[New World Query] - Best places for large native civilizations?

A thought just occurred to me, the Sami in northern Scandinavia were reindeer herders. They do this in what is essentially an arctic environment with sparse vegetation for grazing, so it might stand to reason that similar breeds of animal in North America could be domesticated to a similar standard for the purpose of supplementing the diets of natives located, (amongst other regions) on the north side of the great lakes region which is aided by the fact that modern-day southern Canada is less harsh then northern Scandinavia but also that this area seems to be one of the few belts of land were its warm enough to grow food if we look at the northeast side of the great lakes in particular. Finally from what I gather natives had an understanding of fertilizer demonstrated from the burial of fish close to crops to introduce nutrients into the soil, this may help to support crop yields and as we know added agricultural stability and herding livestock frees up time for tasks not necessary for survival just like what speed technological growth in the old world. Based on my understanding of Mesoamerican food accessibility, with everything mentioned in this post and my previous post it seems like a great lakes civilization would have a greater accability to food then Mayans because hunting was hard (jungle), they did not seem to have useful domestic animals and disease was more prevalent then the great lakes. All these factors seem to suggest that a great lakes civilization could be a equal to, if not greater then the Mesoamerican civilizations.
 
Last edited:
I think that in a situation with higher N.A. population overall that Chicago is still the idea site for a major trade city as it's on the east-west cross roads but also the best point for trade between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi. I do agree that the terrain isn't particularly good but an increased reliance on canals in a lifestyle more like SE Asia would go a ways toward using the fairly low-lying and swampy terrain to their advantage, further improving trade and logistics.

The thing I'm concerned about here is the "chicken and the egg" issue; large-scale canal building and sustaining hydroforming; particularly if its based on tapping into the Lakes themselves which are extremely low-lying and so would require more advanced works, requires an already dense and well-organized non-nomadic population. But until you get those things, a dependence on hunting/foraging would limit the formation of such stable population centers that would allow for the agricultural base to develop to sustain it. You need something to "prime the pump", so to speak.
 
The thing I'm concerned about here is the "chicken and the egg" issue; large-scale canal building and sustaining hydroforming; particularly if its based on tapping into the Lakes themselves which are extremely low-lying and so would require more advanced works, requires an already dense and well-organized non-nomadic population. But until you get those things, a dependence on hunting/foraging would limit the formation of such stable population centers that would allow for the agricultural base to develop to sustain it. You need something to "prime the pump", so to speak.
Based on the United States Department of Agriculture the south-west great lakes seem to be a hotbed of agriculture
(https://www.drought.gov/drought/data-maps-tools/agriculture)
corn.png

and this other map suggests Wisconsin is also good grazing land for livestock
(https://www.businessinsider.com/usda-livestock-maps-2015-1)
54b42cf86da811bc62bb8a76-750-568.jpg

also if a canal were to be built linking the lakes to the Mississippi when they have grown beyond the lakes, the best lakes are to the west around the lake Michigan cities of modern Milwaukee and Chicago just gauging by the minimal distance
(https://www.americanrivers.org/river/mississippi-river/)
map-mississippi-river-680x623.png

this distance would be smaller than that needed to make the original Suez canal (The Canal of The Pharaohs)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_of_the_Pharaohs)
440px-Canal_of_the_Pharaohs_Map-en.svg.png

Taken together looking at were agriculture and herding is most viable compiled with future canal prospects, the southwestern great lakes look like it would be the bread basket if not the eventual capital because of its importance straddling a world between the great lakes (the heart of the empire), great plains (prime agricultural and herding lands along with bison) and the Mississippi (logistical routes for further expansion into the previously mentioned stable food supply). A city that bridges the divide between the great lakes and the Mississippi vie eventual canal would be likely become the premier trading city of this native civilization almost filling the role of a North American Constantinople becoming by becoming a city at the center of their world so to say.
 
Last edited:
The thing I'm concerned about here is the "chicken and the egg" issue; large-scale canal building and sustaining hydroforming; particularly if its based on tapping into the Lakes themselves which are extremely low-lying and so would require more advanced works, requires an already dense and well-organized non-nomadic population. But until you get those things, a dependence on hunting/foraging would limit the formation of such stable population centers that would allow for the agricultural base to develop to sustain it. You need something to "prime the pump", so to speak.


I guess I'm confused about the whole Great Lakes issue. What are the implications of them being low-lying and why is that bad for agriculture? There's massive amounts of freshwater, trading and fishing options, decent rainfall, and at a latitude where crops can be grown. And it's flat terrain so ideas and people from the west, east, south, and north can relatively easily traverse through the area. What's the problem?

Also, what would really help Native American civilizations would be if llamas could make their way up to Mesoamerica and through there, the rest of North America. Llamas could provide milk, meat, cheese, and wool. They'd be especially useful in the north where people experience winter.
 
There WERE large civilizations in the Mississippi basin. They had a couple extremely large cities and left monuments. Their construction materials (packed earth and wood) have made the ruins less visually impressive than the Mesoamerican ones (the packed earth often being mistaken for natural hills and the wood having long ago rotted away).

If you want that civilization to have the same kind of remnant then you'll need them to build in stone. I think a good option for that would be the Southern Appalachians, specifically the Tennessee and Ohio river valleys and their tributaries. Great area for agriculture. Long growing season, Lots of water and navigable waterways, Temperate climate, Plentiful stone. Unlike the direct area along the Mississippi you can have a civilization along these with less risk of catastrophic flooding erasing much of your population. They're far enough away from the coast to limit the impact of hurricanes, far enough South to avoid the worst of the winter weather, far enough from the plains to lessen the probability of tornados.

It really wouldn't take much to get that kind of civilization in the area. A little earlier adoption of agriculture leading to a larger population and existing packed earth construction practices for important buildings/monuments in the area being first faced/reinforced by stone then replaced altogether with it. You could wank the Cherokee or Shawnee into a very visually impressive civilization with some cool attributes if someone wanted a new TL to play with. Eastern Woodlands tribes aren't often cited for empire building, but the Iroquois example does show that they could build large multitribal nation states along a republican model.
 
Based on the map contained in that link that I'm attaching below and cross-referencing it with the larger Mississippi map from earlier that will be below, it looks like if a canal was created between the great lakes (on the southwestern side of Lake Michigan) and it was followed down until about modern-day Saint Louis and then work back up north-west toward the upper Mississippi this allows for access to the primary trade centers along with prime bison and agricultural lands I posted pictures of in previous posts
cci-indian-trade-route-map-smithsonian.jpg

map-mississippi-river-680x623.png
 
On a side note, after close inspection of the map, I found another region I yet to see previously on posts like this. it looks like based on that trade map that a civilisation on the Columbia River might be possible based on how much trade is there. rainfall is heavy in the region west of the mountains and seems to be home too ok agriculture. the best place for this civilisation looks like it would be somewhere between were the river meets the ocean and the modern city of The Dalles that looks like it overlaps with the largest trade centre in the region. Even as the civilisation expands further east the river should be able to sustain agriculture close to it to compensate for lack of rain east of the mountains and to support logistics.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_River)
Columbiarivermap.png
 
An area that I have yet to see brought up is around the great lakes. I could see it being being home to a rome like state, that uses the interconnected waterways to link its empire almost like a freshwater Mediterranean sea. A sufficiently powerful state located here may be motivated to make a canal connecting these lakes to the Atlantic if they grew beyond the lakes and needed better access to outside waters.

I second the idea of a Great Lakes centered civilization. If agriculture and the potato makes it there early enough they could support a really large population.

What about the st Lawrence river

Iroquois Confederacy anyone? They were pretty much the closest thing to a great power North America ever saw before colonialism.
 
Top