Comments by "The Folder" (@thefolder3086) on "The Geography of Mountain Civilizations" video.
-
4
-
@casualearth-dandavis ah, I see
From my knowledge of Thailand, dry season do help a bit with the problem of acidic and waterlogged soil,which decrease rice yields and farmability in the south. The mountains do have a dry season tho,even if shorter.
Soil moisture and flatland might indeed have an effect, from my knowledge people in that area (some historians call them zomia) does farm but their rice output is extremely low forcing them to rely partly on hunting gathering which isn’t very good for population increases. Even in wet flat areas in Isaan, drought is still a major problem due to the regions sandy soil, so the mountains would be even worse. There is also periodic forest fires in the region which could effect farmability and living conditions but they extend to the central plains and if anything these help create better soil. Many of the mountains are limestone however even if it’s not all of it, which aren’t very good for rice agriculture due to their pourisity.
There were historic nations within these regions believe it or not, like the kingdom of Dali and various Tai and sino Tibettian nations. However, they have poor records and have an incredibly hard time controlling the regions sheer diversity, if you look at the language map of yunan you see what I mean. China have a culture of recording these nations as “barbarians” as China usually do and since afaik they don’t have a formal record or if so very rare, they aren’t known. However, this still doesn’t stop the fact that they had practically disappeared by the time later south East Asian nations developed. This could be due to being conquered by Tibet and the rise of sea trade which is the foundation for most south East Asian nations post-Khmer.
Thus, I might hypothesize that it’s partly due to the lifestyle as well. Lifestyle can massively effect population size, for example southern Siberia doesn’t have a population this high before Russians arrive and bring their agriculture with them, even if land below and above it are unfarmable. Large farmer nations like China abd India capable of irrigation and mass management helps propergate population growth compared to smaller farming nations or tribes. Zomia is the pinnacle of decentralization however due to the mountain shapes being tons of linear mountain ranges and valleys seperating these people. Some historians even say they are almost anarchist in a way (art of not being governed, some of the few English language book on zomia, but I have some experience myself due to being Thai). Thus, this can make their farming even less efficent, as well as their general opposition to large farming society which doesn’t help.
The hills of south east Asia are indeed extremely small so a highland nation of significant size is laughable. However, it’s still interesting that areas like toba with rich soil and preferable climate doesn’t create at least a small city state or significantly sized tribe, the same way mountains in New Guinea does. Mountainous regions of Myanmar or Laos are also less populated than valley ones, despite the lowland soil not being that good compared to the river deltas or floodplains.
Does my hypothesis make sense?
4
-
2