AHC/WI: Other River Valley Civilizations?

So the four largest and longest-lasting River Valley-Ancient Civilizations, Mesopotamia, Huang-He, Nile, and Indus, (with Mesoamerica and the Andes as other non-river centers of civilizations in the Americas), were centers of complex culture that grew and prospered. Where else could complex and lasting civilizations develop? For example, could a Congo River Valley civilization develop? How about a more advanced Mississippi River civilization? And can the Amazon River civilization last longer? What other regions could be centers of ancient civilization, and what changes would have to be made to make such advanced civilizations grow?

EDIT: One of the requirements is for the advanced civilization(s) not to collapse, unless in a foreign conquest situation like Mesoamerica and the Andes.
EDIT 2: Preferably, writing and bronze/iron/some other metal metallurgy in this hypothetical civilization.
EDIT 3: There are a few posts about the Mississippi River, but weren't they a bit less advanced compared to even other American civilizations, like Mesoamerica and the Andean region?

The Congo river was an important centre of several African kingdoms (Kongo, Lunda, Luba, just to name a few).

Don't forget the Huang He (Yellow River), either, it's often referred to as the Cradle of Chinese Civilization.

Edit: You mentioned the Huang He, no idea how I missed that when writing. Apologies.

SvoHljott said:

The Congo river was an important centre of several African kingdoms (Kongo, Lunda, Luba, just to name a few).

Don't forget the Huang He (Yellow River), either, it's often referred to as the Cradle of Chinese Civilization.

Edit: You mentioned the Huang He, no idea how I missed that when writing. Apologies.

Click to expand...

Well, as I came up with this post without (unfortunately) much knowledge of sub-Saharan African civilization, I did not know about the ancient kingdoms there. Were these kingdoms as large or prosperous as, for example, Ancient Egypt or Ancient China?

The Danube was rather rich with settlements and earthworks before the Bronze Age Collapse. Mostly, these were farming communities descended of immigrants from Anatolia, with as time went on a growing Indo-European class. A good many of these settlements collapsed at the end of the Bronze Age, and Celtic populations came to replace them. Could those settlements grow into a Danube Valley civilization, an alternate seat of power and culture in the Balkans (potentially displacing Greece)?

SirPaperweight said:

Well, as I came up with this post without (unfortunately) much knowledge of sub-Saharan African civilization, I did not know about the ancient kingdoms there. Were these kingdoms as large or prosperous as, for example, Ancient Egypt or Ancient China?

Click to expand...

No, not really. More to the point, they were not cradles at all, Congo was settled (as in, indigenous people pushed out/mixed with) by already relatively (to other river civs) advanced people (Bantu migration).

There are plenty of other huge rivers that did not develop such prominent centers of civilization. Mekong, Ganges, Yangtse, Niger, etc. I am not sure what was special about the four that did.

But if you do not look for a cradle of civilization, then many of other rivers became centers later on.

Besides the Huang He, there is some evidence of important non-Han civilizations developing in other river valleys in the region.

The Min River Basin in Sichuan was home to the Shu civilization, which definitely developed a strong metalworking culture relatively independent of the Yellow River civs until it was conquered by Qin in the 3rd Century BC.

Then there was also the Zhu River valley, where you had advanced settled civilization (with a capital at modern Guangzhou) in the form of the Yue. Again, conquered by Qin in 220s BC, though the Southern Yue was a residual semi-Han state that survived until the 170s BC.

To an extent the Chu civilization in the middle Yangtze is a civilization separate from the Yellow River civilizations as well, since they didn't speak the same language as the Yellow River civs and for the longest time were themselves rejected by the Yellow River civilizations. Same goes for Wu and Yue in the lower Yangtze.

I can't imagine the 'jungle river' civilizations (Congo, Amazon, Mekong) being too prosperous, considering the harshness of the habitat these civilizations have to develop in (leading to numerous boom-bust scenarios like the Maya). The Khmer, centered around the Mekong, is probably the most you're going to get with such a civ.

A more developed Mississippi civ would probably require humans to arrive in North America earlier. I wonder if the La Plata basin would be a good place for a civ as well.

I think the Ganges could be a good candidate for a civ as well, as well as the Mali river. If projections of ancient agricultural productivities are correct, then I don't see why some Central Asian rivers wouldn't be able to develop independent civilizations on their own - Syr Darya, Amu Darya, or the Helmand in Afghanistan.

And with the Danube valley, and probably other river civilizations as well, wasn't fishing a good stable source of food?

You forgot the Mississippians.

The idea of the Oxus-Jaxartes-Aral Sea basin hosting an early and long lasting centre of civilization has always fascinated me.

One hopes they don't get too good at irrigation though.

The Rio Grande is also an interesting possibility. I could imagine an ancient people heavily irrigating it and making the desert bloom.

Dorozhand said:

The Rio Grande is also an interesting possibility. I could imagine an ancient people heavily irrigating it and making the desert bloom.

Click to expand...

Some of the Anasazi (who are in fact the present Pueblo) developed communities in the Rio Grande valley in New Mexico as early as the 9th C. present era. They also did practice irrigation both in the Rio Grande and the Colorado Plateau, however, environmental change (a massive decades-old drought) and invading peoples caused a contraction of the Anasazi and the destruction of much of their infrastructure.

This is always an evergreen and cool, but wasn't there

This is always an evergreen and cool, but wasn't there a thread on the same topic about a month ago?

I think I suggested the Loire et Rhone...

edit: here's the link, I think:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?t=316050&highlight=cradles+civilization

Best,

Dorozhand said:

The idea of the Oxus-Jaxartes-Aral Sea basin hosting an early and long lasting centre of civilization has always fascinated me.

One hopes they don't get too good at irrigation though.

Click to expand...

Much of this area was the province of Sogdian culture which founded what would later be known as Samarkand. In Bactria (now Khorasan), you had the ancient city of Balkh (from 2000 BPE) and subsidiary cities. Balkh (aka Bactria) was known as the "Mother of Cities" by the Arabs, and was the birthplace, and long the center of Zoroastrianism. Perhaps it rightfully was a "cradle of civilization" at least for the Indo-Iranian peoples who originally settled it. There was a very extensive and ancient network of irrigation in the region utilizing qanats largely destroyed by the Mongols which caused a long term collapse of agriculture in the region.

What about the Elbe, the Oder, the Vistula and the Volga?

The Zambezi river valley has some very nice soil/mineral deposits, but I don't believe it was ever the center of a major civilization. The Congo, as was earlier mentioned, has a very large river, as well as some very rich soil (especially in the east), but it also didn't develop any civilizations until after the Bantu migration. Kongo, Luanda, Luba and the others all started pretty late for civilizations. The issue with the Congo river is that it has quite a few navigational barriers.

There's also a river valley in Oregon (the name escapes me) that is very fertile and well suited to civilization.

'Ezana said:

The Zambezi river valley has some very nice soil/mineral deposits, but I don't believe it was ever the center of a major civilization. The Congo, as was earlier mentioned, has a very large river, as well as some very rich soil (especially in the east), but it also didn't develop any civilizations until after the Bantu migration. Kongo, Luanda, Luba and the others all started pretty late for civilizations. The issue with the Congo river is that it has quite a few navigational barriers.

There's also a river valley in Oregon (the name escapes me) that is very fertile and well suited to civilization.

Click to expand...

Willamette, iirc.

See the TL Land of Salmon and Totems

'Ezana said:

The Zambezi river valley has some very nice soil/mineral deposits, but I don't believe it was ever the center of a major civilization. The Congo, as was earlier mentioned, has a very large river, as well as some very rich soil (especially in the east), but it also didn't develop any civilizations until after the Bantu migration. Kongo, Luanda, Luba and the others all started pretty late for civilizations. The issue with the Congo river is that it has quite a few navigational barriers.

There's also a river valley in Oregon (the name escapes me) that is very fertile and well suited to civilization.

Click to expand...

Weren't the various Shona civilizations like Great Zimbabwe in the Zambezi area? The Congo isn't navigable if you're coming from the seas but it's highly navigable inland. With new crops, Kikongo speakers could probably continue to spread up the river.

leopard9 said:

Weren't the various Shona civilizations like Great Zimbabwe in the Zambezi area? The Congo isn't navigable if you're coming from the seas but it's highly navigable inland. With new crops, Kikongo speakers could probably continue to spread up the river.

Click to expand...

IIRC, the Shona civilizations started centered on the Limpopo river and spread into the Zimbabwe plateau. I don't think they were centered on the Zambezi, although they were near it.

The Congo is pretty navigable inland, but my point is that the arrangement of cataracts could partially impede long distance trade. There are very long stretches of navigable river where trade could flourish, but you wouldn't be able to go from say Katanga to Bas-Congo without running into some cataracts. Then again, the Norse managed to get through Russia using portage, so I suppose that's a possibility. Given the wealth of the upper Congo river area, however, I would think that you could possibly get *Luba/Lunda peoples pushing down the Congo.

@Dathi: Thanks for the name!

'Ezana said:

There's also a river valley in Oregon (the name escapes me) that is very fertile and well suited to civilization.

Click to expand...

That would be the Willamette.
Never had the population density. There was no Pre-European agriculture but the valley was a paradise for hunter-gatherers. The local cultures had a complex class-based society similar to the coastal NW culture group and practiced slavery.

As Darthi indicated, there is a related TL.

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

Willamette, iirc.

See the TL Land of Salmon and Totems

Click to expand...

Interesting; TLs dealing with pre-Colombian America are not common. The link is here, and here for the rewrite.

Herzen's love-child said:

That would be the Willamette.
Never had the population density. There was no Pre-European agriculture but the valley was a paradise for hunter-gatherers. The local cultures had a complex class-based society similar to the coastal NW culture group and practiced slavery.

As Darthi indicated, there is a related TL.

Click to expand...

What about domesticated animals? (This question is also valable for the Rio de la Plata and the Mississippi)