Archaeologica.org

Yeah...assuming that HSS was in fact capable of faster breeding than HNS.

Cognito wrote:Min, it could even be simpler than that. Both HSS and HN could have been carrying diseases for which the other didn't have immunity. However, the increasing population (HSS) will eventually overcome the static population (HN) over time.

This makes me think of how the plague swept through Europe. All humans at this time were genetically the same (obviously) and whilst millions perished many more didn’t. The ones who survived must have had immunity, at the genetic level, to the disease.

Seeing as how HSS were increasing in numbers the ones who survived handed down this immunity to their offspring.
Whereas HNS were not increasing in numbers and had no immunity to this disease. Never having come in contact with whatever disease it was their bodies would not have had a chance to build up an immunity. This has happened many times in recent history. E.g. The Spanish stumbling through the Amazon and what happened to the natives.

Just a thought.

Yeah, Nigel, that's exactly the model. One of the basic ideas of Darwinian evolution is that a population must be "isolated" in order to evolve into a different species.

So, the idea is that Neandertal was isolated in Europe and did not have the exposure to diseases which developed elsewhere and which were then imported by HSS 'carriers' when they arrived.

It shows much clearer in the Americas where the oceans isolated the native American population from contact.

The only problem is that it seems less and less likely that they were, in fact, isolated. Contact apparently was made from Asia but also the logic of pre-Columbian contact from Africa and Europe cannot be ruled out. The question then becomes, when did the disease organisms evolve?

T'is a mystery.

Some viruses\bacteria are dormant in cold conditions. As HSS were moving into the warmer climates they could have been carrying the disease. Over time as they migrated further south the virus could have manifested itself as just a slight illness which they quickly built up immunity against. We do the same today with vaccinations. Small dose = slightly ill = immunity.

By the time they came in contact with HNS the disease could have been at full strength (?)

Viruses and bacteria mutate as well....as the flu virus proves every year.

The only problem is that it seems less and less likely that they were, in fact, isolated. Contact apparently was made from Asia but also the logic of pre-Columbian contact from Africa and Europe cannot be ruled out. The question then becomes, when did the disease organisms evolve?

Most of the killer diseases that wiped out Native Americans jumped from cattle to humans in addition to a few that were opportunistic at close quarters in filthy environments (i.e. European cities harboring rodent plague). As such, the killer strains were relatively recent (within 5,000 years or so). We cannot expect the same situation to apply when HSS met HN. However, Min, I tend to agree with your assessment that the two populations were never that isolated in the first place. There was consistent East-West contact over tens of thousands of years and I cannot imagine why there wouldn't be the same for North-South.

Not all native American tribes succumbed to typical European diseases at the same rates. Apparently, the Narragansetts had some resistance which would imply prior European contact; however, the Pilgrims took care of them by butchering them instead. In the name of God, of course.

I agree Cogs, that's why I keep drifting back to typhus...which only requires lice and our forebears had those in abundance.

Do we know if Typhus existed at that time Min? If it did it may well have been more virulent then as well of course.

Roy.

Great question. I wish the answer was as good.

Typhus was apparently first identified in the 1500's in Europe but the key word there is "identified" not "first."

It is suspected in the plague in Athens c 430 BC or, roughly 2,000 years earlier. Such suspicion is based on the accounts of the symptoms given by Greek writers. Whether it existed in the epidemic form or not is mere speculation

Minimalist wrote:Yeah, Nigel, that's exactly the model. One of the basic ideas of Darwinian evolution is that a population must be "isolated" in order to evolve into a different species.

So, the idea is that Neandertal was isolated in Europe and did not have the exposure to diseases which developed elsewhere and which were then imported by HSS 'carriers' when they arrived.

It shows much clearer in the Americas where the oceans isolated the native American population from contact.

The only problem is that it seems less and less likely that they were, in fact, isolated. Contact apparently was made from Asia but also the logic of pre-Columbian contact from Africa and Europe cannot be ruled out. The question then becomes, when did the disease organisms evolve?

T'is a mystery.

Hi Min -

No mystery. I see you haven't read Man and Impact in the Americas yet, or the correction sheet inside its front cover. Otherwise you would not make such a statement.

The Native American population die off at 8,350 BCE appears to be tied to the arrival from Europe of the Red Paint People.The plagues ca 1175 CE was most likely due to Viking contact, and the Dorset pretty much went extinct.

Other European contacts appear to have been limited, which may explain the lack of broad die offs from them. Another possibility is repeated limited exposures.

The conquest era die offs are well known.

The matter in general is covered on page 7 of my book, case 9.

I hadn't considered disease playing a role in HSN extinction, but that certainly sounds very possible, based on other examples. PS - To my knowledge, the book "Plagues and Peoples" was the first book to look at man and disease anthropologically.

E.P.

True, E.P.

I have a whole series of books to finish reading/read...including Niels Peter Lemche's and Philip R. Davies latest works on old testament "history" as well as Mann's 1491.

I did run a quick Google search for a Native-American population die off c 8350 BC and did not get much of a response. Now that, in and of itself, does not mean much as scholars frequently ignore that which does not interest them or, worse, contradicts established theory.

I'll see what my tolerance is for pre-Columbian theory after 1491.

The Native American population die off at 8,350 BCE appears to be tied to the arrival from Europe of the Red Paint People.The plagues ca 1175 CE was most likely due to Viking contact, and the Dorset pretty much went extinct.

EP, you are correct. Plagues played a far more important part in history than anyone would like to admit. Your observation that the Red Paint People and Norse were responsible for die-offs at those times is astute since pandemics do not spread of their own without a reason. Europeans appear and the natives die off - it ain't no coincidence, folks.

Another ground-breaking book on the topic was Life on Man by Rosebury:

http://www.grg.org/trosebury.htm

I hear a lot about transmission of diseases from Europeans to isolated groups but what about the other way?

Roy.

Digit, in Guns, Germs and Steel Jared Diamond does an excellent job of explaining why Eurasian and African populations transmitted diseases towards the Americas as opposed to the other way around. There was flow both ways, but the majority of killer diseases jumped from animals from domestication in close quarters. Eurasia had a variety of cattle and other domesticated animals that did not exist in the Americas. Voila - more potential killer bacteria and viruses to transmit. He believes this resulted from geography more than anything else.

The Americas were also isolated enough that sick people traveling to that desination never survived the trip in the first place. All in all, pre-Columbian Americans were probably a healthier bunch prior to 1492 albeit with a lack of immunity for Eurasian diseases.

Ta!

Roy.