The Irish are Not Celts

[Berg-i-dum]

Yeah I wanted to say that there werent *almost natives in Argentina and in the south of Chile. It was an almost deserted region. So nowadays you can find a good number of european population there.

[lobf]

Yeah I wanted to say that there werent *almost natives in Argentina and in the south of Chile. It was an almost deserted region. So nowadays you can find a good number of european population there.

What are you talking about?? Do you have some kind of source that I've never heard of? One that omits the existence of the Inca empire?

Seriously, I'd like to see something. I don't see why Argentina would be less populated than any other area. It's pretty fertile, AFAIK.

[Celtic_Punk]

i've never been to agentina and I won't pretend to know anything about its terrain, so correct me if I am wrong. Isn't Argentina covered in thick jungle and quite mountainous. kinda like Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos? If so thats why it would be sparsely populated.

Off topic: I'd love to go on a 3 week journey through the Amazon or another massive thick jungle. Obviously properly equipped, and physically ready. I'd have to rough it though... no GPS or anything electronic.

[-Praetor-]

It also involves doing what the Spanish did in the Latin America: kill the men, rape the women.

Comparing the spanish conquest of south america with a mass genocide is hardly a good historical analysis technique. That would ignore the chapters of the intervention of the church, the leyes de indias and most of the regulatory normative that arose after the spanish conquest of America. There was killing, as in any conquest, but not genocide, and the interpretation you are proposing is a caricaturized perspective of the spanish conquest, more according to the colonization process of North America.

This:

Also the Spanish didn’t directly kill millions of potentially loyal and income producing Mexica, Mixtec, Maya, Tlaxcalan, Zapotec, Tlaxcalans, and of course Tarascan subjects. For the most part it was Variola vera that did the lion's share of the killing.

is a more accurate description to what happened.

Well the most of population of latin american have not spanish ancestors.

What?

Yeah I wanted to say that there werent *almost natives in Argentina and in the south of Chile. It was an almost deserted region. So nowadays you can find a good number of european population there.

It was so deserted that the mapuche people continued to fight against the spanish conqueror from the time of their arrival into Chile until they departed after the South American independence, resulting into an effectively unconquerable people. The mapuche were only assimilated into the Chilean state on 1881, 63 years after the declaration of independence of Chile. At the time of their assimilation, they numbered around 500.000 people, and at the time of the spanish arrival, around 1 million. And yes, south of Chile was deserted.

What are you talking about?? Do you have some kind of source that I've never heard of? One that omits the existence of the Inca empire?

The inca empire never got as far as southern Chile. There were other peoples here, namely the araucanos or mapuches.

I don't see why Argentina would be less populated than any other area. It's pretty fertile, AFAIK.

A large part of Argentina is pampa, a large steppe (52% of total surface) fit only for cattle and hydrocarbon exploitation. And another large part is Andine mountains. Most of the fertile land lies to the northeast.

correct me if I am wrong. Isn't Argentina covered in thick jungle and quite mountainous. kinda like Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos?

Yup, you're wrong.

[Sumskilz]

Berg-i-dum,

The estimates on the percentage of Native population whipped out vary greatly, the highest being about 90%. This was by disease primarily, not genocide. The genetic evidence matches the historical records fairly well. The vast majority of Latin America is mixed not Native as you assert. In the study I posted which looked at the genetic makeup of northwest Columbia, 94% of the Y chromosome lineages were of European origin, 5% African, and only 1% Native American where as the mtDNA lineages were 90% Native American, 8% African and only 2% European. It appears that the reason Native genetics were not nearly wiped out is because Spanish men took Native wives.

This is not all Black Legend nonsense; don’t think the whole English speaking world believes in all that.

[Berg-i-dum]

Comparing the spanish conquest of south america with a mass genocide is hardly a good historical analysis technique. That would ignore the chapters of the intervention of the church, the leyes de indias and most of the regulatory normative that arose after the spanish conquest of America. There was killing, as in any conquest, but not genocide, and the interpretation you are proposing is a caricaturized perspective of the spanish conquest, more according to the colonization process of North America.



It was so deserted that the mapuche people continued to fight against the spanish conqueror from the time of their arrival into Chile until they departed after the South American independence, resulting into an effectively unconquerable people. The mapuche were only assimilated into the Chilean state on 1881, 63 years after the declaration of independence of Chile. At the time of their assimilation, they numbered around 500.000 people, and at the time of the spanish arrival, around 1 million. And yes, south of Chile was deserted.

[/URL]

I am absolutely agree with the first paragraph.

About the second, yeah Chile it wasnt a desert like Pampa but well you will be agree in that it wasnt really so big populated as Mexico or Venezuela, Colombia.

Berg-i-dum,

The estimates on the percentage of Native population whipped out vary greatly, the highest being about 90%. This was by disease primarily, not genocide. The genetic evidence matches the historical records fairly well. The vast majority of Latin America is mixed not Native as you assert. In the study I posted which looked at the genetic makeup of northwest Columbia, 94% of the Y chromosome lineages were of European origin, 5% African, and only 1% Native American where as the mtDNA lineages were 90% Native American, 8% African and only 2% European. It appears that the reason Native genetics were not nearly wiped out is because Spanish men took Native wives.

This is not all Black Legend nonsense; don’t think the whole English speaking world believes in all that.

Your study is about a reduced area of Colombia heavily colonized by spaniards. This dont explain nothing in general. The vast majority of latin america is native in the most of Latin America, you can go there and check it. No study is neccesary, just kidding hehe. The principal reason is that spaniards nor diseases didnt kill the most of population and the colonizers were a really bit porcentage of population that came across the ocean, Spain was a really little country to manage and to make a so big influence in latin america population much more bigger than spanish one...

A so big and really epic disease would be came to History some time ago nor in the current decades. And i have read other studies appart from Black Legend stories that speak about harmful and big diseases but for God shake, not the 90%.

[Sumskilz]

There was another study led by Dr. Andres Ruiz-Linares that studied 13 populations across Latin America from Chile to Mexico that found very similar results as the study I posted, except that there was a bit higher percentage of native genes in the Andes and Central Mexico where the Native populations had been higher prior to contact. It also showed that a small number of male lineages contributed a lot of DNA which fits with the idea of there having been very few Spanish colonists. There exists primary source documentation for about 55,000 individuals emmigrating from Spain to Latin America prior to 1600. The people that look native to you mostly carry European genetics. They are mixed. I agree with you that most of Latin America is native except that they are also of European ancestry. Very few individuals in Latin America even identify themselves as native, they usually call themselves Mestizo.

I don’t know if I buy the 90% figure either, but it’s thrown around a lot by scholars on the subject. It seems very difficult to estimate such a thing.

I don’t think this is really relevant to EB anymore though.

[cmacq]

A so big and really epic disease would be came to History some time ago nor in the current decades. And i have read other studies appart from Black Legend stories that speak about harmful and big diseases but for God shake, not the 90%.

I'm not real sure I've ever run across any of these Black Legend stories? However, in the American Southwest population levels do seem to have decreased about 80% in some areas and even more in others. I fact, large regions appear to have been effectively abandoned. Interrestingly, this demographic drop was not associated with the arrivial of the Iberians. In a pan-regional sense, the initial phase of depopulation occurred between AD 1150-1165 and again from 1275 to 1300. As in the case of the Fremont Culture, Virgin Anasazi, and the first abandonment of Chaco in the second half of the 12th century AD. Then in the late 13th century another set of regions were all but abandoned, for example the Mesa Verde, the San Juan, and for the second time the McAlmo phase Chaco.

In the Tonto-Lower Verde area, which I'm most familiar with, the Roosevelt Phase cultural florescence was cut short and the population dropped by more than 80%. Between AD 1300 and roughly 1350 there was somewhat of a recovery, however population remained less that a quarter of the 13th century levels. After AD 1350 the bottom seems to have dropped out and with the exception of the consolidated proto-Hopi and proto-Zuni all of Arizona and New Mexico were abandoned between the Colorado and Rio Grande, north of Tucson possibly as early as AD 1400. Right there were several O'odham remnents, but these were very small, and it wasn't long before the various Pai affiliates trikled into the vacoum. Still, these were but a very small fraction of what the 13th century population levels had been.

Now the first Spanish expedition to the Caribbean arrived, in what, 1492? Now, my math skills aren’t that good, but I seem to always come up with a difference of about 100 years. Strange, every two or three years or so, another energetic young archaeologist new to the area seems to want to make a difference and send that 100 years to the Cornfield. The reason they want to whittle these years away is because if they can make the period of mass abandonment appear to have occured a century later, and match it with first contact, then they'll have a causality for said abandonments; European induced disease. Think jamming a square peg into a round hole; to the untrained eye it may look feasible, problem is, it doesn't fit, 'period!'

In other words they want whys, and in contrast, I ask why not; Or they say tomato, I say potato, or better yet, tater-tot. This is because I seem to remember somewhere reading about, the dendro-based paleo-climatic reconstructions which demonstrate two significant periods of extended drought within this time frame; the first occurred in the middle 12th century (AD 1150-1165) and the second much more sever, between AD 1275 and 1295. Actually, this is why we know the abandonment dates of an individual structure, settlement, and whole regions; from the cutting dates of timber used to build new roofs. When there are no new cutting dates found within an intire region, and contemperary uncut timber has extremely narrow grouth rings, we know when a given area was no longer occupied.

I also remember that after AD 1350 there reoccurred short periods (about 5 to 15 years) of sever drought followed by sever flooding (of one to three years) until around AD 1850. Then a little farther afield I may recall the collapse of the Middle Mississippian Culture (which covered much of the central US) between AD 1150 and 1300. Also I think the high altitude Tiwanaku went down the tube about the same time (starting around AD 1150), and lets not forget the infamous disappearance of the Norse Greenland colony (decline starting around AD 1150-defunct by 1450), as well as the demise of the Viking expansion (decline starting around AD 1150-more or less defunct by 1300), Great Famine (1315-1317), Black Death (1346-1351), and of course least I forget; the Curse of One Rabbit (now its high-tide dendro-dated between 1332 to 1543).

I suppose the big picture here is that due to repeated drought, flood, and famine associated with the Little Ice Age, already nutritionally stressed global populations were more susceptible than ever to the evolving new range of Variola. In fact, upon contact, the natives of the western hemisphere were nothing special; the pox was known to reap a far wider swath when the sandbox was bigger. As later as the 18th century it claimed an average of several hundred-thousand every year in Europe alone. It seems that the Romans of the Imperial Period also saw their fair share of Variola. Strange, how the pox only wants to come out and play big-time whenever moma-earth decides its time to get cold?




CmacQ

[lobf]

The inca empire never got as far as southern Chile. There were other peoples here, namely the araucanos or mapuches.

The Inca Empire almost didnt extend across the south of Chile nor Argentina. Well they occupied some really little areas of the NW extreme of Argentina and a big area of north Chile but it wasnt for a long time nor a populated area in that time.

No, southern Chile wasn't controlled by the Inca empire. But much of modern day Chile was. It follows to me that people existed beyond the borders of a particular political state. And considering Inca interest in the areas around southern Chile/Argentina, it wasn't individuals roaming deserts.

Edit- My point is there were Mapuches in enough numbers to resist the Incas.

Double edit- Which means bunches of Mapuches.

[oudysseos]

Berg-i-dum, I suggest you have a look at Charles Mann's 1491, The Americas Before Columbus. http://www.amazon.com/1491-Americas-...8650407&sr=1-1

There may be controversy between high-counters and low-counters over the population levels of the pre-contact Americas, but no-one thinks that they were deserted.

And what the hell does all this have to do with the Irish?

[cmacq]

Chile and Eire; potatos, I guess? Actually, it seems these were offered as examples of population replacement vs augmentation.




CmacQ

[Berg-i-dum]

Berg-i-dum, I suggest you have a look at Charles Mann's 1491, The Americas Before Columbus. http://www.amazon.com/1491-Americas-...8650407&sr=1-1

There may be controversy between high-counters and low-counters over the population levels of the pre-contact Americas, but no-one thinks that they were deserted.

And what the hell does all this have to do with the Irish?

I never have said that it was a desert or tried to say it, may be it was my bad english, I said *almost desert, of course the only really desert area of the world is Antartica.

I know that book, but I dont consider ir a reference book since the author is a journalist, not a historian, and it is evident that he is trying to make a polemic/ controversial new history of prehispanic America as he said. I havent read it and it is in my list from long time but I could recommend other authors, with an academical reputation and veteran historians, but they are spaniards and of course their books werent translated to english

About the theories cmacq exposed, I consider them really interesting. Of course this could explain too or be part of an explanation about the downfall of Mayas/ Majan. But well I think all this process is difficult to demostrate. And of course it is much more easier to blame the spaniard conquest.

Sumskilz, I really dont think the most of latin americans like to call themselves mestizos or even be proud to have spanish ancestors, The nowadays fashion is to blame the conquerors and exalt native cultures. So little spanish genetic there can be spread like visigoths genetic can be in the spanish population, yeah we can be mixed in a really bit porcentage but not to aseverate we are visigoths or we are goth mestizos. And you will be agree 55.000 colonizers cant change a population of millions. It depends on the areas, of course Antioquia region in Colombia it was heavily colonized and other regions but I dont think in general. A general genetica study could be help but as far as I know that study doesnt exist, and we must consider that genetical sciencie it isnt still developed, we must compare his conclusions with historical ones to make a better vision.

And yea I think this is not relevant to EB too and may be the thread itself, sorry about that.

[Celtic_Punk]

Berg-i-dum, I suggest you have a look at Charles Mann's 1491, The Americas Before Columbus. http://www.amazon.com/1491-Americas-...8650407&sr=1-1

There may be controversy between high-counters and low-counters over the population levels of the pre-contact Americas, but no-one thinks that they were deserted.

And what the hell does all this have to do with the Irish?

I concur... when did "celts not irish" become "chile and argentina are deserted....?

[Berg-i-dum]

What are you talking about?? Do you have some kind of source that I've never heard of? One that omits the existence of the Inca empire?

Seriously, I'd like to see something. I don't see why Argentina would be less populated than any other area. It's pretty fertile, AFAIK.

The Inca Empire almost didnt extend across the south of Chile nor Argentina. Well they occupied some really little areas of the NW extreme of Argentina and a big area of north Chile but it wasnt for a long time nor a populated area in that time.

The south extreme of South America wasnt almost populated before the came of the europeans. Dont know exactly why. May be it was the bad wheater, long distances,... The Argentine Pampa and Tierra del Fuego havent almost trees or so, there are deserted prairies. Those prairies are fertile if you have cows and so, ...but there wasnt cows before europeans. And no, it isnt like Vietnam or Amazonas ,it isnt mountainous, it is a big plateau.

[Lusitani]

Yeah I wanted to say that there werent *almost natives in Argentina and in the south of Chile. It was an almost deserted region. So nowadays you can find a good number of european population there.

Not so long ago europeans got payed for every dead native in what is now southern Argentina and Chile. No wonder there arent many left....