Wheels, an Anachronism?

[russianwolfe]

A lost civilization has a hard time producing evidence. Expecially if the evidence was destroyed during that civilization's destruction.

JMS

And then buried under the victors and centuries of jungle. Now where was that lost city? Anyone have Indiana Jones' phone number?

Marvin

[russianwolfe]

CFR. Actually, when civilizations are catastrophically destroyed, they are more likely to produce artifacts

[Ariarates]

It's certainly possible but very unlikely - not because of "the horse" or "the wheel" per se but because of all those thousands of other things we know about the history of the Americas that would have to be revised and the accompanying evidence reinterpreted.

Glenn,

I've been trying to find a way to advance my argument more clearly. Maybe an analogy will help: the role of the car in US culture.

It's far more than a means of getting you from home to work and back. It can be a status symbol as well. It has a strong influence on the economy (think car loans, Toyota, Detroit, petrol, Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.). It's also deeply engrained in popular culture and shapes the landscape (roads, parking lots) and has found its way into art, songs and language. I could go on like that for a while.

What would the US look like today without cars? Impossible to tell, I would imagine. You cannot just excise the car out of the sum total of US society anymore than you can simply insert horses and chariots into pre-Columbian Mesoamerica without rethinking everything we have learned about Mesoamerica so far. A few isolated skeletons are not going to do that.

[thesometimesaint]

Ariarates:

Careful your Presentism is showing.

[Ariarates]

Ariarates:

Careful your Presentism is showing.

O please...

The role of horses and wheeled vehicles has been extremely important in any society where it has been invented or adopted throughout history. The fact that they haven't been found in the Americas means that in all likelihood they weren't there, not that, possibly, they might have been there anyway just because you really really want that to be true.

[thesometimesaint]

Ariarates:

The steam engine was invented in ancient Greece. But they never made use of it. Slavers were much easier to come by. Your Presentism is still showing. We have wheels in Mesoamerica prior to Columbus. Whether they used horses or some other power source is immaterial. Horses may well have been a status symbol reserved for the king.

[Glenn101]

Glenn,

I've been trying to find a way to advance my argument more clearly. Maybe an analogy will help: the role of the car in US culture.

It's far more than a means of getting you from home to work and back. It can be a status symbol as well. It has a strong influence on the economy (think car loans, Toyota, Detroit, petrol, Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.). It's also deeply engrained in popular culture and shapes the landscape (roads, parking lots) and has found its way into art, songs and language. I could go on like that for a while.

What would the US look like today without cars? Impossible to tell, I would imagine. You cannot just excise the car out of the sum total of US society anymore than you can simply insert horses and chariots into pre-Columbian Mesoamerica without rethinking everything we have learned about Mesoamerica so far. A few isolated skeletons are not going to do that.

I understand your point, but there is a problem with the analogy. We know what a critical role the automobile (and machinery) played in the the development of the United States. We also know what a critical role that horses and other draft animals played in the development of our society.

We do not know enough about the development of the Mesoamerican cultures to know what were the critical elements. We can only see the results and surmise how they were constructed by the currently available evidence. We may be missing some critical parts of that puzzle.

It is almost a certainty that the Mayans rode something at times. Deer are one such "something". Here is a reference to such. Of course deer are not horses and I do not think that deer were called horses by the Nephites.

The horse may have helped the Spaniards somewhat in their conquest of the natives of the New World, but I expect that it had more to do with the fact that Montezuma and his subjects thought the Spaniards were the return of a bearded God and were not ready for the treachery and chicanery plus the muskets, cannon, and armor employed by the Spaniards.

When you look at the large population centers that once existed in Mesoamerica, it is a marvel that they were able to construct such towns without machinery, without draft animals, with a complex road system and extensive trade routes used only by human porters?

Glenn

[LeSellers]

The role of horses and wheeled vehicles has been extremely important in any society where it has been invented or adopted throughout history. The fact that they haven't been found in the Americas means that in all likelihood they weren't there, not that, possibly, they might have been there anyway just because you really really want that to be true.

You forget one extremely important factor:

Horses are expensive. There was a reason that not all soldiers were mounted. A single war horse required acres of pasturage, and additional feed stuffs (oats or other grains). Donkeys (mentioned in the Book of Mormon only on their first arrival, when Nephi noted that they found them and a couple of times in Mosiah where they are mentioned in a metaphor comparing people to a "dumb a$s" when they are in bondage and where an a$s is used in an illustration) are more efficient grazers and can live on much lower quality grassland.

The a$s is much more likely to have been the common beast of burden and draught animal than a horse.

Arabs have, for millennia, used camels and dromedaries for burthens and riding long distances, and horses solely for raids, and even then, only in the last few hundred yards.

I remind you also that a lack of bones is not the final answer to the question. "Did Xxxxx exist in this time and locale?" I know of no lion bones in modern Philistia, yet we are certain that they did, once, exist there. And, as I was teaching Primary this morning, we discussed Goliath of Gath. I have not heard of any bones of giants there either; specifically, I have not heard there were men nearly ten feet tall in the beginning of the first millennium, BC. Does that mean there were no lions or giants? I believe very much otehrwise.

Lehi

[Dr. Jd]

Not to mention there is no archelogical evidence that the Jews were ever held captive in ancient Egypt. Nor is there any Such evidence of their Exodus.

Wow, so there was a people that lived in an area for hundreds of years and we cannot find sufficient evidence of them. I guess it never occured.

[Bernard Gui]

What would the US look like today without cars? Impossible to tell, I would imagine. You cannot just excise the car out of the sum total of US society anymore than you can simply insert horses and chariots into pre-Columbian Mesoamerica without rethinking everything we have learned about Mesoamerica so far. A few isolated skeletons are not going to do that.

Except there is so little mention of chariots (1) and horses (5) in the Book of Mormon.

You cannot make a case that they had any kind of significance in Lehite culture by

using just the text of the Book of Mormon.

They were hardly as ubiquitous as the car is in America. It's not a fair comparison at all.

Strawman comes to mind.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

By the way, Solomon Spalding had his Native Americans using the horse

for plowing and food. They also served the romantic purposes of fleeing

lovers (compare this with the BoM for those still interested in the Spalding theory) :

http://solomonspalding.com/docs/rlds1885.htm pages 85-86

As the whole of this parade indicates no flight of Elseon & Lamesa, we must now view them with their select company of friends seting out on a short journey. All mounted on horses, they rode about twenty miles to a village where they halted. An eligant supper was provided, they were chearful & sociable, none appeared more so, that Elseon & Lamesa. The next day Elsean requested the company of his dear cousens a short distance on his journey. When they had rode about two miles they halted & proposed to take their leave of each other Lamesa & her friend, without being perceived by the company, rode on. It was a place where the road turned, & by riding one rod, they could not be seen. The rest of the company entered into a short conversation & passed invitations for reciprocal visets

very low, took an affectionate farewell. But where are Lamesa & her friend? During these ceremonies their horses move with uncommon swiftness, her heart palpitates with an apprehension that she might be overtaken by her brother. But now a friend more dear, her beloved Elseon, with his companions, outstrip the wind in their speed. & within one hour & half they overtake these fearful Damsels. They all precipitate their course, casting their eyes back every moment to no purpose, her pursuers. But pursuers had not sufficient time to overtake them. They safely arive on the Bank of the Great River.

And Spalding's Indians had domesticated mammouths and elk:

It was the occupation of a certain part of the men to tend upon the tame animals, to drive them to pasture & keep them from straying, & feed them when the snow was on the ground. Two men would tend twenty Mammouth, which were indifferent whether they fed on grass or cropt the bushes. When these animals were fat their flesh was highly esteemed. They had droves of Elk, which they had so tamed & tutored that they could manage them as they pleased.

Bernard

[Ariarates]

I understand your point, but there is a problem with the analogy. We know what a critical role the automobile (and machinery) played in the the development of the United States. We also know what a critical role that horses and other draft animals played in the development of our society. We do not know enough about the development of the Mesoamerican cultures to know what were the critical elements. We can only see the results and surmise how they were constructed by the currently available evidence. We may be missing some critical parts of that puzzle.

We do, however, know what happened to societies that did have horses and wheeled transportation vs. societies that didn't. If there had been horses and wheeled transportation in Mesoamerica, the history of that part of the continent (if not of the entire continent) would have unfolded very differently. The advantages of having these things vs. the disadvantages of not having them are simply too big. We may be missing parts of the puzzle, but not such big parts.

The absence of evidence requires one to look at likelihood and plausibility. These are constructed from all of the other things we know. Based on that knowledge, the likelihood that there were horses or any other kind of draft animal, or wheeled transportation devices in Mesoamerica between the end of the last ice age and the arrival of Columbus is significanlty smaller (rethorically, I would say infinitesimally smaller) than the likelihood that they did have these things but we haven't found the evidence yet. As I said, it's not just a yes-or-no issue, it's a matter of extensive consequence and implication.

It is almost a certainty that the Mayans rode something at times. Deer are one such "something". Here is a reference to such. Of course deer are not horses and I do not think that deer were called horses by the Nephites.

I don't know that the Mayans rode something at times. It's certainly not the conclusion of the reference you linked to. There are a number of interesting points about this article, by the way:

1. The sample is very small: three vases, depicting "mythological events and actors" which "are not ipso facto solid ethnographic evidence for real Mayan practice"; this is what I meant earlier when I wrote that conventional wisdom will not be abandoned for a few isolated skeletons - there always are and always will be people making contrary claims to anything.

2. The author refers to a 16th century mention of deer taming. Taming is very different from domesticating. As far as I know, no technology utilizing tamed animals was ever developed anywhere in the world (too risky an investment).

3. The second question at the end of the article is noteworthy too: "The biology of the deer may or may not be such as to allow for the possibility of riding". He is, of course, correct: deers can't usually be ridden. In general, they are too nervous as draft animals as well (not saying it can't be done - in fact, it has been done - but it's not very practical and it's very time-consuming because you have to tame each individual animal first).

4. The final question of the article basically sums it up: "Has anyone ever in the recorded history of mankind ridden a deer (and, preferably, been photographed doing so)? Not that I know of yet....".

The horse may have helped the Spaniards somewhat in their conquest of the natives of the New World, but I expect that it had more to do with the fact that Montezuma and his subjects thought the Spaniards were the return of a bearded God and were not ready for the treachery and chicanery plus the muskets, cannon, and armor employed by the Spaniards.

This is a very widespread myth but it's not true. In fact, when the Spanish conquered the Inca empire, they were in the midst (or near the end) of a bloody civil war themselves, which the Spanish exploited very cleverly. Native Americans were humans like you and me, not the naive, noble savages of romantic lore.

When you look at the large population centers that once existed in Mesoamerica, it is a marvel that they were able to construct such towns without machinery, without draft animals, with a complex road system and extensive trade routes used only by human porters?

It is a marvel indeed that they managed to pull all that off and it's very tempting to think that they must have had whatever we suppose one needs to accomplish such feats but that is neither here nor there. It's a matter of physics and economics: the laws of physics tell you how much energy you need to spend on moving heavy objects and the laws of economics dictate that you're not going to devise wheeled transportation if you're going to need just as many men to pull that thing as you would need to lift the load manually. The extra investment wouldn't be worth it.

[Zakuska]

Wheel invented in Sumeria?

http://mathildasanth...ed-and-by-whom/

Could the "Experts" be wrong?

Worlds oldest Wheel found in Slovenian Marsh. (5200 B C)

http://www.angelfire.com/country/veneti/AmerDomoOldestWheel.html

So the old world has examples of wheeled toys, just like the new. What is the likely hood the wheel was not made on a larger scale?

[Ariarates]

You forget one extremely important factor: Horses are expensive. There was a reason that not all soldiers were mounted. A single war horse required acres of pasturage, and additional feed stuffs (oats or other grains).

Oh, I don't know about that. A 22x17x8 feet room filled with gold and two filled with silver seems like a decent enough return on the 62 horses that Francisco Pizarro had at his disposal when he captured the Inca emperor Atahualpa at Cajamarca. Not to mention the ability to defeat an army of 80,000 Inca's - although, to be fair, he also had about a hundred foot soldiers to lend a hand with that (wouldn't want to get carried away and overstate the importance of horses now, would we).

The a$s is much more likely to have been the common beast of burden and draught animal than a horse.

How do you reckon that? There is about as much evidence for donkeys as for horses in pre-Columbian America (i.e. none).

I remind you also that a lack of bones is not the final answer to the question. "Did Xxxxx exist in this time and locale?" I know of no lion bones in modern Philistia, yet we are certain that they did, once, exist there. And, as I was teaching Primary this morning, we discussed Goliath of Gath. I have not heard of any bones of giants there either; specifically, I have not heard there were men nearly ten feet tall in the beginning of the first millennium, BC. Does that mean there were no lions or giants? I believe very much otehrwise.

See one of my earlier posts. While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it's not evidence of likelihood or plausibility either. And by the way, I don't think I mentioned a lack of bones at all in this thread, or did I?

[cdowis]

We do, however, know what happened to societies that did have horses and wheeled transportation vs. societies that didn't. If there had been horses and wheeled transportation in Mesoamerica, the history of that part of the continent (if not of the entire continent) would have unfolded very differently. The advantages of having these things vs. the disadvantages of not having them are simply too big. We may be missing parts of the puzzle, but not such big parts.

Your knowledge of the topography of mesoamerica is breath taking. Horses and chariots imply roads.

Let's do a reality check -- building roads through dense rain forests, swamps, mountainous terrain, etc, especially where there is a perfectly suitable river system for transportation. "Outside of the northern Maya lowlands, rivers are common throughout Mesoamerica. A number of the more important ones served as loci of human occupation in the area." Wiki