[Aztlan] "WHEELS"

[Caroline Dodds]

 > However, as was just pointed out, Teotihuacan was
> quite flat; so was Tenochtitlan, and many of the other major cities.
> Surely it would make sense to use wheeled carts for moving goods (and
> debris) through such cities?  Hot dog vendors today don't travel far,
> but the distance they do travel is done on wheels; it's hard to imagine
> why the same design considerations would not apply in any moderately
> large, flat city.
> 

I hope that you will all forgive a very occasional contributor for adding to this debate, but without wishing to contradict any of the points which have been made in the broader Mesoamerican context, I do feel that it is important that we have a sense of cultural specificity about this issue as there is no particular reason that any conclusion should apply universally in such a large region and period. Whilst I am hesitant to address the Mayan issue, in my own field of Mexican history the evidence against the wheel being in widespread use as a tool for transportation seems fairly compelling. 

Whilst the 'flatness' of certain cities may be an argument in favour of wheeled transport, for Tenochtitlan it is not necessarily relevant as canals formed the principal means of transportation. Nor is the absence of any evidence to the contrary a compelling argument that it 'may' have been used. In the elaborate descriptions we have of the city, the use of canoes to carry 'provisions', 'cargo and merchandise' is frequently discussed. Diaz even says that it was impossible to pass between the houses 'except over wooden drawbridges or by canoe'. (Diaz, 1963, p.235) We also know that there was a widespread use of porters or tlamemes, who used carrying-frames and tumplines to transport goods. The Codex Mendoza shows a child learning to carry with a tumpline at age five. (fol. 58) A relay system was usually used to carry goods between cities, and tlamemes are believed to have carried loads of around 23kg for 5 leagues (21-28 km) per day, something which explicitly limited the available supply of grain and thus the size of cities. (Hassig, 1993, p.170) Roads between cities were generally pretty rough and often steep, making wheeled transportation difficult, and Cortes frequently used indigenous porters to transport cannon and baggage. (e.g. Diaz, 1963, p.207) The cabildo of Mexico City even refers explicitly in 1530 to a new road to Veracruz that would allow the passage of wagons (implying that the previous one did not). (Hassig, 1993, p171) and tlamemes remained a vital part of the colonial economy. (Hassig, 1993, passim) Whilst we can never absolutely rule out the occasional use of wheeled transportation in this region, its absence from otherwise very detailed descriptions, slow introduction even under Spanish rule, and the widespread use of canoes, makes it extremely unlikely that the wheel was commonly used and we simply didn't know about it. 

Whilst I am extremely supportive of those who have suggested we should challenge traditional assumptions in the historiography, I do think that we need to be very careful about looking at each case separately. In addition, there is a feeling in some of the debate that if the Mesoamericans did not use the wheel then that must necessarily be a negative. In the Aztec case at least, they do not seem to have used the wheel because the alternatives were much more practical! 

Caroline
-----
Dr. Caroline Dodds
Junior Research Fellow
Sidney Sussex College 
Cambridge 
CB2 3HU

ced44 at cam.ac.uk