Complex Pre-Columbian Societies and the Transformation of the New World

[Steerpike]

The link below leads to an article by Clark L. Erikson, with the Department of Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania. It is part of a relatively new line of scholarship that establishes a very different view of the Pre-Columbia new world than what we were all taught in school.

According to this new line of research, Pre-Columbian populations were larger than we've been taught, and had a substantial impact on their world, such that by the time the Europeans reached the new world they were looking at a landscape already substantially transformed by long generations of humans living there. It is a fascinating area of scholarship.

Here's an excerpt from the article (linked below):


"Despite early historical accounts by eyewitnesses describing still flourishing complex societies in numerous locations throughout the Amazon and adjacent Neotropics, the indigenous societies ravaged by conquest, epidemics, exploitation, wars, and colonial policies encountered by later historians, ethnographers, archaeologists, and travelers were interpreted as representative of their ancestors. The environment of the Amazon region of tropical South America was long considered to be of limited potential for cultural development. As a result, scholars assumed that the simple social and political organization, nomadic or semi-sedentary lifeways characterized by hunting, gathering, fishing, and small-scale agriculture of the historic and contemporary native peoples reflected pre-Columbian conditions. These traditional interpretations feed the myths of low pre-Columbian human populations, a pristine environment, and the ecologically noble savage through their ignoring of or misreading the complex signatures of the human history embedded in the landscapes of Amazonia."

Diversity | Free Full-Text | The Transformation of Environment into Landscape: The Historical Ecology of Monumental Earthwork Construction in the Bolivian Amazon

 

[Justme]

I've always thought that populations levels were like the size of fish in a bowl. They can only grow to the limits that the immediate environment can support. Once the population outgrows this, as in ants a group must peel itself off from the main host and move onto greener pastures. The only limits I can see in such a lush environment as South America, would be the proximity of other tribes. Once one tribe encroaches on the area of another, then war results and the victor gains the spoils.

I see no real reason why the population of any country could not flourish, unless the food supply was scarce and when that population expanded, they had to shape the world around them according to their needs. Just because they didn't have machinery, doesn't mean they didn't have slave labor enough to do what was needed.

 

[Steerpike]

Yes, from what I've read the populations were probably much larger than previously thought, many decimated by the time the European presence was substantial.

The findings by Erikson and other stand to reason. These populations of human has every bit as much ingenuity as any other group of people. I think the traditional view was rooted in part in European egoism. When the ruins of the Maya were first being discovered by Europeans, they looked for answers in some race of humans that had long since died out, not willing to accept that the ancestors of the people who built those structures were right there next to them the entire time. Funny that so much time passed without that view being challenged in any serious way.

 

[Justme]

I can pretty much say egotism is the downfall of many in the West. Like a iron shodrd Dwarf stomping through a forest he rarely stops to notice the intricate details of anything that doesn't shine or glitter. The Europeans were there for riches and that was all they looked for. I seem to remember the person looking for Eldorado trekked all the way up into the prairies of North America, before he gave up. I also read something about, once they found out that the indigenous population made poor slaves, they lost all interest in them.

What also might have been the case, is that when the population found out they couldn't stand and fight the Europeans, they opted to fade away into the surrounding forests, until the invaders grew bored and moved on out of the area. This could explain why the Europeans considered the population so small.

Have you ever seen the movie The Emerald Forest If you haven't, I suggest you might like it. There is nudity in there, but the nobility of the forest people and their culture was amazing. Also, their form of magic and the film work depicting the experience was outstanding.

 

[Sheilawisz]

Pre-Columbian cultures in the American continent were an entirely unique style of civilization, so different because they had been isolated from the rest of the world for thousands of years... They had their own achievements, but please do not believe those lies that we Spaniards were some sort of brutish, evil force destroying a world where everything was beautiful and perfect.

The so-called "conquests" could not have been completed without the help of the American people themselves, and their worlds were just as cruel and corrupt as the rest of humanity has always been. They had trouble, they had wars and they hated each other: Americans fought side to side with Spaniards against other Americans...

It's true that the population in these Pre-Columbian cultures was very large, and if they had been united, no European force could have completed a conquest for many years.

The transformation of the New World was the result of two completely different styles of civilization merging together, not one destroying the other...

 

[Justme]

Pre-Columbian cultures in the American continent were an entirely unique style of civilization, so different because they had been isolated from the rest of the world for thousands of years... They had their own achievements, but please do not believe those lies that we Spaniards were some sort of brutish, evil force destroying a world where everything was beautiful and perfect.

The so-called "conquests" could not have been completed without the help of the American people themselves, and their worlds were just as cruel and corrupt as the rest of humanity has always been. They had trouble, they had wars and they hated each other: Americans fought side to side with Spaniards against other Americans...

It's true that the population in these Pre-Columbian cultures was very large, and if they had been united, no European force could have completed a conquest for many years.

The transformation of the New World was the result of two completely different styles of civilization merging together, not one destroying the other...

I don't think anyone is saying that the Europeans unilaterally decimated the South American societies. Surely there were those who tried to use them, but to what end and what would have been the case if the West had never came? We are talking about the possible discrepancy of numbers attributed to these societies by the West, not the political chicanery between antagonists.

One might add that even those who sided with the Europeans lost more of their culture than the Europeans did. One major change was the rise of Christianity in that area, and I hardly think it was installed without the use of a sword. From what I heard, the monks and priests had a field day, burning and destroying documents that might have advanced the human condition, incalculably. This alone was a travesty, much like the burning of the library in Alexandria.

 

[studentofrhythm]

If you've read Bernal Diaz's Conquest of New Spain you already know how the grandeur of Mexican civilization amazed the Spaniards (Justme, you should also check out Fray Bernardino de Sahagún).

The Americas are so huge and the people and cultures so diverse that a term like "Pre-Columbian" is kind of like . . . oh, I dunno, "Medieval." It may carry certain associations, but if you look at it closely you find that they're only part of a much broader scope and you have to divide and focus if you want to spend much time talking about the matter seriously. What's interesting about this article is that it's talking about the Amazon basin, which is not like Mexico or the Altiplano. It's been known for a while (though maybe not taught in schools?) that populations all over were decimated by plagues, but moderns still assumed that Amazonia was no place for a civilization to grow. There is ethnocentric arrogance at work, but tropical rainforests aren't easy to farm unless you have the right techniques, and if they're lost, you fall back on hunting and gathering, and those who come along, with no experience farming in such an environment themselves: what are they to think, if the environment tends to eat up all the evidence?

I read a Joseph Campbell interview where he said that the North American plains tribes deliberately chose to go to a more "primitive" lifestyle of hunting after they got horses. I know, it's Campbell, and I don't know what sources he drew on for that, but it does make sense to me as another example of a society going against what the industrial European frame of reference tends to expect.

I'd read about terra preta a few years ago, and this is an exciting development, thanks for sharing it!

 

[Justme]

The pre-Columbian era for The Americas was not Medieval, it was much earlier, in my opinion. Hunter/Gather for sure. The Europeans might have been fascinated by the societies there, but that didn't mean they respected them. They still were after wealth in and manner they found it.

Why do you think I'm not talking about this seriously, or are you suggesting I am talking out of my ass here and am just throwing around baseless opinions. I take exception to this, sence you have no idea who I am and what I've read.

 

[Steerpike]

Yeah, Pre-Columbian is just a point in time. If you look at these societies in any detail you find plenty of other time periods that can be roughly identified and labeled. With the Maya alone you have the pre-classic, classic, and post-classic, and even with those things get a bit hazy, especially early in the pre-classic where people are trying to figure out what was going on with the various populations in the area.

It is true that the first Spaniards were amazed by much of the glory they found (I have not read the Conquest of New Spain, but it is on my list). I think one point people like Erikson or Charles Mann make is that despite these early eye-witness accounts, it doesn't take very long for the general view of the new world peoples to be that the later remnants of these societies were representative, by and large, of what came before.

Sheilawisz: you are right that the conquering forces often had help from the indigenous cultures, who were out to destroy their own enemies and probably made a mistake in assuming they could somehow deal with their new allies once that was accomplished. It shouldn't surprised people to learn that the indigenous peoples were savvy, had their own political intrigue and strife, and worked at making their environment conform to their needs. That is what people everywhere have always done, and all of us as humans are far more alike than different.

 

[studentofrhythm]

Justme, if you've already read Sahagún then I'm sorry for the redundancy. That suggestion of reading his work was the only part of my post directed specifically to you.

Steerpike understood what I meant by "Pre-Columbian" and "Medieval" as broad terms.

 

[Steerpike]

I've read excerpts from Sahagún that I found interesting.

Also interesting, though much later in time, is Incidents of Travels in the Yucatan, by John Stephens, with some great illustrations by Frederick Catherwood.

 

[Justme]

I have a very dim view of histories written by members of religious orders but I will read this book.

 

[Saigonnus]

It is entirely possible that the first "outsiders" to set foot in the Americas brought with them diseases that they themselves were immune to, but nevertheless were still carriers. Chinese are known to have landed in Chile, Nordics in Eastern Canada and either could have been immune to the bubonic plague.

Said diseases could be transmitted to rats (who likely shared the vessel with the humans) and once they escape, aid the spread of the disease to the animal kingdom in the new world. Most animals aren't affected by human diseases, but can act as carriers. Most of the native Americans relied on horses to get around and probably goats or sheep for food and in close contact, would get the disease.

By all tales told, when settlers arrived, much of the native population was small and isolated, but who's to say they hadn't been ravaged by disease before they even arrived? The same could be said of pre-columbian or mesoamerican cultures. There was a Documentary called "Guns, Germs and Steel" that touched on this topic. When the spaniards first came to the new world and founded Havana, they began exploring the coast of Mexico for trade. Slaves often carried diseases and transmitted them to the natives and since they had no immunity to it, ran the course through the culture and decimated the population.

 

[studentofrhythm]

Saigonnus, you know that horses, sheep and goats were all introduced by the Spanish, right? Are you talking about them spreading diseases post-contact? I admit I don't recall for sure whether they did but I thought that by the time the natives adopted them the damage had been done. If you haven't read the book of Guns, Germs and Steel you should; it goes into much more detail.

I firmly recall reading that in places like New England the diseases carried out the work of death before the settlers got there, having spread from early contact points further south. The settlers of New England knew that a plague had swept the land before they arrived; they saw it as God clearing the way for them.

Has anyone looked at any research into whether the Norse settlements in Vinland introduced disease? Since they only stayed a short time and had minimal contact with the natives I'd be surprised if they had much effect.

Hope I'm not taking this thread off topic.

 

[Saigonnus]

I do remember that now (about the Spaniards), so perhaps I was still sleepy when I answered...

 

[Sheilawisz]

Smallpox was a biological disaster in the American continent and devastated the population to a great degree, but also American diseases soon reached Europe- I was not saying that the Spaniards of those centuries did everything peacefully, but it's not true either that the American cultures could not defend themselves and were annihilated by firearms and steel weapons.

The entire subject of this thread is very interesting, we need to talk more about this here in Mythic Scribes =)

 

[Justme]

Smallpox was a biological disaster in the American continent and devastated the population to a great degree, but also American diseases soon reached Europe- I was not saying that the Spaniards of those centuries did everything peacefully, but it's not true either that the American cultures could not defend themselves and were annihilated by firearms and steel weapons.

The entire subject of this thread is very interesting, we need to talk more about this here in Mythic Scribes =)

I don't think I used the word annihilated. No matter how the inhabitants of the country was reduced, wither by disease, infighting or whatever, they ultimately could not defend themselves and their culture from the Europeans. Or are you saying that after thousands of years, the people who had lived in a certain fashion, simply decided their culture was somehow misguided. I think not. Like in all conflicts. force of arms had the final say and the locals could not, at the time defend themselves and from it.

 

[Ivan]

I think to a certain extent the pre-Columbian societies did give up on their culture, not because they felt it was misguided or even because the Europeans were forcing another culture on them. Societies have prevailed against much greater threats. The arrival of Europeans shifted the power dynamic (through disease and force to be sure) and it became more convenient to follow along and use them as allies than to resist and fight for the culture that was their own. The same thing is happening today as people begrudgingly accept globalization in spite of the threat to local culture. While people can be very proud of their heritage, ultimately they do what is best for themselves.

 

[Sheilawisz]

You did not say that Justme, I do not mean that anyone here said it- I am living in the mexican state of Hidalgo, and the popular view among people here is that the Spaniards came like gold-crazy monsters and, even though the American cultures were united and fought bravely to defend their beautiful world, they were no match for European weapons and so Spain is responsible of terrible crimes against humanity.

The truth is very different, and I just don't want any person here to believe such stories because it annoys me... Tragic things did happen like the destruction of books that you mentioned, but it was not all Spain's fault.

 

[Devor]

It's important to remember that any glossing over of the history is doing justice to neither side. The Native Americans have a history as complex and involving as Europe's, even if much of it has been lost, and their interactions with the westerners were equally complex. There were tribes which broke treaties and Westerners who tried to establish peace. The armies which took down the Aztecs, for instance, was overwhelmingly comprised of their neighbors more than the Spanish. I've seen enough direct quotes from the time to believe our image of the "gold frenzy" is an exaggerated simplification of the time, as is to some extent the religious persecution - the goals of missionaries, who were often the first contact, weren't always reflected in the political institutions which followed behind them.

And while Westerners took advantage of the plagues they brought with them, it's worth noting that they had also suffered as much from them just a few hundred years earlier.

I don't say any of this to mitigate what happened: Colonists from the west brought diseases, and metallurgy, and guns which resulted in the unfortunate conquest of the people who lived in the New World. The only thing I'm saying is that it shouldn't be portrayed simply as a case of good versus evil, and the bad guys one. That image should be considered disrespectful not only to the "bad guys," but to the "good guys" who I feel are often portrayed as a pitiable piece of the landscape, spoken of in the same tone of voice used to describe depleted oil reserves and deforestation. They were and are great nations, and great peoples, with all the strengths and ills which come with.

((edit))

This isn't really directed at anyone in particular.