[Aztlan] "WHEELS"

[Javier Pulido Biosca]

This topic es quite controversial.

I think that is convenient to have in mind two things:

1. The figure of the wheel is a religious one, called Quincunce by Aztecs.
Ask to a Christian how he can feel about use a crucifix in the tires of his
car, and you can perceive how was that use of the Quincunce for a vehicle
rolling at the mud and rocks.

2. Think about mexican orography and transport needs. Read about the
railroads in the XIX Century and you can understand why ancient mexicans did
not used wheels to transport goods.

Cordially,
Javier Pulido Biosca



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "kim Goldsmith" <kiminmexico at yahoo.com>
To: <aztlan at lists.famsi.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 2:21 PM
Subject: [Aztlan] "WHEELS" - In Reply to Villas


>I think you are right up to a point, at least at some
> sites about the wheel being used for special projects.
> However, Teotihuacan is a city that, as I mentioned
> before, was totally paved over for 24km and included a
> series of labarynthic very FLAT streets and alleys
> (with the exception of the Ave. of the Dead) which
> would have been ideal for the pushing/pulling of
> little handcarts for people doing things like selling
> door-to-door or doing trash collecting, etc.
>
> Not having beasts of burden is not a deterrent for
> using carts or "wheel barrows".  I'm sure you have
> used one in your garden or milpa and realize how much
> more you can get done (faster too!) by that method
> than you can with baskets of dirt/stone/etc. carried
> on your head or back.  Not to mention the
> wear-and-tear that it saves on your body.
>
> Plus, I must point out to you that we don't "KNOW" for
> a fact that those wheeled animals were toys.  It is my
> heavy suspicion that it was so, but to state that we
> "know" is taking an awful lot for granted.
>
> I think as archaeologists we need to get away from
> simply accepting what has been general "lore" in the
> older bibliographys.  So much more excavation and
> information has come to light since the early days of
> this relatively young discipline.  Remember the time
> when they thought that Teotihuacan was a "...peaceful
> society with no wars or human sacrifice"?  What we
> know about it now couldn't have strayed farther from
> that line of thinking.  I could give many more
> examples of this - - following the "old school" crowd
> without thinking (and most importantly, REASONING) for
> ourselves is just bad policy.
>
> I would also venture to say that in archaeology, we
> can BARELY ever "safely say" ANYTHING about what we
> are trying to interpret, especially for those
> civilizations for which we have lost all of the oral
> and written tradition.  Archaeology boils down to our
> best educated guess about things that in many cases we
> know little or nothing about, and for which we often
> have scant remains and poor preservation circumstances
> from which to try to make any deductions.
>
> Logic, cool-headed reasoning and much more care in not
> simply taking things for granted will get us farther
> in this discipline than anything else.  Archeology is
> like math, and once you come to a bad assumption,
> everything that you then add on to that will also be
> wrong.
>
> All the Best to You,
>
> KIM
>
> Kim C. Goldsmith, Ph.D.
> Archaeologist
> Teotihuacan
>  MEXICO
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Aztlan mailing list
> Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan