Why didn't civilization develop along the Mississippi?

Many (most?) advanced civilizations appeared along rivers. Mesopotamia was along the Tigris and Euphrates. Egypt was along the Nile. India was along the Indus. China was along the Yellow River. All of the empires in the Americas (Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans) were in Central and South America.

I know about the Mound Builders, but they never developed a civilization similar to Egypt or Babylonia/Assyria. As I understand it, they were a large group of independent tribes. A large empire never developed in the region. Why was that?

Edit
Some people mentioned that the title should be "Why didn't large empires develop along the Mississippi?" That is a better title, and that's what this thread is about.

Not enough time, I would guess. The mound builders and the like were well on their way towards building classical 'empires', but Europeans got into the mix to early and it all went to hell. I suspect that if an ASB decided to destroy Europe and Asia some time in the 1400's, American 'civilization' would have developed given the opportunity.

Origins said:

Not enough time, I would guess. The mound builders and the like were well on their way towards building classical 'empires', but Europeans got into the mix to early and it all went to hell. I suspect that if an ASB decided to destroy Europe and Asia some time in the 1400's, American 'civilization' would have developed given the opportunity.

Click to expand...

I, smell a timeline.

deh74 said:

I, smell a timeline.

Click to expand...

I smell a cliche timeline.

Atom's 5000 Years was based on the premise of the Americas continuing along their pre-Columbian path, as if there were no Europeans. Though a short lived TL, it briefly touched upon the Mound-Builders, I believe.

Orcris said:

I know about the Mound Builders, but they never developed a civilization similar to Egypt or Babylonia/Assyria. As I understand it, they were a large group of independent tribes. A large empire never developed in the region. Why was that?

Click to expand...

Because their agriculture started much, much later. My diamond-encrusted namesake was wrong about a lot of things, but he was pretty much on the money when he pointed out that the domestication of crops in eastern North America took a lot longer than in the Middle East or China or even Mesoamerica.

If corn and beans spread across the desert barriers of northern Mexico/Texas a lot earlier, or if wild rice is domesticated in the tenth century BC instead of the twentieth century AD, things could have been rather different.

deh74 said:

I, smell a timeline.

Click to expand...

willbell said:

I smell a cliche timeline.

Click to expand...

Years of Corn and Wild Rice?

Jared said:

Years of Corn and Wild Rice?

Click to expand...

Oh I see what you did there

Though I've often asked this same question myself regarding civilization in America, wondering just how far it could advance if a few things had been a little different.

Jared said:

Years of Corn and Wild Rice?

Click to expand...

Lands of Floods and Gumbo?

Civilization did start in places like Cahokia, remember that?

willbell said:

I smell a cliche timeline.

Click to expand...

HOW DARE YOU, SIR! HOW DARE YOU SPEAK THE TRUTH!

Jared said:

Because their agriculture started much, much later. My diamond-encrusted namesake was wrong about a lot of things, but he was pretty much on the money when he pointed out that the domestication of crops in eastern North America took a lot longer than in the Middle East or China or even Mesoamerica.

Click to expand...

Well yeah, but Eastern North America also had a crap-ton of really nice stuff growing wild, so that you didn't have to make the jump to Agriculturalism, with all the problems it brings.

So when it did come, it was big and revolutionary, but not as much as it was in the old world.

Even then, the mound building peoples adopted Agriculture around 2000 BC, when it looks like they were already pretty sedentary.

Orcris said:

I know about the Mound Builders, but they never developed a civilization similar to Egypt or Babylonia/Assyria. As I understand it, they were a large group of independent tribes. A large empire never developed in the region. Why was that?

Click to expand...

There was an established trading network and a lot of cultural continuity between what mound builder Cities we've been able to find. They were really thick on the ground according to Cabeza de Vaca and the survivors of the de Soto expedition.

I'd say that yes, it definitely did, and current scholarship agrees with me on that.

Incidentally, I can't wait to see what 9 Fanged Hummingbird and Two Vultures make of this, since I've got to run, and can't do anything else on here tonight.

NothingNow said:

Well yeah, but Eastern North America also had a crap-ton of really nice stuff growing wild, so that you didn't have to make the jump to Agriculturalism, with all the problems it brings.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow. Lots of places had lots of really nice stuff growing wild, and still developed agriculture. Agriculture wasn't an all-or-nothing thing, there were people who had some agriculture and some hunting/gathering, in all sorts of combinations.

The adoption of agriculture was a transitional process which depended in large part on the quality of what crops could be domesticated; there were areas with a crap-ton of really nice stuff growing wild (say, California and the Pacific Northwest) that never developed agriculture, while eastern Northern America developed agriculture later and some places developed it earlier even though they had plenty of good hunting and wild plants (e.g. West Africa).

So when it did come, it was big and revolutionary, but not as much as it was in the old world.

Click to expand...

The biggest difference between Old World and New World was the lack of large domesticable mammals, which meant that protein was harder to find, and often had to still be gathered in the New World (hunting and/or fishing). Plus the lack of fertiliser for agriculture.

Even then, the mound building peoples adopted Agriculture around 2000 BC, when it looks like they were already pretty sedentary.

Click to expand...

People can be sedentary without agriculture, and also have agriculture without being entirely sedentary.

The question is more about the number and quality of crops which are available, and whether they will support a full-time sedentary agricultural lifestyle. The sequence of adoption of crops in eastern North America was not all at once at 2000 BC; a few crops were domesticated first, others later, and later still more crops were imported from Mesoamerica (corn, beans). Each of those developments in turn allowed more agriculture and higher populations to be supported.

No civilization along the Mississippi...




And besides, this would be civilization too...



From a completely archaeological perspective, just because these people didn't build coliseums or pyramids doesn't mean they didn't have a civilization. It's just not a complex civilization.

I took a class on Native American history roughly a year ago, if I remember what my professor discussed, the mound builders had a civilization that collapsed and it inhabited in Georgia and over to the Mississippi. They collapsed and the people moved north and along the coast and were begginning to rebuild and consolidate into something new when disease from the first European arrivals swept through and killed them all off.

The area had seen rise and fall and redistribution of people several times with no solid continuation.

Something like this, kinda hazy so... plus it was a year ago. I also knew I'm not exactly phrasing and alluding well to what I have in my head.

Edit: Going to go find my text books and be more specific and quote for you, if I can.

Edit 2: No luck! That topic was just in my notes then... and they are lost along with my old laptop. Sorry... I believe that there are books with this topic that you could find if someone belongs to a college library system.

othyrsyde said:

From a completely archaeological perspective, just because these people didn't build coliseums or pyramids doesn't mean they didn't have a civilization. It's just not a complex civilization.

Click to expand...

Quite. The title of the thread should be "Why didn't large empires develop along the Mississippi?" That would be more accurate. Although even then, of course, the archaeology etc is unclear enough that we're not completely sure whether there were large empires or not, but as far as I'm aware the main view is that they were mostly organised as chiefdoms rather than large states.

there were areas with a crap-ton of really nice stuff growing wild (say, California and the Pacific Northwest) that never developed agriculture,

Click to expand...

There did appear to be a lot of, at least, gardening and other management of plants. What's the tipping point when it becomes agriculture?

Reading up on plants for Ice and Mice it seems to me the Northwest wouldn't have to go that far to tip over and they had some great plants to use.

Jared said:

Quite. The title of the thread should be "Why didn't large empires develop along the Mississippi?" That would be more accurate. Although even then, of course, the archaeology etc is unclear enough that we're not completely sure whether there were large empires or not, but as far as I'm aware the main view is that they were mostly organised as chiefdoms rather than large states.

Click to expand...

Think that was the case too, but Cahokia might have been the center of a minor empire. It's been a while since I've studied this region, so I wouldn't quote me on this. Even when DeSoto showed up, there was still Mound Builder-esque settlements. The diseases and rampage of looting he unleashed left the region more hunter-gatherers when Europeans returned to the region.

Jared said:

Quite. The title of the thread should be "Why didn't large empires develop along the Mississippi?" That would be more accurate. Although even then, of course, the archaeology etc is unclear enough that we're not completely sure whether there were large empires or not, but as far as I'm aware the main view is that they were mostly organised as chiefdoms rather than large states.

Click to expand...

But if you consider all human societies civilizations, the word becomes meaningless. But I suppose to drift away from pejorative connotations with the word "civilized", I've noticed a lot of history instructors are switching to the term "complex societies."

Anyway, it seems likely that civilization along the Mississippi River was coming along, with large, populated cities, was derailed by the Little Ice Age, but would probably have continued along if it wasn't for European contact. The Mesoamerican civilizations were more advanced at the time, but probably too far away to pose a threat, so maybe they could have adopted some Mesoamerican technology and culture through trade.

Pesterfield said:

There did appear to be a lot of, at least, gardening and other management of plants. What's the tipping point when it becomes agriculture?

Reading up on plants for Ice and Mice it seems to me the Northwest wouldn't have to go that far to tip over and they had some great plants to use.

Click to expand...

It's a transitional process, so it's hard to draw the line. The Maori in OTL had crops only minimally suited for the climatic zone they were in, so gathered a lot of wild plants and hunted too. They could in one sense be considered hunter-gardeners, but they certainly practiced deliberate agriculture.

A good rule of thumb would probably be "when deliberately-planted crops and domesticated livestock provide the large majority of calorie intake, with wild-harvested plants and hunted animals providing only sporadic intake". But even that leaves scope for argument. Particularly when talking about fishing, like the salmon of the Pacific Northwest.

Pesterfield said:

There did appear to be a lot of, at least, gardening and other management of plants. What's the tipping point when it becomes agriculture?

Reading up on plants for Ice and Mice it seems to me the Northwest wouldn't have to go that far to tip over and they had some great plants to use.

Click to expand...

I think this is the million dollar question when it comes to human history (the why of it, not "what counts as agriculture"). I'm guessing it has something to do with population size reaching a critical mass in the right environment.

As for the "what counts as sedentary agriculture" side, sedentary agricultural societies seem to have some universal characteristics:

1. They are entirely sedentary
2. The majority of their food comes from one or several staple crops
3. They build a city or cities with a population of 10,000 or more people
4. They are under the rule of a single authority
5. They have division and specialization of labor

These types of societies tend to spontaneously develop writing, but this is not a requirement. There's also usually a priestly class, but evidence of organized religion is not a requirement either.