{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01972062448644207, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.182741116751269, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Long-Term History of Mountains: Southeast Asia and South America Compared

This article compares the historical trajectories of the mountain areas of Southeast Asia and South America in order to assess the impact of environmental constraints over time. The two areas have been selected because of the striking contrast they present in the early modern period. In Southeast Asia, the core population area was located in the lowlands, whereas in South America, power and population were concentrated in the uplands. These regional examples are complemented by modern evidence from different continents. I argue that we can distinguish two phases of mountain development: in a first phase, regional trajectories can vary widely, privileging either the plains or the uplands. In a second phase, most uplands can no longer compete with the plains. In areas where the first phase of development had privileged the plains, the second phase accelerated this pattern. In areas where development had been centered first in the mountains, the second phase saw the lowlands incrementally replace them as core zones of modern development. Mountain histories thus illustrate a change from “path dependence” to “context dependence.”