Why NOT in America?

[Rokcet Scientist]

Exactly: "special occassions".
I.o.w. 'chicha' is not the omnipresent, everyday drink of the masses, like beer was/is in the old world.

R/S, you misquoted me. I said that "we" drank chicha on special occasions, the "we" being my father-in-law and myself. Chicha is the drink of the masses in Peru and Bolivia. It is their equivalent of beer in Europe, and was so prior to the conquest.

OK, thanks for correcting that, Cognito. I learn something new everyday. But that was South America. Afaik there is/was nothing similar in North America. Which, by the way, also says a lot, afaic, about the intensity of trade and contact between North and South America: ZILCH!
BTW, "beer" is not particularly European. Asians and Africans have beer, know beer, and brew beer too (with a vengeance, to be sure!). And they already did so, millennia before contact with Europe.

For good measure: I recommend you don't try it... at least not African home brew beer (which everybody brews themselves). I did (lived there for 3 years), and I thought I was going to die. Never in my life did I taste anything as gross as that. If they had told me it was the contents of somebody's stomach I would have believed it... YECK!
However, the only thing that proves is that liking beer (or anything really) is an acquired taste. You can learn to like it. They did. They love that stuff!

[Minimalist]

Someone tried to make "beer" out of recipe they found in an Egyptian tomb.


I understand it tasted like warm piss.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Someone tried to make "beer" out of recipe they found in an Egyptian tomb.

I understand it tasted like warm piss.

A flash of recognition! Sounds like bona fide first grade African home brew beer to me!

It's an acquired taste . . .

[Minimalist]

That's how I feel about California wine.

[Cognito]

OK, thanks for correcting that, Cognito. I learn something new everyday. But that was South America. Afaik there is/was nothing similar in North America. Which, by the way, also says a lot, afaic, about the intensity of trade and contact between North and South America: ZILCH!

R/S, the answer to your question is complex but two areas of thought come to mind: (1) Read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel to get an idea of why Eurasia developed complex civilisations prior to the Americas, Africa or Australia, and (2) read through the Comet Impact link á la Firestone being discussed on this site. If valid, North America was hard hit and depopulated at 12,700bp by a series of comet impacts while South America probably fared better.

Eurasia possessed far more animals suitable for domestication than North or South America. The Americas also developed agriculture and supported huge populations prior to 1492, but had no livestock equivalents of the Europeans (with the associated, lethal diseases). The only domesticated animals in the Americas I know of were the dog, llama and alpaca. The wheel would have been of no use in most of the Inca Empire due to the terrain, but the llama was an excellent pack animal that could easily climb the side of a mountain while carrying 100lbs. If you want to transport 1,000lbs over the mountain, just rope them together and they'll all follow each other without spitting too much.

[Digit]

But the Llama doesn't look muscular enough to be a draft animal either.

[Rokcet Scientist]

The wheel would have been of no use in most of the Inca Empire due to the terrain.

Inca "terrain" – high, steep mountains – is less than 3% of the Americas, Cog.

But the Llama doesn't look muscular enough to be a draft animal either.

Indeed. It isn't. It just carries packs.

[Digit]

I'm not sure the 3% figure is as important as where it is. For many years the range of hills in central Wales prevented most trade from crossing them.

[Rokcet Scientist]

I'm not sure the 3% figure is as important as where it is. For many years the range of hills in central Wales prevented most trade from crossing them.

That didn't prevent civilisation to 'conquer' Britain, did it . . . ?

[Digit]

Wheeled vehicles aren't essential for conquest but they effect the cost of trade. One draft animal can pull a lot more than it can carry.
Untill the late 19C most trade in west Wales was with Ireland rather that eastern Wales and England because of the poor roads, lack of canals and railways.
The main N/S coast road passes my house and even now it is only two lanes and that only since 1956 and E/W travel is still difficult.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Wheeled vehicles aren't essential for conquest but they effect the cost of trade. One draft animal can pull a lot more than it can carry.
Untill the late 19C most trade in west Wales was with Ireland rather that eastern Wales and England because of the poor roads, lack of canals and railways.
The main N/S coast road passes my house and even now it is only two lanes and that only since 1956 and E/W travel is still difficult.

That may be, but it's moot, because it didn't stop 'civilisation' developing in Britain.
Likewise, the terrain in Inca land didn't stop 'civilisation' developing in the Americas either.
Something else did.
But what?

[Rokcet Scientist]

BTW, the use of the nomer 'Inca' here is very misplaced of course.
The Inca were just one in a long line of tribes (Moche, Chimú, Lambayeque, and others) that subsequently rose, conquered empires, and ruled the other tribes. Until fortunes changed again. The Inca were the last in that long line, and they had ruled their empire 'just' 180 years when Pizarro arrived. And that's only 500 years ago.

The people that were 'responsible' for developing civilisations in Eurasia lived 6/7/8,000 years ago.

What did the people of the Americas, those who lived 6/7/8,000 years ago, do?
Or since?

[Minimalist]

The Inca were the last in that long line

That suggests that we need to study the others more thoroughly. No?

[Rokcet Scientist]

The Inca were the last in that long line

That suggests that we need to study the others more thoroughly. No?

Indeed. So that's precisely what's been done in the last 100/150 years. Scores of expeditions scoured the Andes. With relatively little to show for it: nothing predating 1,000 BC, that could broadly be interpreted as 'civilisation', or social cohesion on a supra-tribal scale, has been identified.
I submit it wasn't found, because isn't anything to be found. There was no civilisation, or social cohesion on a supra-tribal scale, to leave any traces.

[Charlie Hatchett]

I submit it wasn't found, because isn't anything to be found. There was no civilisation, or social cohesion on a supra-tribal scale, to leave any traces.

So how do we explain well-documented Clovis technology in all 48 contiguous states, Mexico and Central America...dispersed in a few hundred years.* And we're talking 11,000 B.P.


*Although the implications of Firestone et al. research may change that time frame.