I don't really understand why the two cradles of civilization of the New World (the Olmecs and Norte Chico) were where they were, the jungles of Central America and the extraordinarily dry coastal deserts of Peru respectively, while the fertile plains of the Pampas and the Mississippi either didn't develop a civilization at all or did so thousands of years later.
Can anyone tell me why this was the case, and also why the Mississippi or the Parana basins didn't develop the first New World civilizations?
Hey there,
Just to let you know, your question is fine, and we're letting it stand. However, you should be aware that questions framed as 'Why didn't X do Y' relatively often don't get an answer that meets our standards (in our experience as moderators). There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, it often can be difficult to prove the counterfactual: historians know much more about what happened than what might have happened. Secondly, 'why didn't X do Y' questions are sometimes phrased in an ahistorical way. It's worth remembering that people in the past couldn't see into the future, and they generally didn't have all the information we now have about their situations; things that look obvious now didn't necessarily look that way at the time.
If you end up not getting a response after a day or two, consider asking a new question focusing instead on why what happened did happen (rather than why what didn't happen didn't happen) - this kind of question is more likely to get a response in our experience. Hope this helps!
For readers: Do bear in mind that answers take time to be written, so if you'd only like to come back when there's likely going to be a response, then click here to set up a RemindMeBot alert, or try one of our many suggested alternatives.