AHC: Differnt "cradles of civilization"

Well, the Kura runs through areas that, 6000 years ago at least, were Indo-European and Kartvelian (or proto-Kartvelian). So possibly you could end up with a hybrid civilization with both.

Indo-European languages with significant Kartvelian influence.
sun.gif


Why do you think the PODs required to make a proto-Karvelian civilization on the Kura would be messy? Or more messy than an Indo-European civilization in the same place?

fasquardon

I'm just not familiar with the proto-Kartvelians. My assumption was that if you go far back enough it might butterfly them away entirely. I wasn't aware of whether or not they were contemporary with the PIE folk or not.
 
I'm just not familiar with the proto-Kartvelians. My assumption was that if you go far back enough it might butterfly them away entirely. I wasn't aware of whether or not they were contemporary with the PIE folk or not.

I've not seen any dates for when proto-Kartvelian was spoken, however, the leading interpretation of the linguistic evidence is that proto-Kartvelian and proto-Indo-European were contemporanious and influenced each-other heavily, important terminology for both languages coming from the other. This makes sense, given that the urheimat of the Indo-Europeans was either in Anatolia or the Pontic steppes, both of which are either side of the Kartvelian region (and wherever the urheimat was, the Indo-Europeans migrated past the Kartvelians along the Pontic coast to the other region very, very early on). The Kartvelian languages seem to have been spoken in the West Caucasus area since the end of the last ice age. They certainly covered a range further west and north along the Pontic coast than they do today, though the exact range isn't clear.

I've always wondered if the Kartvelians might end up settling the steppes like the Indo-Europeans did and what influence that might have had if they did that either contemporaniously with the Indo-European expansion across the steppes, or after the Indo-Europeans expanded across the region.

An India populated by people speaking Laz, perhaps?

fasquardon
 
I've not seen any dates for when proto-Kartvelian was spoken, however, the leading interpretation of the linguistic evidence is that proto-Kartvelian and proto-Indo-European were contemporanious and influenced each-other heavily, important terminology for both languages coming from the other. This makes sense, given that the urheimat of the Indo-Europeans was either in Anatolia or the Pontic steppes, both of which are either side of the Kartvelian region (and wherever the urheimat was, the Indo-Europeans migrated past the Kartvelians along the Pontic coast to the other region very, very early on). The Kartvelian languages seem to have been spoken in the West Caucasus area since the end of the last ice age. They certainly covered a range further west and north along the Pontic coast than they do today, though the exact range isn't clear.

I've always wondered if the Kartvelians might end up settling the steppes like the Indo-Europeans did and what influence that might have had if they did that either contemporaniously with the Indo-European expansion across the steppes, or after the Indo-Europeans expanded across the region.

An India populated by people speaking Laz, perhaps?

fasquardon

I think this Kuro-Araxian civilization would be situated more in modern-day Azerbaijan, as it's a lowland area where the two rivers merge. However, as with how Mesopotamian civilization started out in the "hilly flanks" around the region, you could have the earliest agricultural societies develop around modern-day Tbilisi and Armenia, and migrate into the valley. The Caspian Sea certainly helps things, I think.

But Kartvelian-speaking India would be pretty boss. Kartvelian languages are cool.

Another possible player would be North Caucasian-speakers. Oooh, maybe they become this timeline's Proto-Indo-Europeans? That'd be fun -- all dose consonants.
 
As did the Indus, also for reasons of geography. That didn't prevent the Yellow River region of China from being one of the fundamental cradles -- even if they were vulnerable to Steppe people incursions from the North.
But when that civilisation was starting out the closest steppe people might not yet have had horses, and thus would have been less of a threat...
 
You know, there's always someone coming from the steppe...to ruin one's day.

The Nile Valley had some real advantages...

Best,

I'm just shocked at why the sedentary folks didn't absorb the invaders like they did elsewhere - rather than be the spark for a civilization, it strangled it in its cradle.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
There is that - interesting question.

I'm just shocked at why the sedentary folks didn't absorb the invaders like they did elsewhere - rather than be the spark for a civilization, it strangled it in its cradle.

Maybe it was early enough the advantages were not apparent?

My impression of most of the "barbarian invaders" situations (which is a trope of the memest kind, but anyway) is that the invaders, generally, had enough contact with the settled peoples to desire what could be gained through conquest and a syncretic culture.

But there were those - and this may have been one - where the perceived gains of settling down weren't worth it, either directly or because there wasn't (yet) "barbarian invader group number 2" stacked up behind them to exert pressure...

Just a thought.

This is so far from my area of (limited) knowledge I can't point to anything, but seems like it would be human nature.

Best,
 
Last edited:
Can't believe I didn't think of this earlier: the Congo doesn't appear to have been a region of agricultural innovation at all, while the Amazon and West Africa's jungles were. So what-if the bushmen of the Congo develop some agriculture?

Also, if some of the rivers shown here had lasted longer, they would be very likely to be cradles of civilization, seeing as both the Nile and the Niger have been cradles of civilization and the Atlas mountains seem to me an important region of animal domestication...

fasquardon
 
Can't believe I didn't think of this earlier: the Congo doesn't appear to have been a region of agricultural innovation at all, while the Amazon and West Africa's jungles were. So what-if the bushmen of the Congo develop some agriculture?

Also, if some of the rivers shown here had lasted longer, they would be very likely to be cradles of civilization, seeing as both the Nile and the Niger have been cradles of civilization and the Atlas mountains seem to me an important region of animal domestication...

fasquardon

The Bushmen were south of the Congo basin.
 
Although useful in a general sort of way, the map doesn't reflect conditions of several thousands years ago when the distribution of agricultural suitability would be different in North Africa and South Asia and certain other regions. It also misses things like the Nile and Indus River valleys entirely.
 
Although useful in a general sort of way, the map doesn't reflect conditions of several thousands years ago when the distribution of agricultural suitability would be different in North Africa and South Asia and certain other regions. It also misses things like the Nile and Indus River valleys entirely.

I see... I guess the one on page 2 was better?
 
The Wild Rice historically only supported a relatively small population. If it were domesticated (if possible) I could see it.
That was what I was thinking.

Here is another cool agriculture map relevant to this discussion:

Lots of potential!

I find that map questionable. In just Canada it seems to be missing the Okanagan, Maritimes (which about French settlers found almost unbelievably fertile and continues to be a decent farming area), and shows most of southern Ontario as poor cropland (apart for the area around the Georgian Bay, half of which is Canadian shield). Plus they're missing the Nile.
 
Last edited:
Top