![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Americas as the Indian's Garden
Sep. 6th, 2007 04:58 pmI was dinking around on Making Light, and eventually found a link to a fascinating (if lengthy) article by Charles C. Mann entitled 1491. (The article was expanded into a book.) In it, Mann outlines the case for pre-colombian Indian populations of around 100 Million.
To put that in perspective, the population of Europe in 1491 was significantly less, possibly around 80 million. In order to get from 100 million to the current levels, you need a death rate in the period from 1492 to 1800 of 95% or so. This death rate can be produced only by massive epidemics - something that the Indians were neither culturally or immunologically prepared for.
Now, we do know from the historical records that Indian populations were ravaged by European diseases. Some of those diseases spread via trade routes, and arrived in interior regions well in advance of the white man. But this massive depopulation of the Americas is only the first, and least controversial, of Mann's claims. He claims that the pre-colombian continents, including the Amazon rain forest and the prairies of the Great Plains, were massively and deliberately manipulated by Indians to feed themselves. Further, that these efforts were so successful that typical Indians ate better then typical Europeans, both in quantity and quality of food.
It gets even better. After the collapse of Indian populations, all sorts of secondary ecological effects happened. Two examples cited are buffalo and passenger pigeons. Neither of these animals were remarked on by European explorers of the 1500s, nor do they make up a significant portion of archaeological trash piles. Mann cites claims that the ecological management being practiced by Indians were keeping these species at fairly low populations. When the management stopped, these species exploded in population.
This, like much of history, has significant political implications. If the Indians were managing the Americas, then the idea that populations of plants and animals observed by early Europeans was somehow natural or desirable is simply wrong. Mann also argues that, unlike the "Guns Steel and Germs" theory of Jared Diamond, which postulates that Indian societies were primitive, the Indians were sophisticated. But their strengths were in agriculture, not guns or steel. All in all, an interesting and controversial argument.
To put that in perspective, the population of Europe in 1491 was significantly less, possibly around 80 million. In order to get from 100 million to the current levels, you need a death rate in the period from 1492 to 1800 of 95% or so. This death rate can be produced only by massive epidemics - something that the Indians were neither culturally or immunologically prepared for.
Now, we do know from the historical records that Indian populations were ravaged by European diseases. Some of those diseases spread via trade routes, and arrived in interior regions well in advance of the white man. But this massive depopulation of the Americas is only the first, and least controversial, of Mann's claims. He claims that the pre-colombian continents, including the Amazon rain forest and the prairies of the Great Plains, were massively and deliberately manipulated by Indians to feed themselves. Further, that these efforts were so successful that typical Indians ate better then typical Europeans, both in quantity and quality of food.
It gets even better. After the collapse of Indian populations, all sorts of secondary ecological effects happened. Two examples cited are buffalo and passenger pigeons. Neither of these animals were remarked on by European explorers of the 1500s, nor do they make up a significant portion of archaeological trash piles. Mann cites claims that the ecological management being practiced by Indians were keeping these species at fairly low populations. When the management stopped, these species exploded in population.
This, like much of history, has significant political implications. If the Indians were managing the Americas, then the idea that populations of plants and animals observed by early Europeans was somehow natural or desirable is simply wrong. Mann also argues that, unlike the "Guns Steel and Germs" theory of Jared Diamond, which postulates that Indian societies were primitive, the Indians were sophisticated. But their strengths were in agriculture, not guns or steel. All in all, an interesting and controversial argument.
