No European Contact, what occurs in the americas?

@Thanksforallthefish yes they do. I’ve been working my way through a number of courses from The Great Courses on Mesonamerican history and archaeology over the past couple of months and I’ve come to the conclusion that it could be argued that the Americas collectively have at least four potential cradles of civilization. The indigenous cultures of the Americans were very, very sophisticated and possibly much, much older than the civilizations of Europe and Asia.
 

Chimera0205

Banned
How about an active hurricane cycle in the 1490s? Columbus and his ships run into one and are destroyed. A second expedition a few years later meets the same fate. Europe concludes that sailing west across the ocean isn't possible.
Or better yet someone manages to actually convince columbus that the world isnt shaped like a fucking pear and the americas go uncontacted for the same reason they had centurys prior nobody is batshit crazy enough to try. Fixes the problem with much better with far fewer deaths. Then again i do enjoy the thoght of Columbus drowning in a hurricane so your fix works too i guess. My guess mesoamerica continues to be civilized and what not. A couple minor civilizations may pop out of missipipi, the north east and or that desert where the pueblos lived.
Mesoamerica was actually undergoing a period of rapid advancement and without interruption and extermination from the nazis much more succusful (albiet mostly accidentally) predecessor they probably come out of that around the same general technology tier the romans and carthaginians were at. After that? Who the fuck knows. Maybe one day a bunch of boats will show up on the coast of spain and a bunch of llama riding "conquistadors" will genocide there way through Castille shouting thier praises to Inti and denouncing the pagan chritian god. honestly anything can happen when the butterfly you created is big enough to eat mothra.
 
Last edited:
@Thanksforallthefish yes they do. I’ve been working my way through a number of courses from The Great Courses on Mesonamerican history and archaeology over the past couple of months and I’ve come to the conclusion that it could be argued that the Americas collectively have at least four potential cradles of civilization. The indigenous cultures of the Americans were very, very sophisticated and possibly much, much older than the civilizations of Europe and Asia.


The earliest remains of the Norte Chico civilization date to 3100 BC. At that time, the only comparable civilizations were the Indus Valley Civilizations, the Egyptians and the Sumerians. Which, of course, are held in almost all universal history books as the earliest civilizations. They are contempranous with the earliest Egyptian Pyramids. The Olmecs didn't exist yet, and Greece and Italy were on the late neolithic, for whatever that's worth.

Norte Chico lacked pottery and metallurgy. But they had large, sophisticated cities, agricultural systems, and a complex culture adapted to the unique conditions of the Andes. They were a proper civilization by any means of the word.

While saying that American civilizations are older than the ones in the Old World is a bold claim, it is a fact that we still don't know much about them, and there might be older things than Norte Chico awaiting discovery.
 

Lusitania

Donor
@Thanksforallthefish yes they do. I’ve been working my way through a number of courses from The Great Courses on Mesonamerican history and archaeology over the past couple of months and I’ve come to the conclusion that it could be argued that the Americas collectively have at least four potential cradles of civilization. The indigenous cultures of the Americans were very, very sophisticated and possibly much, much older than the civilizations of Europe and Asia.

Yes I have read about the two major Native American civilizations, the Aztec and Inca empires were in actually recent civilizations of older ones prior to them. Such as the Maya who preceded the Aztec and those other tribes around them. The same was true with Inca if I correct that it had risen from the ashes of an older empire. Archeologist have also speculated about other tribes that have been found including some in the arid areas of Midwest.

The issue was that the trade network between the various empires was limited in comparison to the trade in Eurasia. You mentioned lack of substial husbandry in the Americas, wonder if that had something to do with it the camel, horse provided great mobility to the people of Eurasia. Our own recollection of the American Indian on horseback is clear example of the impact the introduction of horses had on the natives. Had a shipwreck of Roman with few horses and cows arrived and assimilated with tribes for example could of had huge impact and the America Columbus found be profoundly different.

But the question here is what would of happened to the Americas has Eurasians never arrived (Europeans or Chinese). How would it of evolved?

To answer that we look a bit at past and at what we know of world to imagine it. The Aztec would of collapsed eventually, a major plague could been the catalyst. We could of seen the descendants of the Aztec migrate north and established themselves as fAr north as California or Texas. While similar empires restablish themselves in central México.

Inca could of continued to exist or another successor state.

Could a Mississippi empire arisen? What about the cree in the Ohio Valley (all accounts was that it was a thriving tribe of dozens of villages at time of first contact.

What about the Huron or Iroquois both advanced tribes. On west coast we had also several strong tribes. Could they of risen and become stronger?

The lack of widespread animal husbandry limit the growth of tribes for it limits the available of protein. The Inca has developed wheels but lacked need or spark to make carts attached to llamas.

So while the native Americans would of advanced, the limitations evident at time of European contact would of resulted in them not reaching 15th century European technology by year 2000. It would of taken longer and like Eurasia required a spark to spur it forward. Like in Eurasia the Vast majority of people were content to keep doing things like their forefathers did and it always required the inventive and restless soul to provide a spark. Then some event to make that discovery accepted by majority.
 

There is a site Chile called Monte Verde where archaeologists have discovered possible evidence of human activity that potentially dates to 30,000 years ago. These dates have not been fully confirmed, but if true, would require a rethinking of human migration in the Americas and might even require a rethinking of human migration in general.
 

Lusitania

Donor
There is a site Chile called Monte Verde where archaeologists have discovered possible evidence of human activity that potentially dates to 30,000 years ago. These dates have not been fully confirmed, but if true, would require a rethinking of human migration in the Americas and might even require a rethinking of human migration in general.
Yes there is a lot of we do not know. Human migration could of been in stages or could those discoveries been of an earlier homosaphian who died off, we do not know. Everything fit into perfect boxes at one time. Then Darwin went and opened the can of worms throwing everything people thought they knew out the door. Even today there are those who can tell you that earth is only 10,000 years old or do because that is what is written. Everything else is a lie.
 
Yes I have read about the two major Native American civilizations, the Aztec and Inca empires were in actually recent civilizations of older ones prior to them. Such as the Maya who preceded the Aztec and those other tribes around them. The same was true with Inca if I correct that it had risen from the ashes of an older empire. Archeologist have also speculated about other tribes that have been found including some in the arid areas of Midwest.

The issue was that the trade network between the various empires was limited in comparison to the trade in Eurasia. You mentioned lack of substial husbandry in the Americas, wonder if that had something to do with it the camel, horse provided great mobility to the people of Eurasia. Our own recollection of the American Indian on horseback is clear example of the impact the introduction of horses had on the natives. Had a shipwreck of Roman with few horses and cows arrived and assimilated with tribes for example could of had huge impact and the America Columbus found be profoundly different.

But the question here is what would of happened to the Americas has Eurasians never arrived (Europeans or Chinese). How would it of evolved?

To answer that we look a bit at past and at what we know of world to imagine it. The Aztec would of collapsed eventually, a major plague could been the catalyst. We could of seen the descendants of the Aztec migrate north and established themselves as fAr north as California or Texas. While similar empires restablish themselves in central México.

Inca could of continued to exist or another successor state.

Could a Mississippi empire arisen? What about the cree in the Ohio Valley (all accounts was that it was a thriving tribe of dozens of villages at time of first contact.

What about the Huron or Iroquois both advanced tribes. On west coast we had also several strong tribes. Could they of risen and become stronger?

The lack of widespread animal husbandry limit the growth of tribes for it limits the available of protein. The Inca has developed wheels but lacked need or spark to make carts attached to llamas.

So while the native Americans would of advanced, the limitations evident at time of European contact resulted in them not reaching 15th century European technology by year 2000. It would of taken longer and like Eurasia required a spark to spur it forward. Vast majority of people were content to keep doing things like their forefathers did and it always required the incentive and restless soul to provide a spark Then some event to make that discovery accepted by majority.

The Inca indeed, did not appear from nowhere. From Norte Chico, to the Chavín, to the Moche, to the Wari and Tiwanaku, to the Andean principalities that gave rise to the Inca, the Andes have a series of civilizations that date, at the very least, to 3100 BC. The figure of the Staff God, a deity worshiped all over the Andes and probably the cultural ancestor of the Inca god Viracocha, has been found in pottery remains dating to 2200 BC.

Mesoamerica similarly had a sucession of civilizations dating to the Olmec in 1500 BC, with previous cultures being much older.

The Inca, Aztec and Maya were just the newest civilizations on a long history of previous cultures and empires. Much like the Chinese or Egyptian dynasties.

I just don't see how animal husbandry is so important, since all those civilizations appeared without any other animals than the llamas in the Andes. In fact, there aren't many horses in the Andes right now. Mules, goats, sheep, sure. Horses and cows did change the lifestyles of plains nomads in the Pampas and the Great Plains. But the Andes and Mesoamerica, the most well known centers of civilization in the Americas, rose without them. I just don't see why horses and husbandry are important? Maybe they presented a slight advantage in warfare (though I'm not even sure of that) but there were literally thousands of years of civilization without horses. I've always see that argument, and it just doesn't make sense. Horses are great in plains. But in high mountains or deep forests? Not so much. They are revolutionary, but not a necessity.

Yes, most people are conservative by nature. And the American civilizations seemed quite conservative. But it doesn't mean they couldn't adapt, and the Inca and Aztecs in fact represented novel means of political organization. Sucessor states would most likely have improved on that.

There is a site Chile called Monte Verde where archaeologists have discovered possible evidence of human activity that potentially dates to 30,000 years ago. These dates have not been fully confirmed, but if true, would require a rethinking of human migration in the Americas and might even require a rethinking of human migration in general.

Pre-Clovis dates are found all over South America. 30.000 is quite old and most likely a datation error, but dates from 18.000 to 15.000 years ago are entirely possible and are backed by a growing pile of evidence that is ignored by those who still hold Clovis as the first sign of human habitation in the Americas (Clovis culture is dated to 11.000 to 12.000 years ago), but there's a laundry list of sites predating that, further in South America, and you can't dismiss them all as datation erros.

536px-Pre-clovis-sites-of-the-americas.svg.png


The current model of Bering Strait Migrations is likely all wrong and should be revised.

(note that I'm talking about human prescence, as in early hunter-gatherers, not civilizations. The oldest civilization on the Americas found yet is still Monte Chico, in 3100 BC, though there might be older remains)
 
Last edited:

Lusitania

Donor
The Inca indeed, did not appear from nowhere. From Norte Chico, to the Chavín, to the Moche, to the Wari and Tiwanaku, to the Andean principalities that gave rise to the Inca, the Andes have a series of civilizations that date, at the very least, to 3100 BC. The figure of the Staff God, a deity worshiped all over the Andes and probably the cultural ancestor of the Inca god Viracocha, has been found in pottery remains dating to 2200 BC.

I just don't see how animal husbandry is so important, since all those civilizations appeared without any other animals than the llamas in the Andes. In fact, there aren't many horses in the Andes right now. Mules, goats, sheep, sure. Horses and cows did change the lifestyles of plains nomads in the Pampas and the Great Plains. But the Andes and Mesoamerica, the most well known centers of civilization in the Americas, rose without them. I just don't see why horses and husbandry are important? Maybe they presented a slight advantage in warfare (though I'm not even sure of that) but there were literally thousands of years of civilization without horses. I've always see that argument, and it just doesn't make sense. Horses are great in plains. But in high mountains or deep forests? Not so much. They are revolutionary, but not a necessity.

Yes, most people are conservative by nature. And the American civilizations seemed quite conservative. But it doesn't mean they couldn't adapt, and the Inca and Aztecs in fact represented novel means of political organization. Sucessor states would most likely have improved on that.



Pre-Clovis dates are found all over South America. 30.000 is quite old and most likely a datation error, but dates from 18.000 to 15.000 years ago are entirely possible and are backed by a growing pile of evidence that is ignored by those who still hold Clovis as the first sign of human habitation in the Americas (Clovis culture is dated to 11.000 to 12.000 years ago), but there's a laundry list of sites predating that, further in South America, and you can't dismiss them all as datation erros.

536px-Pre-clovis-sites-of-the-americas.svg.png


The current model of Bering Strait Migrations is likely all wrong and should be revised.

(note that I'm talking about human prescence, as in early hunter-gatherers, not civilizations. The oldest civilization on the Americas found yet is still Monte Chico, in 3100 BC, though there might be older remains)
Yes I agree with many of your points but the threads purpose was what would of happen to the native Americans with out European contact.

As for animal husbandry I believe it helped in allowing empires to grow in less hospitable places. There is speculation of climate being a key factor in the Mayans demise. Could draft animals of helped them migrate to areas less affected by the climate situation?
 
The earliest remains of the Norte Chico civilization date to 3100 BC. At that time, the only comparable civilizations were the Indus Valley Civilizations, the Egyptians and the Sumerians. Which, of course, are held in almost all universal history books as the earliest civilizations. They are contempranous with the earliest Egyptian Pyramids. The Olmecs didn't exist yet, and Greece and Italy were on the late neolithic, for whatever that's worth.

Norte Chico lacked pottery and metallurgy. But they had large, sophisticated cities, agricultural systems, and a complex culture adapted to the unique conditions of the Andes. They were a proper civilization by any means of the word.

While saying that American civilizations are older than the ones in the Old World is a bold claim, it is a fact that we still don't know much about them, and there might be older things than Norte Chico awaiting discovery.
Yes but that doesn't make it the oldest compared to those Old World ones, as those emerged a bit earlier, as Egypt was already unified around this time.
 
Top