Interesting to see the agriculture versus huntgather dialectic. And also the sedentary versus pastoral dialectic within agriculture.
There are a handful of statist places: Vietnam, China, Italy-Greece and a few others, but mostly anarchs.
Iceland, Madagascar, and New Zealand are virgin to man.
I think the only issue with this map is still the clear European bias for “cultural development.” The difference between Iron Age Ireland, with small chiefdoms and farming communities is here classified as “complex farming societies/chiefdoms”, and southern China outside of direct Zhou dynasty control is somehow just a “simple farming society” despite also having small chiefdoms and quasi-states is clearly just a case of Euro-centric “oh we’re civilised, all of us, even at this time, whilst other people aren’t.” There’s just no world where you can claim that like north-western Russia was a more complex state/culture formation than the quasi-states forming around the Pearl River delta in southern China.
oof yeah they’re being really generous with the orange in Europe wtf.
This map is terrible for East Asia (and probably everywhere else). Tibet had a kingdom that was established around 500 BC. Both the states of Ba and Shu were kingdoms as well that were only conquered by the state of Qin in 316 BC. Really the parts of the map that form modern China should just be entirely orange/blue except the northeast which should be purple. Like who the fuck is farming in Manchuria with 500 BC tech?
This map sucks.
Most people? I know there were farmers in the Altai before there were nomads. If anything Manchuria would be more temperate. Nomadism is the most modern mode of production. The first true nomads were the Iranians. Before that the steppes were peopled by agro pastoralists, they keep herds yes, but without large enough horses, their herds are limited in size so they have to farm. Also as far as I can remember there are no historical nomads native to Manchuria, they jurchens for example were agro pastoralists.
It’s purpule guys that are new here.
So I looked it up, millet agriculture seems to have spread to the Liao and Amur rivers in the 4 th Milenium.
Also, by 500bc iron tools and large horses are widespread, they even have seed drills, there should be no significant difference in productivity when compared to the days of Arthur young. Edit: Aparently I’m wrong and while that is the case for west asia, and Africa the ironage took longer in east asia, 500 bc is still bronze age in Manchuria, the are still millet farmers tho.
The differences are mainly due to local demográfico conditions, state capacity, war making, and so on.
I think the same can be said for a lot of north Africa, just including Kush as part of the Persian empire does it a disservice.