You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Eurocuckistan ago

most of the old ruins scattered across the world are from before the ~12,000bc cataclysm, don't believe any date they put to these structures and their civilizations.

even the Maya's themselves always claimed that they didn't build the structures, they inherited them from previous generations and they always spoke about great cataclysms that engulfed the earth and destroyed pretty much all of it. all old cultures that of this through religion and myths.

Judgejewdy ago

Ok, even still, why couldn’t they advance beyond that if they were around for 13,000 years.... and does that mean the pyramids etc are even older than reported? Or roman aqueducts? Is their lack of advancement bc they had no access to other cultures? (Unlike Europe/Asia/Middle East)? Anyway, I still feel like we’re suppised to be overly impressed with them. Maybe I am if the dates are older. But other than that, big nothing burger.

pauly_pants ago

They did well considering their lack of resources (domesticated beasts of burden) and trading partners. The old world 'began' sooner and had many more nations working on different things and all fighting each other. War is an evolutionary selection pressure on societies. China has a very long history of being a stable unit for lack of a better term. Many more people over a greater amount of time means more discovery, inventions etc. Mayans and Aztecs were much more isolated compared to the old world but managed some respectable achievements.

SpottyMatt ago

Largely this and farming: there's a fascinating book called "Lost City of the Monkey God" which is mostly an archaeological memoir but at the end talks about the extinction of the central American civilizations, in order to give that a fair treatment has to speculate on why they were prime extinction material when the Europeans arrived, which gets into the differences between the great civilizations on the various continents.

Big things central Amerocan civs didn't have:

  • large domestic livestock (cows, oxen, borses, etc)
  • high natural selective pressure: European civilizations were nearby in constant conflict for centuries, honing their competitive edges & eliminating more "chill" groups. The middle American civs were much more separated, because:
  • lack of good /easy transport around the area. Dense, impassable rain forest and incomplete river network. Europe was much more passable with much more coastline which could be used to mitigate impassable land routes.
  • farmland: Jungle is not great for farming as there's not a lot of sun , not a lot of land, and most of the area's nutrition is in the treetrunks, not in the soil. Modern-day rain forest clearing for farming is Less successful than farming in other areas, because of this last reason.
  • Scarcity: Rainforests are lush with plants and animals. This works out well for hunter gatherers. There isn't pressure to optimize, industrialize, specialize, and settle into large civilizations. You can do it, as we saw, but lots of territory full of humans that were not doing it, were also able to survive. Not so in Europe.

Given all that, the growth of the population size and the need to form large civilizations (with accompanying structures) in Central America, is hypothesized to have been on a much slower timetable -if it would've got there at all- than Europe.