Most likely earlier Cradle of Civilization?

Also you need geographical barriers to nomad invasions so any tribe that settles isn't destroyed or pushed out after a time. mountains, and deserts work wonders for these. Which is why egypt, sumer, indus, and china were the first.
 
Also you need geographical barriers to nomad invasions so any tribe that settles isn't destroyed or pushed out after a time. mountains, and deserts work wonders for these. Which is why egypt, sumer, indus, and china were the first.

I don't know if nomadic tribes were an issue for these earlier civilizations. What they'd have to deal with would be bands of pedestrian hunter gatherers, not cavalry armies. Not saying that's nothing in the neolithic, but nomad invasions tend to go smoother when the nomads have something to ride.

domoviye said:
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.

Source? I am a little skeptical, but I also hope that you're right because I'm a fan of alternate domesticates timelines and if this is true, that makes the suspension of disbelief for an EAC domesticate much lower.
 
Okay agreed, the cradle of civilisation could not have been in Africa.

Actually, I like the idea of the wetter Sahara. You'd get a lot of rivers, probably with fertile soil immediatly surrounding it, some lakes, maybe a really large one. And then some highlands and areas of poor soil keeping the peoples separate. The mix of domesticates would probably be very similar to the fertile crescent.

You could have a lot of competing river valley civilizations there.
 
Actually, I like the idea of the wetter Sahara. You'd get a lot of rivers, probably with fertile soil immediatly surrounding it, some lakes, maybe a really large one. And then some highlands and areas of poor soil keeping the peoples separate. The mix of domesticates would probably be very similar to the fertile crescent.

You could have a lot of competing river valley civilizations there.
You don't want to separate the people. You want them well mixed so that ideas can freely flow. If not you get the situation of the Americas where potential draft animals are in a different area to the inventors of the wheel and the two are not talking to each other.
 
Actually, I like the idea of the wetter Sahara. You'd get a lot of rivers, probably with fertile soil immediatly surrounding it, some lakes, maybe a really large one. And then some highlands and areas of poor soil keeping the peoples separate. The mix of domesticates would probably be very similar to the fertile crescent.

You could have a lot of competing river valley civilizations there.

And then, as the region starts to dry out, a diaspora spreading the various crops and technologies...
 
Source? I am a little skeptical, but I also hope that you're right because I'm a fan of alternate domesticates timelines and if this is true, that makes the suspension of disbelief for an EAC domesticate much lower.
This isn't the best source, but the only link I have to the older more detailed one is on my old broken computer. I may be able to find it in the next week or so.
Here is a rewrite of the stuff I read several years ago. The original article said, a few hundred years before maize was introduced. Unfortunately this article doesn't go into as much detail.
This is the important part.
The reasons for possible cultural degradations at the end of the Middle Woodland and the subsequent emergence of the Late Woodland are poorly understood. There are several possible explanations. The first is that populations increased beyond the point of carrying capacity of the land, and, as the trade system broke down, clans resorted to raiding rather than trading with other territories to acquire important resources. A second possibility is that a rapid replacement of the Late Archaic spear and atlatl with the newer bow-and-arrow technology quickly decimated the large game animals, interrupting the hunting component of food procurement and resulting in settlements breaking down into smaller units to subsist on local resources. This ended long distance trade and the need for elite social units. A third possible reason is that colder climate conditions about 1,600 years ago* might have affected yields of gathered foods, such as nuts or starchy seeds, thereby disrupting the trade networks.
A fourth and possibly interrelated reason is that intensified horticulture became so successful that increased agricultural production may have reduced variation in food resource availability between differing areas. This reliance on horticulture, involving only a few types of plants, would have carried with it a risk where variations in rainfall or climate could cause famine or shortages.
 
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


Capybaras, and I remember a species of plant from Let`s Rewrite History.
 
And then, as the region starts to dry out, a diaspora spreading the various crops and technologies...

1. What crops?

2. The Saharan pluvial was largley without organized agriculture. We have knowledge of trading, herding, and the Garamantes had chariots. Beyond them(note that their zenith was after the Saharan pluvial; they benefited from aquifers that had been formed when the water receded underground.

3. There is no way to prevent the end of the Saharan pluvial, as it is caused by oscillations in the monsoon, which is a natural cycle and cannot be altered under short-term geographical circumstances. The end of the Pluvial would destroy any culture, as it was a more sudden, few hundred year thing, not a long recession that would allow cultures to retreat slowly north and south.

The end of the Saharan pluvial forestalled the development of the Sahel as a center of civilization.
 
1. What crops?

2. The Saharan pluvial was largley without organized agriculture. We have knowledge of trading, herding, and the Garamantes had chariots. Beyond them(note that their zenith was after the Saharan pluvial; they benefited from aquifers that had been formed when the water receded underground.

3. There is no way to prevent the end of the Saharan pluvial, as it is caused by oscillations in the monsoon, which is a natural cycle and cannot be altered under short-term geographical circumstances. The end of the Pluvial would destroy any culture, as it was a more sudden, few hundred year thing, not a long recession that would allow cultures to retreat slowly north and south.

The end of the Saharan pluvial forestalled the development of the Sahel as a center of civilization.

The original question was about earlier Cradles of Civilization; my thought was that perhaps organized agriculture could develop in the region prior to the end of the Saharan pluvial. I admit, I don't know what crops would be available--though this Wikipedia article (I know, I know...) seems to suggest that there might have been some minimal grain-based agriculture there already. The sudden end of the pluvial would be a disaster for the core regions, but some groups on what would have been the fringes, either in the Sahel or along the Mediterranean might have had a chance.

So, I agree, it's not ideal for a "cradle," and I don't know if the information exists to flesh out much of a scenario, but we do have about two thousand years to work with, contemporaneous with some of the earliest settlement sites in the Fertile Crescent like Jericho.
 
A bit of research came up with this beast. A vegetarian, bison-sized rodent which lived in Rio de la Plata and just might make the place into a cradle of civilization. I have to wonder whether or not it would be domesticable, and it would have to survive the Holocene extinctions, but a timeline centering on J. Monesi would be a great read.
 

Morty Vicar

Banned
A bit of research came up with this beast. A vegetarian, bison-sized rodent which lived in Rio de la Plata and just might make the place into a cradle of civilization. I have to wonder whether or not it would be domesticable, and it would have to survive the Holocene extinctions, but a timeline centering on J. Monesi would be a great read.

It has a living relative, the Pacarena (Hey, Pacarena!:D)
 
1. What crops?

The region shares an east-west axis with the fertile crescent etc.

2. The Saharan pluvial was largley without organized agriculture. We have knowledge of trading, herding, and the Garamantes had chariots. Beyond them(note that their zenith was after the Saharan pluvial; they benefited from aquifers that had been formed when the water receded underground.

This is why it is called an alternate scenario.

3. There is no way to prevent the end of the Saharan pluvial, as it is caused by oscillations in the monsoon, which is a natural cycle and cannot be altered under short-term geographical circumstances. The end of the Pluvial would destroy any culture, as it was a more sudden, few hundred year thing, not a long recession that would allow cultures to retreat slowly north and south.

Well...the latest reseach seems to indicate that current output of greenhouse gases is putting off the resumption of Ice Age conditions. And they are dependent on some very large cycles in the earths orbit.
An earlier cradle of civilization in the Saharas might lead to sufficient changes in micro- and macroclimate for the Sahara to remain wet. All those cascading feedback systems could concivably lead to other metastable equilibria.
 

Morty Vicar

Banned
It doesn't happen overnight, people basically adapt or move on. When they move on interesting things occur, their culture is spread, even if they themselves were entirely wiped out some influences remain.
 
You know, even if the Sahara does dry out on schedule, as I remember, that was a 300-years change. Fast enough for any ancient civilzations to see, but not fast enogh to cope with. We would probably see outward migrations, but if some of the places were prone to megaconstructions, like Egypt...

We could see failed attempts at shoring up their civilzation by cyclopean irrigation channels and vast artificial reservoirs. In the end we would get a Sahara dotted with where the dead winds slowly shift sands over immense works by nations that were dust and forgotten before Egypt rose.

Most of the Sahara is a stone desert rather than a sandy one, I think. It is sort of like an image from Burroughs Mars.
 
People in Papua New Guinea started practising agriculture around 7,000 - 10,000 years ago. The oldest evidence for this is in the Kuk Swamp area, where planting, digging and staking of plants, and possibly drainage have been used to cultivate taro, banana, sago and yam.

From the ubiquitous and well beloved Wikipedia. I've seen unverified remarks online that Taro domestication might have gone back as far as 25,000 years. But we've got a very old agricultural complex here, that might be older than we dream.
 
Top