Why did the Native Americans Not Advance Quickly?

A fair point of course. Some of the earliest centers of Mesoamerican civilization emerged near river /water tributaries. A lot of what people consider "historic" centers, like the northern Yucatan [above the Mirador basin at least] were once considered backwaters and were scarcely populated until later advancements in water pooling.

Even around famous cities like Chichen Itza you can see nearby cave systems that had simpler pottery shards from the centuries (before advances allowed these peripheries to become major centers on their own right) where when the population had been small, people had to walk for miles [and then crawl miles within these cave systems] just to collect usable water. And of course you have the Chihuahan deserts and the Guatemalan and Honduran highlands. During the arrival of the Spaniards, it was these highlands that were actually booming and probably would have shifted to have become the center of Mesoamerican power - but they certainly hadn't been traditionally.
 
I haven't touched this thread in forever, but its important to remember that it took a good 20k-30k years more for humanity to reach the Americas by most historical estimates than it did for humanity to reach Europe. Tenochtitlan is just one of many examples of numerous prosperous cities in the history of Mesoamerica and frankly one of later ones to emerge.

Around the year 1,000-1,100 Paris's population was only around 20,000 - there were numerous cities in Mesoamerica with far larger populations [and of course the relevant equally large social structures that accompanied them]. Between 1,000 BC- 300 A.D. El Mirador was a city that had a larger urban sprawl than Los Angeles does today. Teotihuacan during its time was considered one of largest cities in the world, if not the largest. Considering many population estimates in Mesoamerica are gradually/continually considered to be higher than initial estimates as archaeologists and time do their work, it wouldn't surprise me if Mesoamerica was once more densely populated than China.

Considering all this, if we remember that Europeans had theoretically a 25,000 year head-start, I think it just goes to show how lethargic European development was in truth. If we were to put 1400s Americas vs Europe in the 1,400s (and take away 25,000 years of European history) then we wouldn't even have the title of this thread as a thing
In fairness, pre-Columbian Mesoamerica probably didn't suffer the same mortality rates from disease as the Old World did.
 
I've found such a map which indicates why civilizations emerged where they did (except for those along great rivers like in Mesopotomaia and Egypt - but on the other hand this map shows modern situation, which is different than in the past (link) due to the desertification of Mesopotamia (link)):

http://www.ediblegeography.com/sixty-six-percent-natural/

http://www.sage.wisc.edu/atlas/maps.php?datasetid=19&includerelatedlinks=1&dataset=19

the fraction of each grid cell that is suitable to be used for agriculture. It is based on the temperature and soil conditions of each grid cell.



But this includes also grasslands which were hard to farm with pre-modern technology, such as:



As for Australia IIRC Jared Diamond argued that there were no wild plants suitable for domestication and agriculture on that continent.
 
Cahokia has its beginnings as early as 600 AD (CE). There are sites in Louisiana as old as 5000 BC (BCE).

A topic that considers all Native Americans into one big pile of civilizations is as stupid as putting all of Africa into one big pile. It's no longer a history discussion anymore with such generic nonsense.

One Native American tribe is not like another based upon where they were located, the ecosystem, the availability of fresh water, the building materials, the flora and fauna. What a massive dumbing down of archaeology and science in general.
 
Cahokia has its beginnings as early as 600 AD (CE).

But at that time Cahokia was not even nearly as large as later.

There are sites in Louisiana as old as 5000 BC (BCE).

At that time in Europe there existed settlements with ca. 15,000 people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlements_of_the_Cucuteni–Trypillian_culture





(...) The Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, which existed in the present-day southeastern European nations of Moldova, Romania, and Ukraine during the Neolithic Age and Copper Age, from approximately 5500 to 2750 BC, left behind thousands of settlement ruins containing a wealth of archaeological artifacts attesting to their cultural and technological characteristics. In terms of overall size, some of Cucuteni-Trypillian sites, such as Talianki (with a population of 15,000 and covering an area of some 450 hectares – 1100 acres) in the Uman district of Ukraine, are as large as (or perhaps even larger than) the more famous city-states of Sumer in the Fertile Crescent, and these Eastern European settlements predate the Sumerian cities by more than half of a millennium. The reason that academicians have not designated the gigantic settlements of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture as "cities", is due to the lack of conclusive evidence for internal social differentiation or specialization.[4] However, there is some debate among scholars whether these settlements ought to be labeled as proto-cities.[4] The Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements were usually located on a place where the geomorphology provided natural barriers to protect the site: most notably using high river terraces or canyon edges. The natural barriers were supplemented with fences, earthworks and ditches, or even more elaborate wooden and clay ramparts.[5](p103) The role of the fortifications found at these settlements was probably to protect the tribe's domestic animal herd from wild predators.[6] Other hypotheses are that the fortifications were for protection against enemy attacks, or as a means to gather the community.[5](p112) The role of these fortifications, however, is still debated among scholars.(...)
 
Gucumatz said:
Considering all this, if we remember that Europeans had theoretically a 25,000 year head-start, I think it just goes to show how lethargic European development was in truth. If we were to put 1400s Americas vs Europe in the 1,400s (and take away 25,000 years of European history) then we wouldn't even have the title of this thread as a thing

It was a demographic advantage (more people) rather than a technological one, though. I don't think that people who first crossed the Bering Strait were lagging much behind Europe in terms of innovations and technology.

BTW - many innovations (including agriculture itself) came to Europe from Asia (and some from Europe to Asia). What later accelerated the exchange of innovations was favourable geography combined with the domestication of horse and the invention of wheel - which turned the Eurasian steppe into a huge highway between Western Eurasia (including Europe) and Eastern Eurasia (including China).

Also being located along the east-west axis and not along the north-south axis gave Eurasian civilizations an advantage over American civilizations, because climate zones are similar across Eurasia - unlike along the Americas.

=============================

Edit:

Europe is actually perhaps the only continent people of which did NOT invent agriculture on their own...

If we count New Guinea together with Australia as parts of the Sahul continent, which they originally were:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_(continent)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahul_Shelf

Areas where agriculture originated and areas which are most agriculturally productive nowadays:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6898/full/nature01019.html

http://www.epsoweb.org/file/1433

 
Gucumatz said:
Considering all this, if we remember that Europeans had theoretically a 25,000 year head-start

It was a demographic advantage (more people) rather than a technological one, though.

But it also depends on how numerous was the group of first Americans, compared to the population of Europe.

What is now the most accepted date when humans first reached North America ???:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settle...aeological.2C_geological_and_genetic_evidence

I've found estimates of population of prehistoric Europe roughly by the time when humans moved to America:

http://www.ohll.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/pages/documents_Aussois_2005/pdf/Jean-Pierre_Bocquet-Appel.pdf

http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2009/07/how-many-people-lived-in-paleolithic.html

It says that in period between 33 - 14 thousand years ago Europe had no more than ca. 30,000 - 75,000 people at a time. I'm surprised as I imagined something closer to 100,000 - 200,000. But it also depends on where does Europe end and Asia begin. There is a map which shows that the largest population was in Southern France and Northern Iberia. This map (the one from first link) surprisingly suggests that the Balkans were almost uninhabited. But it is based on archaeology, maybe there is a bias resulting from fact that some regions such as the Balkans might be less thoroughly excavated, others more.

Spoiler :
And here some estimates on Eurasian populations of Neanderthals and Homo Erectus before they got extinct:

Neanderthals (2nd link suggests they never exceeded 21,000 at one time; but 3rd link says the peak was 70,000):

http://blog.23andme.com/23andme-and...ons-dwindled-in-the-face-of-expanding-humans/

https://anthrogenetics.wordpress.com/tag/neanderthal/

http://www.quora.com/Are-there-esti...d-other-proto-humans-during-prehistoric-times

Homo Erectus in eastern Asia (there were never more than 35,000 of them at once, according to this link):

http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2011/11/how-many-homo-erectus-in-asia.html
 
Again with the 'demographic estimates', Domen? Experts will tell you that given the complete scarcity of demographic data those estimates are as good a guess as the next person's.

It was a demographic advantage (more people) rather than a technological one, though. I don't think that people who first crossed the Bering Strait were lagging much behind Europe in terms of innovations and technology.

The combination of those two sentences makes no sense at all. But when referring to initial contact between Americans and Europeans around 1500 the 'demographic advantage' was definitely on the American side. So that's not likely to have been a factor.
 
Again with the 'demographic estimates', Domen?

The population of Neanderthals (in the spoiler) was estimated basing on genetic diversity of Neanderthals.

They compared DNA extracted from several Neanderthals living far away from each other and in different times.

They found out that they were surprisingly homogeneous genetically, implying a persistently small population.

Here something more about this: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1660/20130374

On the other hand the estimate for modern humans (that pdf file) is based on archaeology + common sense.

The combination of those two sentences makes no sense at all. But when referring to initial contact between Americans and Europeans around 1500 the 'demographic advantage' was definitely on the American side. So that's not likely to have been a factor.

But my point was about comparing population of continents throughout time.

More population = higher statistical chance that things will be invented.

Higher pop. density = higher statistical chance that inventions will spread.

around 1500 the 'demographic advantage' was definitely on the American side

In the Americas, yes. But population of entire Europe was higher than population of both Americas.

given the complete scarcity of demographic data

I told you this is not true because there are for example censuses of households / homesteads / hearths - like:

Check Table 2 here: http://www.economics.utoronto.ca/wwwfiles/archives/munro5/MunroEconDepressionRenRef83.pdf



Assuming that one hearth = 6 people, we get approximate population of the Duchy of Brabant in the 1400s:

1437 - 556,428 (villages ca. 67% small towns ca. 15% four large towns ca. 18%)
1480 - 518,898 (villages ca. 63% small towns ca. 14% four large towns ca. 23%)
1496 - 452,058 (villages ca. 61% small towns ca. 14% four large towns ca. 25%)
 
Firstly, Neanderthals isn't a topic related to the subject.

But my point was about comparing population of continents throughout time.

More population = higher statistical chance that things will be invented.

Higher pop. density = higher statistical chance that inventions will spread.

Things were invented in the Roman period. Nothing came of it, because it was in large part a slave economy with no need for labour saving inventions.

In the Americas, yes. But population of entire Europe was higher than population of both Americas.

Based on what data?

I told you this is not true because there are for example censuses of households / homesteads / hearths - like:

Assuming that one hearth = 6 people, we get approximate population of the Duchy of Brabant in the 1400s:

1437 - 556,428 (villages ca. 67% small towns ca. 15% four large towns ca. 18%)
1480 - 518,898 (villages ca. 63% small towns ca. 14% four large towns ca. 23%)
1496 - 452,058 (villages ca. 61% small towns ca. 14% four large towns ca. 25%)

Assuming that 1 hearth is 6 people (which it obviously is not), gives us an estimate of population in a single province in the 15th century. We are talking about whole continents here. No reliable comparative data are at hand. So what exactly is not true?

You are like someone trying to argue about the total amount of salt in the world based on the evidence of 3 pounds of salt in the 15th century in one locality. That, seriously, leads nowhere.
 
They did actually advance much in many respects - or some particular groups of them did. It is evident that inventions did not spread easily in the Americas compared to Eurasia. I think that was because they lacked a huge natural highway across the two continents. In Europe and Asia such a huge natural highway was the Eurasian steppe which extended from the Pannonian Basin and along the coast of the Black Sea all the way to Northern China. Combined with domestication of horses and invention of wheeled transport this highway connected all the densely populated regions of Eurasia. In the Americas geography did not facilitate communication between various "hotspots of civilization", but rather promoted relative isolation. In the Americas variety of useful animals worth domesticating was much smaller than in Eurasia. On the other hand they had more plants and did exploit this fact - remember where we got potatoes and dozens of other plants from.

Potatoes, corn, bananas, tobacco, and many more, how about cacao(cocoa)?
Native American tribes developed differently because of the different flora/fauna they were dealing with, as well as geography of their continents, and the lack of horses. The Mesoamerican and Andean Civilizations were ahead of Europeans in Astronomy (around the time of first contact). Mayas did write (in cuneiform), and quite a lot, unfortunately most of their writings were lost (due to Spanish conquest).
 
Domen is King of knowledge, I already accepted that, Kyriakos was great too, however, I do not see his posts lately.
 
Domen is King of knowledge, I already accepted that, Kyriakos was great too, however, I do not see his posts lately.

King of long defunct 40-year-old historical theories, more like.
 
Spoiler :
European houses from 30,000 years ago (Sungir archaeological site, eastern part of early Gravettian culture):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sungir

Sungir (also spelled Sunghir) is an Upper Paleolithic archaeological site in Russia and one of the earliest records of modern Homo sapiens in Europe. It is situated about 200 km east of Moscow, on the outskirts of Vladimir, near the Klyazma River. It is dated by carbon analysis to between 28,000 and 30,000 years ago. (...)

More about this from Anthropark website (made by the Academy of Sciences in Brno in 2005):

http://www.anthropark.wz.cz/gravetta.htm

"A boy and a girl in clothing resembling the clothing found in the graves in Sungir. The circle in the background is the bonnet of the girl with belemnite beads. The work shows a very rich cultural pattern of the kostěnkovsko-strelecká culture of the Sungir type:"



"A Sungir family standing in front of a big house. This picture reflects the fact, that not only men, but even women and children were wearing decorated clothes (here are clothes decorated with patterns known from some Sungir artefacts). The dwelling in the background has a size of a dwelling of indigenous peoples of North America and could give a shelter for several families. The dwellings had quadratic or rectangular groudfloor shapes, which are known for a long time in Paleolithic (as these in Plateau Parain, France, and other Upper Paleolithic settlements in the USA.) It was not possible to use stakes because of the frozen ground (permafrost), therefore the people built the dwelling out of horizontally laid stocks:"



"In Sungir, the groundfloor of the dwellings were of a rectangular shape and built in pairs. The Upper Paleolithic builders used the qualities of the available materials to achieve the results of massive winter dwellings, that could last a long time. They used the jowls of the mamooths (Meziříčí), mamooths skulls (Mezin), stones with antlers (Malta in Sibirien) and long mamooths bones to build oval or circular dwellings and flat massive timber that could be easy chopped for quadrate buildings. From the ethnography of indigenous people in North America, we know, that the people did not need axes or saws; all they needed was lithic tools, wooden wedges and lump hammers. The solid planks were chopped right from the standing trees. The decoration of the dwellings was representative, as well as the decorative clothing. A tomb with Sungarian children skeletons was discovered in the middle of one of the dwellings; the man was buried later. Than, another human remains were found nearby, probably from older burials. Therefore, this place is considered as a burial- place. Two other dwellings were built probably later and farther from the graves:"



Looks like those European hunters already 30,000 years ago built more solid houses than people build in some parts of the world today.

===============================

BTW:

Those eastern Gravettians from Sungir were ancestors of Mal'ta-Buret' culture (late Gravettian), part of which was Siberian Mal'ta boy, who died 24,000 years ago and had Y-DNA haplogroup R, which is ancestral to modern Indo-European and Dravidian haplogroups R1 (including R1a and R1b) and R2.

Mal'ta-Buret' culture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mal'ta-Buret'_culture

Mal'ta boy: http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2013/11/first-genome-of-upper-paleolithic-human.html

======================================

Apart from being ancestors of Indo-Europeans and Dravidians, late Gravettians were also among ancestors of Native Americans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mal'ta-Buret'_culture#Relationship_to_American_Indians_and_Europeans

Research published in 2014 suggests that a Mal'ta like people were important genetic contributors to the American Indians, Europeans, and South Asians but did not contribute to and was not related to East Eurasians. Mal'ta had a type of R* y-dna that diverged before the hg R1 and R2 split and an unresolved clade of haplogroup U mtdna.[3] Between 14 and 38 percent of American Indian ancestry may originate from gene flow from the Mal'ta Buret people, which is essentially western Eurasian in a modern sense, while the other geneflow in the Native Americans appears to have an Eastern Eurasian origin [4]

The genetic findings at Mal'ta may also help account for the Caucasian characteristics of Kennewick Man, a 9,000 year old skeleton discovered in the state of Washington. Mal'ta suggests that the Upper Paleolithic population of western Eurasia may have spread into Siberia and contributed to the physical characteristics of some early American Indians who were different from the East Asians who contributed most of the genetic heritage of the indigenous people of the Americas.[5]

And ancestors of Mal'ta people from 24,000 years ago were - as already mentioned - Sungir people from 30,000 years ago:

Early Gravettian (note its eastern part):

"The map shows the area of Gravettian at the beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic era. The circles indicate some archaeologically important areas:"



Mal'ta-Buret' (eastern late Gravettian):

"The map represents the borders of Europe after the glacial moved more in the North after the glacial maximum. The dashed line borders the area of late Gravettian, the circle indicates the Mezin locality and the arrows points in the center of Siberia, in the middle of Asia and symbolises the locality of Mal'ta and Bureť:"


Well it seems that depictions of prehistoric houses from that website (anthropark) are not really historically accurate.

So I put this post into a spoiler. If you want, you can read it, but investigate it further - don't take it for granted.
 
Top Bottom