Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Civilization of Norte Chico or What was wrong with New World?


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 604 posts

Everyone knows that:

 

1) The peoples of Pre-Columbian America created many local civilizations.

 

2) All these civilizations were primitive. Let's leave aside the cultural values (they are relative and cannot be compared). But in terms of used technology and social structure, their achievements, too, weren't impressive: a typical civilization of New World consisted of a heap of city-states with despotic / theocratic rule (historical analogues of Sumer). The only exception was Incan Empire: big centralized state, historical analogue of Assyria (first real empire of Old World).

 

Why so backward? The typical answer: everything was normal, they just started few thousand years later and history (and Europeans) did not give them enough time.

 

But that's what I've found while browsing Wikipedia:

 

Norte Chico civilization

 

The Norte Chico civilization (also Caral or Caral-Supe civilization) was a complex pre-Columbian era society that included as many as thirty major population centers in what is now the Norte Chico region of north-central coastal Peru. The civilization flourished between the fourth and second millennia BC, with the formation of the first city generally dated to around 3500 BC

 

Other words, they were the contemporaries of Sumer. By 1500 AD their distant descendants would have already settled all the North and South America, travel in Mediterranean Caribbean sea, clear and farm the Amazonian rainforest, create complex empires and world religions, and so on...

 

But, unlike the Old World, this didn't happen. As it seems, civilizations of New World were unable to form what is called "world system" where their achievements would be passed on to each other. Their common history was nothing but repeating cycle of individual rises and falls, again and again. European colonizers of 1500 AD saw the picture not very different from what they could see in 1500 BC.

 

Why?

 

PS the (anthropologically reconstructed) aristocratic woman from Norte Chico... she would also like to know "Why?"

 

000000.jpg


  • Outlook likes this

#2
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,718 posts
  • LocationUK

An excerpt from Neil Faulkner's A Marxist History of the World:

 

New World empires: Maya, Aztec, and Inca 

 

Hominids first evolved in Africa about 2.5 million years ago, modern humans about 200,000 years ago. But they may not have reached the Americas until as recently as 15,000 years ago. 

 

Africa is the oldest continent, America the youngest. Yet the civilisations of sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas share key characteristics that set them apart from those of Eurasia. Both were constrained in similar ways by geographical barriers. 

 

The Americas run north−south for almost 16,000 km through all the climatic zones. Because of this, what works in one part of the Americas often does not work in others. Different ecosystems require different subsistence strategies, so the value of cultural exchange between climatic zones is less than its value within a climatic zone. 

 

The Americas were well endowed with plant staples – maize, potatoes, squash, beans, and manioc – but not with animal domesticates. Eurasia was home to the wild progenitors of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, hens, oxen, horses, mules, donkeys, and camels. These provided meat, milk, wool, leather, traction, and transport. The Americas, by contrast, had only the llama, the turkey, and the guinea-pig. 

 

In one key respect, Africa and the Americas were different. Africa is not cut off from Eurasia, and African civilisation developed under the influence of Egyptian, Roman, and Arab traders. Crucially, Africa received cattle and iron from Eurasia, and its own production of metals and other commodities was substantially a response to external demand. The Americas received no such cultural endowment. They were cut off from the global exchange of knowledge and techniques that is responsible for most advances in labour productivity. Consequently, the Americans had no wheel, no iron, and no plough. 

 

These constraints limited the development of civilisation in North America. When the Europeans arrived, most North Americans were either Upper Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers or Early Neolithic hoe-cultivators. The proto-urban civilisations of the Pueblo farmers of the South-West (ad 700−1350) and the temple-mound builders of the Middle Mississippi (ad 700−1450) had already disappeared. 

 

In Central and South America, on the other hand, the Europeans encountered extant civilisations that were both fully urbanised and representative of much older traditions – the Olmecs, Maya, Toltecs, and Aztecs in Mexico (1200 bc−ad 1521) and the Chavin, Nazca, Moche, Chimú, and Inca in Peru (900 bc−ad 1532). 

 

The fact that American civilisation developed entirely independently of Eurasia is the ultimate proof of the common biological identity of humanity: all ‘races’ are equally capable of cultural creativity. On the other hand, American civilisation faced severe limitations. Its technology was Stone Age. Gold, silver, and copper were used only for ornaments. Its agricultural method was Early Neolithic, and because productivity was low and the surplus small, American civilisation tended to be brutal. Successful accumulation often required extreme exploitation and violence. 

 

The Mayan civilisation of southern Mexico and Guatemala lasted from c. 300 bc to ad 900. It was divided into rival city-states under hereditary dynasties of kings who identified themselves with deities. The Mayans built monumental ceremonial centres consisting of plazas surrounded by stone-built pyramids crowned with palaces, temples, and altars. A true Urban Revolution occurred in the Classic Maya period (c. ad 300−800), when ceremonial centres like Tikal swelled into jungle cities of up to 50,000 people. 

 

Architecture, sculpture, and painting were developed. Obsidian and jade were worked into objects of quality. Writing, astronomical observation, and calendrical calculation were advanced. But it was the religion and ideology of the ruling class – not the needs of farmers – that underlay these cultural achievements. Art and science were at the service of militaristic god-kings and a theocracy. Wars were fought in part to obtain captives to sacrifice to Mayan gods. Art depicts victims being tortured in the presence of Mayan lords. Despite intensive agriculture, including the cultivation on raised fields of maize, beans, squash, chilli peppers, and root crops, Mayan technique was primitive. Without ploughs or animal fertiliser, soil exhaustion must have been a constant problem. 

 

Against the odds, an Early Neolithic economy had given rise to an Urban Revolution and a network of royal city-states. But the Mayan kings and priests were parasitic, creaming off precious surplus and wasting it on war, pyramid building, and the religious mysticism that legitimised their existence. Like other ancient and medieval civilisations, the Mayan eventually collapsed under its own weight, the cost of the elite and the state bearing down ever more heavily on the economic base of the system. 

 

Waves of barbarian invaders from the north entered the geopolitical space left by Mayan decline. The Toltecs eventually established dominance in central Mexico from c. ad 950 to 1170. This was followed by another period of fragmentation and warfare. The Aztec civilisation which emerged from this chaos bore the preceding period’s hallmarks. It appears to have been an exceptionally brutal consequence of the contradiction between primitive technique and imperial ambition (though we must be cautious, for the Spanish writers who supply much of our information were deeply hostile to native civilisation). 

 

The Aztecs founded their capital and ceremonial centre at Tenochtitlán in ad 1345. Between ad 1428 and 1519 they built an extensive empire. The Aztec state was a centralised autocracy, with a warrior and high-priestly ruling class and a large professional army. There appears to have been no attempt to assimilate subject-peoples or develop productive technique. Tribute – gold, cotton, turquoise, feathers, incense, and vast quantities of food – were sent to Tenochtitlán. Huge numbers of war captives were also taken there to be sacrificed at the Great Temple, their hearts torn out as an offering to the Aztec sun-god, their bodies then tipped down the steps. 

 

The Aztec Empire was a crude military imperialism. Its brutality and futility express in an extreme form the limitations of an Urban Revolution based on Early Neolithic technique. The rate of exploitation, and the terrorism necessary to maintain it, is proportional to the inadequacy of the available surplus. The violence of the Aztec state and the poverty of its subject-people are two aspects of a single contradiction. 

 

The Inca Empire of Peru began to expand in ad 1197, two centuries before the Aztec Empire of central Mexico. But it achieved its greatest extent at the same time – in ad 1493−1525 – and shared some of the Aztec Empire’s essential characteristics. The Inca state was a centralised military autocracy, with a large professional army, and an administrative bureaucracy which attempted to control the daily life of every subject. At the heart of the empire were great monumental complexes, such as the capital at Cuzco, the fortress guarding it at Sacsahuaman, and the ceremonial centre at Machu Picchu. 

 

The Incas controlled an area some 3,200 km long and 515 km wide comprising a mix of coastal plain, high mountains, and dense forests. They constructed a network of roads totalling an estimated 40,000 km, incorporating numerous tunnels, bridges, and causeways, with official rest-houses at intervals of a day’s journey. 

 

Both the Aztec and Inca Empires were anomalies. In central Mexico and the Peruvian Andes, ancient empires, with their ruling elites, professional armies, and monumental complexes, were constructed on a Stone Age economic base. The prodigious waste expenditure of the ruling class required ruthless surplus extraction. Imperial rule, therefore, depended on terror. Aztec and Inca rulers were hated by their subject-peoples. Rebellion was rife. 

 

In consequence, when the Spanish arrived in the early sixteenth century, the Aztec and Inca imperial states shattered. This was not simply a function of the superior military technique of a more advanced social order: it was also because the common people either welcomed the defeat of their masters or even participated actively in the struggle to bring them down. 

 


  • funkervogt likes this

#3
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,770 posts

In the book 1491 Charles Mann makes an interesting point.  All too often, the level of civilization reported upon by western sources in the Americas came after these societies were destroyed by disease such as small pox.  The result was a little bit like reporting on the impoverished nature of Jewish culture after the holocaust without reference to that catastrophic event.  Had reports come in when these civilizations were at their height, we might have a very different image of how rich were their cultures. 


  • Yuli Ban and funkervogt like this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#4
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 604 posts

An excerpt from Neil Faulkner's A Marxist History of the World:

 

1) North-South orientation as an obstacle to historical progress? Well, maybe, but I don't think this was a key factor.

 

2) Other hand, yes, the total (or almost) absence of pack animals should have been a serious problem, not just for agriculture but also for trade and spread of innovations.

 

3) Also, interesting idea that these civilizations "were anomalies... constructed on a Stone Age economic base" requred from their elites to use the "ruthless surplus extraction".

 

In the book 1491 Charles Mann makes an interesting point.  All too often, the level of civilization reported upon by western sources in the Americas came after these societies were destroyed by disease such as small pox.  The result was a little bit like reporting on the impoverished nature of Jewish culture after the holocaust without reference to that catastrophic event.  Had reports come in when these civilizations were at their height, we might have a very different image of how rich were their cultures. 

 

I don't think this is a good analogy. Spanish conquistadors found Incas and Aztecs at the peak of their glory. And this peak still wasn't too high. And the previous peaks (as it seems today) weren't any higher: all of them were early class societies, quite small and primitive (Incas are the only exception).

 

Also, I disagree with Joe's link describing Aztecs as "empire". No, they weren't empire in strict sense of this word, just a coalition of three city-states vassalized some other city-states (which were forced to pay tribute but were still ruled by local dynasties). The only real empire (again, as it seems today), with provinces governed by bureaucrats appointed from the center, was Incan empire.

 

Btw, the year 2019 is a kind of anniversary: 500 years since the fall of Tenochtitlan...  I always wondered what would happen if Europeans didn't aborted the natural course of history? Would the Aztecs evolve towards a more stable and centralized empire? Or (more likely) would they eventually share the fate of their predecessors being destroyed by endless wars, rebellions and barbarian invasions? Would their technologies stay roughly the same by 2019? Or, maybe, some bright minds would come to bright ideas like creating the wheeled carts and using captives as pack animals instead of killing them? And so on...


  • Yuli Ban likes this

#5
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020 is here; I still suck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,912 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

Mesoamerica actually had the wheel but they used them for toys exclusively because as was already mentioned large domestic animals were unavailable. 


  • Yuli Ban likes this

The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth. 


#6
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 604 posts

Mesoamerica actually had the wheel but they used them for toys exclusively...

 

Yes, I know.

 

...because as was already mentioned large domestic animals were unavailable. 

 

Sounds cynical, but slaves are exactly the "large domestic animals". Maybe not as effective as bulls or horses, but being rickshaw is still better than carry the weight behind your back.



#7
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,770 posts

 

I don't think this is a good analogy. Spanish conquistadors found Incas and Aztecs at the peak of their glory. And this peak still wasn't too high. And the previous peaks (as it seems today) weren't any higher: all of them were early class societies, quite small and primitive (Incas are the only exception).

 

Another factor was the massive destruction of historical records carried out by the Spanish.  I don't see how we can come to definitive conclusions about the "height" of their culture with so much of the historical record destroyed. Archaeological remains of the Maya are quite impressive, unless of course you also look down upon ancient Egyptian culture with their pyramids and surviving structural wonders. Mayan calendars surpassed almost all others in their accuracy, showing a great sophistication in astronomy.  

 

I suppose if you impose a strictly Marxist use of categories to determine sophistication you can make an argument that Mayan were "primitive."  By other criteria, they were quite advanced.  By still other criteria, they were quite savage, as in their preoccupation with human sacrifice.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#8
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 604 posts

I suppose if you impose a strictly Marxist use of categories to determine sophistication you can make an argument that Mayan were "primitive." 

 

In general, yes... I myself said it in startpost:

 

All these civilizations were primitive. Let's leave aside the cultural values (they are relative and cannot be compared). But in terms of used technology and social structure...

 

In terms of used technology and social structure they were bunch of Neolithic city-states ruled by priests and "divine" kings. In short, this is the early class society, the close analogue of Sumer in III millenia BC. Yes, they (Maya) were also the skilled astronomers, as well as Aztecs were the gifted poets (i've read they wrote poems about bees buzzing over flowering meadows and such... but modern historians are well aware that these were metaphors of war and sacrifice). 

 

But this doesn't change the whole picture.



#9
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,172 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands

They had llamas and alpacas. Wikipedia even suggests that the height of Incan civilization correlated with the number and greatest distribution of llamas. It would suggest that llamas were just about starting to be used by the South American civilizations before handyman Columbus arrived.

 

I'd also like to state that the wheel is not necessarily a precursor for advanced civilization. The Songhai and Mali Empire were prosperous and advanced for their era but did not utilize the wheel (I think) and the Tongan empire did not require a wheel or even writing for the creation of their naval empires.

 

Personally, I'm in agreement with the idea that the old world was simply so vast and diverse that technologies could quickly irradiate between people and 'boosted' them up. For example gunpowder, the alphabet, numerals, philosophical traditions like empiricism, technological growth, and humanism all developed in different civilizations but quickly translated between each other.

 

And I'm also going to shoot forward a theory that may or may not sound stupid, but empires spread empire. Rome is a good example. Pre-Rome, european civilizations were fairly disconnected and isolated, but after Rome there was a massive interconnection-- religiously, culturally, linguistically, technologically, philosophically that allowed these new autonomous bodies to develop and share between each other. The same with the Islamic empire where the giant cultural "unity" created under the first two caliphates would translate over to the intellectual and technological fervor in the later pre-Mongolian centuries in the middle east. And also the modern British and American empires.

 

The issue with Sub-Saharan africa would be then that these massive empires of the old world-- that would not just go between different local ethnic groups but whole continents and regions-- could not penetrate due to the geographical barriers. And the fact that the most 'advanced' African civilizations were the ones with religious and economical links to the northern Islamic empires adds to my theory.


Outlook's secret song of the ~week: https://youtu.be/DGe_Sluth3A


#10
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020 is here; I still suck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,912 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

 

Mesoamerica actually had the wheel but they used them for toys exclusively...

 

Yes, I know.

 

...because as was already mentioned large domestic animals were unavailable. 

 

Sounds cynical, but slaves are exactly the "large domestic animals". Maybe not as effective as bulls or horses, but being rickshaw is still better than carry the weight behind your back.

 

Equating humans to quadrupedal beasts of burden is perhaps the most asinine thing I've heard all day. Not least because of the enormously disparate strength levels. There is simply no way that humans could have had any equivalence for the utilities that animals were used for in ancient times. Of course we do know what the utilization of slaves for labor looked like and in no society from ancient Egypt to pre Civil War United States was it ever a practical thing to use them as beasts of burden. A simple understanding of human physiology dictates as much. 

 

(Although they were used to transport things just not to the effect or extent that animals were. It's a commonly known fact, although recently disputed, that the Egyptians used slaves to hoist the enormous slabs of stone for the pyramids. But even this is very specialized and nowhere near the equivalent to the use of horses, oxen, and even dogs which were practiced in ancient times.)


The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth. 


#11
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 604 posts

Equating humans to quadrupedal beasts of burden is perhaps the most asinine thing I've heard all day.

 

Your problems with understanding of other's texts are well known. And here you have demonstrated them again.

 

Of course we do know what the utilization of slaves for labor looked like and in no society from ancient Egypt to pre Civil War United States was it ever a practical thing to use them as beasts of burden.

 

Yes, OF COURSE given the choise between humans and animals, any society will prefer animals.

 

A simple understanding of human physiology dictates as much. 

 

Did you hear of eastern rickshaws? In absence of animals, human physiology (and needs of commerce) will dictate to rather pull the cart loaded with 100 kg than carry 30-50 kg on your back.



#12
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020 is here; I still suck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,912 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

 

Equating humans to quadrupedal beasts of burden is perhaps the most asinine thing I've heard all day.

 

Your problems with understanding of other's texts are well known. And here you have demonstrated them again.

 

Of course we do know what the utilization of slaves for labor looked like and in no society from ancient Egypt to pre Civil War United States was it ever a practical thing to use them as beasts of burden.

 

Yes, OF COURSE given the choise between humans and animals, any society will prefer animals.

 

A simple understanding of human physiology dictates as much. 

 

Did you hear of eastern rickshas? In absence of animals, human physiology (and needs of commerce) will dictate to rather pull the cart loaded with 100 kg than carry 30-50 kg on your back.

 

Were rickshaws invented in any pre modern society? Are we talking about something amiss from only "New World" societies or rather something widespread when we speak about humans not being utilized in this capacity with technology that is almost as modern as the automobile. 

 

Edit: But you're right I need to tone down when I speak to people. Sorry Ru. As to whether people would have developed something like rickshaws eventually it would probably have been the case given enough time. 


The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth. 


#13
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 604 posts

Were rickshaws invented in any pre modern society?

 

Frankly, no idea. Anyway, in the Old World rickshaws weren't really necessary. But in the New World, if (hypothetically) they started using carts, who would pull them? For Aztecs, answer would have been obvious. Maybe not even slaves, it would have been the special and respected guild of "strong travellers" or something like that.

 

Aztec toys shows how close they were to idea of cart. Why didn't they do it? Perhaps, among other reasons, because of mountainous terrain where using these carts (without good road network) was too difficult and impractical.

 

W0354-Villahermosa-Museo-de-Antropologia


  • TranscendingGod likes this

#14
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,770 posts

The following article does nothing by way of rebuttal to the notion that pre-Columbian civilizations were on the whole technologically backward. That is, if you think of technology in terms of things like machines. The article also does not address the sophistication of their social systems. If "technology" includes agricultural practices, then ancient level of sophistication in land management practices may have exceeded even modern day achievements.  At least in the Amazon as indicated by the cited article. Especially if sophistication is equated with sustainability.

 

Ancient Amazonian Societies Managed the Forest Intensively But Sustainably - Here's What We Can earn From Them

 

https://ensia.com/fe...earn-from-them/

 

 

(Ensia) August 15, 2019 — When loggers and cattle ranchers began toppling the rainforest in Brazil’s far western state of Acre, they revealed a mystery: vast ancient earthworks, hidden for centuries under the trees.

 

These “geoglyphs” took the form of geometric shapes — squares, rectangles and circles — hundreds of meters across, marked out with ditches and raised mounds. Since the 1980s, around 450 geoglyphs have been identified in Acre alone, dating back between 650 and 2,000 years — offering new perspectives on the supposed pristine nature of the Amazon as well as insights into how agriculture and healthy ecosystems might coexist.

 

…Published in Nature Plants,  the researchers’ study shows that for millennia, the area’s inhabitants had practiced a diversified land use strategy akin to what we now call “polyculture agroforestry” — growing a wide variety of food crops while keeping trees and forests standing.

 

…In addition, while the monoculture crops grown in the Amazon region today —  soybean, corn and sugarcane — tend to exhaust and erode the soil over time, the ancient agroforesters actually enriched the soils as they went.

 

…What the indigenous people weren’t able to cope with was the arrival of Europeans. Epidemics, slavery, starvation and warfare led to catastrophic depopulation of the Amazon shortly after 1492 — and the subsequent myth of the “pristine, uninhabited rainforest.”


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#15
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,770 posts

It is almost amusing to me that left off of the list of sophisticated civilizations of the Americas is the Iroquois.  This is so because some would argue that they were in fact more advanced than the European so-called civilizations. Not a consensus among scholars, to be sure, but enough to consider the argument.

 

Claims of this sort can be traced to an understanding of The Five Nations of the North American Iroquois.  In the early 1400’s the “nations” convened to frame their Great League of Peace, whereby the Iroquois, Mohawk, Oneida, Cayuga, Seneca, and Onondaga bands agree to live peacefully with each other.

 

Now there are at least three remarkable things about this occurrence. First, the timing, the early 1400’s before the arrival of Columbus.  Secondly, the relative complexity of the Great League, involving not one but five separate tribes.  (It would later be expanded to six).  Third, these tribes were not in any sense colonies or former colonies of outside powers.

 

More than three hundred years later, another federation would be formed, this one by people of European descent.  Now, when Madison, perhaps the leading architect of the U.S. Constitution, researched past societies for clues as to how to organize the new federation of thirteen states, he looked to ancient Greece and Rome.  However, it should be remembered that this was in no small part due to the availability of material written in European languages and often translated into English, or at least analyzed by writers who composed their thoughts in English. 

 

Yet, the Great League was a living and breathing example of how smaller entities could federate into effective larger political entities.  This League left relatively few English language descriptions in its wake. Yet, the argument goes, it served both as an example for many of the founding fathers and also a clue as to how to address one of their biggest fears. That being how to preserve democracy at the local level while fostering alliances between locally based polities.

 

In this way, the League preceded the formation of the U.S. system of democracy.  The U.S. system would slowly but surely sweep much of the world, at least in a modified parliamentary form.  Yet, the League was there first.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#16
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,770 posts

In further researching this topic, I came upon this interesting web site:

 


List of pre-Columbian inventions and innovations of indigenous Americans

 

https://en.wikipedia...enous_Americans


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#17
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 604 posts

It is almost amusing to me that left off of the list of sophisticated civilizations of the Americas is the Iroquois.

 

Technically speaking, they weren't civilization. The main criteria of civilization are:

 

1) Agriculture

2) Urban settlements

3) Monumental architecture

4) Writing (or its analogues like Incan quipu)

5) Social inequality

 

From this list, Iroquois had only agriculture. Actually, they were the tribal union that could evolve into early civilization(s), given enough time. If you want an example of North American civilization, here is the better candidate (agriculture + urban settlements + monumental architecture).



#18
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,770 posts

 

The main criteria of civilization are:

 

1) Agriculture

2) Urban settlements

3) Monumental architecture

4) Writing (or its analogues like Incan quipu)

5) Social inequality

 

Then why were the Maya not included in your original post?

 

https://en.wikipedia...ya_civilization

 

They appeared to have all five attributes that you list.

 

Also, their geographic reach may have been quite far:

 

http://www.mayainame...resence-in.html


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#19
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,770 posts

Since PhoenixRiu mentioned the Mississippians as a "better candidate":

 

 

The first feature to be noted is that a new ethnic element intrudes into the Mississippi Valley area at the beginning of Mississippian times. They show traits of their cranial anatomy which resemble Mexicans and Mayans more than the Eastern Woodlands tribes and they tend to be somewhat shorter. They also deform their skulls in the same way as the Mayans do. Yes, they are coneheads. At some Mississippian sites it is difficult to find skulls which were NOT deformed in infancy.

 

The next thing to be noted is that they represent themselves artistically in a manner reminiscent of the Mayans and other South-Mexican cultures, with similar red-pottery figurines:

 

Now as to the pottery which is allegedly just like Mayan Pottery: That part is true also but it does not begin to tell the whoile story. In fact this is something which has been known for a long time and is one of the key features to understanding the Mississippian cultures. In 1928, Dr. G. C. Valiant published Resemblances in Ceramics of Central and North America, after doing a series of investigations in Mexico for the American Museum of Natural History. He had discovered a series of ceramic traits which he called the “Q Complex” for convenience’s sake. He introduced his subject with these words:

 

I shall endeavour to call attention to several curious parallels found mainly in the ceramics of Central America and the Southwestern and Southeastern United States That seem to indicate some sort of a relationship, even taking into account the barrier of five hundred kilometers of archaeologically unknown territory…While the Antillean influence on the far southeastern United States is attributable to direct contact[and known settlements over much of Florida-DD]…The traits existing in the pottery of the Western drainage of the Mississippi and to a lesser degree in Tennessee [and adjoining Georgia and Alabama-DD], however, are of a character that indicates a stronger source of infection than a symbolism brought in perhaps by exiles from another land. In short, in the Western Mississippi valley, there exists apparently some sort of action by one culture upon another.

 

http://mormonunivers...ippian-culture/


  • PhoenixRu likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#20
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 604 posts

Then why were the Maya not included in your original post?

They appeared to have all five attributes that you list.

 

Maya are, of course, the 100% civilization. Believe me, I kept them in mind writing my startpost.

 

As for cultural connections between Maya and Mississipians - why not? They lived relatively close to each other.


  • Erowind likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users