Poll/discussion: Other primary civilizations

Primary states are those state societies that formed without any influence from existing state societies, i.e. those civilizations which build themselves up from the ground up. Generally there are considered to be six:
  • Mesopotamia
  • Egypt
  • North India
  • North China
  • Mesoamerica
  • The Andes
  • Some anthropologists would argue that Hawaii and Tonga were also primary states, but they're different from the above six primarily due to their lack of urbanization and their much more rudimentary bureaucracies.
All other state societies--or "civilizations"--can trace themselves, directly or indirectly, to one or more of these six.

What other primary states could there have been?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
It's a bit of an arbitrary line between 'civilisation' and 'not a civilisation', isn't it? I mean, if you drop that distinction and just talk about cultures, you'll soon find that every one of these aforementioned 'primary civilisations' didn't show up in a vacuum. There's simply a whole lot we don't know about very ancient history. For instance, Mesopitamia and North India. Let's talk about those. It's still not fully clear to what extent Sumer was an isolate, and to what extent later cultures in the region were related to / influenced by Sumer. Nor do we know the cultural/ethnic identity of the Indus Valley Civilisation. What we do know is that the Indus Valley Civilisation traded and engaged in cultural interchange with various Mesopotamian cultures. There's a hypothesis that Sumer and the Indus Valley Civilisation are two exponents of a broad family of pre-Indo-European cultures which stretched from Mesopotamia to North(-West)ern India prior to the Indo-European expansion. So how 'primary' are these cultures, anyway? If true, did one derive from the other? Whatever the case, we may assume that any civilisation was influenced by forebears. Nothing is truly original. Nothing came from nowhere.

Likewise, we don't really know how the Minoans should even be classified (ethnically, linguistically, or otherwise), nor do we know where they got their influences from. Were the Minoans a primary civiliation, or do we simply not know who their precursors were? I think it's the latter. I think it's always the latter. I think the entire idea of 'primary civilisations' is flawed.

On the other hand, if you just want to talk about which cultures could have made great leaps in setting up far more complex social organisations etc. -- then we might look at any number of cultures. The peoples of what is now southern China and Vietnam may qualify in OTL. China portrayed them as 'tattood barbarians', but it's pretty clear that they were hardly primitive. The classical historiography portrayed them as having adopted Chinese culture, and Vietnam was strongly influenced by China later on... but I wonder to what extent the peoples in question had already developed by the time they even made first contact with the northern Chinese people. I personally suspect they were pretty far along themselves already, and that the so-called 'Yue tribes' were a fine contender for setting up a cool ATL civilisation.

With the right POD, you can really pick almost any culture. Look at Lands of Red and Gold, which has the Australian Aboriginals essentially be what you're asking for. (And again I must ask, do the Aboriginals not qualify in OTL, at least as much as Hawaii and Tonga?)
 
The most neutral definition of "civilization" is essentially "urbanized state society," which is also an extremely fuzzy concept but is at least readily identifiable.

And again I must ask, do the Aboriginals not qualify in OTL, at least as much as Hawaii and Tonga?
Tonga and Hawai'i had, to varying degrees, an organized bureaucracy (both), a stratified priesthood (for Hawai'i), a fixed capital (for Tonga), an army in the tens of thousands (Hawai'i), and so on. The Aborigines were not a state society and no historian ever calls them such, while Hawai'i is actually generally considered an archaic state now.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
The most neutral definition of "civilization" is essentially "urbanized state society," which is also an extremely fuzzy concept but is at least readily identifiable.

The implication is that there is some kind of binary distinction here, but in reality, the transition from a non-urban to an urban society is one of gradual growth of settlements, typically taking a long time. In the same way, 'state' is a fuzzy concept as well. Every society has some kind of authority, even if minimal and informal. From there, it very gradually goes all the way to a complete bureaucratic apparatus that doesn't even have any typical elements of feudalism left in it. At some vague point in between, it's supposed to suddenly become a 'state society'?

I get what you're going for, and tried to offer a practical suggestion, but I think making these black and white distinctions is a bad idea. That's not to say that I don't like the idea of the 'alternate candidates for early urbanisation / state developement'. To what extent might the Mississippian culture(s) qualify in OTL? (Or for that matter, in an ATL where they last longer?) And then there's the Ancestral Puebloans, with their cliff-side cities.
 
@Skallagrim

The general view that I have, is that if the Indus Valley Civilization was truly linked, outside basic trade routes, to Sumer and Akkad, the origin was within the sea. It is unlikely in my opinion that there was an actual urban link between Sumer and Elam (not even related to one another), across the Iran desert and Baluch interior. There was not enough humans settled here and the areas are even in the near future lightly populated, even in the Achaemenid period. I do have sympathy with this view though, Europe is an example of a place that I feel has a much deeper Bronze Age than the common low level historian is ready to give. However, Iran is by no means Europe in terms of geographical wealth.

Regardless, my view is that the clear link, if there is one, originated in the Persian gulf. With either, the ancient ports of Dilmun, Magan, etc... or more correctly, the land previously above water in the Persian Gulf. This area gives credence to both Hindu, Sumerian and Elamite flood myths as well as the Sumerians fetish for Dilmun and Eridu. Dilmun, likely now under water, was called the origin for Sumer and Eridu is called the ancient city older than the Deluge.

However, I doubt this fundamental link. If there was such a link, we would find rudiments of or complete cuneiform. Unrelated peoples in Egypt, used cuneiform for political discourse and diplomacy, why then, with a link, do the Indus Valley not use the same? We should be finding cuneiform all over Mohanjo Daro, but we do not find this at all. Either, the sites we are finding in the Indus, are actually irrelevant villages (impossible to imagine) or the link was only one of mercantile origins and no fundamental link existed.

The trade can also be argued, was less than relevant between the two. While Sumerian and Akkadian texts mention the trade; this is not a sure indicator. By this, there is no text mentioning direct transfer, but instead the trade is alluded to have arrived via the ports of their famous allies and vassals in the Gulf, such as Dilmun and Magan. Both of whom, would have been the Middle man between trade. Thus, there was not some grand cultural transfer between the two outside of sharing goods. This aspect is also shown in the lack of fundamental similarities in architecture, not just the writing systems. As far as we know, Indus Valley has no writing system, only proto-writing. It is inconceivable to no find bilingual transcripts or more developed writing (or at least clear influences), if indeed the link were true.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 97083

Also a polity can be both a primary state and a secondary state for different parts of its territory. Assyria was a secondary state in the core parts of Mesopotamia, for which Uruk, the Akkadian Empire, and Ur-III were older states. However the Neo-Assyrian Empire was the primary state for regions like Urartu, Cilicia, parts of Persia, parts of Media, and the northern fringes of the Arabian desert, areas in which Mesopotamian empires hadn't previously extended.
 
The highlands of New Guinea are highly underestimated for questions or scenarios like this. In OTL, it was one of the few regions on Earth to independently develop agriculture, a very important component in most definitions for 'civilization'. The rough terrain would have lent itself to an equivalent of the Greek city-states forming, given the right conditions. Problem is, I'm not sure what those conditions would have to be.
 
I think a question with more clarity and less argument potential would be "what other areas could have developed agriculture independently?"

One at least would be eastern South Africa: a gentle climate, an extensive river system, and several plants which could have served as staples if domesticated gives the (OTL) KwaZulu-Natal area fantastic potential.
 
Well, the sign would be common crop use.
???
The Mississipians are thousands and thousands of years after the Mesoamericans, and got their food crops from the latter.
Do y'all mean corn? That was a very important crop that increased demographics sure but the Eastern Agricultural Complex (EAC) ultimately is one of 10 so far recognized zones of primary domestication.

Corn eventually came from Mexico indirectly from the southwest and Southeast through inland and most likely coastal trade.
Eh, yes Ghana but more accurately Tichitt-Oualata that later formed what would become early Ghana.
 
Hm. Vietnam, perhaps? Indochina has a bunch of rivers which could have developed into a primary civilization earlier on.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Hm. Vietnam, perhaps? Indochina has a bunch of rivers which could have developed into a primary civilization earlier on.

Yes. This one is basically linked with the 'southern China' option I mentioned. The Yue peoples of southern China are the same group(s) called 'Viet' in Vietnam. 'Nanyue' = 'Nam Viet'. There's great potential there, and as I said, the region may even qualify for this in OTL. A minor boost and you can easily start a domino effect and end up with a sort of super-Vietnam.
 
@Skallagrim

The general view that I have, is that if the Indus Valley Civilization was truly linked, outside basic trade routes, to Sumer and Akkad, the origin was within the sea. It is unlikely in my opinion that there was an actual urban link between Sumer and Elam (not even related to one another), across the Iran desert and Baluch interior. There was not enough humans settled here and the areas are even in the near future lightly populated, even in the Achaemenid period. I do have sympathy with this view though, Europe is an example of a place that I feel has a much deeper Bronze Age than the common low level historian is ready to give. However, Iran is by no means Europe in terms of geographical wealth.

Regardless, my view is that the clear link, if there is one, originated in the Persian gulf. With either, the ancient ports of Dilmun, Magan, etc... or more correctly, the land previously above water in the Persian Gulf. This area gives credence to both Hindu, Sumerian and Elamite flood myths as well as the Sumerians fetish for Dilmun and Eridu. Dilmun, likely now under water, was called the origin for Sumer and Eridu is called the ancient city older than the Deluge.

However, I doubt this fundamental link. If there was such a link, we would find rudiments of or complete cuneiform. Unrelated peoples in Egypt, used cuneiform for political discourse and diplomacy, why then, with a link, do the Indus Valley not use the same? We should be finding cuneiform all over Mohanjo Daro, but we do not find this at all. Either, the sites we are finding in the Indus, are actually irrelevant villages (impossible to imagine) or the link was only one of mercantile origins and no fundamental link existed.

The trade can also be argued, was less than relevant between the two. While Sumerian and Akkadian texts mention the trade; this is not a sure indicator. By this, there is no text mentioning direct transfer, but instead the trade is alluded to have arrived via the ports of their famous allies and vassals in the Gulf, such as Dilmun and Magan. Both of whom, would have been the Middle man between trade. Thus, there was not some grand cultural transfer between the two outside of sharing goods. This aspect is also shown in the lack of fundamental similarities in architecture, not just the writing systems. As far as we know, Indus Valley has no writing system, only proto-writing. It is inconceivable to no find bilingual transcripts or more developed writing (or at least clear influences), if indeed the link were true.

Possibly bilingual seals in Cuneiform and Indus Valley Script have been found in Mesopotamia and the Gulf area (none, AFAIK, in the Indus Valley itself). The IVS signs in these seals show patterns of distribution that are rare in the Indus Valley inscriptions, suggesting that the script was used either to write a different language or otherwise in a different way. This strongly suggest that the IVS was indeed a form of true writing, while other startling features (notably the very conspicuous lack of long inscriptions) would indicate a form of proto-writing. There's also the possibility that some signs can be shown to be similar to cuneiform counterparts, although, absent an acceptable decipherment, this remains speculative.
 
Top