Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 October 15

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Humanities
Humanities desk
< October 14 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 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.


October 15

edit

Trade routes in pre-Colombian North America

edit

Native Americans made many trails, and the Incas show that "long distance road" was never a concept specific to Eurasia, but I never heard of a North American equivalent of the Silk Road, or, or instance, Aztec artefacts turning up in Illinois. I know that there was trade along the Mississippi and the coasts, but other than that were there any long distance roads/trails in North America prior to European arrival, and if not why not? Given the different climates, long distance trade of for example beaver pelts for tobacco, would surely have been just as valuable to the natives as it later was for the European settlers, but aside from water-borne trade I never heard of it happening. 71.40.1.98 (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The social division of labor was not very advanced in early North American societies, and there is little evidence of a merchant class, which did exist in early Peru and Mesoamerica, and which typically had to be in place for long distance trade in the narrow sense of goods moving a long distance before changing hands. Trade in early North America (by which I mean the area north of Mesoamerica) more likely took place as exchanges between elites of neighboring, or at least nearby groups. So the pathways that existed covered short distances, but together, they formed a network that spanned much of the continent. Objects could travel long distances by changing hands multiple times. Pathways in North America were seldom engineered in any way but were generally simple dirt footpaths, many of which have disappeared as a result of vegetative growth or modern development effacing them. However, some of the more important pre-Columbian pathways were taken over by Europeans when they arrived and form the basis for modern roads. Probably the best-known example, and perhaps the longest, is the Natchez Trace. However, everywhere that I've lived in the United States, there have been less-known local examples. On Long Island, for example, there was a pre-Columbian path along the island's south shore that connected the lowest easy fords across the coastal creeks. This pathway largely coincided with what are now known as Merrick Road and Montauk Highway. In eastern Massachusetts, Bay Road and its extensions (such as Washington Street through Canton, Massachusetts) follow an ancient pathway that passed through gaps between hills and along ridges dividing swamps and marshes to connect Boston Harbor with Narragansett Bay. Marco polo (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See also Category:Native American trails in the United States and relevant articles in Handbook of North American Indians -- Paulscrawl (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Especially handy is a map of "Precontact Trade Routes" on p. 80 of Waldman, Carl (2009). Atlas of the North American Indian (3rd. ed.). New York: Facts on File. ISBN 978-0-8160-6858-6. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to counter there's some CONSIDERABLE disagreement with the statements made regarding advancement of N. American societies, social division of labor, trade, especially in recent scholarship and understanding of the situation. It is more true to say that, when the British and French were settling N. America with their colonists, Native North American society had broken down to the point where those aspects of an organized society had disappeared, but prior to the late 15th century (when European explorers brought devastating diseases that N. American societies had no natural resistance to) North American society was advanced enough to have long distance travel and large settled cities with advanced division of labor. Cahokia is perhaps the most famous archeological site showing such advanced societal organization, it wasn't the only such site, however, just the largest. Furthermore, even a hundred years later, not all native society had collapsed yet: at the location of what is now Plymouth, Massachusetts was a thriving, well developed, densely populated Wampanoag settlement named Patuxet. Both Samuel Champlain and John Smith had contact with the city, explored it, and reported advanced, well organized society with settled agriculture and a thriving city. 50 years later, it was gone. As far as we know, the LONE survivor of the settlement was Squanto, and he made it out by not being there, having been kidnapped and enslaved while his entire society basically died. So, the North America of the 17th century, the one settled by all the English and French that became the modern nations of the US and Canada, was settling not a virgin land which had never seen organized society, it was a post-apocalyptic wasteland which had been an advanced society, and collapsed. The Mayflower settlers chose to cite Plymouth Colony on the exact location of Patuxet because it was an abandoned settlement, and so had cleared farmland, land, roads and paths, water infrastructure and irrigation, cleared roads to other settlements, etc. They didn't clear a virgin land for their colony so much as they moved into a recently abandoned settlement. The writings of the settlers speak to the road trade network, for example the well-trodden trade routes between Patuxet and Montaup, which was another well-settled and organized Wampanoag settlement. If one wants to read about the state of current scholarship on the state of society in N. America (as opposed to the traditionalist view of "unsettled savages who had never seen an advanced civilization", I highly recommend the book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. The situation in New England and Virginia is well covered by the work of James Deetz and his wife Patricia, who did very important archeological and documentary studies of Native American and Early Colonial culture in the time leading up to the great migrations of Europeans into North America. --Jayron32 15:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether to call early American societies "advanced" or not is a semantic question, and of course there was lots of variation historically and geographically. The cultures of the Ancestral Puebloans and the Mississippians, including the inhabitants of Cahokia, were among the most complex, and may even have had specialists dedicated to long-distance trade. Some of this complexity survived in the contact-era cultures of the Puebloan peoples, the indigenous peoples of the Southeastern Woodlands, and the Iroquois. Even in these groups, though, there is little evidence of a merchant class or long-distance trade in the century before contact. While other North American societies had rich cultural traditions, however, they lacked a complex social division of labor. That is not to imply any inferiority. Marco polo (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, though, there is some considerable disagreement over even that in recent scholarship. At the point when European settlers arrived in those areas to settle, there was no such complex social division of labor, because of the apocalyptic destruction of the society by disease mere decades prior to when those settlers show up. The experience of those settlers, and what they encountered, colored the historiography and traditional narrative of what Native North American society looked like, especially on the Eastern Seaboard where the contact occurred first, and where the misconceptions were born, largely because that contact was with a post-apocalyptic society. More recent scholarship tends to disagree with the traditional view you espouse, because it is colored by the view of Native American society, not at its peak, but after a century of disease and death. I've provided several source of scholars who have added to our knowledge and perspective on this specifically because they don't support the view you espouse. This is not to say that your view is wrong, just that it is not settled history, and that the idea of pre-Contact Native American cultures lacking "complex social division of labor" is not universally accepted by respected scholars who actually study in this field of study. --Jayron32 01:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it qualifies as a "long distance trade route" in the sense of a fixed Silk Road style route, but there's ample evidence of trade of the Puebloan peoples conducting systematic trade with the Aztecs, with turquoise heading from present-day Arizona to Mesoamerica and exotic feathers heading in the opposite direction. Statement of the obvious, but the absence of pack animals in North America would have made trade far less economic, since it was the existence of camels/llamas/horses elsewhere which made caravans a viable proposition. ‑ iridescent 18:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Famous non-politicians who were gubernatorial nominees in the U.S.

edit

Is it possible to create a list of five or six famous non-politicians who were gubernatorial nominees in the U.S.? Upton Sinclair for example. 2A02:582:C6E:D00:E946:38A8:4D56:F5C5 (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that defining "non-politician" is going to be the stumbling block. Doesn't "running for a major political office" or "having the political ambition to run for office" qualify someone as a politician? Our article on Sinclair, for instance, notes: "Wanting to pursue politics, he twice ran unsuccessfully for United States Congress on the Socialist ticket". You might make more headway if you tightened the criteria to "...nominees who had not previously been elected to major office", but even then, "major" will need the same sort of treatment. Is a spot on the city council major or not? What if it's for a big city versus a small one? — Lomn 13:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmmm, okay let's say that I meant "people whose main claim to fame was not politics". If my question was, for example, "people whose main claim to fame was not diplomacy but were Ambassadors" James Russell Lowell would qualify while John Welsh would not. 2A02:582:C6E:D00:E946:38A8:4D56:F5C5 (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So... are you asking for a list of people who became politicians upon running for Governor of a US State... ie those who had never held (nor run for) any other elected public office prior to that point?... or is your criteria broader than that? Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking for a list of people who were famous for something not related to politics and were major party gubernatorial nominees. 2A02:582:C6E:D00:A02E:976C:28A8:DC14 (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linda McMahon immediately come to mind. Staecker (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops- sorry. McMahon was a senatorial candidate. Staecker (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He's been hinting at putting on the Libertarian leotard for a Presidential run, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Steven Seagal "would remotely consider" running Arizona, which translates to "is considering" in headlinese. Seriously though, California was just out of reach for Gary Coleman (and Mary Carey, if I recall). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When someone says they are "considering" something, it reminds me of something I saw once about how a significant number of Americans said in a poll that they would "consider" eating squirrel. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In headlinese, "Al rodente: Could squirrel meat come back into vogue?" In blogtalk, "8 Reasons Eating Squirrel Meat is En Vogue". Also, Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal thinks that other celebrity politician looks like he has a squirrel on his head and America fucking loves it! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the future Governor of Minnesota said to the current Mr. Baseball in Trump Plaza, back when the former Bush was popular, "There went USA, Uecker! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Though with her usual squirrely intensity, Maggie Gyllenhall declared, just before 9/11, "I'm voting for Dukakis." InedibleHulk (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]
This seems to say Gallagher, Angelyne and D.L. Hughley gave California a shot, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Our article notes a few more with articles, Jacques-André Istel appropriately finishing lowest. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skepples

edit

What is a skepple? Some unit of measurement once common in New York, but that's all I can discover. Lainhart Farm Complex and Dutch Barn mentions that it was leased for twenty-two skepples of wheat, and a Google search for <skepple wheat> returns lots of results, all from New York, but they're just examples of the unit's use, e.g. "to fine all overseers of both places or any of them as shall neglect their duty in 20 Skepple of Wheat to be paid to his Majesty" from an act of 1669. Nyttend (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

de:Scheffel (Maßeinheit) and nl:Schepel (inhoudsmaat) are probably relevant. A Dutch schepel was a measure of dry capacity roughly corresponding to the English bushel. The actual size appears to have varied widely; according to the Dutch article an historical Dutch schepel before the 19th century may have been somewhere around 43.6 litres. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) :I found Historical Magazine: And Notes and Queries Concerning the Antiquites, History and Biography of America, Volume 4 (New York, 1860) which says "Skepple in the north and scuttle in the south, were the old names for farm baskets... Skepple has, I think, its immediate origin in the Dutch Schepel, and German Scheffel brought over by the Hollanders who came with Hendrick Hudson..." The article goes on to list a number of English and Scottish dialect cognates; skep, skepp, skepe, skeppe, skip, sceppe and scape "which are almost invariably bushels". Whether the New York skepple was equal to the US bushel (= 8 US dry gallons or about 35 litres), it doesn't specify, but it must have been a similar sort of thing I suppose. Alansplodge (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See also How Many? A Dictionary of Units of Measurement, Russ Rowlett and the University of North Carolina; "Skep, skæppe, skjeppe: a traditional unit of dry volume in northern Europe. Use of the unit was spread by Norse traders. In Britain, the skep was eventually identified with the bushel and the word survives as a name for a farm basket or a domed beehive. The Danish skæppe and Norwegian skjeppe are equal to 18 pots; this is equivalent to 17.407 liters (0.494 U.S. bushel) in Denmark and 17.370 liters (0.493 U.S. bushel) in Norway. The Dutch schepel and German scheffel (see above) are versions of this same unit".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2015_October_15&oldid=936105023"