-1

I would like to know why some places developed writing and thus started to have documented history much later than others, and why did some regions developed civilization way before others. For example Egypt ended its prehistory around 3000 BC, Greece around 1100 BC, and Scandinavia around AD 800, but some regions' prehistory extends into relatively recent periods of time, for example, Australia's ended in AD 1788, with the arrival of English colonisers and Cuba's ended in AD 1492 with the arrival of Spanish colonisers. Why is this?

EDIT (May 29, 2022): There have been some misunderstandings regarding the meaning of the word prehistory in this question. I would like to clarify that in no way this is an "Eurocentric" question, and the reason I mention dates such as AD 1788 and AD 1492 as the end of prehistory in Australia and Cuba, respectively, has nothing to do with "Eurocentrism", or something like that, is simply that there is no evidence of written records of the history of those places that date prior to the arrival of the Europeans, but that does not mean that within the scope of this question there's no history if there's no Europeans, so answering all of the comments, yes I consider Mesoamerica to have history (their prehistory finished in AD 300, as is generally accepted) I'm simply trying to understand how and why different regions developed civilization differently, and at different times.

Don Al
  • 271
  • 2
  • 7
  • 5
    This is what we call a Gun's, Germs, & Steel question, as its pretty much certain to garner high-rated answers that differ in only minor details from every other "Guns, Germs, & Steel" answer. – T.E.D. May 29 '22 at 03:48
  • 2
    Please document your preliminary research – MCW May 29 '22 at 10:23
  • 1
    This reads to me unnecessarily euro-centric in its usage of terms & phrases. Here: "pre-history" & esp "civilization" seem to mean: 'no contact with European ways/no writing'? I guess this language usage might distract your readers/answerers and yourself from what you really want to know? Or did Inca, Mayans, Taino, Aborigines really have 'no history' before?Perhaps a clarification on definitions (even if assumed universal knowledge) might help here? – LаngLаngС May 29 '22 at 11:14
  • 1
    The premises are false: pre-historic means before writing and/or famring, depending on the level of societies achieved. So this is not correct to give dates such as 800 AD or 1492AD – totalMongot May 29 '22 at 12:26
  • 1
    The Maya hat writing and history before 1492 – Jan May 29 '22 at 12:58
  • 1
    @MCW My argument is not that the Maya (not the Inca) hat writing and it follows that they must have had history. Rather, my argument is that we have actual documents containing the names of Maya kings, e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%CA%BCinich_Kan_Bahlam_II – Jan May 29 '22 at 16:37
  • 1
    (at least according to wikipedia, that is. I won't claim to know anything on this topic that is not on wp) – Jan May 29 '22 at 16:39
  • @totalMongot The reason why I gave dates such as AD 800 was that there were no native, written accounts in Scandinavia prior to that date, and thus no history, – Don Al May 29 '22 at 20:28
  • 1
    @LаngLаngС I'm using the word "prehistory" in the standard way used by historians and archaeologists, and in all sources I have ever seen. – Don Al May 29 '22 at 21:05
  • @Jan Yes I know that the Mayans and all the Mesoamerican cultures have documented history, and an advanced enough civilization prior to the arrival of the Europeans and thus I consider them to be history (which started in AD 300, as generally accepted by the people who study Mesoamerica). – Don Al May 29 '22 at 21:10
  • 1
    I think its a totally legit point that this question is about the relative dates of developing writing which is a reasonable question. However, I'd argue that if its reopened, it should probably be closed instead as a dup of What are the factors that caused the new world civilizations to be less technologically advanced than the old world?, on the basis that writing is a technology, and the very highly rated accepted answer there answers this question. – T.E.D. May 30 '22 at 03:17
  • 2
    Tell us why you suppose they should all have achieved this on the same day in the same year. – RedSonja May 30 '22 at 08:59
  • @RedSonja What strikes me about this is the huge differences bewteen dates, earliest, as I said, is Egypt (3000 BC), and latest is Australia (AD 1788), which is a gap of nearly five millenia. – Don Al May 30 '22 at 09:13

2 Answers2

-1

I disagree with the comment by T.E.D. that it is a "Guns, Germs and Steel" question. Jared Diamond gives an answer for colonizing civilizations in competition, but I don't think it applies to earlier periods. My answer is that it is at least in significant part random chance.

The lower paleolithic is was roughly 2,000,000 to 200,000 years ago.
The middle paleolithic was roughly 200,000 to 20,000 years ago.
The upper paleolithic was roughly 50,000 to 10,000 years ago.
The neolithic was roughly 10,000 to 5,000 years ago.

Those numbers are not exact, there is some overlap, and one could quibble about the exact dates. But one thing stands out. The earlier periods were much longer.

A difference in just one percent in the duration of the lower paleolithic would be more than everything since the neolithic age. If different societies had evolved in isolation, one would expect some sort of normal distribution of the end dates -- some sooner, most in the middle, some later. Of course they were not isolated, so more-developed societies contacted less-developed societies, and in a very few cases less-developed societies contacted more-developed ones.

o.m.
  • 16,991
  • 2
  • 29
  • 61
  • 5
    A physicist, a biologist, and a statistician go deer hunting. The physicist does some calculations, fires, and end up missing the deer two meters to the left. The biologist analyzes the deer's behavior, fires, and misses the deer two meters to the right. The statistician exclaims "We got It!" – Spencer May 29 '22 at 21:26
  • If you do not include 'the comment' —& which one?— or its content you are commenting on here, then this is not only conversational but also easily brought to dangle 'out alone' with no way to connect the larger part of this A to anything, once the comment you refer to is gone. (As I read this, it's a frame challenge for the Q? Independent of any comment, arguing for 'in the long game, there is no real 'much'? And what little 'much there is, is "of course" — -> what/why?) – LаngLаngС May 30 '22 at 09:38
  • The problem with "its random chance" as an answer is that when you multiply everyone's random chance by their likelyhood of coming up with the idea, with certain areas having both a much higher likelyhood and more people, then multiply that by hundreds of generations, it transforms from a matter of completely chaotic randomness to one of statistics, which is exactly where GG&S dwells. – T.E.D. Jun 23 '22 at 22:09
-2

Well we can do one better than a Jared Diamond answer with a Dave Graeber answer: complex class societies where methods for accounting for what property was and for accounting of the forcing of property from people developed differently in different periods. This is because some societies succeeded in destroying nascent ruling classes, or resisting foreign imperialism, more successfully than others. In contrast to successful human societies which forced property to not come into being, failed human societies developed accounting, and thus writing, and thus man's enslavement of humanity. The division line is complex, but has to do with the capacity to concentrate violence, which largely means terrain and access to population bomb techniques of food production.

Samuel Russell
  • 14,638
  • 4
  • 41
  • 91
  • 3
    An excellent summary in jargon and esoteric language that needs expansion with references along with examples for what it's expressing, and then in a longer exoteric fashion, given the audience here. Problem I see: it basically answers "why the difference?" currently with "because they weren't the same"? The "complex division line" is worth illuminating in more detail. – LаngLаngС May 29 '22 at 11:01
  • 1
    It's a curious choice to describe the system that is omnipresent as "failed" and the one that was completely replaced as "successful". You might think the replaced system was more desirable and beneficial, but it's a stretch to say that it was more successful. – PhillS May 29 '22 at 11:55
  • Both systems morally code the outcomes of the dominant system as immoral: it’s curious end users expressed preferences don’t dictate fit for purpose. – Samuel Russell May 29 '22 at 18:42