Disease, American Indians, Depopulation, Repopulation

[dogmush]

The Europeans were in many ways less technologically and socially advanced than the natives in America. 

So THAT's what explains the NAI's trans-oceanic trade, clever use of steel, diverse multi-story stone engineering projects, working knowledge of mining, understanding of gunpowder and millenia of written, documented history. 

I wondered about that.

[roo_ster]

This is true, but most often, I think the examples run contra the prevailing winds.  The Europeans were in many ways less technologically and socially advanced than the natives in America.  But they were far more advanced at warfare, due to having a solid millennium of near constant warfare under their belts by the time they landed in the West Indies.

Being practiced at brutality and killing people often gets taken for technological superiority in the history books.

Back to the issue of things being relative, the Europeans tended to be more war-prone and ruthless, while the natives practiced human sacrifice on a larger scale, and apparently did not have a good handle on civilization ending religious warfare. 

Thanks, I needed a good laugh!

[Gewehr98]

Being practiced at brutality and killing people often gets taken for technological superiority in the history books.

Oh.

My.

Gawd.

SS did NOT say that, did he?

I'll have to dig around now, because I'm sure I must've missed reading about the metalworking, mathematical, astronomical, timekeeping, and other skills that the batch of people living in North America had at the time of the first European settlements. Note that I said "batch of people", because it appears that even Native Americans weren't really Native Americans like we'd been led to believe over the years...

[Scout26]

This is true, but most often, I think the examples run contra the prevailing winds.  The Europeans were in many ways less technologically and socially advanced than the natives in America.  But they were far more advanced at warfare, due to having a solid millennium of near constant warfare under their belts by the time they landed in the West Indies.

Being practiced at brutality and killing people often gets taken for technological superiority in the history books.

Back to the issue of things being relative, the Europeans tended to be more war-prone and ruthless, while the natives practiced human sacrifice on a larger scale, and apparently did not have a good handle on civilization ending religious warfare. 

I saw Disney's documentary of Pocahontas also..... 

[280plus]

it appears that even Native Americans weren't really Native Americans like we'd been led to believe over the years

The term "Native American" is a bit of a misnomer. This was brought to my attention by an elder of one of the lesser known tribes in CT, IRRC the Western Pequots which I believe (its been a while) who held the land west of the Thames river as opposed to the more well know Eastern Pequots, who held the land east of the Thames and are the ones with the casino. Anyhoo, I'm not quite sure of his exact words anymore but the crux was, "We are all iimgrants in this country." Which struck me as quite profound at the time.

[Scout26]

Okay, here's something no one has been able to give me a clear answer on:


Did the Native Americans have the wheel ??

[Matthew Carberry]

Last people to get here via the East prior to the Europeans from the West is a bit more accurate.

The histories of European and American development are parallel, but separated in time by a millenia.  Nobody cries for Boudicca like they do for Pocohontas, but certainly the locals were equally poorly treated.

Sometimes it's useful, at least sympathy wise, to be invaded by a (on a grand scale) more enlightened oppressor.

[280plus]

Good discussion on the wheel question here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070512162153AAaPWQj

[Matthew Carberry]

Okay, here's something no one has been able to give me a clear answer on:


Did the Native Americans have the wheel ??

My understanding is that the Mayans had it as a toy and probably used rollers in construction.  I'm not a huge fan of Jared Diamond's grander claims but I can accept they had a bit of an excuse in their dearth of useful critters and terrain to exploit it fully.  Regardless, their culture went a different way for, it turns out, ill.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Europeans tended to be more war-prone and ruthless

The Aztecs were pretty war-prone, too. They might've been the Norman Bates of the Americas*. They'd only been around for about 200 years and they'd managed to piss off everybody in the region, more or less. The Incas don't seem to have been much better. Less psychotic, maybe, but pretty big into killing people and stealing their stuff.

*Read this section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Aztecs#The_Aztecs_arrive_in_the_Valley_of_Mexico
Their national anthem would've been "It rubs the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again."

[BlueStarLizzard]

i was under the impression that desease spreads rather quickly, and there where europeans treaking around the interier before it was held (wasn't there two spainards that got completly lost in north america) by europeans and even before europeans even really knew there was stuff there.

i also read somewhere that the first europeans on the west coast found villages destroyed fairly recently by desease.

second desease is not confined to one person traveling the entire distance. say tribe a is on the east coast and tribe z is on the west. tribe a meets a european. infected contagious dude from tribe a doesn't really feel sick yet meets with a guy from tribe b, infecting him. tribe b is now infected and dude from them meets with tribe c, and on and on and on till you get to tribe z.
and think about the black plauge. that came pretty damn close to destroying europe. contagious desease can really throw things back. i had one history prof hypothisis that, if not for the black plauge, europeans would have made it to the americans quite a bit earilier.

[280plus]

Quite correct and most likely the same way points that originated far far away wound up here in CT. Minimal research I just did says the closest Clovis tribe came to CT was Minnesota and Virginia so any Clovis points found here most likely came from one of those areas. and were probably passed from tribe to tribe along the way.

Going back to inferences from info on the Aussie Aborigines it can be assumed that even though the "Early Americans" may not have fully understood where babies come from there was most likely a lot of effort made in population control amongst the tribes (which contradicts that first notion, how are you going to control population if you don't know what causes it? Look up "subcision" for example  ). Nomadic tribes had to be lean and mean to survive so it IS entirely possible that once these small tribes contracted killer European diseases they may not have had enough people leftover to make a comeback afterwards. Conjecture on my part however.

[280plus]

Correction, the word is subincision.

[roo_ster]

OK, my opinion of them just went down a notch or ten.

[280plus]

 

I can't say for sure that the NAI in fact participated in such rituals. The possibility is certainly there but no proof exists (that I know of) that they performed this particular deed. I CAN say that one time I was shown a huge anatomically correct stone phallus that appeared to be circumcised and was found in a corn field right here in CT. Keep in mind, before the Europeans arrived there was no iron or steel so any and all ritual scarring of this type was done with sharpened stones. 

Some Aussie tribes had an interesting habit. They gave the young women to the older men and the young men to the older women as partners. Presumably this too had an effect on keeping birth rates down. Again, the scholarly presumption was that they did not make the connection of sex = babies but they sure seemed to know how to keep babies from happening. It makes me wonder, maybe one of the big secrets held by the initiated elders and kept from the rest of the tribe WAS the sex = babies connection.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Some Aussie tribes had an interesting habit. They gave the young women to the older men and the young men to the older women as partners. Presumably this too had an effect on keeping birth rates down. Again, the scholarly presumption was that they did not make the connection of sex = babies but they sure seemed to know how to keep babies from happening. It makes me wonder, maybe one of the big secrets held by the initiated elders and kept from the rest of the tribe WAS the sex = babies connection.

hmmm, i also wonder if that helped with genetics. keeping them from getting to close.

[280plus]

At least in Oz the it was the division into various totemic groups that performed that function. It was taboo to marry into the same totem.

[280plus]

Good books on the subject: "Life Among the Aborigines" and "Taboo" by W E Harney and "The Australian Aborigines" by A P Eklin. Both men did extensive study and writing on the subject of the Aussie natives. Although you'll find criticism by others in terms of the white man trying to tell the story of the natives and whether they are valid.

Another good one is "I, the aboriginal" by Douglas Lockwood which is somewhat of a biography/autobiography of an aboriginal gentleman (Waipuldanya / Philip Roberts) who was both an initiated holy man amongst his tribe AND an ordained minister. He makes very interesting points in regards to the differences between the two religious beliefs. Being a holy man he is also what we would refer to as a "medicine man" he also traveled with a white doctor so he knew both the ways of native medicine and white man medicine and how in some cases white man medicne would not work but native medicine would.

All out of print. www.abebook.com may have copies available though.

[280plus]

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=douglas+lockwood&sortby=2&tn=I%2C+the+aboriginal&x=50&y=13

[MechAg94]

Good discussion on the wheel question here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070512162153AAaPWQj

That page has a lot of denial and inferiority complexes.  

[280plus]

Ok, maybe not a good "discussion" but I thought John G's answer summed it up fairly well.

[MechAg94]

Okay.  They had the concept, but didn't make use of it.

I liked the guys answering that they dragged a frame behind a horse, and no one pointed out that the only difference between that and a wagon is wheels. 

Speaking of another issue brought up, did the Native Americans use any domesticated animals prior to or other than the horse? 

[280plus]

Dogs I believe. Can't think of any others but a good subject to look into further.

GTG, probably won't be back till tomorrow night. Hot job tomorry, which is a good thing. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Some Aussie tribes had an interesting habit. They gave the young women to the older men and the young men to the older women as partners. Presumably this too had an effect on keeping birth rates down. Again, the scholarly presumption was that they did not make the connection of sex = babies but they sure seemed to know how to keep babies from happening. It makes me wonder, maybe one of the big secrets held by the initiated elders and kept from the rest of the tribe WAS the sex = babies connection.

Makes me wonder if they thought of babies as a good thing or a bad thing.  I have a hard time imagining that they couldn't make the connection between sex and pregnancy, but I can easily imagine them deliberately avoiding pregnancy.

[mtnbkr]

I have a hard time imagining that they couldn't make the connection between sex and pregnancy

Stranger things have happened.  I've had more than one person tell me that JRHigh and HS kids are too stupid to realize unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy.  This in an age when we know exactly how it happens...

Chris