lot about their culture. One can imagine the lack of draft animals was an issue, even if the terrain was flatter.
LateInTheAfternoon t1_j1iaiv6 wrote
>Both areas are generally mountainous
No, they're not. A lot of lowlands, plains and broad valleys and many cities were built by the coasts (especially far away from any mountains in the case of Peru).
anarchysquid t1_j1idu9e wrote
So here is a map of the valley of Mexico, before Lake Texcoco was drained. As you can see, there are flat areas, especially along the lakeshore, but the valley is lined with hills and there are even hills between major population centers. This isn't to say there are no flat areas, but elevation is a major concern for any significant travel distance.
Here is a map of the Incan Empire. Notice the terrain between major population centers like Cuzco and La Paz or Lima? Again, there are places where a wheeled cart would have helped, but overall the land is quite mountainous.
LateInTheAfternoon t1_j1iftaz wrote
I urge you to look on the rest of the maps while you're at it. Take a gander were most pre-Incan cities were located as well. You'll soon find why "generally" was a poorly chosen word which no cherrypicked examples will change.
anarchysquid t1_j1ig4hu wrote
what's your alternative theory?
Type31971 t1_j1ic67r wrote
Draft animals aren’t a necessity to make the wheel useful for transportation. If anything it’d make weaker animals more useful, and wheeled carts being drawn by humans have existed in Europe and Asia for centuries, if not millennia.
The need for tight turning ability in cities would have made the wheel a welcome addition in mesomerica, and the reduced workload going up inclines with wheels is superior to non-wheeled.
anarchysquid t1_j1ifi5c wrote
Whats your alternative theory?
Type31971 t1_j1ilibh wrote
The Americas were hit and miss. They pioneered the zero in mathematics while large swaths were no farther advanced than the Stone Age when Europeans showed up on their doorstep. Saying they lacked inventiveness is a stretch, but at the same time having access to the wheel but not taking this basic technology to its logical conclusion is maddening
TheBattler t1_j1jorq0 wrote
>wheeled carts being drawn by humans have existed in Europe and Asia for centuries, if not millennia.
Okay but that doesn't matter when our earliest archaeological evidence for carts is often tied to cattle; the Brononice pot abstractly depicts a wagon and was found alongside the remains of an auroch. Tripolye culture toy bull is literally a bull on wheels. Evidence for carts and wagons appear in present-day Ukraine just after the introduction of cattle.
It's a boring answer but for whatever reason, humans didn't think they needed a cart until they had some other poor animal to drag it around.
Type31971 t1_j1jxt69 wrote
Art of cattle pulling a cart doesn’t mean human-pulled carts weren’t developed at the same time or earlier. On top of that there’s no evidence that mesoamerican cultures stopped developing wheeled carts because of an absence of large domesticated draft animals. The Maya didn’t shrug their shoulders and say “This could be awesome, if only… oh well”
TheBattler t1_j1k3y8f wrote
Yes, everybody on this sub knows the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence...but this is to our best current knowledge.
>On top of that there’s no evidence that mesoamerican cultures stopped developing wheeled carts because of an absence of large domesticated draft animals.
If that's your standard for why they didn't develop wheeled carts, you'll basically never have a satisfactory answer. It's next to impossible to prove a negative using archaeology.
Type31971 t1_j1k8tx2 wrote
There is never gonna be a satisfactory answer. As I said before, large swaths of the Americas were still Stone Age societies when Europeans made contact… You’d think all of continental humanity would have advanced beyond that point
Lord0fHats t1_j1ip5xp wrote
We’ve found toys in west Mexico that are wheeled. They at some point at least did figure it out. As for why it never caught on, common guesses are a lack of draft animals, rough terrain, and more availability of navigable waterways.
Also the possibility that what was being traded didn’t incentivize heavy loads. Most cultures in the Americas were self-sufficient for food. Their currency wasn’t based in valuable metals. Most trade was focused on finished goods and wares, not bulk raw materials.
Type31971 t1_j1ipg5k wrote
This has already been gone over…
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments