Could the Mississippi-Missouri river system have become a cradle of civilization?
- Thread starter SavoyTruffle
- Start date
Honestly, who the flip cares if trade ends after the Warm Period? It’ll still be enough time to transmit diseases in both directions, and while the diseases will still evolve such that there will be fresh outbreaks once connections are reestablished, they won’t be nearly as bad as virgin-field outbreaks.
The tricky bit with that is that scarcity is generally a factor for that sort of domestication. White-tails were too good as prey to need extensive management. They bred so fast that societies weren't faced with much need to protect or take proprietorship.
This would probably be less true in this scenario, given that by construction the population of the Mississippi basin would be substantially larger than OTL due to earlier and/or wider diffusion of agriculture (and probably more productive agricultural practices as well), meaning more demand for deer meat and hides and less suitable habitat. IOTL, deer populations dropped substantially by the early 20th century; they were still large on a macroscopic level, mind you, but the trend was not encouraging. Bows and spears might be less efficient than guns, but I suspect they're still good enough to lead to similar pressures.
I don't think it's impossible, of course. Just improbable. This scenario is one that increases the odds, absolutely, but I think other species are more likely to be domesticated as a result.
To add another thing to this thread, I mentioned before how a strong Mississippia would be a bulwark against colonization, which would likely as a result cut off the Europeans from the west coast. While the east would be numerous advanced states, the west would be split up still into a variety of small tribes. How do you think they would be affected?
I'd imagine that the Mississippians would experience periods of agriculture collapse similar to the OTL mound builders and general strife like every other civilization ever. That and there'll probably a time period that gets heavily mythologized by latter people similar to mycenean Greece or Xia China.
The Cahokia mounds were occupied from about 1050 to 1350. They were built on the flood plain just south of the point where the Illinois, Missouri and upper Mississippi Rivers all meet. They kept occupied areas above the annual high waters after spring thaw. The alluvial soil no doubt produced excellent crops. The rivers provided fish nearby. They were most likely abandoned after an earthquake knocked things down. Shock waves from New Madrid are predicted to travel with great intensity through alluvial soils. The bluffs just a few miles to the east and west provided more stable ground.
I disagree, the West Coast can be reached numerous ways. Balboa crossed to the Pacific in 1513 for instance. Even if Europe discovers a wealthy empire/kingdoms in North America, they'll still have huge interest in India and Asia so the Pacific will still wind up with plenty of European ships. While perhaps the Aztecs are never conquered, European influence will still be present in Mesoamerica, and Europe will want to trade with West Coast Mesoamerican states like Colima or the Purepecha. All Amerindian states will want European goods, and they will pay mainly in gold and silver. I think Spain would lead the way here like OTL, and even if they don't conquer and directly rule as much as OTL, they'll have huge influence, probably control at least several ports on the West Coast, and have smaller native states as vassals. This means something like the Manila galleon is still viable (since Spain will still be active elsewhere in the world) meaning Spanish ships will follow a route passing Cape Mendocino in northern California and at times drift as far north as Oregon. Spanish enemies like England and the Dutch will follow these Spanish ships, leading to more European presence on the West Coast. Hell, I could see more European presence since Spain won't have a total monopoly in the area like OTL and native rulers and nobles might become wary on becoming reliant on the Spanish along with their irritating tendency to send Jesuits and other missionaries.
As for the West Coast, that's an interesting question. A lot depends on what happens in the Southwest. We can assume a tin trade will occur which will certainly enrich the Southwest. Agriculture will spread to Southern California millennia before OTL (IIRC there is some evidence of it, related to contact with the Patayans) which in turn will be adopted and bred for the unique climate (dry summer) of California along with other Mesoamerican plants. Hohokam-style canal-building will help immensely. Over time, this will result in strains of maize more tolerant to the climate spreading north which will slowly be incorporated into local societies. There will be another wave of maize farming spreading north from Utah. OTL there is evidence that at least one or two sites in modern Idaho cultivated maize. It never spread to the Snake River Plain (and beyond the Plateau) since it was simply too much work and too little gain compared to traditional fishing, hunting, and foraging. But TTL presumably Utah is far more populous and with better yielding strains of maize and with some canal building. So maize agriculture has two routes of penetrating to the Northwest and with it the necessary canals for making farming productive on the Columbia Plateau and Snake River Plain.
Other Mississippian crops TTL might spread too. "Wild" rice could be grown with irrigation on the High Plains and might spread to the Snake River and from their westwards. Sunflowers and sunchoke are very good choices to spread west. Goosefoot certainly could spread too. Once agriculture emerges by giving a good additional source of calories and nutrients, it could certainly be intensified. The productivity of salmon fisheries in the Northwest do give some leeway for experimentation.
If we take this spread of agriculture around late 1st millennium BC, then we're going to end up with some serious cultural development in both Northwest Coast and Plateau areas. Hunting and fishing will still be hugely important but I bet at key fishing spots like Celilo/Wyam, Willamette Falls, Priest Rapids, Shoshone Falls, etc. they will experiment with horticulture of maize, sunflowers, squash, and goosefoot. Key native crops like camas or biscuitroot (Lomatium, a very diverse genus which could allow for lots of hybridisation and domestication of a new species like with amaranths) might become incorporated in this system, it's evident that OTL American Indians tended to their camas patches, except this TTL they may become fully domesticated. In the wetter areas of the Northwest wapato would be incorporated into this system. Domesticated geese and ducks would be brought from the east to give an additional source of protein. There would be a great benefit to places on the Plateau which didn't rely on fishing but instead foraging and hunting which are often overlooked in the archaeological record due to their smaller settlements. Metallurgy would spread as well by this route. California and the Northwest is rich in gold, silver, copper, and lead, and OTL copper was already a valuable metal for religious purposes. If indigeous sailing develops, it will eventually arrive in California and spread north.
How far north would this extend? Sagittaria cuneata grows as far north as Alaska, Yukon, and the Northwest Territories and would be incorporated into the wapato horticulture system. Cultural exchange among Amerindian tribes was common, so a horticulture or domestic strain of S. cuneata might be adopted by Salish peoples and from there spread to Wakashan peoples and up the BC Coast in that interaction sphere (including inland to Athabaskan cultures). The northern limit would be the Tlingit of Alaska who might supplement their diet with some fields of S. cuneata. However, other cultures like the Athabaskans and Aleuts would adopt metalworking too.
Still, we'd end up with far more organised states on the West Coast which would be smelting gold and silver so would be quite interesting to Europeans. Although it's certainly possible that a larger Tlingit population would mean they have more trade to the west (for walrus and TTL gold). There is cassiterite in Alaska (Prince of Wales Island, Alaska Peninsula, Seward Peninsula, and the central part of the state along the Yukon), so there could be a tin trade there if the deposits are accessible and the locals realise that it's a valuable ore to combine with copper. If that's the case, then the Tlingit could easily become a powerful maritime trading culture and keep sailing westwards and westwards, chasing tin, gold, and walrus ivory and perhaps whales as well (assuming some cultural fusion with the Aleuts/Inuit/Yupik). Considering the timescale, we might have the Tlingits arrive in Japan around the same time Europeans are arriving on the East Coast or the Caribbean. The gold and ivory the Tlingits have might spur a Japanese push north (especially since the Tlingits will be trading with the Ainu too).
"Variety of small tribes", no. A variety of languages, yes, but "small", no. It's hard to predict linguistic movements but we'd likely have no "Penutian" languages within the territory of modern California and the Pacific Athabaskan group would likewise be butterflied. We could see some spread of what we'd call "Hokan" languages north into Oregon but it's just as likely that farming would spread slow enough that there'd be little displacement. It's a mountainous area with plenty of local ecological niches, and areas like that such as Southeast Asia and Mesoamerica tend to remain linguistically diverse. The population will be quite sizable, even if they aren't united into large polities. Although there is a potential for large polities, since the Columbia Plateau and Snake River Plain are very suitable for a "hydraulic empire". The Willamette Valley and Lower Columbia has a huge population and few natural obstacles so could unite under one polity, be it a confederation or more centralised state. I'd pick the Willamette/Lower Columbia for a major polity since the land is very rich, there's plenty of oaks (OTL a major source of food for the natives there), lots of marshland for wapato, ducks, and imported "wild" rice, Willamette Falls is a great fishing site, and the mountains surrounding the valley are rich in metals.
There will be quite significant population loss. The native population just had no viral experience with the host of diseases the Europeans and their livestock brought over
Looking at Hawaii, which was pretty much in that situation...maybe 50-90% (depending on what pre-contact population numbers you want to believe). Note that Hawaii did fight a war of conquest, though--but against themselves, instigated because of societal upheavals and new technologies introduced by Westerners. The same is likely to be true in any kind of contact scenario for the Americas as well, even if the Europeans aren't getting directly involved.
Arguably, it already sort of was. Mississippian civilization had a substantial level of social organization and societal development, based on the size of their archaeological sites.
Well it wasn't really a "cradle of civilization," it (along with the rest of North America) received its package from Mesoamerica. The point of the thread is what if agriulture developed independently and, most importantly, earlier in the Mississippi.
I think I'm wondering more what would happen if there were no wars of conquest or if there was just a failed war of conquest? How many deaths would there be? How many would survive? Would the civilization survive?
And as for an initial population, this may sound like a lot but using Aztec population density and applying it to the area where the Mississippians lived OTL, a united Mississippia could potentially have a population numbering as much as 60 million in around 1500, which would put them at just under half the population of the Ming Empire.
Truthfully, still a lot. European conquest made the issue of disease worse, but diseases were destined to decimate the continent. Smallpox was killing 30% of the population in Eurasia as it was, and that was with portions of society having already lived through it when they were younger. The Americas don't have that luxoury and so smallpox will hit every age group at once instead of being largely relegated to the younger population as it was Eurasia. All of society being hit means there are few people able to take care of those infected, which worsens death tolls. We saw that even in Iceland when Smallpox hit for the first time. Virgin smallpox epidemics will hit for 50-60% of the population, after its endemic that number of course moves down to 30%. What makes matters worse for the Americas is that it isn't just smallpox, its a dozen other diseases, some of which are already quite deadly on there own such as Measles. Even if they're aren't deadly on there own the combination of several different diseases happening at once weakens individual immune systems and societal ability to care for the sick.
Unless disease introduction is somehow staggered I'd say death toll is likely to be close to 80% in many parts even without conquest. Still recoverable in the long term of course, but liable to take quite a bit of time.
One interesting argument I read in 1491: blood tests on modern-day Native Americans show that they have a pretty homogenous set of antibodies. IOW, if you have a disease that those antibodies don't cover, the entire population will be vulnerable to it.
The author's theory is that the "seed" population for the Native Americans from ancient Asia was never very large and set an early genetic bottleneck, whereas Europe had migrants moving in and out of the peninsula for thousands of years. So while say 50% of medieval Europeans might be vulnerable to a first-run epidemic of smallpox, 95% of Native Americans might be. It's an all-or-nothing kind of deal, and when that disease goes "all" mode, the results are bound to be apocalyptic.
The author's theory is that the "seed" population for the Native Americans from ancient Asia was never very large and set an early genetic bottleneck, whereas Europe had migrants moving in and out of the peninsula for thousands of years. So while say 50% of medieval Europeans might be vulnerable to a first-run epidemic of smallpox, 95% of Native Americans might be. It's an all-or-nothing kind of deal, and when that disease goes "all" mode, the results are bound to be apocalyptic.
I think Mesopotamia might work as a better comparison for a hypothetical Mississippi-Missouri civilization than China or Egypt.
I had a course that spent a lot of time on ancient history and explaining why eygipt did so much better then Mesopotamia and a lot of it came down to the flow of the river making irrigation unpredictable and also to shallow for all but the smallest transport ships to make serious inland use of the river due to issues with depth and elevation. So even with a lot of drawbacks a Mississippi civilization should be able to preform as well as Mesopotamia even if they have similer drawbacks to the Mesopotamians who got the short stick when compared to the Nile river (Im not to familiar if the Mississippi is more comparable to the Nile or Mesopotamian river syestem) considering the soil is seemingly more suitable for irrigation then the middle east. (Side note, if early natives somehow got rice the Mississippi delta might a great place to farm rice it as a more stable alternitive to corn)
Last edited:
The Mississippi is certainly navigable way way deep into the river system, maybe further than the Nile.