Tweet
Originally posted by Oerdin
I'm quoting from books like 1491 and other popular history books of the period. The high counters estimate that around 95% of the native population was killed by disease while the low counters are saying "only" 70% or so died of disease. It's a great book and very well cited.
Originally posted by Straybow
Not so. Recent archeological studies show of Great Lakes tribes show that both the number of settlements and their populations was relatively stable from the 14th century to the 18th century.
Not so. Recent archeological studies show of Great Lakes tribes show that both the number of settlements and their populations was relatively stable from the 14th century to the 18th century.
I'm quoting from books like 1491 and other popular history books of the period. The high counters estimate that around 95% of the native population was killed by disease while the low counters are saying "only" 70% or so died of disease. It's a great book and very well cited.
Well, here's a clue for you: 100% of the population dies of something, and yet human communities survive this endless genocide. Amazing, what?
Just because people are dying of smallpox doesn't mean they aren't reproducing, only that manner of death and life expectancy are changing.
There isn't very much difference between high and low count in North America. The bulk of the population, and of the high-low differential, is in Mesoamerica and the Andes. North of that area there isn't evidence of a Black Death scale die off at the turn of the 16th century.
If you look at medieval England they have "high counters" and "low counters," too. On the high end, England may have had a population of 6 million in the early 14th century. On the low end, 4½ million. The Black Plague hit, and millions died. The population continued to decline for three more generations. The bottom of the curve is the opening of the 15th century, at 2-2¼ million.
So, for the high counters, the loss is comparable to the low counters' estimates of post-Columbian die off. Yet, England didn't crumble. In the coming centuries they faced two enemies who dwarfed England in population, wealth, and resources. England grew stronger and prospered.
About a third of the population loss was unrelated to the Plague itself, but was a manifestation of low birth rates due to economic and social conditions following the Plague. It was during this period that the English started delaying marriage and having smaller families than continental Europeans. Their economy was growing, but they used this growth for raising their standard of living instead of breeding like rabbits.
The Algonkians were fighting a long and brutal civil war among a dozen tribes. Long as in many generations. They were losing more population this way than through new European disease. Hence came Hiawatha and the rest of that story.
I read the study about Great Lakes village densities in Science, about a dozen years ago, and noting since has dispelled their conclusions. They were using state-of-the-art satellite imagery to locate previously unknown village sites. They'd establish founding and abandonment dates, growth and decline of number of dwellings, etc.
The number of villages, size of villages, and span of settlement didn't change systemmatically between pre-16th and 16th+ centuries.
That was white-guilt-foundation-shaking evidence showing that populations weren't devastated by European contact, including 18th century wars. Their doom was one of absorption and expulsion in the 19th century, not wasting by disease.
Comment