South American tribes ?

Question

Why is it that unlike the Mezo-American cultures (including those inhabiting the Andes), most Amazonian cultures remained as tribes, rather than develop like their northern cousins? Was there any meshing? Amazonian tribes have no writing systems, no complex agriculture, and virtually no social structures, unlike, say, the Mayas or Aztecs, whom developed many complex architectural achievements on their own.

Answer 1

Mountainous geography and elevation changes into cooler climates could be factors. When a society doesn't have everything it needs readily available (more suffering), it is forced to divide labor and industrialize, which are components of a civilization!

Answer 2

I agree with the response above me.

   Agriculture was complex in Ancient South America. I'm pretty sure the Amazonians would've had their first civilization if the Europeans didn't appear.

  Their agriculture was a mixture of using yams and using the trees to pluck fruits to eat. The maintained forests for animal game and the fruits that trees provided. Not forgetting the honey bees produced. They had societal structures but alas, this wasn't as documented as the Andean or MesoAmerican cultures were

Answer 3

Matis, Matsés-Mayoruna, Huaorani, Bora, Shipibos, Yagua, Marubo, Ticuna, Kayapó, Suyá, and Xingu are some of the Amazonian native tribes.The main reason for "non-development" of their culture is the utility of their customs. Their customs and traditions have not lost their their utility & continue to serve the purposes for which they are followed.

Answer 4

Actually, there have been recent archeological discoveries in the Amazon rain forest that prove that these societies were indeed as complex as the Inca, the Moche, and Tiwanaku.

Hundreds of thousands of people in the area at the head of the Xingu River.  The archeological evidence shows that in a given section of present day forest, that there were networks of roads that connected villages.  

The dominant resource in the forest is trees, and not rock.

A sophisticated and complex culture developed here, rich in the tapestry of socio-political and economic systems.  Just because monumental stone architecture was not the dominant feature here does not mean that these cultures were not sophisticated, or by any means lesser than their lofty and vertically placed cultures to the west.

Indeed, the indigenous peoples that inhabit the Upper Xingu River system have extremely complicated societies.  

I am sure that similar evidence will be found in central Africa in the future.

Answer 5

Firstly, I want to make sure that one thing is clear. Absence of elaborate architecture or economic practices do not mean a group does not have a social structure. Humans are social creatures who have always had complex interwoven social networks, just not always emperors or tax collectors. Also, you need to examine the assumption you're making that state systems are superior to tribes. Think about this: if I only need a car to make sort trips to work do I really need a fleet of convertibles?

Most societies exist in a level of complexity that suits their own needs (lets ignore the Spaniards in our situation for now). If your community has around 25 people in it and food is readily available in the forests all around without needing to plant it, why bother doing so or even looking for ways to get more food? The tribes of the Amazon had everything they needed (roughly speaking and fully admitting I'm stereotyping). Another consideration that needs to be made are population sizes. Along the Pacific coast of South America the fish are so abundant that huge numbers of people could live in one place because they didn't have to range far and wide to get food. This, skipping a lot of steps, meant people had to come up with new ways to deal with this many people living in one place. Historically, this led to the state systems of the Andes and eventually the Inca.

Putting it simply, the people in the Amazon never had the need to adapt in the ways their cousins did (writing, agriculture, and stone buildings were never needed or feasible). Human societies are not a ladder. The imagined top (guess what? It just happens to be us. Who'd a'thunk?) is not the "goal" it is only another place to be. Also, to answer the other question, there were interactions trade or otherwise, with both sides likely thinking the other was savage or crazy.

Answer 6

To put it quite simply,,   different populations that are isolated develop in different ways.   Why did the Egyptians have such a society while others in the world were "primitive" by our standards...    The Romans had their brutal, violent greedy social structure while other populations were simply living off the land worshiping the sun and nature.

    There are so many factors that contribute.     Environment ,,  customs,,  competition and violence from others.  Influence from others vs. complete isolation.......

    Why would they need to deveop "complex" agriculture in the Amazon??  

The most abundant and diverse environment on the planet?

They do in fact though have very strong social structures,,, with families, communities,, and community leaders. Everyone has a role and a responsibility.  This is essential for survival in the jungle.

Sometimes one key figure can spark a leap in a groups advance, or corrupt ....    many factors........