4 ms·
No, it's because it is mostly swamps. Totally unsuitable for agriculture.
by myth_drannon 7y ago
No, it's because it is mostly swamps. Totally unsuitable for agriculture.
- contingencies 7y agoAgriculture is not the only thing humans do or settle for. Swamps are historically heavily inhabited by and sometimes even purposefully extended by humans specifically due to endemic biodiversity and ease of hunting and gathering. Also, sometimes because they offer fertile soils or refuge from other humans, and the waterways a strong source of orientation, food, and an artery for transport, trade and taxation. Examples off the top of my head: Bangladesh, Holland, Venice, Hanoi, Bangkok, Shanghai, Hangzhou, Angkor, Amazon, Sepik River of PNG...
- oska 7y agoVirtually all your examples are seaside marshes, not low-lying inland swamps. But your example of Angkor is a good example of a low-lying inland swampy area and, while for a period of history it was a productive, heavily populated area it then experienced a population crash which has extended through to the present day.
- zisermann 7y agoI’d add Tenochtitlan which is Mexico now. It was a swamp surrounded by mountains 500 years ago. Densely populated.
- contingencies 7y agoSo let's look purely at Hanoi, Hangzhou and Angkor as the subset that matches your requested scope. I still think it's fair to point out that they are all enormously successful areas.
- LargoLasskhyfv 7y agoNot entirely true, see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreew%C3%A4lder_Gurken https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreew%C3%A4lder_Gurken from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreewald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreewald for example. Similar landscapes. I'd guess swampy isn't that bad if you channel it a little, to have some more dry islands. edit: Cranberries!