4 ms·

2000 years of population swings among Indigenous Americans

25 points by gmays 2y ago

Aloisius 2y ago
The paper gives a relative population loss between 1150 and 1500 CE of ~30%, with caveats.
throwiut 2y ago
[flagged]
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  There were multiple migrations; tribes fought for land and replaced each other; people arrived by ships; etc. Nobody even knows who the first settlers actually were — and they’ve likely been replaced more than once. Talk of “indigenous” is usually just a vestige of European colonialism which simultaneously treats the existing population as simplistic while focusing on Europeans events/actions as special in history. If your tribe arrived 400 years ago and has been here since, you’re as “indigenous” as anyone else — and it’s not surprising they don’t like others taking their stuff. Nobody does.
  - gottorf 2y ago
    To go further, I personally don't think the first settlers to a piece of land have a better or more special claim over it than any subsequent group. That line of thinking feels like an appeal to cosmic justice more than anything else.
    - vkou 2y ago
      Should the most recent settlers to it have a stronger claim, instead? Should they have an equal claim? Can I put in a claim to ownership of wherever you live?
    - defrost 2y ago
      We can resettle the two million acres of Ted Turner land then?
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
      It's tricky because property rights are legitimately the foundation of a peaceful and prosperous society. It's bad to incentivize violent conquest and theft. But it's also bad to incentivize a society where the way to become wealthy is to tell the best sob story about stuff that happened to your ancestors generations and generations ago.
      - gottorf 2y ago
        Property rights, of course, exist within the framework of a civilization that upholds the rule of law, and I agree with you on its fundamental importance as a building block of prosperity. I realize now that my comment didn't make this clear, but I meant that at a civilizational level, there isn't something special to be the "first" group of people[0] to a patch of land; what matters is whether any civilization to occupy a territory at a given point of time builds enough wealth and strength to defend their claim and way of life against subsequent civilizations to come along. Numerous other commenters appear to dunk on me for this distinction, but I believe property rights within a civilization are not comparable to this scale. What framework exists at the supra-civilizational scale? [0]: How do you know anybody was first? Written history and archeological records only go so far.
        0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
        >builds enough wealth and strength to defend their claim and way of life against subsequent civilizations to come along. I don't agree with "might makes right", if that's what you're trying to argue. >What framework exists at the supra-civilizational scale? International law? E.g. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is sometimes said to be "illegal". I suppose one could argue that conquest only become illegal with the 1928 Kellogg-Briand pact. So one could argue that attempts to relitigate pre-1928 conquests essentially amount to applying international law retroactively, which might violate Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Of course, just because conquest was "legal" doesn't make it acceptable morally. However, I do think one could use the international law point to argue that Russia needs to pay reparations to Ukraine, but pursuing reparations for pre-1928 conquest isn't valid.
    - kennyloginz 2y ago
      Nice, so how is your special claim better?
    - ImJamal 2y ago
      So I can kill you and take your house? Or do you just apply this standard to the Native Americans?
      - asacrowflies 2y ago
        Native American nakba let's go.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
idlewords 2y ago
If you have the chance, it's really worth making the trip to Cahokia, IL. It was the capital of one of those civilizations that peaked in the 12th century, and you can still climb the monumental earthworks and gain a sense of the place. Any society that DIYs a mountain in Illinois deserves to be remembered.
- pentel-0_5 2y ago
  See also: The Piasa and Pere Marquette https://youtu.be/G14hwyYsPTo https://youtu.be/G14hwyYsPTo
AlotOfReading 2y ago
I get a deep sense of gell-man amnesia from this paper. I don't have familiarity with all of the regions in the analysis, but the analysis don't match existing RC data for the southwest region at all. The well-understood RC peak numbers for AZ (HU 15) should be about century later than in the study (~1100). The 4 corners region (HU14) should be about 350 years later (~1150). The rio grande should be about 150 years later (~1200-1400), with a barely noticeable decline from 1400-1600. They explain this away as regional averaging, but it's sloppy to have some of the best regional RC datasets in the world available and not use them as analysis controls or even cite the relevant landmark papers. That's to say nothing of the much-discussed difficulty matching RC data to demography. I don't know how bad the data is in some of the other areas, but I suspect it's not much better.
perrygeo 2y ago
The population was already declining when Europeans got here. But it dropped precipitously thereafter, starting almost immediately due to disease. By the 1600s, tribes in the east were nearly wiped out. Since the majority of "explorers" came to America after this time, the accounts of the native cultures reflect an already-defeated society. For years, it was thought inconceivable that the native cultures encountered in the 1600s could have built such elaborate structures. The common understanding was full of racist overtones - these cultures were too "primitive" to have built cities. Reality is that if Europeans met Native Americans in say 1100, the situation would be reversed - the Americas were thriving with trade and cities while Europeans were largely subsistence-farming peasants caught in the dark ages. If you're interested in this topic, definitely check out "Origin: A genetic history of the Americas" by Jennifer Raff.
- suggestion 2y ago
  The "Dark Ages" are a complete myth and Europeans were far more technologically, culturally, and economically advanced and prolific than Native Americans in the Early Middle Ages, in spite of deurbanization and the other recessions of the time period.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    > The "Dark Ages" are a complete myth I think you are greatly exaggerating an argument that merely attacks a strawperson: That everything was bad, etc. in the Dark Ages. The world isn't as simple as the strawperson, but the Dark Ages were pretty dark compared to ancient Rome before and, of course, the Englightenment that followed (in which, by a broader definition, we still live). > Europeans were far more technologically, culturally, and economically advanced and prolific than Native Americans in the Early Middle Ages Could you share some source to support that, where people can read more?
    - suggestion 2y ago
      >First paragraph The argument posited was that Europeans during the "Dark Ages" were inferior economically and culturally to the Native Americans. There's virtually no point in history in which this was true. >Could you share some source to support that, where people can read more? The Iron Age Prolific Written Language Interstate Commerce Sophisticated Art, particularly music Prolific Agrarian societies Prolific complex architecture That's just a few examples. There's no single source, it's self evident when surveying the Early Middle Ages.

25 points by gmays 2y ago

Aloisius 2y ago

The paper gives a relative population loss between 1150 and 1500 CE of ~30%, with caveats.

throwiut 2y ago

[flagged]

zmgsabst 2y ago
There were multiple migrations; tribes fought for land and replaced each other; people arrived by ships; etc. Nobody even knows who the first settlers actually were — and they’ve likely been replaced more than once. Talk of “indigenous” is usually just a vestige of European colonialism which simultaneously treats the existing population as simplistic while focusing on Europeans events/actions as special in history. If your tribe arrived 400 years ago and has been here since, you’re as “indigenous” as anyone else — and it’s not surprising they don’t like others taking their stuff. Nobody does.
- gottorf 2y ago
  To go further, I personally don't think the first settlers to a piece of land have a better or more special claim over it than any subsequent group. That line of thinking feels like an appeal to cosmic justice more than anything else.
  - vkou 2y ago
    Should the most recent settlers to it have a stronger claim, instead? Should they have an equal claim? Can I put in a claim to ownership of wherever you live?
  - defrost 2y ago
    We can resettle the two million acres of Ted Turner land then?
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
    It's tricky because property rights are legitimately the foundation of a peaceful and prosperous society. It's bad to incentivize violent conquest and theft. But it's also bad to incentivize a society where the way to become wealthy is to tell the best sob story about stuff that happened to your ancestors generations and generations ago.
    - gottorf 2y ago
      Property rights, of course, exist within the framework of a civilization that upholds the rule of law, and I agree with you on its fundamental importance as a building block of prosperity. I realize now that my comment didn't make this clear, but I meant that at a civilizational level, there isn't something special to be the "first" group of people[0] to a patch of land; what matters is whether any civilization to occupy a territory at a given point of time builds enough wealth and strength to defend their claim and way of life against subsequent civilizations to come along. Numerous other commenters appear to dunk on me for this distinction, but I believe property rights within a civilization are not comparable to this scale. What framework exists at the supra-civilizational scale? [0]: How do you know anybody was first? Written history and archeological records only go so far.
      - 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
        >builds enough wealth and strength to defend their claim and way of life against subsequent civilizations to come along. I don't agree with "might makes right", if that's what you're trying to argue. >What framework exists at the supra-civilizational scale? International law? E.g. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is sometimes said to be "illegal". I suppose one could argue that conquest only become illegal with the 1928 Kellogg-Briand pact. So one could argue that attempts to relitigate pre-1928 conquests essentially amount to applying international law retroactively, which might violate Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Of course, just because conquest was "legal" doesn't make it acceptable morally. However, I do think one could use the international law point to argue that Russia needs to pay reparations to Ukraine, but pursuing reparations for pre-1928 conquest isn't valid.
  - kennyloginz 2y ago
    Nice, so how is your special claim better?
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    So I can kill you and take your house? Or do you just apply this standard to the Native Americans?
    - asacrowflies 2y ago
      Native American nakba let's go.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

idlewords 2y ago

If you have the chance, it's really worth making the trip to Cahokia, IL. It was the capital of one of those civilizations that peaked in the 12th century, and you can still climb the monumental earthworks and gain a sense of the place. Any society that DIYs a mountain in Illinois deserves to be remembered.

pentel-0_5 2y ago
See also: The Piasa and Pere Marquette https://youtu.be/G14hwyYsPTo https://youtu.be/G14hwyYsPTo

AlotOfReading 2y ago

I get a deep sense of gell-man amnesia from this paper. I don't have familiarity with all of the regions in the analysis, but the analysis don't match existing RC data for the southwest region at all. The well-understood RC peak numbers for AZ (HU 15) should be about century later than in the study (~1100). The 4 corners region (HU14) should be about 350 years later (~1150). The rio grande should be about 150 years later (~1200-1400), with a barely noticeable decline from 1400-1600. They explain this away as regional averaging, but it's sloppy to have some of the best regional RC datasets in the world available and not use them as analysis controls or even cite the relevant landmark papers. That's to say nothing of the much-discussed difficulty matching RC data to demography. I don't know how bad the data is in some of the other areas, but I suspect it's not much better.

perrygeo 2y ago

The population was already declining when Europeans got here. But it dropped precipitously thereafter, starting almost immediately due to disease. By the 1600s, tribes in the east were nearly wiped out. Since the majority of "explorers" came to America after this time, the accounts of the native cultures reflect an already-defeated society. For years, it was thought inconceivable that the native cultures encountered in the 1600s could have built such elaborate structures. The common understanding was full of racist overtones - these cultures were too "primitive" to have built cities. Reality is that if Europeans met Native Americans in say 1100, the situation would be reversed - the Americas were thriving with trade and cities while Europeans were largely subsistence-farming peasants caught in the dark ages. If you're interested in this topic, definitely check out "Origin: A genetic history of the Americas" by Jennifer Raff.

suggestion 2y ago
The "Dark Ages" are a complete myth and Europeans were far more technologically, culturally, and economically advanced and prolific than Native Americans in the Early Middle Ages, in spite of deurbanization and the other recessions of the time period.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > The "Dark Ages" are a complete myth I think you are greatly exaggerating an argument that merely attacks a strawperson: That everything was bad, etc. in the Dark Ages. The world isn't as simple as the strawperson, but the Dark Ages were pretty dark compared to ancient Rome before and, of course, the Englightenment that followed (in which, by a broader definition, we still live). > Europeans were far more technologically, culturally, and economically advanced and prolific than Native Americans in the Early Middle Ages Could you share some source to support that, where people can read more?
  - suggestion 2y ago
    >First paragraph The argument posited was that Europeans during the "Dark Ages" were inferior economically and culturally to the Native Americans. There's virtually no point in history in which this was true. >Could you share some source to support that, where people can read more? The Iron Age Prolific Written Language Interstate Commerce Sophisticated Art, particularly music Prolific Agrarian societies Prolific complex architecture That's just a few examples. There's no single source, it's self evident when surveying the Early Middle Ages.