That sounds like the Sahara. Even during the humid period, it was still fairly arid. According to the documentary, Doc gave, the Sahara during this period was a Savannah or grassland. It was not lush tropical forest like the Amazon or the Congo.neverfail wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:20 pmHi Cass!cassowary wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 7:40 am
I recall here the old truism that "necessity is the mother of invention."
The point I thought I made in some of my earlier posts was that those first high agrarian civilisations developed alongside rivers flowing through arid regions. In the case of both Egypt (the Nile) and Mesopotamia (The Tigris and Euphatres) there was nothing but waterless desert sprawling away to infinity on either side of these water arteries.
Why was aridity important? Because people with nowhere else to go jamned into these narrow fertile strips with their life-giving waters. With so many vieing for food and other resourcers they could no longer afford to be mere food gatherers but instead had to become food producers or else many would have starved.
It was about the same latitude as the Mesopotamian and Indus Valley civilizations. I understand that early civilizations rarely develop in tropical regions because of an abundance of food. Everyday is the same and there was no need to prepare for food scarce periods like Winter. Since the Sahara is about the same latitude (its actually slightly to the south) as Mesopotamia, there is thus a likelihood of seasons.
No one also depicted a farming scene in the Lascaux caves either.People who lived in the Sahara during those 5 millenia or so left us some vivid cave paintings depictting the world as they saw it. Most of those cave pictures depict animals - presumably the wild beasts they hunted as prey: though some of the latter paintings depict cattle (native to Asia, not Africa) - indicating a latter day switch of lifestyle from hunters to semi-nomadic herdsmen.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Sahara+ ... NXvOWM2HQM
Not one depicts (say) a farmer pushing a wooden plough drawn by oxen or anything else we would relate to neolithic agriculture. Instead they depict a grassy realm prodigious with fauna. That is the point Cass. The prehistoric inhabitants of this uncharacteristically green Sahara had no incentice to gather together close to rivers as they dwelled in a land of plenty.
But that didn't mean that France did not go through the agricultural revolution.
Agreed. But the region around the Mississippi River is wetter. It faces the Gulf of Mexico where winds bring in rain. So it truly was bountiful, unlike the Grasslands of the Sahara during the Humid Period. So, going by your theory, the people would also have congregated near the rivers to get fresh drinking water and agriculture could have developed. Otherwise, they would have died of thirst during the dry season.That I am sure is also the likely reason why no high neolithic agrarian civilisation developed along the Missisippi river and its tributories in North America either.