Most likely earlier Cradle of Civilization?

[DValdron]

The problem is, its terra incognita. We just don't know.

Let's assume that Agriculture is synonymous with civilization. Well, not quite, but it's a necessary step, and let's see it's usually or often the first step, or very very close.

Agriculture appears to have been independently invented in:
* Papua-New Guineau;
* Southeast Asia, probably the Yellow or Yangtze river;
* Mesopotamia;
* Egypt;
* The Indus Valley;
* The Sahel;
* West Africa;
* The Ethiopian Highlands;
* The Andes
* Meso-America;
* Eastern Woodlands;

There may be arguments. Mesopotamia and Egypt are generally grouped together in the 'fertile crescent' which includes Anatolia and Pakistan.

There may be other candidates for independent invention, recognized or unrecognized.

But they all have several things in common. They all took place an unbelievably long time ago. I think that the most recent was no earler than 4000 years ago, the oldest may go back 10,000 years. They were all the products of pre-literate societies. The original societies are long gone, and even the sites of original cultivation are gone or buried under a hundred generations.

So basically, we're reduced to guessing as to what happened, how it happens, why it works or doesn't work, why one society develops it, why some plants get domesticated. There's a lot of good theory, and some gaping holes.

So, theory.

 

[Detlef]

Can any river give rise to civilization? Does civilization need a river to begin, or is there another way?

Difficult question.
If we look at the more successful "cradles of civilization" a river in a temperate to warm climate zone seems to help a lot.
The advantages:
- a source of water for your "tribe"
- a location where you´ll find animals to hunt (they have to drink too)
- fishing
- a larger variety of different plants than in the plains or forests

A hunter-gatherer group could first become "half-sedentary" in such an environment. Having just a few clearly defined "seasonal" camps (for hunting, fishing, gathering) but always staying close to the river. With the "gatherers" checking out the available plants.

One theory says that the first step of agriculture was "caring" for some wild plants. As in the gatherers found a spot of desirable (edible seeds, berries or roots) plants. Over time they developed the idea to give those plants more room. Removing weeds or undesirable plants to encourage the growth and spread of desired plants.
Jared Diamond in his "Guns, Germs, and Steel" mentions that some seeds also survive the human digestive tract.
Which would see a growth of desirable plants in former "toilet" areas close to human settlements.
(Plus, seeds falling to the ground during processing in the human settlements and seeds germinating while stored.)

All of which would then encourage humans to start experimenting with "agriculture". That is, putting seeds of a desirable plant into the ground at a pre-determined location. Which of course would then require some humans to stay there and guard the field / care for the plants. To protect them against animals and drought.

And being near a river helps here too.
An easily available source of water in times of drought. Plus there´s the spring flooding. Agriculture removes nutrients from the soil. The yearly spring flooding experienced among most rivers will add new soil / nutrients to the fields. No need for "slash-and burn" methods and even less need to move your whole population.

Quoting Jared Diamond once again (in my own interpretation):
The cradles of civilization in Eurasia roughly lay in the same climate zone. Plus Eurasia is a huge land-mass (and East-West oriented). With lots of plants and animals which could be tested for domestication.
And once a plant or animal was domesticated the knowledge could spread easily across the whole climate zone.

While America or Africa are North-South oriented continents.
With less available plants or animals to be domesticated. Plus any plant / animal domesticated in one climate zone had to survive / be accustomed to another climate zone to spread North or South. Which is a lot more difficult and time-consuming than just spreading in the same climate zone east or west.
(And which explains why native American or African civilizations were behind Eurasian civilizations.)

Essentially he´s saying that over thousands of years humans have tested all available plants / animals for domestication in their region. If it didn´t happen centuries ago, there´s a reason for it.

What were the domesticated plants and animals available for a "Great Lakes" or "Rio de la Plata" or Australian civilization?
All of the most important domesticated plants and animals were discovered thousands of years ago. Which seems to indicate that these plants / animals just weren´t available to the locations mentioned at that time?

 

[chr92]

Could the shores of the Black and/or Caspian Seas be used in the same way as a large river's shores?

 

[Infinity]

Sunda and Sahul

How about an ice age civilization in the now submerged Sunda land, or the once wetter Australia?

 

[DValdron]

Jared Diamond is all very well and nice, but I disagree with some of his conclusions.

We can, for instance, find examples of lost domestications. Moose and Musk Ox for instance, appear to have been domesticated or semi-domesticated, but these domestications were reversed for sociological reasons. Equally, many plants of the North American Eastern Agricultural complex were domesticated and then abandoned.

I don't accept that Diamond is the last word on plant or animal domestication, and I don't accept his contention that all possible domesticates were discovered and exploited. I think that's superficial at best, and inaccurate.

As for discussions, both Sundaland and the Pre-deluge black sea appear to have hosted fairly sophisticated cultures at times.

 

[PoeFacedKilla]

How about an ice age civilization in the now submerged Sunda land, or the once wetter Australia?

What about the Rhineland? Say Ancient Celts?

 

[DValdron]

In terms of earlier cradles of civilization, certain tropical crops like Taro, appear to go back at least as far as the official beginnings of agriculture, and may be much older.

 

[amphibulous]

What about the Rhineland? Say Ancient Celts?

No.

Working heavy soils is difficult and requires tools and techniques you only get with a lot of experience. Early civilizations start off in flood pains because the soil is constantly replenished with fertile but easily worked silt - a serf with a stick can work it. In Northern Europe you'll need a heavy plough, probably with an iron harrow, domesticated draft animals, and well worked-out harness.

 

[amphibulous]

Jared Diamond is all very well and nice, but I disagree with some of his conclusions.

We can, for instance, find examples of lost domestications. Moose and Musk Ox for instance, appear to have been domesticated or semi-domesticated, but these domestications were reversed for sociological reasons. Equally, many plants of the North American Eastern Agricultural complex were domesticated and then abandoned.

I don't accept that Diamond is the last word on plant or animal domestication, and I don't accept his contention that all possible domesticates were discovered and exploited. I think that's superficial at best, and inaccurate.

That's not what Diamond says. He claims that civilizations are limited by the opportunities for major domesticable species, not that they make a perfectly exhaustive search.

What is true is the sort of terrain you need for high yield early agriculture - the flood plain - is pretty hard to by-pass.

 

[Morty Vicar]

All the conditions above are present in many parts of Africa, which could be an interesting ATL because that civilisation would have spread globally, meaning the languages, cultures and pagan religions of the World would be a lot more similar. This could potentially mean greater and earlier developments of technology, perhaps even a more global consciousness as opposed to the tribalistic mindset that dominates OTL history.

Another interesting possibility is in Europe with the survival of neanderthals as a seperate and evolved species, who were arguably more advanced than the human populations.

 

[Grim Pallet]

As I understood it...

If the mississippi had any nearby beasts of burden/ ranchable animals, it could potentially have produced a civilization, possibly even a permanent one.
is this true, or total b.s.?

I'm leaning towards bs, since AFAIK the plant life isn't adequate

 

[Grey Wolf]

Anatolia? The Black Sea basin before it flooded?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[amphibulous]

All the conditions above are present in many parts of Africa, which could be an interesting ATL because that civilisation would have spread globally, meaning the languages, cultures and pagan religions of the World would be a lot more similar. .

You have several problems here -

- African flood plains tend to be too wet - you get swamps and oxbow lakes and what have you rather than the rich flat farmlands of the ancient Nile. Food production can be terrific, but the terrain is appalling for the emergence of centralized government and cities.

- Malaria and tsetse fly.

- Soils elsewhere in Africa are generally very poor, limiting your ability to spread.

This is why you can have a very advanced civilization in Axum (a tiny high altitude part of high Ethiopia) from 400BC to 1000AD and it never it spreads inside Africa. It's highlands are relatively healthy because of their altitude and it gets its wealth from controlling trade routes, including between India and Rome. But despite what it seems to a well-run modern state of the time with state of the art technology, it can't expand into the rest of Africa. Biological and geographical barriers, even for native Africans, are too high.

 

[Dave Howery]

Jared Diamond is all very well and nice, but I disagree with some of his conclusions.

We can, for instance, find examples of lost domestications. Moose and Musk Ox for instance, appear to have been domesticated or semi-domesticated, but these domestications were reversed for sociological reasons. Equally, many plants of the North American Eastern Agricultural complex were domesticated and then abandoned.

I don't accept that Diamond is the last word on plant or animal domestication, and I don't accept his contention that all possible domesticates were discovered and exploited. I think that's superficial at best, and inaccurate.

As for discussions, both Sundaland and the Pre-deluge black sea appear to have hosted fairly sophisticated cultures at times.

maybe, but he does have a good point in that civilization rose in the Fertile Crescent because of the availability of plants and animals there... wheat, barley, peas, cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, burros; all of them 'easy' to domesticate, and all of them right there together in the same place. Not to mention, it was one of the first places humans went to when they left Africa, and they had a LOT of time to develop agriculture. No place else on earth, AFAIK, was so lucky. It might be possible to domesticate other plants and animals, but how fast, how easy, how productive, and how many of them are together in the same place? Civilization is always going to be lagging in the Americas and Australia, regardless of what's available to domesticate, merely because it took so much longer for people to get there, less time to develop agriculture, etc. I'd think that if you want to have an earlier 'cradle of civilization', as in someplace besides the Fertile Crescent, it would have to be someplace that has the same abundance of easy domestications and someplace that humans will arrive pretty quickly...

 

[Morty Vicar]

You have several problems here -

- African flood plains tend to be too wet - you get swamps and oxbow lakes and what have you rather than the rich flat farmlands of the ancient Nile. Food production can be terrific, but the terrain is appalling for the emergence of centralized government and cities.

- Malaria and tsetse fly.

- Soils elsewhere in Africa are generally very poor, limiting your ability to spread.

This is why you can have a very advanced civilization in Axum (a tiny high altitude part of high Ethiopia) from 400BC to 1000AD and it never it spreads inside Africa. It's highlands are relatively healthy because of their altitude and it gets its wealth from controlling trade routes, including between India and Rome. But despite what it seems to a well-run modern state of the time with state of the art technology, it can't expand into the rest of Africa. Biological and geographical barriers, even for native Africans, are too high.

Very true, I take your point but I have some questions. Is the expansion vital? I mean Aksum had roughly 1 and a half times the area of the Akkadian empire, I'm not sure about the population numbers. The way I see it its a sort of chicken and egg thing, did a civilisation emerge from one tribe conquering another, or did the civilisation of one tribe allow them to conquer others? On the whole though I agree.

The other problem is the lack of contact and trade, as presumably happened between the Indus valley peoples and those of Mesopotamia etc to some degree over the period. It wasn't until seafaring peoples such as the Romans and Greeks came to Ethiopia that their civilisation became more advanced, mainly in the form of weaponry, and possibly some influence from unknown semitic sources and Arab populations to the north as well. In the unlikely scenario that advanced civilisation did develop in Aksum, it would be an interesting sort of microcosm, comparable perhaps to legends of Atlantis or Mu.

 

[amphibulous]

Very true, I take your point but I have some questions. Is the expansion vital? I mean Aksum had roughly 1 and a half times the area of the Akkadian empire, I'm not sure about the population numbers.

That's an astute point, but it sustained this level of culture and population ***only was because it was an intermediary between two vastly larger civilizations.***

Civs that stay small and isolated almost certainly won't last - they're too vulnerable to ecological or political failures. They can't bring in trade goods or ideas from outside to solve crises.

The other problem is the lack of contact and trade, as presumably happened between the Indus valley peoples and those of Mesopotamia etc to some degree over the period. It wasn't until seafaring peoples such as the Romans and Greeks came to Ethiopia that their civilisation became more advanced

Do you have a source for this? Because archeologists have established that there was steel making by the bloomery method in Africa 3000-3500 years ago, and blast furnances 2000 years ago - so at least parts of Africa had much better steel than Classical Europe for a long time. They were just wretchedly limited as to where this could lead, because Africa is such a poor place to farm.

 

[Infinity]

Fear Drives Growth

Civs that stay small and isolated almost certainly won't last - they're too vulnerable to ecological or political failures. They can't bring in trade goods or ideas from outside to solve crises.

Something else to consider is that the fear of a larger empire, is incentive to be part of an empire. Not only to directly protect themselves from their neighbor, but to protect themselves from refugees inhabiting buffer zones who will inevitably invade their territory.

 

[Morty Vicar]

That's an astute point, but it sustained this level of culture and population ***only was because it was an intermediary between two vastly larger civilizations.***

Civs that stay small and isolated almost certainly won't last - they're too vulnerable to ecological or political failures. They can't bring in trade goods or ideas from outside to solve crises.

Okay agreed, the cradle of civilisation could not have been in Africa.

 

[twovultures]

As I understood it...

If the mississippi had any nearby beasts of burden/ ranchable animals, it could potentially have produced a civilization, possibly even a permanent one.
is this true, or total b.s.?

I'm leaning towards bs, since AFAIK the plant life isn't adequate

Considering that the only plant we still use that was domesticated in ancient Mississippi are the summer squashes and pre-corn agriculture didn't seem to support large sedentary societies, I'd have to agree with you.

 

[Domoviye]

Considering that the only plant we still use that was domesticated in ancient Mississippi are the summer squashes and pre-corn agriculture didn't seem to support large sedentary societies, I'd have to agree with you.

Sunflowers also came from the Mississippi.
The main problem in the Mississippi seems to be the lack of meat. Shortly after agriculture was developed, the population expanded pretty quickly and then crashed hard after a few hundred years. Skeletal remains from the time period showed the people were smaller and more fragile than they had been before agriculture, meaning they lacked protein.
Give them a decent animal, and they could have supported themselves even without corn. Without the Three Sisters, and with no animals they're screwed.