I think it is a myth. I don’t think the Native Americans were all that concearned about nature. I think they just had limited resources to damage it. Have you ever seen the mounds along the Mississippi. There were cities there that held populations of thousands. They over populated and distroyed the productivity of the land. If I remember right those citys had been abandoned even befor the first explorers brought in their germs.
But I agree that the myth started at least as far back as Cooper.
I think a general rule is, people are knowledgeable about the place they live and the environment they find themselves in. If you’re in a world where knowing how buffalo act makes the difference between eating and starving, you’d better learn how buffalo act. That trait isn’t just a native American thing, though. It’s a universal trait. We all need to be knowlegeable of our environment to survive. For example, I know what parts of Washington DC to avoid after dark. It’s not a mystical thing…just a practical matter of survival.
A lot of people would like you to believe that they were, but no. They just had the expert grasp of nature that all peoples get who live only within and off of nature. I hate to say this, but most of those ‘natural’ herbal cures were far inferior to the later developed penicillin, and American Indians were not known to bath every day. Makes you wonder what they wiped their arses with, doesn’t it, especially when camping a distance from water or being around limited water supplies.
They were just skilled at survival, and, following the usual pattern of primitives around the world, worked in a whole lot of folk lore concerning the animals starting with the most savage to the tamest. Even an Indian could not use every bit of a Buffalo like we use almost every ounce of a cow carcass today. Hunters often hacked out the choice, easiest to carry bits, having nothing with wheels to roll the meat home in, and left the rest for the scavengers. They had to move fast also, because fresh meat spoils quickly in most hot climates unless carefully handled, smoked or salted. Indians jerked or dried a lot of meat and some of that had to be smoked daily to preserve it.
Consider that the Indians were in the US for close to 6000 years prior to the Europeans stumbling over them and never managed to advance very far along the course of civilization. It was not all that peaceful among them either because certain tribes happily slaughtered other tribes just because they were there. It wasn’t like they had population pressures or anything. Oh, some practiced non-injurious war, using blunt weapons and scoring coup on each other (striking an enemy but not killing him, just letting him know you could have) but they were not as predominate as people would like us to believe.
They just knew their lands very well, like the natives in South America and parts of Africa and Australia do today. The same with the Eskimos. Look at Easter Island. The Great Native Population there foolishly cut down every damn tree in the land, most of which provided them with food, fibers, oil and fuel, for religious purposes and then died out. They did not develop the cultivation techniques needed to survive after doing this little thing.
In Ireland and Scotland, their ancestors hacked down a major part of the wood supply which is why even today there are few wild woods, and why they started developing the great peat bogs for fuel and building materials. It did not help any that some military guy decided to use most of the Oak forests in the smallish land for building up a major Navy, later forcing them to buy wooden ship fittings from France and have them shipped in from colonies.
Meriwether Lewis and William Clark journeyed up the Missouri and over the rocky mountains to the pacific from 1803-1806 under direction from then President Thomas Jefferson; their group numbering perhaps 35 or so, “Corps of Discovery” had strict orders to record the natural features, flora, fauna, geology, etc., and especially the native inhabitants-
In part:
“…a knowledge of these people important. You will therefore endeavor to make yourself acquainted, as far as a diligent pursuit of your journey shall admit, with the names of the nations and their numbers; the extent and limits of their possessions; their relations with other tribes or nations; their language, traditions, monuments, their ordinary occupations in agriculture, fishing, hunting, war, arts, and the implements for these; their food, clothing, and domestic accomodations; the diseases prevelant among them, and the remedies they use;
pecularities in their laws, customs and dispositions; and articles of commerce they may need or furnish, and to what extent…”
They gave as objective an account of the inhabitants as we are likely to get, and their accounts are notable for the honest and truthful handling of the natives – They were probably the first, and among the last, honest white men the indians had ever met.
In any case, when you read the accounts you can’t help but be struck by the fact of the variability in the differing tribes- some were noble, very well dressed, sober as a judge (Some indian chiefs were insulted by the offers of alcohol, noting that drunkenness made them open to ridicule by their citizens) and honest in their dealings with all, expert hunters and plainsman, expert horseman, able to brave extremes of heat and cold, pain, etc., etc., clearly to be admired in many, if not all, respects. Not too much different than anyone else.
Others were, as Lewis noted, of such a “depraved condition” that he could scarcely believe they were members of the human race. I’ll not go into details here, suffice to say the journals, are essential reading. Stephen Ambrose has a nice account of the expedition “Undaunted Courage” but I much prefer the DeVoto or Thwaites edited versions of the journals themselves. They are worth it for the spelling “errors” alone.
In any case, it would be interesting to know the native population prior to the arrival of the europeans, my copy of Mystic Warrior of the Plains pegs their numbers at around 200,000 indians in the whole of North America.
Those numbers certainly wouldn’t have a dramatic effect on the landscape nor wildlife populations, and so on.
Good knowledge of nature necessarily leads to an understanding of nature and its importance to the individual that is living in close contact with nature. I find it hard to believe that N. American Indians would have systematically annihilated species after species all over the continent. In the case of the mammoth and other megafauna (sabretooth, dire wolf, giant bear, etc.), it seems much more likely that humans merely played a part in their extinction.
Even that we don’t know. Unclebeer’s earlier footnoted post is not accepted fact by any means, but simply a hypothesis. Most American megafauna became extinct in the Late Pleistocene era, which centres loosely around the last Ice Age. The glaciers had retreated from North America by 10,000 years ago, and both mastodons and mammoths were cold-climate animals. The retreat of the ice seems to coincide with large-scale extinction of the rich and diverse American megafauna.
On the other hand, we are still not sure about the patterns of early human migration into North America, however it is generally accepted that the point of entry was Siberia (estimates of the date vary greatly). Human migration does not seem to match extinction patterns across N. America, so it is not reasonable to attribute the extinction of several species to human overkill.
Let’s take a look at sample N. American megafauna, extinct and living.
Mammoths and mastodons: There is evidence that these animals were indeed hunted by man for the abundant resources a single kill could bring. They were widespread all over the planet except in Australia and S. America. The last groups of these animals are thought to have become extinct by the end of the Late Pleistocene (10,000 years ago).
Dire Wolves: we have found no evidence (that I came across) that dire wolves were systematically hunted by man. Dire wolves were bigger than today’s wolves and had more massive jaws, and were probably something primitive men would not want to mess with. Dire wolves, once fairly widespread, became extinct at the end of the Late Pleistocene (about 10,000 years ago).
Sabre-toothed cats: primitive men were certainly not going near this set of animals, since one of these felines could bring down a grown mastodon. Some species were bigger than modern-day lions, packed with muscle, and endowed with 8-inch canines. Their extinction seems linked with the mastodons’, in N. America towards the end of the Pleistocene (10,000 years ago). For the rest of the world, earlier.
Camels: there once were camels in N. America, which is logical considering that camels evolved for life in cold Asian deserts and there was an Ice age going on in the American plains (we are not talking about the hot desert dwelling dromedary here, but a cousin). I have no idea precisely what caused the extinction of American camels, but they died along with much other megafauna at the end of the late Pleistocene.
**Short-faced bears: ** these were the largest land carnivores of the Americas, and were very widespread. Taller than a modern bear (9’10" at 700 Kg and up), very carnivorous. Again, I doubt early man can be held responsible for their extinction. In fact, I doubt early man would have wanted to go anywhere near these monsters. The bears that became extinct in N. America probably did so in competition with other bears (brown, black) and owing to a dwindling food supply. Again, extinction is dated at about 10,000 years ago. As an interesting aside, consider the case of the mighty Cave Bear, found across Europe: it may have been hunted by humans sporadically, but there is no evidence that its demise (again, at the end of the Pleistocene) was caused by humans. The Cave Bear is believed to have been vegetarian, and therefore not reliant on prey for its food–just like the mammoth.
Bison: this is a curious one, and very strong evidence against the mass-extinction by humans hypothesis. Why didn’t the bison, also an ideal hunting target and present in large numbers, become exinct like the mammoth and mastodon? The bison adapted to cold climates about halfway through the Pleistocene as it migrated to N. America. After the Ice Age, or starting about 10,000 years ago, the number of bison grew in a way not seen since among other animals of similar size. And yet for thousands of years the hunting of bison has provided Indians with ample supplies of food, clothing, shelter, and tools.
Big “small” critters:: megafauna one would normally not consider so “mega” included large specimens of rodents and lizards. Once again, they all became extinct in the late Pleistocene, possibly in the last interglacial age before the very end of the Ice Age, but cerainly no later than 10,000 years ago.
Add to this list of American megafauna horses, llamas, giant beavers, giant armadillos, giant skunks, and many others.
I just don’t see evidence in favour for Indian overhunting in all these extinctions. Sure, Indians contributed to the demise of the elephants, as humans did over much of the planet. But I doubt it was more than a contribution, and it is possible that nature did the rest, particularly to the other species. The general pattern for megafauna has been to, well, die. It seems that being large and massive is not always a long-term advantage. The mammoth, for example, had thick, coarse, protective hair half a metre long; under that was a coarse undercoat an inch long; beneath that was extremely thick skin (for which “pachyderms” are named); and beneath that was a layer of insulating fat over 3 inches thick. They had a large dome-like skull to block against cold, short hairy tails, and small ears to prevent heat loss.
This animal was wonderfully adapted for the Ice Age. It would probably have cooked in warmer temperatures.
In fact, climate change has been postulated as a major factor in the mass extinction that was already underway by the beginning of the Holocene (the postglacial age starting about 10,000 years ago. It is thought most megafauna mentioned above went extinct in a short time span between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago). Very massive animals have an advantage in colder climates because they lose heat less easily than “skinny” animals; however less massive animals have the upper hand in warmer climates because it is relatively easier for them to modulate body temperature (this is part of the reason why the dinosaurs died out and our shrew-like ancestors surived). It seems likely that American man did not kill off the mammoth and the rest of the extinct megafauna, but simply helped some species along the path that climate change, population redistribution, and competition had already determined for them.
My conclusion is that environmental change is the stronger hypothesis to account for the extinction of American megafauna.
Makes me wonder why you write this. Penicillin is a product of modern medicine, and cannot be compared to medicinal practices developed thousands of years ago. Nonetheless, I see nothing to suggest that American Indian medicine was not at least as effective in treating maladies as other medical traditions from around the world. Don’t forget, American Indian tradition gave us echinacea and many other useful herbal remedies. Remember the four humours medical school of Europe, or the absolute nonsense that still holds sway over much of Asia: Traditional Chinese Medicine.
As for the comment about how Indians wiped their ass in the wild, I find that rather vulgar and quite silly. In terms of hygiene, the Indians were generally cleaner than their European invaders–and far less disease-ridden. Up until the 19th Century cultures in Europe held that bathing was bad for the health. Do you have a rational point you want to make about the Indians?
I refer you to Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel for a highly detailed treatment of how several species of large mammals were hunted to extinction by the first groups of humans to populate North America.
Can’t comment on N.American’s hygiene, but I again point you toward Diamond for his explanation of why Europeans had more diseases. Smallpox, tuberculosis, influenza, and several other diseases are a byproduct of animal husbandry. Cattle, pigs, and domesticated fowl - - often kept in barns adjoining human habitations - - carried and tranferred these diseases to humans. In only a few instances did Native Americans domesticate animals (primarily because there were few suitable candidates or their ancestors killed the suitable candidates years before) and those that did kept their stock in lower densities.
IMHO, people are people. Native Americans had to know about nature to guarantee their survival; did learn to manipulate nature to make their lives easier; but their techology (with the exception of stone) was largely limted to biodegradable material and their population densities were never great enough to put particular stress on the native plant and animal communities in North America, at least.
Abe, you seem to think humans could only have been responsible for the extinctions of short-faced bears, dire wolves, sabre-toothed cats etc. if they were directly hunting them.
Not the case at all. Habitat encroachment and depletion of prey animals can bring about the demise of a species just as readily as predation.
Maybe the proto-Indians were “certainly not going near this set of animals” (as you say about the sabre-toothed cats), but they were probably going near, and killing, and eating, the same animals the cats fed on. Maybe to a degree that limited its survival as a species; provable or not, it’s certainly a credible scenario.
And habitat encroachment is a factor we see today with modern bears. Wild fauna, even predators, are very shy of people, and usually solitary, getting together even with their own kind only to mate. If people are ranging about an area, the animals will scatter over a larger concentric area, making it harder for them to get together and propagate.
There could have been no predation at all and the proto-Indians would still have had a huge impact on the fauna of the Americas.
Neither the North American Indians nor the arriving Europeans were the cleanest fellows around, but the Europeans had soap and used it.
Any major population of humans in any land is going to affect the natural populations of consumable and usable animals, just as any increase in an animal population effects other animals.
Records show how in some years, herbivores ate their way out of grasses, and predators increased through capitalizing on the higher number of sick and starving animals. That resulted in a higher population of predators next season which reduced the amount of subsequent prey species. Elephants have been known to wipe out forests which wiped out attendant animal populations, but naturalists consider this normal because animals are doing the destruction. Elephants have created grassy prairies where none existed before, causing forest animals to die out.
It is very possible that animals have forced other animals to become extinct through over grazing or over preying.
Native Indians existed just like other native populations have across the world, though they never developed a functional wheel and pretty much managed to remain fixed in practical progress for generations. They had no major comprehension of animal conservation beyond what any ‘natural’ race would have developed and had the Buffalo not been so numerous, they possibly could have wiped them out alone, without the help of the Cowboys.
Movies today like to give native populations current accepted environmental views for a ‘good feeling’ message.
In South America the indigenous population of natives have been slashing and burning farming lands out of the forest for years, but with a low local population, their actions were harmless and the populations were mobile, so used up land regrew. Now, with increased populations and less mobility, this destructive way of crop farming is doing damage because the farmers cannot move away for a few years and let the land regrow.
It is now being observed that the Mayan civilizations, in some areas, died out before the Spanish arrive because they used up the surrounding crop lands, water supplies and animal populations. Many people did not like to believe this, especially when finding some of the ruins buried in rich jungle regrowth. So far, the findings indicate that even native populations, having risen from the jungles, were no smarter than many later advanced ones when it came to ecology and environment.
They just had a much better understanding on how to use the available resources because that was all they had. National Geographic once commented on the decreased population of native birds that the local tribes liked to use the feathers of for decoration. Even when the birds approached local extinctron and the natives knew that getting the plumes was taking much more effort, they continued to do so. No conservation there.
And as for this…
Mammoths were common in Florida, which would have been temperate during the last ice age. Their bones have been found, for instance, in Wakulla Springs. Their ability to adapt to temperate zones pretty well destroys the “climatic change” theory as a possible reason for their demise.
Kimstu wrote:
I saw an interview with the writer on television a couple of weeks ago, and he said that he used a “nerdy” Indian specifically to belie the “mystical stoic” stereotype.
spoke: *“By the way, I loved Smoke Signals too, but I didn’t think it was meant to ‘belie’ the stereotypes”
I saw an interview with the writer on television a couple of weeks ago, and he said that he used a “nerdy” Indian specifically to belie the “mystical stoic” stereotype.*
You mind not taking my quote quite so out of context? The sentence continues “[…]I didn’t think it was meant to ‘belie’ the stereotypes as much as to show real human beings struggling with them and the opportunities/limitations/images they represented […]” [emphasis added]. In other words, we may both have a point: the author didn’t want to have his characters be stereotypical “movie Indians”, so he gave them characteristics that deliberately contradicted those stereotypes. But many aspects of those stereotypes are definitely, and deliberately, present in the movie too, and the characters are obviously aware of their influence and mystique in their own lives.
Not the case at all, in fact quite the opposite. Let me quote from my earlier post:
Next point, by ivorybill:
I highlighted some of the problems with the human overkill hypothesis, and I explained why I thought the climate change hypothesis was more likely. I have not gone into the “deadly microbes hypothesis” because there isn’t enough information for that, but it is the third accepted hypothesis to account for an inexplicably rapid mass-extinction.
I do not discount that proto-Indians had an impact on their environment, but the evidence there is for human appearance in N. America cannot --as far as I know-- account for the mass extinction of several species of animals, some of them highly specialized, in a territory as enormous as N. America. In some areas, I can understand humans might have over-hunted. But Everywhere?
I do not think this destroys the climate change hypothesis at all, and it is not very good science to take one example and make it the rule. Firstly, some of Florida climate in the late Pleistocene is still a subject for debate, and we know that significant swings in climate did occur throughout the Pleistocene over most of the world.
Secondly, we know that Florida was, comparatively speaking, better off than most of N. America in terms of climate. It was generally warmer, which is why so many examples of megafauna fossils can be found there; most likely some animals (both carnivore and herbivore alike) were driven to Florida by inclement weather. Florida would have offerred better concentrations of grasses and prey than most of N. America during a particularly harsh Pleistocene spell. Additionally, there were no sharply defined seasons (see below).
Thirdly, carpet-like tundra, some pine trees, and coastal dunes with shrub do not necessarily equal hot weather. In fact, tundras are by definition quite cold, and Florida was at times a Tundra, at others South of one. The Ice Age was responsible for integrating a very broad spectrum of animals into ecological niches that are almost baffling (especially in Florida). All over the world such disharmonious associations were formed during the Pleistocene and lasted up until the weather flipped. Not until the advent of man, but until the climate changed.
The emergence of defined seasons was, it is thought, one of the most important factors in this hypothesis. It’s not so much a question of precipitation or temperatures, but the fact that changing seasons disturbed nature’s balance and replaced the Pleistocene co-existence and inter-dependence with the forced migration, seasonality (meaning reduction of much Ice-age vegetation) and increased competition that is a hallmark of the Holocene.
There are indeed problems with the climate change hypothesis, but (I believe) less than are present in the anthropogenic extinction hypothesis. The chief problem with the climate change hypothesis is not specific adaptation to climate, but that communities of animals living on islands were less affected by the changes than those on the mainland (in one dramatic example, mammoths survived in dwarven form until perhaps 3700 years ago on Wrangel island; forced adaptation, and the inability to migrate, may have enabled such island animals to survive climate change in some select locations). On the other hand, the chief problem with the anthropogenic hypothesis is that extinction patterns simply do not match human settlement patterns–there is very little overlap at all.
As I said, I don’t doubt human intrusion helped some fauna on the way to extinction, but I don’t see how proto-Indians, who were not at all urbanized or even particularly high in numbers, could have wreaked the sort of environmental havoc some attribute to them.
On the topic of soap and hygiene among Indians and Europeans.
This is certainly a topic worthy of its own discussion! From what I have seen, there is much debate about personal hygiene in, say, 15th to 18th Centuries. One thing I am fairly certain about is that water, because of its penetrative powers, was considered “debilitating” by many Europeans, who thought up until at least the late 1800s that bathing was an invitation for illness. In addition to that, many clothes that were dyed could not be washed (or washed too vigorously) for fear that the precious dye would wash off.
Bathing enjoyed a rise in popularity across Europe (not among the plebs) during the mid-18th Century.
I was refreshing my knowledge on soap and its use in history by browsing the online Britannica, and I came across this passage:
And also this:
Europeans did have soap, but I don’t think they used it much since it was a little-known substance to be used in conjunction with penetrative water! American Indians, soapless but living in far less urbanized conditions to say the least, would have had fewer problems with the accumulation of filth or lack of water. Europeans of the time had to put up with the constant smell of animals, open sewage and street excrement, rotting refuse, and lots of dirty people all in a small fixed area. I suspect the Indians probably had different attitudes, not having experienced the desensitizing effects of cities. In fact, I vaguely remember reading an historical account in which an Indian was quoted as saying that the European invaders were so dirty and untouched by water that they could be located from a distance by smell alone. I’m sorry, I can’t remember the source at the moment but I will post it if I find it.
Sure would like to see a cite for that one. I don’t believe Florida was ever tundra. For that matter, do you have cites for any of your pronouncements about Pleistocene climate?
If it’s all about climate, please explain to me why mammoths (and giant ground sloths, and giant armadillos, et cetera) could not survive in northern Canada today. The climate there is certainly no warmer than Florida was during the Pleistocene. (And not nearly as warm if I’m not mistaken.)
Pardon me for thinking that it’s more than coincidence that humans show up and then the big animals disappear. You don’t deny that humans hunted these big critters do you?
Cite, please?
Abe, have you read Guns, Germs and Steel? You might want to give it a look-see.
Tedster wrote:
How old is your source? A lot of the old low-ball estimates of Indian populations failed to take into account the devastating effects of European disease on native populations. When Europeans encountered a relatively empty continent, it was because their germs had preceeded them and wiped out millions of Indians.
According to this article, current estimates of pre-Colombian Indian populations range as high as 10-12 million above the Rio Grande, and 90-112 million in the Western Hemisphere as a whole. Enough to wipe out a species of big, slow moving game animals, I’d say.
In further refutation of the climatic theory, mammoth remains have been found as far south as Mexico and Guatemala. More proof that mammoths got along just fine in temperate climates. Unles Abe contends that Guatemala was tundra. Abe?
Abe?
(Note also the reference in the article to horses being hunted to extinction.)
I profusely apologize for the hijack, but can someone give me some sources to information about the megafauna and other species presumed to be hunted to extinction (about the animals themselves)? What I’ve read so far has been VERY interesting, and I would quite like to learn more…
Here’s a great site with links to articles covering all the different theories about the extinction of the megafauna.
Netbrian, if you just want to know about Pleistocene animals and not so much about extinction hypotheses I highly recommend Colin Tudge’s book The Time Before History. I’ve read it, and it’s excellent, although it limits its scope to mammals.
From the same book, Abe, I learned that elephants, of which mammoths are a variety, have lived all over the world and in all sorts of climates. And just because mammoths were hairy does not mean they couldn’t have survived when the climate got warmer. My three cats are living proof that animals can shed excess hair.
I reiterate that the proto-Indians could have caused the extinction of many species without hunting them, but mammoths in particular must surely have been among their favorite prey, if they survived to be preyed upon: Enough meat to last for weeks, furry hides for clothing and tents, gigantic tusks to make tools from.
The site that I linked above also has links to information about the various species of megafauna we’re talking about, including artists’ conceptions of their appearance. (Scroll down.)