What if Horses Never Went Extinct in North America?

[Beleriond]

Without domesticated sheep, horse nomadism would depend on wild bison. It might not be stable enough to be sustainable lifestyle.

It worked well enough for the plains people once colonists reintroduced horses, until the descendants of those colonists decided to wipe out the bison and drive out the native to open up new farmland of course. There are still nomadic groups that live off of herds of wild reindeer.

 

[twovultures]

It worked well enough for the plains people once colonists reintroduced horses, until the descendants of those colonists decided to wipe out the bison and drive out the native to open up new farmland of course.

Like I said upthread, though, there are questions of the sustainability of the buffalo hunt. Pekke Hailaiman goes into some detail in his book on the Comanche. He says that bison hunting was long-term unsustainable as the Plains Indians were practicing it, but they *were* developing techniques to manage the herds and in a world where they weren't selling bison hide to an industrial civilization, they could probably practice the hunt on a sustainable scale. While they conceivably could maintain a society off the hunt, the Plains Indians of TTL will not be able to concentrate in large armies the way the Eurasian nomads could, as without meat/milk livestock they won't be able to run a supply chain.

That may change after Norse contact. Given your POD, at the time of Norse contact there will be long-running butterfly effects from horses, and it is possible that the Norse will trade cows and sheep to Native peoples on the East Coast for horses, with the livestock diffusing westward.

It could change earlier, of course. The survival of horses may result in behavioral changes among North American animals like, say, bighorn sheep that allows them to be domesticated (@Huehuecoyotl did this in his timeline with surviving North American camels). Or, the survival of the horse could come along with other megafauna like the shrub ox, which could be domesticable. Early POD's give a lot of flexibility!

 

[Beleriond]

Like I said upthread, though, there are questions of the sustainability of the buffalo hunt. Pekke Hailaiman goes into some detail in his book on the Comanche. He says that bison hunting was long-term unsustainable as the Plains Indians were practicing it, but they *were* developing techniques to manage the herds and in a world where they weren't selling bison hide to an industrial civilization, they could probably practice the hunt on a sustainable scale. While they conceivably could maintain a society off the hunt, the Plains Indians of TTL will not be able to concentrate in large armies the way the Eurasian nomads could, as without meat/milk livestock they won't be able to run a supply chain.

Remember that these nomads won't be isolated. They will almost certainly trade with agriculturalists along the Mississippi and on the west coast for supplemental resources. Bison hide, meat, and bones would be quite valuable.

That may change after Norse contact. Given your POD, at the time of Norse contact there will be long-running butterfly effects from horses, and it is possible that the Norse will trade cows and sheep to Native peoples on the East Coast for horses, with the livestock diffusing westward.

Ah, so you also thought of Leif Erikson. I admit my thoughts went more in the direction of the natives learning about ironworking and shipbuilding, but some livestock trade is possible.

It could change earlier, of course. The survival of horses may result in behavioral changes among North American animals like, say, bighorn sheep that allows them to be domesticated (@Huehuecoyotl did this in his timeline with surviving North American camels). Or, the survival of the horse could come along with other megafauna like the shrub ox, which could be domesticable. Early POD's give a lot of flexibility!

I've already mentioned Peccaries being imported from South America, but maybe some other domesticated animals would be possible. I did want to keep the change fairly simple, but the butterfly effect makes all things possible. Llamas and Alpacas may also be imported. Horses would dramatically increase the range of trading expeditions, so this seems quite likely.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Other areas which would see an early rise in developed agriculture would likely be the Rio Grande, Great Lakes (Which could easily connect with the map above), California's Central Valley, the Salish Sea, and the Colorado River Delta.

Problem with maize-based agriculture expanding westward is that it's very water hungry, and this is a huge problem in California where it requires irrigation to survive the rainless summers. That is why it never spread there OTL--there was too much complexity that needed to be transmitted. Incidentally, many Puebloans (and related cultures) were dryland farmers who did not use irrigation to begin with. Another issue is that the Central Valley floods completely every 200 years because of atmospheric rivers. Everything near the two major rivers is totally wiped out, as it was during the one historically recorded example when all of Sacramento was under at least 10 feet of water.

Note that the Pacific Northwest is similar in this regards. The Seattle area gets a similar amount of summer rain as major Puebloan centers like Chaco Canyon receive (and Vancouver not much more), the Willamette Valley gets less, and the eastern parts of WA/OR get far less. Maize evolved in a hot, wet climate, hence why it thrives well in humid regions like the US South, although it took centuries of selective breeding to tolerate the shorter growing seasons of the Upper South, Midwest, and Northeast. Apparently maize agriculture was too precarious in the West to bother much with selective breeding and during the Little Ice Age it collapsed in Utah (and attempts to spread it to Idaho in the 10th-11th centuries seem to have failed utterly).

I don't see why the Salish Sea is particularly special in that area. In that region, the area most conducive to a true civilisation is the Columbia Plateau because the area requires largescale cooperation in building irrigation networks to farm the dry area (it gets about 30-50% as much summer rain as New Mexico). But the soil is fertile and because of dramatic changes in topography in a short distance, it's conducive for largescale trade networks--timber from the mountains, obsidian from central Oregon (is archaeologically known from vast distances), seal/whale from the coast. The area near the modern city of The Dalles in Oregon was for 9,000 years a major Indian trading center that attracted thousands of visitors during certain trade fairs.

That's not to say it couldn't work, but it would be a much slower developing area, and I give it about a 50/50 chance the Columbia Plateau east of The Dalles and adjacent parts of South Oregon would be a "steppe culture" area. The natives there were heavily influenced by Plains Indian culture by the 19th century and whites used it almost entirely as ranching lands until the funding for irrigation took off in the early 20th century (aided especially by the dams on the Columbia River).

From what little we know of the Mound_Builders this may have been the case in OTL as well.

They were not true state societies but what anthropologists term "chiefdoms", and sometimes not even that since plenty of settlements function as totally autonomous towns and villages only loosely bound to a larger center. Regions within the Mississippian world also weren't very well-linked since barring a few luxury goods and preferred sorts of stone (i.e. Dover chert), they mostly produced what they needed locally.

It worked well enough for the plains people once colonists reintroduced horses, until the descendants of those colonists decided to wipe out the bison and drive out the native to open up new farmland of course. There are still nomadic groups that live off of herds of wild reindeer.

Bison numbers were constantly declining and famine became increasingly common as the 19th century went on, and this was because horse numbers were increasing and competing with bison for resources along with growing demand among whites for bison meat and bison robes. It is likely the bison decline would have been far more quick had the Indian population itself not been constantly declining from generational epidemics and warfare (both inter-Indian warfare and warfare against white settlers). Note that bison themselves were only so common because horses and other megafauna were once their main competitor.

 

[Dave Howery]

Note: I am not including the Inca as they were from South America and they did have access to easily domesticated animals such as Llamas, Alpacas, and Peccaries.

can peccaries be domesticated? Never read of anyone doing that.
the subject of 'Native Americans domesticating horses that never died out' has come up on here before, and I'd point out that if it happened, the horse would basically be everything to them, as it's the one big native animal they have, the rest not being so suited to it. So the horse could be used for riding, hauling/pulling, and food all at once. If bison hunting isn't sustainable, they can eat the horses.
As for 'could they be domesticated'... well, it seems it's about a 50/50 chance, based on what we saw in the Old World. Horse were domesticated, zebras weren't. Among the wild burros, donkeys were domesticated and onagers weren't. How many species of horses were around in NA before they went extinct?

 

[Beleriond]

Problem with maize-based agriculture expanding westward is that it's very water hungry, and this is a huge problem in California where it requires irrigation to survive the rainless summers. That is why it never spread there OTL--there was too much complexity that needed to be transmitted. Incidentally, many Puebloans (and related cultures) were dryland farmers who did not use irrigation to begin with. Another issue is that the Central Valley floods completely every 200 years because of atmospheric rivers. Everything near the two major rivers is totally wiped out, as it was during the one historically recorded example when all of Sacramento was under at least 10 feet of water.

Note that the Pacific Northwest is similar in this regards. The Seattle area gets a similar amount of summer rain as major Puebloan centers like Chaco Canyon receive (and Vancouver not much more), the Willamette Valley gets less, and the eastern parts of WA/OR get far less. Maize evolved in a hot, wet climate, hence why it thrives well in humid regions like the US South, although it took centuries of selective breeding to tolerate the shorter growing seasons of the Upper South, Midwest, and Northeast. Apparently maize agriculture was too precarious in the West to bother much with selective breeding and during the Little Ice Age it collapsed in Utah (and attempts to spread it to Idaho in the 10th-11th centuries seem to have failed utterly).

I don't see why the Salish Sea is particularly special in that area. In that region, the area most conducive to a true civilisation is the Columbia Plateau because the area requires largescale cooperation in building irrigation networks to farm the dry area (it gets about 30-50% as much summer rain as New Mexico). But the soil is fertile and because of dramatic changes in topography in a short distance, it's conducive for largescale trade networks--timber from the mountains, obsidian from central Oregon (is archaeologically known from vast distances), seal/whale from the coast. The area near the modern city of The Dalles in Oregon was for 9,000 years a major Indian trading center that attracted thousands of visitors during certain trade fairs.

That's not to say it couldn't work, but it would be a much slower developing area, and I give it about a 50/50 chance the Columbia Plateau east of The Dalles and adjacent parts of South Oregon would be a "steppe culture" area. The natives there were heavily influenced by Plains Indian culture by the 19th century and whites used it almost entirely as ranching lands until the funding for irrigation took off in the early 20th century (aided especially by the dams on the Columbia River).

Okay, the point about corn has been brought up before. First, I never said that they would necessarily grow corn. There are lots of crops in the new world; legumes, root vegetables, gourds, fruits, nuts, etc. Second, I specifically mentioned the central valley when talking about California as it is a river basin with enough water to support a pre-industrialized city state, or several. I am also aware of the flooding problem, and I never said that the culture would last long. 200 years is still 10 generations.

I would answer similarly for the Salish Sea area; recommending the use of different crops and sticking close to the major rivers for water. Remember that this is an alternate timeline where trade and transport are much easier, so finding drought or cold resistant crops would be a lot easier and likely happen sooner.

I was counting the Columbia Plateau as being part of the greater Salish Sea area, similar to how the Great Lakes would be interconnected with the Mississippi.

They were not true state societies but what anthropologists term "chiefdoms", and sometimes not even that since plenty of settlements function as totally autonomous towns and villages only loosely bound to a larger center. Regions within the Mississippian world also weren't very well-linked since barring a few luxury goods and preferred sorts of stone (i.e. Dover chert), they mostly produced what they needed locally.

Not true state societies, maybe. You know that a lot of what we know about them is from guessing, or good old fashioned (racist) archeology right? The point 5 is a direct quote I grant you, but it is immediately followed by others (6-8) which imply a much more advanced social network. Point 4 is a direct refutation of your comment about them not being very well linked.

A number of cultural traits are recognized as being characteristic of the Mississippians. Although not all Mississippian peoples practiced all of the following activities, they were distinct from their ancestors in the adoption of some or all of these traits.

1. The construction of large, truncated earthwork pyramid mounds, or platform mounds. Such mounds were usually square, rectangular, or occasionally circular. Structures (domestic houses, temples, burial buildings, or other) were usually constructed atop such mounds.
2. Maize-based agriculture. In most places, the development of Mississippian culture coincided with the adoption of comparatively large-scale, intensive maize agriculture, which supported larger populations and craft specialization.
3. Shell-tempered pottery. The adoption and use of riverine (or more rarely marine) shells as tempering agents in ceramics.
4. Widespread trade networks extending as far west as the Rocky Mountains, north to the Great Lakes, south to the Gulf of Mexico, and east to the Atlantic Ocean.
5. The development of the chiefdom or complex chiefdom level of social complexity.
6. The development of institutionalized social inequality.
7. A centralization of control of combined political and religious power in the hands of few or one.
8. The beginnings of a settlement hierarchy, in which one major center (with mounds) has clear influence or control over a number of lesser communities, which may or may not possess a smaller number of mounds.
9. The adoption of the paraphernalia of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC), also called the Southern Cult. This is the belief system of the Mississippians as we know it. SECC items are found in Mississippian-culture sites from Wisconsin (see Aztalan State Park) to the Gulf Coast, and from Florida to Arkansas and Oklahoma. The SECC was frequently tied into ritual game-playing, as with chunkey.

The Mississippians had no writing system or stone architecture. They worked naturally occurring metal deposits, such as hammering and annealing copper for ritual objects such as Mississippian copper plates and other decorations,[6]but did not smelt iron or practice bronze metallurgy.

Bison numbers were constantly declining and famine became increasingly common as the 19th century went on, and this was because horse numbers were increasing and competing with bison for resources along with growing demand among whites for bison meat and bison robes. It is likely the bison decline would have been far more quick had the Indian population itself not been constantly declining from generational epidemics and warfare (both inter-Indian warfare and warfare against white settlers). Note that bison themselves were only so common because horses and other megafauna were once their main competitor.

True, however this is a world where those bison hunters wouldn't have to fight off white settlers armed with guns. It's likely that without the extermination campaign practiced by the US and Canada, they would have become more protective of their herds, finding a way to balance them out.

 

[Beleriond]

can peccaries be domesticated? Never read of anyone doing that.

Yes. The Mayans kept herds of Peccaries used for rituals and food. Today, some people still keep them as pets or raise them for food.

the subject of 'Native Americans domesticating horses that never died out' has come up on here before, and I'd point out that if it happened, the horse would basically be everything to them, as it's the one big native animal they have, the rest not being so suited to it. So the horse could be used for riding, hauling/pulling, and food all at once. If bison hunting isn't sustainable, they can eat the horses.
As for 'could they be domesticated'... well, it seems it's about a 50/50 chance, based on what we saw in the Old World. Horse were domesticated, zebras weren't. Among the wild burros, donkeys were domesticated and onagers weren't. How many species of horses were around in NA before they went extinct?

First, Zebras are much more closely related to donkeys and onagers than horses. Their angry and skittish nature is the main reason they were never domesticated. Same with Onagers. Donkeys barely pass.

I could see the horse being slaughtered for food. Lots of people have done that throughout history, but they really don't taste as good compared to other animals and it is a waste to kill a good horse. It's more likely that they would prefer to manage herds of bison for food, only slaughtering horses when they are desperate.

North America is the original homeland of horses, so they would have had much more genetic diversity there than on the Eurasian Steppe.

 

[Dave Howery]

Yes. The Mayans kept herds of Peccaries used for rituals and food. Today, some people still keep them as pets or raise them for food.

okay, hadn't read that. Were they truly domesticated like boars/pigs, or just confined and slaughtered when needed?

I could see the horse being slaughtered for food. Lots of people have done that throughout history, but they really don't taste as good compared to other animals and it is a waste to kill a good horse. It's more likely that they would prefer to manage herds of bison for food, only slaughtering horses when they are desperate.

If the horse is the only big domesticate they have though, I'd think 'reliable food source' would be a big role for them. True, bison would continue to be hunted, but relying on any wild animal food source is a bit iffy though....

 

[Beleriond]

okay, hadn't read that. Were they truly domesticated like boars/pigs, or just confined and slaughtered when needed?

Debatable. They are some of the closest living relatives of domesticated pigs, and even domesticated pigs can easily revert to wild boars.

If the horse is the only big domesticate they have though, I'd think 'reliable food source' would be a big role for them. True, bison would continue to be hunted, but relying on any wild animal food source is a bit iffy though....

True. I have also mentioned the peccaries or importing other animals like ducks, turkeys, llamas and alpacas. Some native cultures raised capybaras, chinchillas, guinea pigs, and dogs, among other animals for food. They would also continue to fish, hunt, and farm.

 

[Dave Howery]

True. I have also mentioned the peccaries or importing other animals like ducks, turkeys, llamas and alpacas. Some native cultures raised capybaras, chinchillas, guinea pigs, and dogs, among other animals for food. They would also continue to fish, hunt, and farm.

having other animals for food would seem to depend a lot on just how settled they get to be. As noted earlier in the thread, maize would be hard to grow in a lot of places in the west due to lack of water, and there's not really a good substitute waiting in the ranks for it. Still, they could grow a lot of other things, and a farm package of 'other things' and horses might be enough to get them to settle in permanent places, with hunting and fishing being a part of their livelihood. If they are settled, then bringing in and confining peccaries, ducks, etc. would definitely be in the works. I wonder how hard it would be to get critters from S. America to N. America (and vise versa) due to that narrow jungle/mountain belt between the two...

 

[Beleriond]

having other animals for food would seem to depend a lot on just how settled they get to be. As noted earlier in the thread, maize would be hard to grow in a lot of places in the west due to lack of water, and there's not really a good substitute waiting in the ranks for it. Still, they could grow a lot of other things, and a farm package of 'other things' and horses might be enough to get them to settle in permanent places, with hunting and fishing being a part of their livelihood. If they are settled, then bringing in and confining peccaries, ducks, etc. would definitely be in the works. I wonder how hard it would be to get critters from S. America to N. America (and vise versa) due to that narrow jungle/mountain belt between the two...

Fair. I am assuming that the Mississippian culture imports those animals first. The California settlement could also just be built around trade with gold being sold in large quantities to the Mississippian culture. It would be a lot easier to transport crops and animals with horses. They can carry or pull much heavier loads, and can herd other animals.

 

[Dave Howery]

Fair. I am assuming that the Mississippian culture imports those animals first. The California settlement could also just be built around trade with gold being sold in large quantities to the Mississippian culture. It would be a lot easier to transport crops and animals with horses. They can carry or pull much heavier loads, and can herd other animals.

now, that seems likely.... settling down starting in the better watered areas and spreading out into less suitable areas with modifications to the crop package. Which brings up the question of just which native plants would grow well in the dryer areas of the west...

 

[Beleriond]

now, that seems likely.... settling down starting in the better watered areas and spreading out into less suitable areas with modifications to the crop package. Which brings up the question of just which native plants would grow well in the dryer areas of the west...

Some species of beans, Agave, Little Barley, a few others.

 

[Beleriond]

I think it would be very interesting if the Mississippian culture kept matrilineal inheritance like many native tribes in the area. Men would still fill many roles in things like warfare, hunting, trading, animal husbandry, etc., but land and property would be passed down the female line.

It's certainly simpler than the patrilineal traditions of some cultures. Pretty difficult to question the maternity of a baby compared to the paternity. This may even reduce or eliminate the stigmas around children born out of wedlock.

Men would also be able to pass on their leadership positions to a worthy successor by selecting a husband for their daughters instead of playing the genetic lottery.

I just think it would have very interesting implications for societal development.

 

[Beleriond]

I can kind of see how my last post might seem like an argument trap, and I apologize for that. It was not my intention to start a major argument.

Instead, how about a rough timeline for development in North America.

As with OTL, farming begins in Mexico and along the Rio Grande about 10,000-9,000 BCE using wild squash. Over the next few thousand years, multiple plant species including beans, tomatoes, peanuts, coca, little barley and others are domesticated.

The change happens at about 6,000 BC with the domestication of the horse by nomadic hunters of the Great Plains. This is 2,000 years earlier than it happened on the Eurasian Steppe, but South Americans had already begun domesticating llamas, alpacas, and guinea pigs by 7,000 BC.

These nomads begin to expand their territory, using their mounts to travel long distances, herd the wild bison, and carry trade goods.

Within a few generations, they begin raising the agricultural settlements along the Mississippi and Rio Grande.

Through contact, violent or peaceful, horses spread to the early agriculturalists, who use them as draft animals. It is probable that a noble equestrian warrior class would have evolved by this point, likely the descendants of conquering nomads.

 

[Talus I of Dixie]

First, thank you for your patience on this. I had a very busy weekend, and it took a while to formulate a reply. I do love your attention to detail and obvious passion on this topic, but it was a bit like reading an essay.

No problem, now i guess it's me that must thank you in turn, after all i had a very busy week-start and didn't show up in the forum at all until now , i do apologize for the essay-like text, i got out of hand there somewhere (noticed halfway through i was a hour and half writing).

I do note that Khazaria was not entirely nomadic as they did have several developed settlements and they were succeeded by the Kievan-Rus, who began building larger permanent settlements, increases agricultural production, and improving trade through the region. This points to both the Khazars and the Kievan Run shifting towards a more settled society because of the increasing trade in the region.

I think it's a fair notation, but also part of what i followed back in the post you replied about how nomads need trade, contrary to popular belief, it's almost impossible for any nomad-based state to survive solely on having nomadic populations under its belt, it needs sedentary towns to produce key products if it wants not to be in the Stone Age technologically. It just so happens that Khazaria was in the middle of the busiest landway of the richest trade route in the World at its time, so this category blows up to eleven, but it's not quite that trade encourages agriculture as much as trade encourages people, and people who trade usually have to do it somewhere, and then you have cities, and cities need to be fed, so at least low-scale agriculture is done by some peoples under nomadic control in order to trade go fluidly - Almost a circle event.

I do agree that there would still be a significant nomad culture to the north and west. I think it isn't unreasonable that these nomads may have domesticated horses much earlier than their Eurasian counterparts. Remember that this is an ATL where horses with stronger backbones evolved before they left North America. Sheep and Pigs were both domesticated at around the same time agriculture started, so horses being domesticated around 8500 BCE, the same time as aurochs in Eurasia. Necessity brings innovation, so if the only domesticable animal you have is a horse... maybe an early start for them.

I have toyed a bit with the idea, and i think it's solid. Horses surviving in the Americas probably would result in an earlier (than in Eurasia) domestication of the animals, because it would be the most natural domesticate in an area expanse that would feature a lot of people, although i think 8500 BCE is a bit early if i'm to be honest, a little later than the llama perhaps would be better (IIRC it was around 7500 BCE, but i could be wrong, ain't checking it right now), so a date of around 6000-5000 BCE would fit best, for one, it would be quite a lot of time for the horse to spread domestically.

Does the above timeline sound more realistic?

It does, although my problem with your earlier statements weren't much about realism per se, but about some pointed flaws in conceptualization. As we can attest after seeing how much we agree on stuff, it was mostly about the process than the ends.

Other disruptions-for example, slave raiders on horseback-will force hunter-gatherers to change their behaviors and culture, and so contribute to agriculture being adapted where it wasn't IOTL.

I can actually speak upon this on eurasian experience, well, the reactions to "hey we're being attacked by the people with the horses" by still hunter-gatherers was usually to try and adopt the horse too, because well, they're as nomadic as the horse people, they're just...Horseless.

Being raided by horsemen usually disencourages sedentarism more than it encourages, mostly because staying still and farming makes you a certified top target. If you're already a farmer, of course this won't make you stop farming immediately, but if you're still a hunter-gatherer, this may just disencourage further from transitioning to farming. But in this situation, i think that the mathematical two negatives make a positive, because it means that any hunter-gatherer group that does not adopt horsing is doomed to be sidelined into marginal lands in the hills, where, well, do they have any option other than agriculture? They might die elsewise if their hunt-gather range is sufficiently small. Then you could see a Papuan-like spread of agriculture from the hills to the plains as the hill people (that eventually do get to adopt the horse) overpopulate and migrate towards the valleys.

Without domesticated sheep, horse nomadism would depend on wild bison. It might not be stable enough to be sustainable lifestyle.

I believe that horse domestication in the Americas would probably tag-along (not necessarily directly, but there's @Huehuecoyotl 's timeline where a camelid caused it directly) sheep-like, or else, herd-like domesticates for its users, maybe even the bison itself. Mostly because i believe that domestication is kind of a exponential game, you get to domesticate "naturally" some grazers that get symbiotic with humans, then your people actually conceptualize domestication, and now you have the push to specifically go after domesticating animals, which i might say, can be way more simpler than expected (you just have to breed out wild traits in a controlled population) or way more difficult/complex than expected (different animals have different breeding time, practices, you might want to breed different aspects for different animals, etc...).

It's certainly simpler than the patrilineal traditions of some cultures. Pretty difficult to question the maternity of a baby compared to the paternity. This may even reduce or eliminate the stigmas around children born out of wedlock.

Men would also be able to pass on their leadership positions to a worthy successor by selecting a husband for their daughters instead of playing the genetic lottery.

I actually think this is an interesting point, i've seen the "matrilineal lines are better because you can't disprove motherhood" argument before, but when you think about how this would fit a true, state-level modern society, you start shooting for examples and, uh, it's kinda hard, our best reflexes IIRC are some austronesian and african cultures (that if i remember well, do in some cases have the "reduced stigma around children born out of wedlock", but i could be talking shit, not my field at all), i also am quite the believer that it could be the case in Minoan Greece, not only from the archaeological record but also by what can be glossed from greek myth. The thing is, none of these both left extensive records while at the same time reaching the level of a uber-complex state society, so it is enticing.

As with OTL, farming begins in Mexico and along the Rio Grande about 10,000-9,000 BCE using wild squash. Over the next few thousand years, multiple plant species including beans, tomatoes, peanuts, coca, little barley and others are domesticated.

The change happens at about 6,000 BC with the domestication of the horse by nomadic hunters of the Great Plains. This is 2,000 years earlier than it happened on the Eurasian Steppe, but South Americans had already begun domesticating llamas, alpacas, and guinea pigs by 7,000 BC.

These nomads begin to expand their territory, using their mounts to travel long distances, herd the wild bison, and carry trade goods.

Within a few generations, they begin raising the agricultural settlements along the Mississippi and Rio Grande.

Through contact, violent or peaceful, horses spread to the early agriculturalists, who use them as draft animals. It is probable that a noble equestrian warrior class would have evolved by this point, likely the descendants of conquering nomads.

I find this timeline acceptable, on a first view at least, out of curiosity though, what is up with agriculture in the Rio Grande? I ain't quite acquainted with the region's history, so my knowledge is mostly based upon the fact that post-contact the estuary's inhabitants were hunter-gatherers.

 

[jacob ningen]

No problem, now i guess it's me that must thank you in turn, after all i had a very busy week-start and didn't show up in the forum at all until now , i do apologize for the essay-like text, i got out of hand there somewhere (noticed halfway through i was a hour and half writing).

I think it's a fair notation, but also part of what i followed back in the post you replied about how nomads need trade, contrary to popular belief, it's almost impossible for any nomad-based state to survive solely on having nomadic populations under its belt, it needs sedentary towns to produce key products if it wants not to be in the Stone Age technologically. It just so happens that Khazaria was in the middle of the busiest landway of the richest trade route in the World at its time, so this category blows up to eleven, but it's not quite that trade encourages agriculture as much as trade encourages people, and people who trade usually have to do it somewhere, and then you have cities, and cities need to be fed, so at least low-scale agriculture is done by some peoples under nomadic control in order to trade go fluidly - Almost a circle event.

I have toyed a bit with the idea, and i think it's solid. Horses surviving in the Americas probably would result in an earlier (than in Eurasia) domestication of the animals, because it would be the most natural domesticate in an area expanse that would feature a lot of people, although i think 8500 BCE is a bit early if i'm to be honest, a little later than the llama perhaps would be better (IIRC it was around 7500 BCE, but i could be wrong, ain't checking it right now), so a date of around 6000-5000 BCE would fit best, for one, it would be quite a lot of time for the horse to spread domestically.

It does, although my problem with your earlier statements weren't much about realism per se, but about some pointed flaws in conceptualization. As we can attest after seeing how much we agree on stuff, it was mostly about the process than the ends.

I can actually speak upon this on eurasian experience, well, the reactions to "hey we're being attacked by the people with the horses" by still hunter-gatherers was usually to try and adopt the horse too, because well, they're as nomadic as the horse people, they're just...Horseless.

Being raided by horsemen usually disencourages sedentarism more than it encourages, mostly because staying still and farming makes you a certified top target. If you're already a farmer, of course this won't make you stop farming immediately, but if you're still a hunter-gatherer, this may just disencourage further from transitioning to farming. But in this situation, i think that the mathematical two negatives make a positive, because it means that any hunter-gatherer group that does not adopt horsing is doomed to be sidelined into marginal lands in the hills, where, well, do they have any option other than agriculture? They might die elsewise if their hunt-gather range is sufficiently small. Then you could see a Papuan-like spread of agriculture from the hills to the plains as the hill people (that eventually do get to adopt the horse) overpopulate and migrate towards the valleys.

I believe that horse domestication in the Americas would probably tag-along (not necessarily directly, but there's @Huehuecoyotl 's timeline where a camelid caused it directly) sheep-like, or else, herd-like domesticates for its users, maybe even the bison itself. Mostly because i believe that domestication is kind of a exponential game, you get to domesticate "naturally" some grazers that get symbiotic with humans, then your people actually conceptualize domestication, and now you have the push to specifically go after domesticating animals, which i might say, can be way more simpler than expected (you just have to breed out wild traits in a controlled population) or way more difficult/complex than expected (different animals have different breeding time, practices, you might want to breed different aspects for different animals, etc...).

I actually think this is an interesting point, i've seen the "matrilineal lines are better because you can't disprove motherhood" argument before, but when you think about how this would fit a true, state-level modern society, you start shooting for examples and, uh, it's kinda hard, our best reflexes IIRC are some austronesian and african cultures (that if i remember well, do in some cases have the "reduced stigma around children born out of wedlock", but i could be talking shit, not my field at all), i also am quite the believer that it could be the case in Minoan Greece, not only from the archaeological record but also by what can be glossed from greek myth. The thing is, none of these both left extensive records while at the same time reaching the level of a uber-complex state society, so it is enticing.

I find this timeline acceptable, on a first view at least, out of curiosity though, what is up with agriculture in the Rio Grande? I ain't quite acquainted with the region's history, so my knowledge is mostly based upon the fact that post-contact the estuary's inhabitants were hunter-gatherers.

the Iroquoius IIRC had a matrilineal control of men holding positions but the women nominated and could recall the representatives and officials.

 

[Beleriond]

No problem, now i guess it's me that must thank you in turn, after all i had a very busy week-start and didn't show up in the forum at all until now , i do apologize for the essay-like text, i got out of hand there somewhere (noticed halfway through i was a hour and half writing).

I think it's a fair notation, but also part of what i followed back in the post you replied about how nomads need trade, contrary to popular belief, it's almost impossible for any nomad-based state to survive solely on having nomadic populations under its belt, it needs sedentary towns to produce key products if it wants not to be in the Stone Age technologically. It just so happens that Khazaria was in the middle of the busiest landway of the richest trade route in the World at its time, so this category blows up to eleven, but it's not quite that trade encourages agriculture as much as trade encourages people, and people who trade usually have to do it somewhere, and then you have cities, and cities need to be fed, so at least low-scale agriculture is done by some peoples under nomadic control in order to trade go fluidly - Almost a circle event.

I think that's a fair assessment.

I have toyed a bit with the idea, and i think it's solid. Horses surviving in the Americas probably would result in an earlier (than in Eurasia) domestication of the animals, because it would be the most natural domesticate in an area expanse that would feature a lot of people, although i think 8500 BCE is a bit early if i'm to be honest, a little later than the llama perhaps would be better (IIRC it was around 7500 BCE, but i could be wrong, ain't checking it right now), so a date of around 6000-5000 BCE would fit best, for one, it would be quite a lot of time for the horse to spread domestically.

I did revise the timeline to have them domesticated around 6000 BCE, so seems we agree.

I can actually speak upon this on eurasian experience, well, the reactions to "hey we're being attacked by the people with the horses" by still hunter-gatherers was usually to try and adopt the horse too, because well, they're as nomadic as the horse people, they're just...Horseless.

True. Any other tribes that saw horse riders would probably sneak into their camp at night to try and steal them.

Being raided by horsemen usually disencourages sedentarism more than it encourages, mostly because staying still and farming makes you a certified top target. If you're already a farmer, of course this won't make you stop farming immediately, but if you're still a hunter-gatherer, this may just disencourage further from transitioning to farming. But in this situation, i think that the mathematical two negatives make a positive, because it means that any hunter-gatherer group that does not adopt horsing is doomed to be sidelined into marginal lands in the hills, where, well, do they have any option other than agriculture? They might die elsewise if their hunt-gather range is sufficiently small. Then you could see a Papuan-like spread of agriculture from the hills to the plains as the hill people (that eventually do get to adopt the horse) overpopulate and migrate towards the valleys.

That sounds very plausible. Another direction is the equestrian nobility I mentioned before where one group of nomads offers protection from others in exchange for goods and services from the agriculturalists.

I believe that horse domestication in the Americas would probably tag-along (not necessarily directly, but there's @Huehuecoyotl 's timeline where a camelid caused it directly) sheep-like, or else, herd-like domesticates for its users, maybe even the bison itself. Mostly because i believe that domestication is kind of a exponential game, you get to domesticate "naturally" some grazers that get symbiotic with humans, then your people actually conceptualize domestication, and now you have the push to specifically go after domesticating animals, which i might say, can be way more simpler than expected (you just have to breed out wild traits in a controlled population) or way more difficult/complex than expected (different animals have different breeding time, practices, you might want to breed different aspects for different animals, etc...).

Ranching giants herds of Alpacas across the great plains is definitely possible. I do think that Bison would still have a place though as their meat, horns, and hides would be individually much more valuable as luxury items.

I actually think this is an interesting point, i've seen the "matrilineal lines are better because you can't disprove motherhood" argument before, but when you think about how this would fit a true, state-level modern society, you start shooting for examples and, uh, it's kinda hard, our best reflexes IIRC are some austronesian and african cultures (that if i remember well, do in some cases have the "reduced stigma around children born out of wedlock", but i could be talking shit, not my field at all), i also am quite the believer that it could be the case in Minoan Greece, not only from the archaeological record but also by what can be glossed from greek myth. The thing is, none of these both left extensive records while at the same time reaching the level of a uber-complex state society, so it is enticing.

I'm not suggesting anything insane like totally switching gender roles, but women having more say in terms of land and property, or agriculture could be interesting. I agree with you on the Minoans.

I find this timeline acceptable, on a first view at least, out of curiosity though, what is up with agriculture in the Rio Grande? I ain't quite acquainted with the region's history, so my knowledge is mostly based upon the fact that post-contact the estuary's inhabitants were hunter-gatherers.

From what I've read, the earliest evidence of agriculture in North America is that of cultivated squash along the Rio Grande and some valleys in northern Mexico. Keep in mind that initial contact with Europeans almost immediately began spreading diseases which wiped out most of the native population. By the time the Rio Grande was catalogued by the conquistadors, diseases like small pox were already ravaging the population. In fact, between Hernando De Soto's expedition into North America and when the British first landed, 80-90% (very rough estimate) of the native population had been wiped out, with much of the rest displaced or degenerated due to cultural loss.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Okay, the point about corn has been brought up before. First, I never said that they would necessarily grow corn. There are lots of crops in the new world; legumes, root vegetables, gourds, fruits, nuts, etc. Second, I specifically mentioned the central valley when talking about California as it is a river basin with enough water to support a pre-industrialized city state, or several. I am also aware of the flooding problem, and I never said that the culture would last long. 200 years is still 10 generations.

I am aware and I am just basing this on Puebloan agriculture, which is the only dryland farming known in the area of the modern US (and similar to that of northern Mexico). The crops grown by the Puebloans were generally in a precarious situation due to the danger of getting too little rain, or getting too much rain and the rain destroying the simple Puebloan irrigation system or causing excessive erosion/arroyo cutting. That is why agriculture would be slower to spread to the West Coast, horses or no horses, unless the arrival of horses causes the domestication of a useful crop adapted to the West Coast's dry summers such as camas, a Lomatium, wapato, etc.

I would answer similarly for the Salish Sea area; recommending the use of different crops and sticking close to the major rivers for water. Remember that this is an alternate timeline where trade and transport are much easier, so finding drought or cold resistant crops would be a lot easier and likely happen sooner.

I find that plausible as well,

I was counting the Columbia Plateau as being part of the greater Salish Sea area, similar to how the Great Lakes would be interconnected with the Mississippi.

The Great Lakes and the rest of the Mississippi Basin didn't share too much in common for thousands of years of American prehistory, nor did the Columbia Plateau with the coastal areas. Yes, there was influence--Mississippian traits influenced Great Lakes societies just as Coast Salish, Tsimshians, etc. influenced Interior Salish and Athabaskans, but they were hardly similar in other regards, including lifestyle. The "cultural areas" of North America defined by Alfred Kroeber and revised over the decades (and used by the Smithsonian in their late 20th century Handbook of North American Indians series) is a reasonable guide, and since they correlate to local climate and geography, they would equally apply to more complex, agricultural, and pastoralist groups.

Not true state societies, maybe. You know that a lot of what we know about them is from guessing, or good old fashioned (racist) archeology right? The point 5 is a direct quote I grant you, but it is immediately followed by others (6-8) which imply a much more advanced social network. Point 4 is a direct refutation of your comment about them not being very well linked.

I suggest reading Mississippian Political Economy, a late 1990s study of the economics of Mississippian civilisation. It is clear that even though those trade networks existed, they were not widely used and Mississippian towns produced almost all of what they needed locally. The goods they imported and exported were usually luxury goods meant for religion or to demonstrate hierarchy. There is little evidence there existed specialist classes of artisans or merchants.

Those traits you mentioned are also found in the historic societies of the Southeast such as the Creek or the Cherokee. I find it dubious to call either of them (or any Southeastern Indian group) state societies before their utter transformation caused by adoption of European customs and the wealth brought by trade with Europeans. That isn't to say they were primitive or weren't grouped into strong confederations, but it is the same reason I wouldn't call, say, Arminius's confederation of Germanic tribes a state society. In truth, the large confederations encountered by De Soto were akin to the Creek or Cherokee, just more numerous demographically, and the same can be said about archaeologically known sites like Cahokia.

I would hardly say any of this is any more guesswork than most archaeology, and there is nothing racist about it. There is a tendency to assert much larger or more complex societies in the South than actually existed--this was common in the 60s-80s and still has advocates like Timothy Pauketat (the source of many exaggerated claims of Cahokia). I think this is both good and bad, in that while it gets people interested (and hence brings more money and attention to studying the precolonial past), there are implications related to the historic sentiment that the American Indians of the South encountered by colonists were "decayed" from some glorious past.

True, however this is a world where those bison hunters wouldn't have to fight off white settlers armed with guns. It's likely that without the extermination campaign practiced by the US, they would have become more protective of their herds, finding a way to balance them out.

Plains Indians did not have herds and considered bison to be a never-ending resource gifted to them by divinities provided their conduct was correct. They did not have a mindset for understanding the ecology of the bison, because they never had to develop such mindset as before they obtained horses they couldn't possibly kill enough bison to make a dfference. It was different from how they approached other resources they used, or how other tribes centered on certain resources (i.e. Pacific Northwest Indians and salmon or seals) acted toward these.

Had they obtained horses, this would be quite a different matter. Even if they never domesticated bison, they'd have a better clue on how to properly manage resources due to centuries of trial and error.

 

[Kushim]

Could cause a domino effect to domesticate herded animals like reindeer