What prevented the rise of bronze- and iron-age civilizations in the Americas?

[RainbowDoubleDash]

Essentially what it says on the tin. The Mexica and the Inca were the most advanced native cultures, technologically, that arose in the New World, but both were fundamentally stone-age tech civilizations that didn't advance the same way their counterparts in the Mediterranean, India, and China did.

I've heard it suggested that the north-south arrangement of the continents themselves impeded things, since the east-west alignment of Eurasia meant that the climate stays the same along broad bands, allowing for ease of trade. But I question how much the advances of Europe from prehistory through to the AD's really affected the development of, for example, China and Japan, or vice-versa. While I understand that there was trade, it was very limited, and I can't into the idea that a significant number of advances passed along Eurasia in that way prior to the AD's.

I've also heard that weather was an issue; it's difficult to build a large civilization when every year might bring a major hurricane that could ruin everything you've been building. But India doesn't exactly get a pass on ruinous weather, and random, major flooding was, if anything, an impetus towards advancing civilizations in Mesopotamia. On a similar note, I've heard it said that corn just isn't as good a staple crop as wheat or rice, requiring much more work to maintain. But, again, that if anything seems more like an impetus towards advancing a civilization towards growing more and more corn easier, rather than a hinderance.

The third thing I've heard is that the mineral wealth of the Americas is simply harder to get to. Dunno much about that so can't comment.

And lastly, I've had it pointed out to me that civilization and the advancement thereof is largely random, a result of the right advances at the right time largely by mistake. Eurasia "lucked out" and the Americas didn't.

Which is the case? Or is a mixture of all four? Was there really anything actually impeding the growth of large, iron-age and beyond civilizations in the Americas, or was it just a matter of luck?

 

[mowque]

Jared Diamond spends a few hundred pages trying to answer that. I don't think he has it totally right but he brings up most of the main points.

 

[twovultures]

Yeah, Jared Diamond had it generally right. Because the domestic plants and animals of the Americas took a long time to domesticate/breed into civilization-fueling food, civilizations arose later in the Americas than in Eurasia. So, they had less time to develop technology such as metallurgy, and the lack of animals for transport and labor may have contributed to greater isolation, lower populations, and less trade which would have resulted in less technological innovation.

On a similar note, I've heard it said that corn just isn't as good a staple crop as wheat or rice, requiring much more work to maintain.

When it comes to corn, what I've heard is that it produces the most calories for the smallest amount of work, but it's very vulnerable to drought and cold.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

There was some discussion in a similar thread earlier about the general lack of tin in the americas to make bronze with. Well not a total lack, but there werent small deposits near copper ore like there was in the old world. Oh. Except for the andes. A bronze age in mesoamerica might have to go with arsenical bronze, which one nation was experimenting with, iirc. But that has obvious problems.

Its very hard to go straight to iron, possibly no culture has done so. (The west africans may have done so.)

I know the site search engine is ... not always reliable. But you can also use google with site:alternatehistory.com as a limiter. That works pretty well.

 

[Malta]

Infanstructure: The natives of North America had the advantage of the Great River Highways.

 

[Mongo]

Yeah, Jared Diamond had it generally right. Because the domestic plants and animals of the Americas took a long time to domesticate/breed into civilization-fueling food, civilizations arose later in the Americas than in Eurasia. So, they had less time to develop technology such as metallurgy, and the lack of animals for transport and labor may have contributed to greater isolation, lower populations, and less trade which would have resulted in less technological innovation.

This. The earliest American (north or south) civilizations emerged about 3000 years after the earliest comparable Eurasian civilizations, and since then (up to 1500 AD) they remained roughly comparable to Eurasian civilizations from about 3000 years earlier. As far as I know, the rate of development of civilization in the Americas once it got going was actually fairly similar to that in Eurasia (maybe slightly slower due to fewer available resources, but not extremely so). Obviously, they were advancing at a higher rate in some areas and a lower rate in others, as would be expected given the lack of effective contact between them.

 

[snerfuplz]

Corn also took a long time to domesticate and I believe to this day we are not sure how it was done.

Of course everything else people mentioned like the lack of pack animals, metal, settling in an area a lot later then Europe/Asia. Given time perhaps the New World would have had civilizations on par with Europe. However, the lack of domesticated animals meant less exposure to virulent diseases like smallpox (from horses I believe) meaning any exposure to the Old World will result in apocalyptic conditions like in OTL

 

[RainbowDoubleDash]

So...above all else, making a TL with more advanced New World civilizations will require the widespread domestication of at least a few animals, much earlier, then? And a hardier crop than corn?

Is there any innate reason why wheat or rice wouldn't flourish in the Americas had it been introduced earlier? Obviously I'm talking about an earlier form of the crop(s), not the current form, seeing as the current form seems to do just fine in the Great Plains.

 

[snerfuplz]

So...above all else, making a TL with more advanced New World civilizations will require the widespread domestication of at least a few animals, much earlier, then? And a hardier crop than corn?

Is there any innate reason why wheat or rice wouldn't flourish in the Americas had it been introduced earlier? Obviously I'm talking about an earlier form of the crop(s), not the current form, seeing as the current form seems to do just fine in the Great Plains.

I believe horses and camels, or at least one of the two, originated in the New World, migrated, then went extinct in the New World. Preventing this will go along way. Corn is fine once it is domesticated it just takes a while and having pack animals could mean the quicker spread of potatoes North from the Andes. As for wheat and rice I am no expert at all but I assume for rice it requires a lot of moisture and probably would not be easily transported to the New World though the seeds could. But there is a possibility that the migrations were occurring before rice and wheat were fully domesticated

Of course a world like this would mean completely different native people would rise to supremacy in the New World and probably more "barbarian invasions" like in the Old World style.

 

[wietze]

Of course everything else people mentioned like the lack of pack animals, metal, settling in an area a lot later then Europe/Asia. Given time perhaps the New World would have had civilizations on par with Europe. However, the lack of domesticated animals meant less exposure to virulent diseases like smallpox (from horses I believe) meaning any exposure to the Old World will result in apocalyptic conditions like in OTL

It is not something that is unique to them, every time a population gets exposed to diseases from other areas they have never encountered before disaster strikes.
Europe & asia had its biological apocalypse (courtesy of the mongols i think), the black death / Plague.

Is there any innate reason why wheat or rice wouldn't flourish in the Americas had it been introduced earlier? Obviously I'm talking about an earlier form of the crop(s), not the current form, seeing as the current form seems to do just fine in the Great Plains.

this would contact with other civilisations as both crops originate from other continents, but maybe a wheat like crop could be domesticated. As for a rice like crop, this means more waterborne diseases like malaria or wider spread of parasites that live in the water.

 

[snerfuplz]

It is not something that is unique to them, every time a population gets exposed to diseases from other areas they have never encountered before disaster strikes.
Europe & asia had its biological apocalypse (courtesy of the mongols i think), the black death / Plague.

That is very true also prevented the colonization of Africa for a long time. I would put the New World disease outbreak as the worst one in history

 

[RainbowDoubleDash]

I'm asking all this in preparation for doing an Atlantean TL (well, post-Atlantean TL) over in the ASB board. There would have been a trans-Atlantic archipelago in this TL that runs from just off the coast of Iberia to just off the US East Coast, probably specifically the Virginia area. When the archipelago sinks, some Atlanteans flee east, but a lot more are going to flee west and the TL is going to be more concerned with them.

I just needed to know if there was something innate to the Americas themselves that prevented bronze- and iron-age civilizations from developing. A critical lack of resources or a critical problem with local weather patterns would pretty much leave post-Atlantis dead in the water, but if the problem could realistically be solved with hardier crops and more domestication, I can run with it.

 

[Boristus]

I'm asking all this in preparation for doing an Atlantean TL (well, post-Atlantean TL) over in the ASB board. There would have been a trans-Atlantic archipelago in this TL that runs from just off the coast of Iberia to just off the US East Coast, probably specifically the Virginia area. When the archipelago sinks, some Atlanteans flee east, but a lot more are going to flee west and the TL is going to be more concerned with them.

I just needed to know if there was something innate to the Americas themselves that prevented bronze- and iron-age civilizations from developing. A critical lack of resources or a critical problem with local weather patterns would pretty much leave post-Atlantis dead in the water, but if the problem could realistically be solved with hardier crops and more domestication, I can run with it.

Ooh! That sounds like it will be an interesting one. To answer the question, no, nothing in particular (beyond possibly geographic, which is solvable with
pack animals) is inherently damning to the development of North American bronze and iron-age civilizations. Just make sure to have the Atlanteans bring domesticated animals and horses with them.

 

[pa_dutch]

I've heard it suggested that the north-south arrangement of the continents themselves impeded things, since the east-west alignment of Eurasia meant that the climate stays the same along broad bands, allowing for ease of trade. But I question how much the advances of Europe from prehistory through to the AD's really affected the development of, for example, China and Japan, or vice-versa. While I understand that there was trade, it was very limited, and I can't into the idea that a significant number of advances passed along Eurasia in that way prior to the AD's.

It isn't so much innovations from Europe that bolstered East Asian civilization as it is innovations from the Middle East and India. Think of all the domesticated crops and animals of the Mesopotamians that went to China. Think about the Silk Road. Think about the spread of Buddhism.

 

[Agemennon]

My impression of it was that the Native American civilization's perceived lack of advancement was due to cultural differences between the West and the East. Their technological level couldn't be measured on the same lines as Europe, and has since led to this mental picture of early Native americans being quite primitive.

This is further amplified by the fact that they suffered a great die-off due to European arrival bringing disease, which would've diminished what technological capabilities they had, due to loss of knowledge and skills.

 

[Beedok]

Wasn't there Rice in the new world? Or was it introduced and then went wild and spread? Because I'm pretty sure many First Nations people had wild rice in their diets.

 

[pa_dutch]

This. The earliest American (north or south) civilizations emerged about 3000 years after the earliest comparable Eurasian civilizations, and since then (up to 1500 AD) they remained roughly comparable to Eurasian civilizations from about 3000 years earlier. As far as I know, the rate of development of civilization in the Americas once it got going was actually fairly similar to that in Eurasia (maybe slightly slower due to fewer available resources, but not extremely so). Obviously, they were advancing at a higher rate in some areas and a lower rate in others, as would be expected given the lack of effective contact between them.

The Americas are pretty unique in many ways, though. Eurasia never saw the development of stone age civilizations as sophisticated as the ones in Mesoamerica and the Andes. Also, Tenochtitlan was one of the most populous cities in the world during its height despite being so far behind the Old World technologically. It completely dwarfed the largest cities of Bronze Age Mesopotamia.

 

[Malta]

Wasn't there Rice in the new world? Or was it introduced and then went wild and spread? Because I'm pretty sure many First Nations people had wild rice in their diets.

Rice, Corn, and Potatos are actually rather broad terms categorizing probably dozens of different kinds of plants that may not of have had the same agricultural potential of 'Asian Rice' or 'Incan Potato'.

 

[Beedok]

Rice, Corn, and Potatos are actually rather broad terms categorizing probably dozens of different kinds of plants that may not of have had the same agricultural potential of 'Asian Rice' or 'Incan Potato'.

I wonder if the North American rice could have been domesticated.

 

[Mongo]

Wasn't there Rice in the new world? Or was it introduced and then went wild and spread? Because I'm pretty sure many First Nations people had wild rice in their diets.

I was about to respond that there already were several species of "wild rice" in North America. Looking at Wikipedia, I see that there are three North American species:

- Northern wild rice (Zizania palustris) found through most of northern North America.
- Wild rice (Z. aquatica) found in the St. Lawrence valley, and along the Atlantic and northern Gulf coasts of eastern North America.
- Texas wild rice (Z. texana) found in central Texas.

Wild rice is extremely nutritious, and I can attest that it is delicious when cooked. It has become so popular that it is now commercially cultivated in paddy fields worldwide, in addition to being harvested in natural bodies of water.