Could the Mississippi-Missouri river system have become a cradle of civilization?

I don't think they can, and Mesoamerica dosnt really work out they way you are thinking it dose senses they did have one (not very good) large domestic animal and even then dint get far past the rivers civilisation model.
Are you sure you're not mixing up Mesoamerica with the Andes? Mesoamerica didn't have any large domestic mammals, that was the Andeans.

In any case, the OP only asks for a civilization based around the Mississippi-Missouri-Ohio system to become a significant and long-lasting regional influence. That doesn't need them to "get far past the rivers civilization model," although to be honest I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.
 
All good points raised so far.
In any case, the OP only asks for a civilization based around the Mississippi-Missouri-Ohio system to become a significant and long-lasting regional influence.
Indeed - while the Americas are by no means lacking in notable civilization complexes, the most notable ones for some reason didn't develop around major river systems the way they did in the Old World.
 
Domesticated animals are putting the cart before the horse (or rather not, since there aren't any horses yet :p). Aside from the dog, domesticated animals came after civilization began to develop. Mississippian agriculture is the first thing which needs to be addressed in order to get a cradle of civilization, and the talk about the Eastern Agricultural Complex is certainly on the right track. For my part I do think maize or wild rice are better in the long run, but let's not forget that China's founder crop was millet, not wheat or rice. Additional crops can come along later and supplant them, but what is needed first is to get things seeded (both literally and metaphorically). Animal domestication can come later.

Then way didn't it happen in real life? because they don't gust give proten they provide the kind of fusical power you can get with humans. Especially cows which all river valley civilizations had and the new world dint.
The Americas didn't develop like that because they already had a handicap. Agriculture was already being developed in the Old World at the same time the New World was being settled! What do you expect when the old world has a few millennia head start? On another matter animal protein itself is completely irrelevant, that isn't what makes animals useful. Plants have always made up the majority of protein intake for settled people, and this continues to be true in many parts of the world today. Animals are useful not because of their protein - people are generally getting sufficient protein from the rest of their diet - but because they transform inaccessible biomass into accessible biomass. We can't (or don't want to) eat shrubs, worms, or grasses. Cows, chickens, pigs will, and when they do so they grow, and people sure can eat a steak. That is what's useful, it lets you use land area more efficiently, because civilization's limiting factor has always been one of population density.
 
Last edited:
Many of the OTL cradles of civilization were based around major rivers like the Nile, the Indo-Gangetic plain, the Mesopotamian region with the Tigris and Euphrates, and the Yangtze and Yellow River of China. The New World isn't lacking in major river systems either, and in particular the Mississippi-Missouri system stands out as a viable candidate.

Could it be possible for, say, a Cahokia-like civilization to have a long-term influence on the area the way ancient Egyptians developed around the Nile?
Perhaps have potato, corn and beans domesticated earlier?
 
Buffalo? How many fatalities are you willing to take in that attempt. Anyway. I think one problem with a Miss-Mo civilization cradle is just simply that the geography is too spread out. Look at other centers of civilization and there is an obvious foci to build from. In the Miss-Mo one could develop in any of dozens if not hundreds of locations. In this case too much of a good thing.
 
Buffalo? How many fatalities are you willing to take in that attempt. Anyway. I think one problem with a Miss-Mo civilization cradle is just simply that the geography is too spread out. Look at other centers of civilization and there is an obvious foci to build from. In the Miss-Mo one could develop in any of dozens if not hundreds of locations. In this case too much of a good thing.
It should be remembered that cattle were domesticated from the Aurochs, which from all accounts are as aggressive as bison - if not more so. As I mentioned a few posts above, the Americas have the big problem that they're playing catch up compared to Afro-Eurasia. Everything they do, from agriculture to domestication to metallurgy are all coming quite a bit after they were developed in the Old World, which in my opinion makes what Indigenous Americans accomplished all the more impressive.

I'm not so sure I agree with your second point either. The Fertile Crescent is the epitome of a polycentric region, with dozens of different city states developing in Mesopotamia, the Levant, and Egypt. The North China Plain in turn is also hardly a concise unit, and Chinese civilization has it origins on both the Yellow river and the Yangtze. In truth, I'm not sure any of the Cradles of Civilizations can truly be described as having an obvious focal point. In that since, I don't think the Mississippian area is any different.
 
Could it be possible for, say, a Cahokia-like civilization to have a long-term influence on the area the way ancient Egyptians developed around the Nile?

With that Nile analogy, you're looking at it completely the wrong way. The Nile is a long straight river that cut through an otherwise inhospitable desert with no other major sources of water and no tributaries as far back as Sudan. The Mississippi isn't just a life-giving force cutting through a barren landscape. The Mississippi is a sprawling river basin covering an enormous swath of arable land. A much better analogy for this would be China with the Yangtze and Yellow River basins. Such a civilization would easily hold the highest population in the Americas and it would also be the most extensive and united, having access to a large navigable basin plus the Great Lakes. There would probably be major cities near the OTL sites of the Cahokia and Wickliffe Mounds, with major cities likely existing close to OTL New Orleans and Chicago. Via the Gulf of Mexico, it would likely be able to extend its influence south into Mesoamerica as well given its larger population and greater unity.

Buffalo? How many fatalities are you willing to take in that attempt.
The same could be said about the aurochs, wild yak, wild water bufallo, gaur, etc.
 
Big and stocky dogs can work as draft animals and a navigable river network is a way better if more limiting trade artery than any road that something has to walk or run. If this civilisation gets off to a good enough early start it would be viable even without a domesticated ungulate. We might see a lot of independent city-states, but perhaps not any particularly long-lived empires. They would still have poultry and fish for meat, after all.
 
if you have the an earlier corn spread from the Southwest to the Southeast and beyond it’s very plausible for a cornstalk silage and grazing base peccary swineherd culture to development.

the kunekune a heritage breed of grazing pigs from New Zealand and the pig societies of pre-dynastic Egypt could be good templates for such a process.

But also China, Cyprus, the Canary Islands, Sudan and Neolithic Europe could also be used.

The peccary were in-fact bred and raised in mesoamerica and there is evidence for that.

A potentially fat and protein rich food source that produced large amounts of manure that werent as flighty as deer and much more versatile and adaptable than moose or elk seems worthwhile in exploring.

The majority of the peccaries tested in this study had δ13C values indicative of C3 plant consumption, likely from the forest. However, two peccaries (specimen nos. 64 and 68) consumed higher quantities of C4 plants than the other individuals. Specimen no. 64 came from the Late Classic (AD 600–700) palace, and, because its carbon signature (δ13Cco = −14.4‰) is not as high as the dogs, may have consumed maize from an agricultural field as a crop forager. Like turkeys, more actualistic data are needed to isotopically distinguish crop foraging peccaries from maize-fed individuals. Specimen no. 68, an incisor from an elite Early Classic (AD 400–500) structure, had a high δ13Cen value (−6.7‰) like that of the dogs at the site (Fig. 2), suggesting it had an elevated C4 diet when it was very young and the tooth enamel originally formed, and so may have been raised in captivity.
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/14/3605

I also advocate for oppossum and peccary raising in agro-forestry food systems supplemented by the adoption of sweet potatoes along the Southeast of the Mississippi valley from West Texas to South Carolina north to Oklahoma and Maryland.

Oh and finally if a mutant Osage Orange is able to be more carb rich and like bread fruit it’ll change the entire game from the south to southern Canada.
 
Last edited:
The same could be said about the aurochs, wild yak, wild water bufallo, gaur, etc.
This is all very well and good, but we should also consider that neither the European Bison nor the African Cape Buffalo have ever been successfully domesticated either, despite sharing territory with people who have been very good at domesticating bovids.
 
This is all very well and good, but we should also consider that neither the European Bison nor the African Cape Buffalo have ever been successfully domesticated either, despite sharing territory with people who have been very good at domesticating bovids.
Perhaps. Of course it depends bovid to bovid. That being said, we can see in places where cows and similar bovids were domesticated, they were not the first domesticated creatures. Goats, pigs, and sheep were domesticated first. It's likely that a big factor in why bovids were able to be domesticated is that there was already a precedent for domestication, so the bovids were just a step up. The Native Americans and Sub-Saharan Africans never really had that step up. As for the European bison, domesticating it would be redundant given that they already had cattle. That's just my explanation.
There's also the fact that bison are being farmed and herded today. Most American bison today live on private ranches. Bison ranching has been growing as an industry in the US.
 
There's significant differences between 'these animals can be farmed' and 'these animals are domesticated'. Herding bison is definitely possible and if I look at it more closely it does seem that there's nothing stopping the Native Americans from doing so, although it's certainly a tall order when one starts off with no mount. However, pulling an ox-cart (or bison-cart rather) would be a whole different matter. It is not totally impossible - see Dewey Wiley & Apache, but it's apparently unique to that particular man and that particular buffalo insofar.
 
There's significant differences between 'these animals can be farmed' and 'these animals are domesticated'. Herding bison is definitely possible and if I look at it more closely it does seem that there's nothing stopping the Native Americans from doing so, although it's certainly a tall order when one starts off with no mount. However, pulling an ox-cart (or bison-cart rather) would be a whole different matter. It is not totally impossible - see Dewey Wiley & Apache, but it's apparently unique to that particular man and that particular buffalo insofar.
True, but once you're able to herd an animal, that's the first step to eventual domestication.
 
This is all very well and good, but we should also consider that neither the European Bison nor the African Cape Buffalo have ever been successfully domesticated either, despite sharing territory with people who have been very good at domesticating bovids.
I addressed this back in my Wapiti thread:

Domestication is a long, expensive process to undertake and as a result isn't worth it if you have something that fills that niche already. If we look at examples in the world, I think that thesis generally holds. For example, its estimated by ethnobotanists that ~1/2 of all the worlds plants are edible in some form, but in spite of that, only a dozen species account for around 80% of the worlds caloric intake(!). The rest of the non animal calories largely come from a couple dozen more species. Its not worth the effort to go and domesticate a new grain (which takes years and years) if you already have half a dozen species of wheat, plus oats, barley, etc. Lyme Grass is an edible grass species closley related to the other cereal species, its very cold hardy and has been used as a famine food in places like Iceland in the past. Every bit of research about lyme grass today is related to crossbreeding it with wheat to create more cold hardy cultivars - not to domesticate it, and that's because the difference in time between enhancing what we have and creating something new isn't worth it. It stand to reason that this same principle applies to animals as well as plants. Though their ranges overlap greatly today, the different bos species (taurine cattle, zebu, water bufallo, gayal, etc) were all domesticated in different areas, in places where ranges overlapped, generally only one was domesticated there; taurine cattle over Eurasian Bison for example.

American Bison have the additional problem that agriculture came before domestication in every case except the dog. With earlier agriculture in North America, the bison start becoming a possibility.
There's significant differences between 'these animals can be farmed' and 'these animals are domesticated'. Herding bison is definitely possible and if I look at it more closely it does seem that there's nothing stopping the Native Americans from doing so, although it's certainly a tall order when one starts off with no mount. However, pulling an ox-cart (or bison-cart rather) would be a whole different matter. It is not totally impossible - see Dewey Wiley & Apache, but it's apparently unique to that particular man and that particular buffalo insofar.
Domestication isn't an instant process though, after all, the aurochs didn't start out as draft beasts, but it developed into the ox and cow over generations of human selective pressure for docility. There's every reason to think the same would apply for bison if they experienced domestication pressure.
 
Last edited:
My guess is the lack of feed would be a significant problem for domesticating bison. The Old World was blessed with many types of grain. Corn has left protein than say barley
 
My guess is the lack of feed would be a significant problem for domesticating bison. The Old World was blessed with many types of grain. Corn has left protein than say barley
Was feed actually significantly used in feeding cattle before the modern era? I mean, maybe chaff and other inedible portions of the plant, but anything else would be better eaten by people, not animals. The big advantage for domesticating bison (or any other animal) is that, as @Gwyain said, it can eat grass or other stuff that humans can't. There's definitely plenty of grass in the Mississippi-Missouri basin!
 
Intensive animal farming (using large quantities of input feed) is a very modern phenomena. That isn't to say that supplemental feed wasn't used at times, it certainly was, but pasture historically made up the bulk of domestic herbivore's diets. Even with supplemental feed, hay and other fodder usually came from things people weren't eating anyways, because if you can eat it its more calorically efficient to eat it yourself. If food is scarce for your animals its probably scarce for you too, which probably means you're better off killing the animal and eating it, and that's usually what happened around winter for the bulk of any kind of domestic herd anyways.
 
Last edited:
I do also think that it is noteworthy that most places had some sort of domesticate in the form of sheep, goats, and pigs before domesticating bovids. I'd say probably the best POD in that case would be the domestication of the mountain goat (which I use in my own TL), and perhaps also the bighorn sheep (slightly more difficult as information on their dominance hierarchies vary) and the peccary. I think a good realistic package of domestic animals for North America that would be most similar to Eurasia would be the mountain goat (goat), bighorn sheep (sheep), peccary (pig), bison (cow), turkey (chicken), and American species of ducks and geese as well as the extinct American horses and camels. You could also perhaps throw in caribou, elk, white-tail deer, prairie chickens, and rabbits.

Either way, as I have discussed the contents of that previous paragraph on what feels like dozens of threads now, I would also add that I don't think you necessarily need alternate domesticates for a powerful Mississippian cradle of civilization. The EAC and Three Sisters could easily support larger populations with an earlier adoption of agriculture. Illinois in the north and the alluvial plain to the south offer some of the most fertile land in the world. The river would provide an easy means of transport, and overall I imagine the region would probably be like the China of the Americas, having maybe as much as half of the population the the two continents.

Now, I think a question we haven't really gotten to yet is what the relationship would be with the colonial powers. Perhaps as Cortez heard about the empire on the mainland in Mexico, another conquistador-to-be in the Caribbean would be drawn to the Mississippi. As a result, you would probably see the Mississippians follow a similar direction to Mexico and bring the focus of Spanish colonization east, which would hinder the colonial ambitions of the French and English. The French would probably be first to the St Lawrence and the English would probably still settle in some of the lands east of the Appalachians, and both would likely form an alliance against Spain. In that case, the English and French would support the Mississippian natives in North America against the Spanish, a conflict which they would most likely win with Spain so stretched out. The Mississippians would likely become French or English vassals serving as a buffer between their colonies and Spain. Perhaps they would become a semi-autonomous entity of the British Empire and may westernize like the Five Civilized Tribes. It is unlikely they would industrialize early on, as they would likely primarily serve the British/French by providing natural resources. However, as time passes and the developing world begins to catch up, the Mississippians would likely return as a rising power in the Americas, competing primarily with Mexico and Brazil most likely.
 
Was feed actually significantly used in feeding cattle before the modern era? I mean, maybe chaff and other inedible portions of the plant, but anything else would be better eaten by people, not animals. The big advantage for domesticating bison (or any other animal) is that, as @Gwyain said, it can eat grass or other stuff that humans can't. There's definitely plenty of grass in the Mississippi-Missouri basin!

Intensive animal farming (using large quantities of input feed) is a very modern phenomena. That isn't to say that supplemental feed wasn't used at times, it certainly was, but pasture historically made up the bulk of domestic herbivore's diets. Even with supplemental feed, hay and other fodder usually came from things people weren't eating anyways, because if you can eat it its more calorically efficient to eat it yourself. If food is scarce for your animals its probably scarce for you too, which probably means you're better off killing the animal and eating it, and that's usually what happened around winter for the bulk of any kind of domestic herd anyways.

Good points! If not feed it is interesting to think what combination of factors prevented bison domestication. Perhaps because the bison migrated in large herds? As far as I can tell aurochs did not migrate or travel in large herds
 
I mean, the easiest option IMO would be to have some way of introducing horses to the continent earlier - we saw how IOTL that pigs and horses both exploded beyond their initial populations and "habitats".

So I'd suggest that a potential (relatively late, admittedly) PoD could be a Vinland-Lives scenario, effectively a larger group of Scandinavians and Northern Europeans make their way over for some reason - perhaps we see it happen earlier - it is suggested that Gunnbjörn Ulfsson found Greenland approx a century earlier, so we could have that bring our timeline forward and give ourselves a potential century more to not just develop some homesteads in Newfoundland, but further south and even around the St.Lawrence. Bringing over cattle, pigs, and horses and you've enough of a timeline that horses can spread to the Great Lakes, and onto the Mississippi, but because only the North is aware of the region, it isn't that wealthy, and can still be cut off or be isolated over time to vaguely isolate things.

Now, it should be noted that there were already significant groups, like Cahokia in the region, but if we introduce the horse about 4-5 centuries before Europe arrives, that's a substantial period for horses to spread, be adopted, and even help transform societies - like allowing easier upriver barge traffic.
 
Top