Hi,

Recently, I've been reading about paleo-Indian history. (Paleo-Indians were the original inhabitants of the Americas.) There were a wide variety of paleo-Indian groups throughout the Americas. The oldest significant one was the Olmecs. Later came the Mayans and Aztecs, and the Incas in the Andes.

From what little I understand, it seems that as if the farther south one investigates, the more impressive the society. For example, it's believed that Cohokia's "Monks Mound" is the largest mound in what's now the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia), but that's nothing compared to what the Inca did at Machu Picchu (http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31&l=en&id_site=274&gallery=1&&maxrows=24) or what the Maya did at Chichen Itza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chichen_Itza).

I've read an estimate that suggests that at its peak, 20,000 people lived in Cohokia, but that pales in comparison to the 125,000 or more that are believed to have lived at Teotihuacan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teotihuacan), about 30 miles northeast of what's now Mexico City.

I'm puzzled as to why the southern groups seemed so advanced, but by comparison little seems to have happened in the area that's now the United States. I assume that from the standpoint of sheer population numbers, there were far more paleo-Indians in Mesoamerica, and possibly South America, than in North America. If so, why? (Of course, I'm referring to pre-Columbian times--before 1492.)

Also, did advancement in technology, mathematics, astronomy, architecture, etc. correlate highly with population density, or were there other factors that drove advancement?

Can anyone who studies paleo-Indian history explain how the North American groups in 1400 CE compared to, say, London in 1400 CE? If there were drastic differences, why?

I ask these questions out of curiosity. I wonder how much more we've learned about paleo-Indians, such as the Mound Builders, since Joseph Smith invented his stories and told his lies.

Thanks,

Steve

A few years back, I read a booked entitled 1491 which was about the Native Americans prior to Columbus and argued that they were much more advanced and populous than we are taught in school. I don't remember much but I do remember the author citing some of the earliest explorers who saw lots more people than later explorers and conquerors saw. Rather than discounting those accounts, the author argues that disease hit the Native Americans earlier and quicker than previously thought. It was fascinating and I would love to read more on the subject if anyone else has other suggestions.

Hi tmac,

I've read a small part of 1491, by Charles C. Mann, and plan to read the rest of it. What worries me is that I don't know if the anthropologists and archaeologists that he writes about are legitimate or cranks. For example, he begins the book by suggesting that the Beni savanna region of Bolivia (http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cerickso/applied3.html) was inhabited by large numbers of people who radically transformed the landscape.

If that's true, where's the pottery, and--most importantly--where are the bones of all of the dead people? If hundreds of thousands of people lived there, where are the skulls? Where's the evidence? I don't think that one can speculate based on landforms that humans transformed the land. Weird meterological phenomena happen, and can create landform features that look artificial.

Thanks,

Steve

This is the same problem researchers have of tracing ancient human occupation in most of South East Asia. The hot and humid climate destroys nearly everything. Unless there is pottery baked at high heat, or substantial stone construction, nothing much elses survives.

I remember reading that a plant survey of many areas of the Amazon rain forest showed that some areas had numbers of human preferred species (fruit, etc.) that would not naturally have occured. Likewise, in North America, the preferred selection of oaks in California to the burning to create the praries in the east argue that humans were as busy changing North and South America as they were changing other places on the planet. And in similar sized populations.

It probably has something to do with that the most nutritious and useful crops were native to mesoamerica and had to be adapted to other climates to spread north. Since these crops were domesticated there the area had a huge head start aswell.

the less labor intensive the agriculture, the more time there is for individuals to branch off into crafts, divide labor, and make stuff.

To really understand the way culture and technology spred, read Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel". It is a terrific read.

This subject fascinates me. I cannot specifically answer your question, but for other readers on RFM, they may find some of this information, gleaned from various articles, helpful:

Between about 1540 to 1760, Spanish and French settlers encountered (and documented the existence of) mound building societies in such places as Georgia, Illinois, Florida and Mississipi; the vast majority were found in the Mississipi and Ohio Valleys.

Within decades these indigenous populations were almost totally decimated by disease or by slavery, brought on mostly by the Spaniards.

For those Europeans who came after this time period, i.e. the English and Scottish, it was commonly thought that the now-vacant mounds could not possibly be the work of "stupid, savage or uneducated" Native Americans.

It was a widely held belief by 18th and 19th centuries European immigrants that these mounds must have been built by a more "intelligent race of peoples," i.e. the Hebrews from the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel (or Vikings, etc.)

It wasn't until 1894 that Cyrus Thomas (of the now-named Smithsonian Institute) verified that these mounds were indeed built by earlier cultures of Native Americans.

The Hopewell Indians were the mound builders living in Western New York about 300 A.D.


http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/science/mound-builders.html

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/people/why_how_built_mounds.htm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2013 12:57AM by Senoritalamanita.

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=4623


"The Palmyra region also had Indian mounds. Throughout the 1820s such Indian sites were featured in Palmyra newspapers. For example, the papers described the excavation of burial mounds near Cuyahoga River in Ohio, another in Virginia, and still others in Fredonia, New York, and Worthington, Ohio; rock inscriptions found in or near Dighton, Massachusetts, Pompey, New York, and Washington County, Missouri; a tomb in Tennessee and an excavation near Schenectady, New York. Such discoveries provided both concrete knowledge of Indians and room for speculation."

Umm. Your not talking about Paleo-indians. The Paleo-indian period ended approximately 7500-8000 years ago.

But other than that, you are asking really good questions. Although I don't completely agree that N. America was that far behind Meso and South America.

Right now I'm pretty exhausted from excavating at a Buffalo Jump all last week, so I won't get into detail. But basically, if you have an area with a high density of resources, you tend to then get a larger sedentary population. With a large, sedentary, population comes a greater need for cooperation. As well as people who are hungry for power, and a greater competition for that power. This then leads to the formation of formal governments and monumental architecture.

In N. America, this is why you see much higher pre-columbian populations along the East Coast, Major water-ways and Pacific Coast. (The Anasazi in the SW are sort of an anomaly to this model, however, pollen counts and other environmental reconstructions indicate that the area was once much more fertile than it is now). The mound builders immediately come to mind. While the areas with fewer resources, or I should say less concentrated resources, tended to contain lower populations of mobile hunter-gatherer societies.

The next time you're in Tusaloosa, Alabama (and, really, who won't be sooner or later?), be sure to take a quick trip down to Moundville and the Moundville Archaeological Park.

http://moundville.ua.edu/

Slightly off the topic, but if you want a feel for what North American Indian's could acheive you need to study the cultures in the Pacific Northwest and visit the Hopi Mesas, Taos Pueblo, Chaco Canyon, Canyon de chelle ect. I don't think we get exposed to the civilization that was in place when the Spanish/Russians/Brits brought disease and destruction.