4 ms·

Reading this, and living in the northeast I can't help but think that either history has forgotten an advanced East Coast civilization or there is something tha

by lumost 5y ago

Reading this, and living in the northeast I can't help but think that either history has forgotten an advanced East Coast civilization or there is something that makes settling the East intrinsically difficult. The East Coast has bountiful fishing grounds, mild winters in the southeast, and great farmland throughout. There are natural harbors and the intracoastal highway to foster trade and concentrate resources. Why do we not see evidence of monumental construction, or ancient cities?

nine_k 5y ago
Apparently a lot of people lived there, and prospered, in a way. To build a huge monument that persists for millennia, a huge concentration of normally distributed resources is needed. This requires a central power that controls a significant territory and extracts these resources from the inhabitants, and directs them to work on the monument, instead of pursuing their local interests. Such a central power is likely to arise only when it is an improvement over the peer-to-peer tribe-based societies that the East Coast native Americans apparently had. The things you list are exactly the reasons why an advanced technological civilization did not arise in the region. There was no need for it, people were unlikely to die from hunger if they relied just on hunting, gathering, fishing, and some mild animal husbandry and lightweight farming. Eurasian Middle East, the cradle of Western civilization, was not so idyllic. For sustainable farming on its arid land, it required a system of canals, and a system of control that made a lot of people maintain them, even if it helped their neighbors more than themselves. Uneven crops and periodic crop failures required centralized storage and rationing to avoid famine. Those who were in control of this life machinery became kings of ever-increasing power. Tribes that refused irrigation and centralized agriculture either died eventually of drought and famine, or turned into nomadic shepherds. In either case, they were quickly outnumbered by the people who practiced centralized agriculture, were subjects to a (brutal) king, and all passed some resources to that king. Now the king could command to build an expensive, impractical, but majestic monument which we eventually got to see. Or, more practically, such a culture could build a city around the grain storage and king's seat, following the power structure. A city, with its concentration, gives rise to deeper specialization of trades, faster exchange of goods, faster exchange and accumulation of knowledge, etc.

by lumost 5y ago

nine_k 5y ago

Apparently a lot of people lived there, and prospered, in a way. To build a huge monument that persists for millennia, a huge concentration of normally distributed resources is needed. This requires a central power that controls a significant territory and extracts these resources from the inhabitants, and directs them to work on the monument, instead of pursuing their local interests. Such a central power is likely to arise only when it is an improvement over the peer-to-peer tribe-based societies that the East Coast native Americans apparently had. The things you list are exactly the reasons why an advanced technological civilization did not arise in the region. There was no need for it, people were unlikely to die from hunger if they relied just on hunting, gathering, fishing, and some mild animal husbandry and lightweight farming. Eurasian Middle East, the cradle of Western civilization, was not so idyllic. For sustainable farming on its arid land, it required a system of canals, and a system of control that made a lot of people maintain them, even if it helped their neighbors more than themselves. Uneven crops and periodic crop failures required centralized storage and rationing to avoid famine. Those who were in control of this life machinery became kings of ever-increasing power. Tribes that refused irrigation and centralized agriculture either died eventually of drought and famine, or turned into nomadic shepherds. In either case, they were quickly outnumbered by the people who practiced centralized agriculture, were subjects to a (brutal) king, and all passed some resources to that king. Now the king could command to build an expensive, impractical, but majestic monument which we eventually got to see. Or, more practically, such a culture could build a city around the grain storage and king's seat, following the power structure. A city, with its concentration, gives rise to deeper specialization of trades, faster exchange of goods, faster exchange and accumulation of knowledge, etc.