From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 17:13:17 GMT

green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>    Your theory concerning cannibalism amongst the Carribs is hardly 
>>sufficient to account for the deaths of over 95 million people in scarcely 
>>30 years, nor for that matter is the theory that Aztec human sacrifice 
>>was responsible given that the Aztec empire was destroyed before most of 
>>the population destruction was complete.

>The cannibalism among the Carribs isn't a theory, it's an accepted fact.

    I don't deny that the Carribs practised cannibalism, but I don't think 
that it could possibly have been responsible for the population collapse 
in the Americas in the 1500s.

>Now, let's get into statement of 95 million people being killed in 30 
>years. Can you quote a source for this figure?  I'm not saying it isn't 
>true, I would just like to do some reading on it myself - the figure seems 
>unrealisticly high.

    It certainly boggles the imagination - of that there is no doubt. My 
source for the figure is William H. McNeill's book _Plagues_and_Peoples_ 
but I've seen the 100 million+ population figure for pre-1500s America 
in a couple other places. There was an article in _Discovery_ magazine 
a while back that covered this question; I'll dig up the issue number if 
you like.

    Because native American civilizations never created written records 
or census data, any attempts to determine the pre-1500s population of the 
New World are forced to rely at some point on estimates. However from 
archaeological remains it's possible to determine the physical size of 
inhabited areas, and also to be found in archaeological remains are clues 
of the extent of agricultural production (which would be the primary factor 
in determining the maximum population densities the land would be able to 
support). 

    Using these methods it's then possible to project an estimate of total 
numbers. In _Plagues_and_Peoples_ I believe that McNeill placed the 
population of the Americas at around 120 million, of whom 30 million 
lived under Aztec rule and another 30 million or so lived under the 
Incas. Most of the remainder were concentrated in Central America, the 
islands in the Carribean, and along the Mississippi and Ohio river 
valleys (basically those areas best suited to Neolithic agricultural 
techniques).

    We're accustomed to thinking of the native inhabitants of the New 
World as primarily hunter-gatherers since that's the lifestyle that 
is most often depicted in the movies, but before the breakup of the large 
coastal and river valley civilizations hunter-gatherers probably formed a 
much smaller percentage of the overall total population than was the case 
when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth rock roughly 120 years after the 
Spaniard's initial contact with the natives.

    Because of the nature of "civilized" diseases, large population 
centers were the best able to sustain the spread of epidemics and they 
were consequently the most vulnerable. A lot of people are familiar with 
the stories of incredibly small Spanish armies defeating the Aztec and 
Incan empires, but the river valley civilizations in North America 
apparently collapsed without any military pressure at all.

    Overall I would agree with the statement that pre-1500s population 
estimates are highly speculative, but I would say that the one thing 
which is above question is the central devastating role of disease above 
that of enslavement or conquest in the ultimate collapse of pre-1500s 
population centers.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.space,sci.space