Does anyone know anything about Pre-Pe-Colonial North American

North America as in Anglo-America? Because there were definitely huge native societies in Mexico and Central America. There's only evidence of one native civilization in the modern US and Canada, though.

>>1867206
Yes, in the United States.

I don't mean the Aztec or Maya or whatever.

>>1867200
North of mexico there are the mound builders, but not much is known about them

>>1867200
Mississippi Culture had some pretty serious towns. Cahokia apparently peaked at a pop of 40000

>>1867211
Then it's all un-proven bullshit. There's only evidence for one civilization in the modern US and Canada which fell long before the Europeans arrived somewhere in the South.

>>1867252
It was spread across the entire eastern half of the continental US

File: Mississippian_cultures_HRoe_2010.jpg (497KB, 794x760px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 794x760px

>>1867200

>>1867264
Urban civilization? No.

>>1867264
>>1867252
>It was spread across the entire eastern half of the continental US
And it still existed at the time of first european contact, although it was in decline. It died completely sometime between spanish arrival in mesoamerica and the colonisation of north america 100 years later

>>1867274
An urban civilization yes. They built fortified towns with a fairly high populations

>>1867200
The Spanish recorded contact with them in the early 1500s.
100 years later the english found that they had been wiped out by Spanish disease.

>>1867264
>>1867284
>>1867286
Building a small fort around your collection of tee-pees does not a civilization make. Most of North America outside of Mexico and Central America was hunter-gatherers. Your definitions of civilization would mean that all of Europe was civilized since 1000 BC.

>>1867309
Europe was IE way longer than that, so yes it was.

Plus, the Natives bred corn, right, so they had to be civilized

>>1867323
Do you not understand what a civilization is?

>>1867309
Having a civilisation and being civilised are not the same thing. Again, Cahokia's population peaked at around 40000 people

Tribes in tents dont build earthworks like this

>>1867326
>he can't into how much civilization is was
god christ

>>1867327
Why do none of you understand what a civilization is? There's a strict criteria for being a civilization. There was ONE culture that met this criteria and it was gone long before the Europeans came to North America.

>>1867340
Are you b8'ing?

>>1867309
>Permanent agricultural sites
>Not civilization
Retard

File: 2421194.jpg (4KB, 216x225px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 216x225px

>>1867351
Okay, so you are b8'ing.

>>1867342
The only criteria it lacks is a writing system

>>1867342
>There's a strict criteria for being a civilization
One you've yet to elaborate the details of.

>>1867309
I agree with this guy

I cant be a coincidence that the regions which had the Mesoamerican and Andean civilizations are still to this days the places with the most Amerindians.

The Population density in Peru-Bolivia-Ecuador, Mexico, and Guatemala-Honduras-El Salvador must have been much higher than anywhere else in the Americas. So, those are the only 2 regions I would consider to have had civilizations.

>>1867309
You dumb fuck, hunter gatherers don't build settlements with a population of thousands and monumental buildings, hunter gatherers can't even build a settlement with hundreds of peoples in it, let alone thousands, and those settlements are not permanent.

You're so fucking ignorant it hurts, kys.

>>1867309

>our definitions of civilization would mean that all of Europe was civilized since 1000 BC.

Some parts of it were close to it, Most of Greece and Crete was civilized, and Sardinia had a proto civilization, North Western Italy also had some considerable settlements but that didn't last long and wasn't comparable to the other two cultures

>>1867200
Only handful of dirty stupid nomads.
/threads

>>1867200
>Does anyone know anything about Pre-Pe-Colonial North American Society?
We don't know much since they left us no writing system. But we do know they were very diverse and the regions could be seperated into the eastern woodlands (which included the mound cultures), the southwest, coastal california, northwestern pacific, the great lakes cultures, plains people and the inuit/eskimo. The mound cultures (caddo, mississippi, calusa and florida) were an urban people, Cahokia being the largest settlement. Archeologists have found thousands of sites, and in the later periods there appears to be influence and possible trade with mesoamerica. Huastec shell decorations closely resemeble those spiro, oaklahoma for example. The eastern woodland people were known for their forest burning, to clear land for buffalos to better control their movements and make them easier to hunt. It was spacious enough that early europeans said you could get wagons through these forests easily.

The southwest pueblo indians lived in cities with stacked apartment like massive structures which housed several dozen families.

I heard that before the rise of the tribes the Colonials met, there were bigger societies of Natives in the United States.

There were, many died by the diseases spread from early spanish expeditions in the american southwest. Other areas were hit by diease later. The loss of forest due to the burnings of the eastern woodland people was brought to a halt when diseases struck these areas. Millions died and as a result, the forests regrew giving rise to the misconception that the Americas was a 'virgin untouched wilderness'.

Is there any truth to that, and, if so, who were they; what were they like, and what happened to them?
Yes, see above.