I find it rather interesting why the American Indians of Central and Southern Chile and most of Argentina were so "small-scale" compared to the Central and Northern Andes. The potato was domesticated on Chiloé, which to this day has an insane diversity of potato cultivars. Domesticated llamas (and alpaca) are a perfect species for the region and can tolerate the cold of temperate regions. Corn has been in the Andes for over 6,000 years. Other Andean crops like quinoa are notable for their cold tolerance with the main problem being adjusting them to temperate day lengths. This shouldn't be much of a problem for domesticated plants thousands of years old. One of the major centers of agriculture was next door with proven ability to expand into temperate lands yet this region never seemed to have produced much.
How do we get more state formation in the more "solid" areas (Chiloé, anyone directly to the south of the Inca conquests i.e. the Mapuche, the Diaguita peoples) and spread "development" (read--population boom and more complex states) to more "hunter-gatherer" areas like in the Pampas and Patagonia? It seems like south and west of the Guarani, the locals did not farm and didn't seem influenced by agriculturalists. But it seems like corn, potatoes, and quinoa could thrive in Patagonia assuming irrigation networks. Patagonia is drier than the North American Plains but much less cold in the winter. As for most of Chile and the Cuyo region, these could be natural areas for state formation. The wetter areas of Argentina like the central and northeast (especially the provinces of Buenos Aires, Cordoba, etc.) could certainly support a civilisation, perhaps not just a southern extension of the Guarani but it's own culture which would interact with them extensively for mutual benefit perhaps.
From what I can tell (based on a trip through Spanish Wikipedia since I'm not too familiar with this subject other than the basics), agriculture is relatively new--maybe 3,000 years old--in many of these areas compared to the northern parts of the Andes. In the Pampas and Patagonia, it was never well established.
So if we turn back the clock a few thousand years, what do we get? Is the entire Southern Cone an area of more or less complex civilisations just like the Andes? I'd assume they'd trade their own goods (whale parts, maybe bronze tools--the more hostile environment and presence of copper and tin in proximity seems like they might work bronze far more than the Inca or other Andeans did) to the people of the Central Andes, Chaco, and modern Brazilian Southeast in exchange for yerba mate and coca (caffeine and any sort of stimulant seems vital) and perhaps some other goods.
If we cast a butterfly net on the rest of the world, do we have basis for a Patagonian civilisation to remain independent? They could control the route around Cape Horn which is critical until someone builds a canal between the Atlantic and Pacific in Panama, Nicaragua, or other locations. They could resist the Spanish in the late 16th and 17th centuries with Dutch and English help, and later remain propped up by any Spanish enemies.
Thoughts? This seems very underexplored here compared to other American Indian civilisational PODs (blame the Anglophone bias I suppose). How important can the Indians of the Southern Cone become in the grand scheme of things? Are there any crops or animals they might domesticate themselves in addition to what they adapt from the Andeans (although dogs, llama/alpaca, potatoes, quinoa, and corn is pretty solid in of itself and given irrigation can thrive anywhere in Patagonia, given North American "Indian corn" was still important enough to cultivate during the Little Ice Age in modern North Dakota and Quebec/Maritimes)?
How do we get more state formation in the more "solid" areas (Chiloé, anyone directly to the south of the Inca conquests i.e. the Mapuche, the Diaguita peoples) and spread "development" (read--population boom and more complex states) to more "hunter-gatherer" areas like in the Pampas and Patagonia? It seems like south and west of the Guarani, the locals did not farm and didn't seem influenced by agriculturalists. But it seems like corn, potatoes, and quinoa could thrive in Patagonia assuming irrigation networks. Patagonia is drier than the North American Plains but much less cold in the winter. As for most of Chile and the Cuyo region, these could be natural areas for state formation. The wetter areas of Argentina like the central and northeast (especially the provinces of Buenos Aires, Cordoba, etc.) could certainly support a civilisation, perhaps not just a southern extension of the Guarani but it's own culture which would interact with them extensively for mutual benefit perhaps.
From what I can tell (based on a trip through Spanish Wikipedia since I'm not too familiar with this subject other than the basics), agriculture is relatively new--maybe 3,000 years old--in many of these areas compared to the northern parts of the Andes. In the Pampas and Patagonia, it was never well established.
So if we turn back the clock a few thousand years, what do we get? Is the entire Southern Cone an area of more or less complex civilisations just like the Andes? I'd assume they'd trade their own goods (whale parts, maybe bronze tools--the more hostile environment and presence of copper and tin in proximity seems like they might work bronze far more than the Inca or other Andeans did) to the people of the Central Andes, Chaco, and modern Brazilian Southeast in exchange for yerba mate and coca (caffeine and any sort of stimulant seems vital) and perhaps some other goods.
If we cast a butterfly net on the rest of the world, do we have basis for a Patagonian civilisation to remain independent? They could control the route around Cape Horn which is critical until someone builds a canal between the Atlantic and Pacific in Panama, Nicaragua, or other locations. They could resist the Spanish in the late 16th and 17th centuries with Dutch and English help, and later remain propped up by any Spanish enemies.
Thoughts? This seems very underexplored here compared to other American Indian civilisational PODs (blame the Anglophone bias I suppose). How important can the Indians of the Southern Cone become in the grand scheme of things? Are there any crops or animals they might domesticate themselves in addition to what they adapt from the Andeans (although dogs, llama/alpaca, potatoes, quinoa, and corn is pretty solid in of itself and given irrigation can thrive anywhere in Patagonia, given North American "Indian corn" was still important enough to cultivate during the Little Ice Age in modern North Dakota and Quebec/Maritimes)?