Question
What factors led to the slower advancement of technology as a whole in North and South American cultures as compared to what was happening at the same time in Europe, Africa, and Asia?
Answer
Jared Diamond has the simplest and most compelling theory I have seen, in Guns, Germs and Steel.
The lack of large draught animals mentioned by Robert Palermo is one of the elements in the larger picture Diamond constructs, which includes other features like longitude vs. latitude effects etc., some of which are rather speculative.
The overall approach is known as environmental determinism, and is frowned upon by professional historians, but I find that it is a useful, if somewhat simplistic, baseline theory.
There is another layer to the explanation usually known as technological determinism, which, roughly speaking, is about how initial conditions and path dependence can cause snowball effects in technological development. This explains how, within the old world, Europe pulled away from Asia. The classic on this is Joel Mokyr's Lever of Riches. I believe the same explanation may apply in weaker ways to the old vs. new world questions. The Americans may never have experienced the right kind of runaway effects.
Finally, in this catalog of isms, there is something called cultural determinism. The classic example of that approach is actually post-Columbian America, and developed in Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. This was used to explain the relative differences in development between North and South America. It has also been applied to comparing Islam and the West, and other comparisons.
It may prove productive if applied to pre-Columbian America as well.
Cultural, environmental and technological determinism are the three explanatory pillars used to prop up any narrative account of why X didn't develop as Y did. Each by itself, and any naive combination, usually leads to an impoverished explanation. But they provide a good starter framework.
I think there is a fourth useful pillar: sheer numbers. Remember that the Americas were never very crowded in pre-Columbian times, compared to the Old World. Resource contention and crowding among large numbers of people forces the necessity-is-the-mother-of-invention effect. The more people you have, the more smart people you have, participating in fights over fewer resources. Arms races ensue.
All that aside, I think there is a fundamental epistemological issue that this question dodges: what constitutes "technological development" here? There are dangerous quantity-over-quality assumptions.
Perhaps some wise Aztec, Inca or Mayan in pre-Columbian America propounded a successful philosophy of happiness through avoidance of technological development, which we might all benefit from.
Such unknowables are what make history interesting.
The lack of large draught animals mentioned by Robert Palermo is one of the elements in the larger picture Diamond constructs, which includes other features like longitude vs. latitude effects etc., some of which are rather speculative.
The overall approach is known as environmental determinism, and is frowned upon by professional historians, but I find that it is a useful, if somewhat simplistic, baseline theory.
There is another layer to the explanation usually known as technological determinism, which, roughly speaking, is about how initial conditions and path dependence can cause snowball effects in technological development. This explains how, within the old world, Europe pulled away from Asia. The classic on this is Joel Mokyr's Lever of Riches. I believe the same explanation may apply in weaker ways to the old vs. new world questions. The Americans may never have experienced the right kind of runaway effects.
Finally, in this catalog of isms, there is something called cultural determinism. The classic example of that approach is actually post-Columbian America, and developed in Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. This was used to explain the relative differences in development between North and South America. It has also been applied to comparing Islam and the West, and other comparisons.
It may prove productive if applied to pre-Columbian America as well.
Cultural, environmental and technological determinism are the three explanatory pillars used to prop up any narrative account of why X didn't develop as Y did. Each by itself, and any naive combination, usually leads to an impoverished explanation. But they provide a good starter framework.
I think there is a fourth useful pillar: sheer numbers. Remember that the Americas were never very crowded in pre-Columbian times, compared to the Old World. Resource contention and crowding among large numbers of people forces the necessity-is-the-mother-of-invention effect. The more people you have, the more smart people you have, participating in fights over fewer resources. Arms races ensue.
All that aside, I think there is a fundamental epistemological issue that this question dodges: what constitutes "technological development" here? There are dangerous quantity-over-quality assumptions.
Perhaps some wise Aztec, Inca or Mayan in pre-Columbian America propounded a successful philosophy of happiness through avoidance of technological development, which we might all benefit from.
Such unknowables are what make history interesting.