TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

2000 years of population swings among Indigenous Americans

25 点作者 gmays4 个月前

4 条评论

idlewords3 个月前
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.
评论 #43011864 未加载
perrygeo3 个月前
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 &quot;explorers&quot; came to America after this time, the accounts of the native cultures reflect an already-defeated society.<p>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 &quot;primitive&quot; 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.<p>If you&#x27;re interested in this topic, definitely check out &quot;Origin: A genetic history of the Americas&quot; by Jennifer Raff.
评论 #43015176 未加载
评论 #43016856 未加载
评论 #43021251 未加载
AlotOfReading3 个月前
I get a deep sense of gell-man amnesia from this paper. I don&#x27;t have familiarity with all of the regions in the analysis, but the analysis don&#x27;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&#x27;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&#x27;s to say nothing of the much-discussed difficulty matching RC data to demography.<p>I don&#x27;t know how bad the data is in some of the other areas, but I suspect it&#x27;s not much better.
Aloisius3 个月前
The paper gives a relative population loss between 1150 and 1500 CE of ~30%, with caveats.