Land of the Horse Lords (North American Megafauna)

I've always been bothered by the fact that Pleistocene megafauna died out in North and South America. I've never bought in to the whole over-hunting hypothesis as it never seemed there were enough humans to hunt out everything. I've also been bothered that certain animals didn't survive despite the ripe environments for them.

The American Lion, Cheetah, Horse, and Camel could have survived on the American prairies. The Bison certainly didn't go extinct so why did all of those other animals.

So here it is. I'm going to start a TL based on the hypothesis that not all megafauna died out at the end of the last Ice Age.

In addition to our current menagerie of North American animals, these beasts still roam the continent after the Ice Age:

• Horses
• American Lion
• Camels
• Cheetah
• Jaguar
• Stag-moose
• Giant Beaver
• Giant Peccaries
• Columbian Mammoth (woolys live in the arctic)
• Mastadon
• Gian Sloths (Confined to a few enclaves)

What are the effects on the Native American cultures? Timeline will follow soon but I need input.

Well, I can imagine a vast herder culture similar to Central Asia's across the Prairie. But the biggest butterfly will likely be in the Pacific Northwest and the various other urban centers throughout North and South America. With beasts of burden relatively common, I can see the rise of truly powerful urban civilizations along the lines of Europe, Asia, and Africa coming about much earlier and much wider-spread.

With a smaller amount of crops available immediately TTL America's would develop more slowly than Eurasia, the biggest sticking point is the Panama Isthmus. South America had lots of useful crops, but without a maritime culture spreading the crops will be very slow.
This will slow development down a fair bit.
Another problem is the lack of tin in most of North America. Tin can be found in South America and parts of Central America, but it is very rare in the US and Canada. Without tin, good bronze is impossible, only arsenic bronze which is weaker and slowly poisons the blacksmith is possible. So metal work will be more widespread with the increase of population and ease of travel, but a large amount of it will be in the form of jewellery and weak tools. Only the bronze from some parts of South and Central will be useful for heavy work.

At best the America's would probably have bronze age technology, some diseases and a larger more organized population, by the time Europe and the America's meet.

Great scenario, but... would agriculture be developped if these beasts are available? We would people stop hunting and looking for other sources of food??? I believe that agriculture startes first in places were these beasts were gone, such as the Andes, Mersoamerica or, in the Old world, the middle east.

Domestication of crops takes a lot of time and effort. I thing you need for the great beasts to go extint at least somewhere (let's say, the andes and Mesoamerica) if you won't agriculture to develop. Once crops are domesticated somewhere, and rich grain crops are available, then they could be adopted in places where locals are huntergatheres. And, once come agricultural society domesticates a species (let's say, the Andeas with llamas), other societies might due the same with a different one, locally available, inspired by their example.

Admiral Brown said:

Great scenario, but... would agriculture be developped if these beasts are available? We would people stop hunting and looking for other sources of food??? I believe that agriculture startes first in places were these beasts were gone, such as the Andes, Mersoamerica or, in the Old world, the middle east.

Domestication of crops takes a lot of time and effort. I thing you need for the great beasts to go extint at least somewhere (let's say, the andes and Mesoamerica) if you won't agriculture to develop. Once crops are domesticated somewhere, and rich grain crops are available, then they could be adopted in places where locals are huntergatheres. And, once come agricultural society domesticates a species (let's say, the Andeas with llamas), other societies might due the same with a different one, locally available, inspired by their example.

Click to expand...

There were lots of animals still usable in the Middle East, China, the Indus Valley, the South Western US and the Andes when they started farming.
The Andes is actually the only place in the Americas to have domestic herd animals, so it won't exactly stop them ITTL.
And I would expect a lot of these animals to hit near extinction levels before domestication. The horse is believed to have been reduced to a few thousand specimen before they were domesticated. So even if some places don't turn to agriculture initially, there will be places where the animals are wiped out.

Argo41 said:

I've always been bothered by the fact that Pleistocene megafauna died out in North and South America. I've never bought in to the whole over-hunting hypothesis as it never seemed there were enough humans to hunt out everything. I've also been bothered that certain animals didn't survive despite the ripe environments for them.

Click to expand...

It seems that, every month, somebody comes in with this idea. The threads usually take the form of a "What If," and usually last for about two pages until interest wanes and all the jokes about sabre-tooth cats and bear-mounted cavalry have run their course. I'm glad to somebody whose interested in actually starting a megafauna timeline.

In fact, you kind of ninja'd me: I have been developing some ideas in preparation for a megafauna timeline, but mine won't be ready to begin posting for another couple of weeks.

The key to making these timelines believable is to not get carried away. There's still a lot of uncertainty about the megafauna and why they went extinct. But, since the megafauna went extinct essentially simultaneously across three or four continents, we can be sure that something big happened. If you want to save essentially the entire megafauna of the New World, you're begging the question of what major change makes this possible. But, if you restrict yourself to saving just two or three species, you can just use a "lucky survivor" clause, and you don't even have to address the causes of the extinction.

Argo said:

The American Lion, Cheetah, Horse, and Camel could have survived on the American prairies. The Bison certainly didn't go extinct so why did all of those other animals.

Click to expand...

Ironically, the bison became more common at this time. In fact, the expansion of the bison has been suggested as a contributory factor in the extinction of the other grazers.

Also, I think you're trying to save too many predators. In Africa, they have about five apex predators (lions, cheetahs, leopards, hyenas and painted dogs). Your scenario results in seven (lions, cheetahs, jaguars, cougars, wolves, black bears and brown bears). But, in Africa, those five apex predators have about 70 species of herbivorous ungulates to feed on (excluding ungulates smaller than a warthog and larger than a buffalo). In North America, your scenario has about half of that. Your ecosystem needs more balance.

By the way, were you aware that the North American "cheetahs" were not actually cheetahs, but relatives of the cougar?

Admiral Brown said:

Great scenario, but... would agriculture be developped if these beasts are available? We would people stop hunting and looking for other sources of food??? I believe that agriculture startes first in places were these beasts were gone, such as the Andes, Mersoamerica or, in the Old world, the middle east.

Click to expand...

I don't think there's any correlation here at all. As an example, agriculture showed up in India about 7000 BC, but India also still has a diverse megafauna (lions, tigers, elephants, rhinos, gaurs, etc.).

Hunter cultures are usually hunter-gatherer cultures, and it's the "gatherer" element that leads to the eventual development of agriculture. If we make the Clovis culture have a stronger "gatherer" element, maybe we can get agriculture to emerge earlier, and relieve some of the pressure on the megafauna, giving them a chance to survive.

Sven said:

By the way, were you aware that the North American "cheetahs" were not actually cheetahs, but relatives of the cougar?

Click to expand...

Just going to jump in here very quickly- the modern cheetah is itself a relative of the cougar, they're both part of the same broader group of the cat family that also includes the Jaguarundi, plus the extinct Old World members of the genus Puma and Acinonyx, and of course the American cheetahs of the genus Miracinonyx. To say that the American cheetah is a close relative of the cougar, but not the African cheetah, is not really correct.

Basileus Giorgios said:

Just going to jump in here very quickly- the modern cheetah is itself a relative of the cougar, they're both part of the same broader group of the cat family that also includes the Jaguarundi, plus the extinct Old World members of the genus Puma and Acinonyx, and of course the American cheetahs of the genus Miracinonyx. To say that the American cheetah is a close relative of the cougar, but not the African cheetah, is not really correct.

Click to expand...

But I didn't say that. What I said was they're not cheetahs: I didn't say they weren't related to cheetahs. Their closest living relative is the cougar.

Sounds interesting.

Argo41 said:

• Horses
• American Lion
• Camels
• Cheetah
• Jaguar
• Stag-moose
• Giant Beaver
• Giant Peccaries
• Columbian Mammoth (woolys live in the arctic)
• Mastadon
• Gian Sloths (Confined to a few enclaves)

What are the effects on the Native American cultures? Timeline will follow soon but I need input.

Click to expand...

Firstly, let me say that I second the notion that it's great that someone is seriously going to do a timeline with American domesticates-it's an idea that is full of potential, could produce many varied timelines without becoming a cliche, but is much more talked about than done. That said, let's look at your list of animals one by one.

1. Horses-Once domesticated, horses can serve as a near-perfect domestic animal-they produce meat, milk, are adaptable, can carry riders for trade or warfare, and can be used for hard labor. Expect to see larger empires and knightly classes in Native American society with these animals, as well as larger, more complex nomadic societies. Likely first site of domestication would be in Mesoamerica, which is in the range of the fossils identified as Equus conversidens.

2. American Lion-the survival of its prey means this animal will live a little longer, but I don't see it competing very well with human hunters. Even if it survives ancient Native American civilizations (probably in isolated areas with low human populations), I doubt it could survive into the modern era.

3. Camels-Like horses, can provide meat, milk, labor, and transport. Unlike horses, not very adaptable. They're stuck in desert environments IOTL, and likely will be that way ITTL. Some desert cultures could develop along parallel lines with nomadic cultures in the Middle East and North Africa, but camels are not going to have a massive impact outside of those deserts.

4. Cheetah-This takes a degree of handwaving, but if you decree that cheetahs in North America are easier to breed in captivity than old world cheetahs, this could result in them being domesticated and used as the equivalent of hunting dogs by Native Americans, which I would find fascinating. Of course, this would assume that they are as easy to tame and as safe for humans as the cheetahs in Africa as well.

5. Jaguars-read Wikipedia article on OTL's Jaguars. Apply to North America. Outside of being an inspiration for myths, I don't see this animal having a big impact on N.A. cultures.

6. Stag-Moose: I don't know much about this animal, so I can't say. But if it survived, the relict population would probably be much smaller in body size than the Ice-Age population.

7. Giant Beaver-see wikipedia article on OTL's beaver. Multiply body size by three, decrease population size by same. I doubt this species would survive the trade in pelts with Europeans, but it could bring some real wealth to N.A. cultures in a post-European contact world.

8. Giant Peccaries-Depends on the species. Some were solitary, and so would not have made good domesticates (you can't keep them in herds). Others lived in herds, so could have become a rough equivalent to OTL's pigs (although the Flat-Headed peccary of North America seems to have preferred a dryer habitat than pigs, which would make its husbandry very different).

9. Mammoths and Mastadons: Assuming these managed to survive alongside human civilizations, they would probably be treated like elephants of our time. A large and complex society might capture some from the wild and use them as mounts and beasts of burden, but their size would make them too troublesome to breed in captivity.

10. Giant Sloths-As far as I know sloths were solitary, so they would not be good domesticates.

twovultures said:

1. Horses-Once domesticated, horses can serve as a near-perfect domestic animal-they produce meat, milk, are adaptable, can carry riders for trade or warfare, and can be used for hard labor. Expect to see larger empires and knightly classes in Native American society with these animals, as well as larger, more complex nomadic societies. Likely first site of domestication would be in Mesoamerica, which is in the range of the fossils identified as Equus conversidens.

Click to expand...

I tried researching New World horses as part of my developing megafauna timeline, but I can't even seem to find the most basic things about them (e.g., how big they were). From what I can gather, however, the horses of the New World were noticeably smaller than the Old World horses. This would make them somewhat less useful as domesticates than the "true" horse (Equus ferus) from the Old World.

twovultures said:

Firstly, let me say that I second the notion that it's great that someone is seriously going to do a timeline with American domesticates-it's an idea that is full of potential, could produce many varied timelines without becoming a cliche, but is much more talked about than done. That said, let's look at your list of animals one by one.

1. Horses-Once domesticated, horses can serve as a near-perfect domestic animal-they produce meat, milk, are adaptable, can carry riders for trade or warfare, and can be used for hard labor. Expect to see larger empires and knightly classes in Native American society with these animals, as well as larger, more complex nomadic societies. Likely first site of domestication would be in Mesoamerica, which is in the range of the fossils identified as Equus conversidens.

Click to expand...

Horses would be the most convenient, but remember their milk is much lower in fat content than cows, goat or sheep. This makes it hard to digest and doesn't make cheese. So it was usually allowed to ferment into an alcoholic yogurt type drink.

3. Camels-Like horses, can provide meat, milk, labor, and transport. Unlike horses, not very adaptable. They're stuck in desert environments IOTL, and likely will be that way ITTL. Some desert cultures could develop along parallel lines with nomadic cultures in the Middle East and North Africa, but camels are not going to have a massive impact outside of those deserts.

Click to expand...

They've found skeletons of North American camels and llama's throughout many places from Appalachia, Florida, the Great Basin and in between. Don't compare them to OTL camels, because quite frankly we don't even have a clear idea about what they look like. Did they resemble big llama's or did they have humps, we don't know.
Camel milk is drinkable but it has a very high fat content, so it can easily make people sick. Llama's don't produce enough milk to bother with, so I don't know if its drinkable. The larger N. American camelids may be good milk producers depending on the what is required for the TL.

8. Giant Peccaries-Depends on the species. Some were solitary, and so would not have made good domesticates (you can't keep them in herds). Others lived in herds, so could have become a rough equivalent to OTL's pigs (although the Flat-Headed peccary of North America seems to have preferred a dryer habitat than pigs, which would make its husbandry very different).

Click to expand...

The big question here is, are they domesticable? The peccaries that survived travel in groups but are ornery and don't like people. It could go either way.

9. Mammoths and Mastadons: Assuming these managed to survive alongside human civilizations, they would probably be treated like elephants of our time. A large and complex society might capture some from the wild and use them as mounts and beasts of burden, but their size would make them too troublesome to breed in captivity.

Click to expand...

There's always the pygmy mammoth from California. They were smaller about the size of a big bull, so they'd be able to mature sooner and be more manageable. In my Neanderthal TL they're an important beast of burden.

Sven said:

I tried researching New World horses as part of my developing megafauna timeline, but I can't even seem to find the most basic things about them (e.g., how big they were). From what I can gather, however, the horses of the New World were noticeably smaller than the Old World horses. This would make them somewhat less useful as domesticates than the "true" horse (Equus ferus) from the Old World.

Click to expand...

Both the Patagonia species and the one found in the far north of America seem to be physically almost identical to the European species. So barring different instincts there shouldn't be much difference.

Domoviye said:

Both the Patagonia species (of horse) and the one found in the far north of America seem to be physically almost identical to the European species. So barring different instincts there shouldn't be much difference.

Click to expand...

Are you sure about this? The only articles I can find about horses in Pleistocene Patagonia talk about two kinds of horses: "Hippidion" (which may not actually be in the genus Hippidion, and are the size of Welsh ponies), and Equus (which are described as having very short legs for life in mountainous terrain).

However, I just read that the tarpan (ancestor of the domestic horse) was also one of the smaller types of horse, at 13 hands. That's actually comparable to the extant zebras and wild asses (smaller than most, actually). So, the North American Equus were certainly not too small to be useful.

Thanks!

Added by Edit:

Domoviye said:

There's always the pygmy mammoth from California. They were smaller about the size of a big bull, so they'd be able to mature sooner and be more manageable. In my Neanderthal TL they're an important beast of burden.

Click to expand...

Actually, there is data that suggests that insular dwarves are smaller because of lower growth rates (an adaptation to low-energy foods available on island environments), so dwarf mammoths probably didn't mature any faster than full-sized mammoths.

Argo41 said:

I've always been bothered by the fact that Pleistocene megafauna died out in North and South America. I've never bought in to the whole over-hunting hypothesis as it never seemed there were enough humans to hunt out everything.

Click to expand...

Humans had been in the Americas for something like 10 millenia before the big die-offs started, so it's quite possible they spent that time growing more numerous, and then, after wiping out most of the prey, died themselves of starvation. I'm also going to call out on the lions and cheetahs (and other predator), since humans would not tolerate these creatures, not only would they be competitors for meat, they'd be dangers to children. Of course, this brings up another possibility for the die-offs, some species are eliminated, and with the hunting this has a knock-on ecological effect as the whole food-web begins to unravel.

Sven said:

Are you sure about this? The only articles I can find about horses in Pleistocene Patagonia talk about two kinds of horses: "Hippidion" (which may not actually be in the genus Hippidion, and are the size of Welsh ponies), and Equus (which are described as having very short legs for life in mountainous terrain).

However, I just read that the tarpan (ancestor of the domestic horse) was also one of the smaller types of horse, at 13 hands. That's actually comparable to the extant zebras and wild asses (smaller than most, actually). So, the North American Equus were certainly not too small to be useful.

Thanks!

Added by Edit:

Actually, there is data that suggests that insular dwarves are smaller because of lower growth rates (an adaptation to low-energy foods available on island environments), so dwarf mammoths probably didn't mature any faster than full-sized mammoths.

Click to expand...

I was talking about the original per-domestic horse. The shorter legs don't necessarily mean a different species just a breed. Scientists still aren't sure how separate they were, but believe they were very similar.
For the dwarves, once they get a better diet they'll mature more quickly, but still maintain the smaller size.
Your welcome.

The end of the Ice Age caused many of the grasslands to disappear permanently or just temporary in some cases, which caused a lot of problems for the grazers. Add a new hunter (the humans) and a lot of predators specialized in hunting grazers and you can get the pieces to the extinction puzzle (there are probably more pieces we don't know about, for example the European megafauna died simultaneously, and the humans were not new in Europe.)

No Saber Tooth and Scimitar Tooth cats?

MattII said:

Humans had been in the Americas for something like 10 millenia before the big die-offs started, so it's quite possible they spent that time growing more numerous, and then, after wiping out most of the prey, died themselves of starvation. I'm also going to call out on the lions and cheetahs (and other predator), since humans would not tolerate these creatures, not only would they be competitors for meat, they'd be dangers to children. Of course, this brings up another possibility for the die-offs, some species are eliminated, and with the hunting this has a knock-on ecological effect as the whole food-web begins to unravel.

Click to expand...

10,000 years before the megafauna extinction? That would put humans in the Americas at, what, about 20,000 to 24,000 BC? There are those who argue that, but it's not commonly accepted.

One theory gaining credence is the effects of a comet impact on the North American ice sheet about 12,900 BP, causing massive wildfires and releasing a huge freshwater lake down the St. Lawrence that turned off the Gulf Stream and caused the Younger Dryas mini-ice age.

Sven said:

I tried researching New World horses as part of my developing megafauna timeline, but I can't even seem to find the most basic things about them (e.g., how big they were). From what I can gather, however, the horses of the New World were noticeably smaller than the Old World horses. This would make them somewhat less useful as domesticates than the "true" horse (Equus ferus) from the Old World.

Click to expand...

Their smaller size would make them easier to domesticate, however-large horses can be extremely dangerous animals, and would probably be quite intimidating to a stone-age civilization. Smaller, more manageable horses would speed up the process of domestication, if anything.

Also, don't underestimate the power of breeding. Give the natives a few hundred years of breeding horses, and horses capable of carrying riders would quite likely become a reality.

Of small horses...Shetland ponies, and small donkeys, can do a lot of work. In fact, the larger breeds spend a lot of their strength in just carrying their own weight. Also, while zebras have been called undomesticable, people have at least trained them.

Looking forward to this timeline.