PoeFacedKilla
Banned
I've been thinking about this, but i really don't see anywhere else (besides maybe another Cradle developes before mesopotamia.)
Does anyone else have any ideas?
Does anyone else have any ideas?
Most likely earlier Cradle of Civilization?
- Thread starter PoeFacedKilla
- Start date
PoeFacedKilla
Banned
thats another one of the cradles, like i said they could easily have developed earlier. I was thinking of a whole new cradle in general.
wolf_brother
Banned
AFAIK both of those are now recognized to have give rise to societies IOTL.
In fact really I think the only places you could possibly see a civilization rise that didn't IOTL might be the Río de la Plata or Victoria/New South Wales; but in both cases you'd have to get a people into the area that had not only a tool set but a culture that would allow for and led to sedentary life, and you'd likely need a better crop & domestics sets for them to work with.
amphibulous
Banned
Perhaps I should have said explicitly "Look at the common geographical factors" - I can be lazy!
PoeFacedKilla
Banned
Can any river give rise to civilization? Does civilization need a river to begin, or is there another way?
From personal observations I can say Vistula can't.
Couldn't help myself, sorry.
I'm sure there are other ways, but look at China, Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus, or the Mississippi Valley - the first civilizations all developed around major rivers. I say you have a far greater chance of developing a society near a great water source that can be easily traveled through.
twovultures
Donor
A civilization needs food-lots of food. Without a large population, you can't have/don't need an organized religion, organized government, cities, monuments, etc.
Basically, if you want a civilization where there was none before, what you need is a source of food that doesn't exist IOTL-some plant who's evolution changes so that it can become an ATL equivalent of wheat or potatoes. This will allow the creation of ATL cradles of civilization.
If California had a single plant that could be cultivated easily, it could have been a cradle of civilization. It had lots of food, but none of it could be cultivated without a lot of work. So it had thousands of small bands migrating up and down the hills every year following the food. They even had small buildings to store some of the surplus in the highlands and watched by elders, when the rest of the band went to the lowlands fairly early on.
Throw a good bean or grain in there and they'd almost certainly be more sedentary, which could lead to a new cradle.
Throw a good bean or grain in there and they'd almost certainly be more sedentary, which could lead to a new cradle.
I don`t think Egypt, the Indus Region and Mesopotamia had issues with water.
And to have a cradle before Mesopotamia, you would require multiple types of plants and animals that can be domesticated.
Yep. But there were good fisheries in San Francisco Bay which would support a lot of people, if they had a reason to settle down and make better boats. Also there are a fair number of swamps and lakes in California, not enough for the current population, but for a small civilization with a crop that doesn't require a lot of water, they would be more than suitable.
It wouldn't be a huge cradle, but it could work. Start off as small villages and towns huddling around water supplies, turning to fishing as time went on, which would allow them to move north along the Pacific coast. As population pressure increases, they slowly move into the deserts and hills of the East. .
Infinity
Banned
Rivers and Valleys
There's one loophole. If a neighboring river gives rise to civilization first. For example, because the Indus Valley Civilization eventually expanded into the Ganges river, it made the rise of an independent Ganges river civilization impossible.
Valleys without rivers like Cusco and Oaxaca were ripe for civilization.
wolf_brother
Banned
Those also had major lakes though, large enough to be worth something, but small enough that effectively one culture could arise there without threat by another that also shared the water (as happened in the American & African Great Lakes).
Kaiphranos
Donor
The Sahara was wetter following the end of the last ice age, right? Maybe you could get agriculture to develop there, under the right circumstances.
I don't see why the Great Lakes in the Americas couldn't have. It game rise to some of the most similar civilisations to the old world in North America.
I'd also say the Río de la Plata.
I think it could have been possible for the Maori to spread to Australia, but no real chance in Australia, and I think the Amazon wouldn't be suitable.
The problem is though that not many of the early cradles of civilisation developed totally independently. So even if civilisation did develop in other places in South America or Australasia, they would have ended up being isolated from much of the world dropping very far behind rapidly, just waiting for some Afro-Eursian conquistadors to turn up with superior weaponry and immune systems developed from millenia of trade and exchange of ideas etc to turn up, give them small pox and steal their land.
I'd also say the Río de la Plata.
I think it could have been possible for the Maori to spread to Australia, but no real chance in Australia, and I think the Amazon wouldn't be suitable.
The problem is though that not many of the early cradles of civilisation developed totally independently. So even if civilisation did develop in other places in South America or Australasia, they would have ended up being isolated from much of the world dropping very far behind rapidly, just waiting for some Afro-Eursian conquistadors to turn up with superior weaponry and immune systems developed from millenia of trade and exchange of ideas etc to turn up, give them small pox and steal their land.