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

[Isot the Terrible]

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.

Wrong. I would say early dynastic Egypt was more sophisticated than anywhere in pre-columbian America in such matters as writing, domestication of animals ect.

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.

Wrong again. Tenochtitlan had a population of around 60,000 people, similar to bronze age Ur and Babylon.

 

[altwere]

the Incas did use bronze at least for weapons.

 

[Aelita]

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.

It's worth noting that the maize we grow today is significantly different from the maize that was grown by Native Americans. While all other cereal crops have been modified for increased utility for agriculture, maize has undoubtedly changed the most in terms of yields.

 

[Pesterfield]

Take a look at the Ice and Mice thread, especially the digging I did on cattail and arrowhead. Both potential domesticates with a continent wide spread.

 

[Boristus]

Wrong again. Tenochtitlan had a population of around 60,000 people, similar to bronze age Ur and Babylon.

Most estimations put the populations before plagues at between 300,000 to 350,000 people.

 

[Malta]

The development of civilization in different geographic areas can only remain similar for so long before divergences occur that allow for some to advance into a different 'age' or allow others to expand and sophisticate a 'age' better then their counterparts elsewhere in the world. Look at the Andes Civilizations who made the mountains of their home able to sustain populations many times higher then their renaissance or medieval counterparts could.

 

[pa_dutch]

Wrong again. Tenochtitlan had a population of around 60,000 people, similar to bronze age Ur and Babylon.

I'd really like to see your sources for that. Most of the estimates I've seen put it around 200,000 to 250,000.

 

[RainbowDoubleDash]

Incidentally, aside from horses, cattle, wheat, and general knowledge equivalent to that of Babylon during Nebuchadnezzar's reign (sure, doesn't sound like that advanced Atlantean civilization we always here about, but when you take into account that it'd be 8,000 BC when they were impressing their neighbors...), is there anything else the Atlanteans should bring with them from the Mediterranean region?

(this'll be the only ASB question I ask in this thread)

I'd really like to see your sources for that. Most of the estimates I've seen put it around 200,000 to 250,000.

That can't possibly be the city all by itself. It was a friggin' island in the middle of a swamp. Lake. Swampy lake. The point is, I'm having a hard time believing that 200,000 stone-age tech people could have lived in the middle of a swampy lake.

Now, if that figure is for Tenochtitlan plus its immediate surrounding territory that kept it fed, that I can believe.

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.

When I said Europe, I really probably should have said "the Mediterranean and the Near East."

How established was the silk road when the Shang started kickin' around in the 3000s?

 

[Roger II]

A very large city in a swampy lake that had kitchen-gardens for each household, fertile soil in its blocks, and a fairly low disease burden from fewer crowd epidemic diseases. And one that could expand without growing horribly dense inside its walls.

 

[Boristus]

A very large city in a swampy lake that had kitchen-gardens for each household, fertile soil in its blocks, and a fairly low disease burden from fewer crowd epidemic diseases. And one that could expand without growing horribly dense inside its walls.

Not to mention that they had artificially expanded the island to accommodate the growing population.

 

[RainbowDoubleDash]

Not to mention that they had artificially expanded the island to accommodate the growing population.

That still seems amazingly huge for a single city in the middle of a swamp with just-maybe-above neolithic technology.

 

[DValdron]

Who cares about Rice. The New World had the potato, and sweet potato, and those were world beaters. Potatoes changed the economy of Europe fare more profoundly than rice did.

 

[Boristus]

That still seems amazingly huge for a single city in the middle of a swamp with just-maybe-above neolithic technology.

Neolithic in some ways? Yes. But the Mexica were nothing if not ingenious when it came to supporting their populations. Remember, technological advance isn't linear. Just because their weapons were equivalent to stone-age Old World, doesn't mean everything else was, too.

 

[The Kiat]

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 disagree with your assement of the Inca. They had bronze tools and jewelry (and weapons too). The only reason they didn't have iron was probably because iron wasn't easily accessable with their mining technology.

 

[pieman3141]

I've heard a few theories: Lack of large-sized domesticable animals... a north-south axis vs. Eurasia's east-west axis, lack of resources, bad weather, etc.

 

[pa_dutch]

That can't possibly be the city all by itself. It was a friggin' island in the middle of a swamp. Lake. Swampy lake. The point is, I'm having a hard time believing that 200,000 stone-age tech people could have lived in the middle of a swampy lake.

Actually, a lot of major settlement areas throughout history have been built around wetlands.

When I said Europe, I really probably should have said "the Mediterranean and the Near East."

How established was the silk road when the Shang started kickin' around in the 3000s?

The east-west axis is only part of the equation for how Eurasia got so far ahead - The birth of civilization in China is believed to have been completely independent of Mesopotamia and Egypt, so it doesn't account for that. What it does account for is the spread of wheat from Mesopotamia to China later on, and the spread of rice out of China (except in part of West Africa where a different strain was domesticated independently), for example. China didn't need Mesopotamian crops and animals to establish itself, but those imports did speed up its development.

 

[RainbowDoubleDash]

Actually, a lot of major settlement areas throughout history have been built around wetlands.

I know that, but 200,000 people on a single island? Roma Invicta at its height struggled with a million, and they weren't constrained by geography.

Again, I can totally believe "Tenochtitlan and its hinterlands," but it's the middle of a bloody swamp.

How big was this island, anyway?

China didn't need Mesopotamian crops and animals to establish itself, but those imports did speed up its development.

Well, yes, I know that. The Inca and Olmec and so on didn't need Mesopotamian crops to establish themselves, either, but we're not looking for mere establishment, we're looking for competativeness with a people they don't even realize they're competing with (the Eurasians)

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Actually there were two cities on the Lake of Mexico, Tlaltelolco sat right next to Tenochtitlan and was independent of them for a while before being taken over. And Tlaltelolco had quite a few people, it had a massive marketplace that pretty much everyone in Mesoamerica went to.

 

[OwenM]

I know that, but 200,000 people on a single island? Roma Invicta at its height struggled with a million, and they weren't constrained by geography.

Actually according to McEvedy it was 2-300,000 in Rome. And most of their food came Egypt while most of Tenochtitlan's came from the island itself. And they weren't constrained by geography -they were constantly making the island bigger.

Again, I can totally believe "Tenochtitlan and its hinterlands," but it's the middle of a bloody swamp.

Swamps are fairly fertile - I think venice at this time was around half the poulation on a much smaller island.

How big was this island, anyway?

13.5 km sq apparently, so it wasn't even paticularly dense.

 

[RGB]

How big was this island, anyway?

Wiki says: "Tenochtitlan covered an estimated 8 to 13.5 km2" while the island itself which included Tlatelolco was just about 30 km squared.

By comparison, Constantinople within the Theodosian walls was about 12 km squared, medieval Bilyar (largest city in Volga Bulgaria) was about 5 km squared within the walls and 8 km squared including the posad (Bilyar is therefore commonly estimated to be about 100K at its height), while for example Medieval Kiev (estimated anywhere between 40 to 60K) occupied just about 1.5 km square in High Town and about another 4 km square in the Podol and adjoining areas.

Note that Kiev was constrained by swamps to the North and unstable sandy foundation areas, while Constantinople didn't have a good water source and had to rely on aqueducts and cisterns.