Populations In Bom -- Others Theory

[robuchan]

This thread is dedicated to discussing and analyzing population sizes at various times in the BOM for various groups, and the theories of how those populations came about. The Others theory uses the explanation of mixing populations with Others to explain odd population size issues in the BOM text.

First up for discussion.

Jarom 1:6

much of the face of the land, and the Lamanites also. And they were exceedingly more numerous than were they of the Nephites; and they loved murder and would drink the blood of beasts.

I don't find this one very perplexing. This is 200 years into the America landing. Is that right?

1. As mentioned before, and maybe we can revisit this in this thread, there are several data points related to age, dates, birth pattern (Sariah), generation spans, battle sizes, etc that suggest there is something going on in the text that makes it impractical to try to use population modeling techniques to generate population estimates and come up with any theory for them.

2. When they divide into Lamanites and Nephites we have the following adult males:

Lamanites:

Laman

Lemuel

Ishmael son 1

Ishmael son 2

Nephites:

Sam

Nephi

Zoram

That's a 4:3 ratio immediately. And the Lamanite males are on average older, per Sorenson's Lehi's family article, so their posterity would grow faster, even if their number was even.

Just with this, if they grew at same rate 4,000 to 3,000 could seem like they were exceedingly numerous.

Further, (this is my ignorance) do we know Nephi had only two sisters and Ishmael only had two sons? I think we only have the term plural "sisters" and have to guess. Nephi could have had two, three, four or more sisters. Which could easily make for doubling up the Nephite population.

3. The sample size is so small, that I think it would be impossible to extrapolate scientifically. If they both started at 10,000, I agree you would be surprised if the hunter/gatherer group was much bigger than the civilized group. But when you start with four adults vs three adults, sickness/genes/infertility/early deaths/randomness of having more males than females, etc, any of these factors could throw things off greatly (especially if it occurred in the generation after Nephi-Laman, ie what if Laman had 10 kids and Sam had 1, this throws everything completely off) which would flow through exponentially through the data.

4. Murder and wars. The scriptures mention a few times during this time period that the Lamanites loved murder and were constantly attacking the Nephites. verse 7 says "we withstood the Lamanites and swept them away out of our lands, and began to fortify our cities, or whatsoever place of our inheritance." So the Nephites were able to withstand them and preserve their cities, but we should assume there would be some casualties. Enough that over time, the difference in populations could be numerous.

5. I don't agree with this method, but Brant Gardner and others use this technique. They will attempt to take away any meaning in the text. They will argue that the record keepers might have had motive to make it seem like the Lamanites were larger than they really were, or that the they might not have known the actual population and just estimated incorrectly, or some other reason related to ancient text understanding why it has a different meaning.

What are the verses at other points of time that reference population sizes that may suggest Others?

Edited July 12, 2012 by robuchan

[cursor]

ANOTHER thread/topic on "Others?" Oh boy!

[Anijen]

I refuse to get sucked into a one sided argument without it least some respectful research and dialog. What I have read from your past posting you refuse to listen to any other ideas unless it fits your own.

However, I will play nice, if you will read these articles, and if you promise to have a respectful open minded discussion then you can count me in (that goes the same for Zerinius).

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=6&num=1&id=141

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=9&chapterID=71

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41&chapid=190

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=2&id=507

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=2&id=503

[volgadon]

5. I don't agree with this method, but Brant Gardner and others use this technique. They will attempt to take away any meaning in the text.

[cursor]

um ...

L O L

(you got rep points from me, volgadon)

[cursor]

...

Edited July 12, 2012 by cursor

[Freedom]

Besides Sarah, do you have any other examples of birth rates? Or am I to understand that you are judging the entire population model based on one woman?

How many listed generations do you have besides the one record keeper? Or am I to understand that you are judging the entire population model based on that one man?

[Freedom]

I refuse to get sucked into a one sided argument without it least some respectful research and dialog. What I have read from your past posting you refuse to listen to any other ideas unless it fits your own.

However, I will play nice, if you will read these articles, and if you promise to have a respectful open minded discussion then you can count me in (that goes the same for Zerinius).

http://maxwellinstit...=6&num=1&id=141

http://maxwellinstit...=9&chapterID=71

http://maxwellinstit...d=41&chapid=190

http://maxwellinstit...15&num=2&id=507

http://maxwellinstit...15&num=2&id=503

I like this quote particularly. This is the point I have been trying to make.

The Book of Mormon was written for religious purposes, so it is fortuitous if the text reports historical details like population sizes at all. In fact, the book does not present any rigorous or systematic demographic information—not even a total population count is given. Of course, historical demographers have long recognized that for any period prior to the nineteenth century, they must "rely on the use of sources not collected with the demographer in mind."² This is particularly true of ancient records where population figures are seldom reported, and if they are, they cannot be taken at face value without careful examination. Ancient writers did not adhere to the same goal of objectivity that motivates most modern historians, and the ancients certainly did not have access to population statistics meeting modern standards of accuracy and completeness.³

There is no better example of the challenge of interpreting ancient demographic data than in the book of Numbers in the Old Testament. Our English name for the book derives from the ancient Greek (Septuagint) and Latin translations, which call it "Numbers" because it contains two Mosaic censuses taken of the Israelites in the wilderness.⁴ The first (Numbers 1:20—47) counts about 600,000 men of military age. This implies a total Israelite male and female population of between two and three million people. It has been noted many times by biblical historians that this number is problematically large. It implies a huge population of Israelites involved in the exodus from Egypt a few decades earlier and a very large population moving through the desert. If there had been this many Israelites, they would have easily outstripped the surrounding nations in numbers and military strength. For these and other reasons, the large Israelite population reported in Numbers does not square with historical expectations, archaeological data, historical information from surrounding cultures, or some other scriptural passages about the Israelites at the time. It appears that the only reasonable conclusion is that either the census count is an exaggeration or the text comes to us in a corrupted form.⁵

Ironically, this issue concerning population counts in Numbers does not challenge the ancient origin of the biblical text as much as it supports it. If there is any hallmark of ancient historical records, it is their strong tendency to present puzzling, unrealistic, and inconsistent population figures . For example, the two main sources for the population of Roman Egypt are Diodorus Siculus (late first century B.C.) and Josephus (late first century A.D.), who report 3 million and 7.5 million, respectively. The debate continues as to which ancient observer was closer to the truth.⁶ Concerning ancient historians' reports of army strength, an important source of demographic estimates for Greece and Rome, there are numerous examples of "how easily and to what a great extent false strengths become established in the historical accounts."⁷ For example, Herodotus reported 4.2 million men in Xerxes' army—an army that, with its troops and supply trains, would have formed a column two thousand miles long!⁸

What, then, is the serious student to do when looking for demographic facts in ancient records? In facing this difficult task for ancient Rome, historian Tim Parkin advises that "we cannot believe precisely everything an ancient author tells us about population sizes and trends." Parkin then goes on to warn that this is not a license for us to become "subjective and arbitrary" and to start "picking and choosing among the literary references to find one that 'sounds about right.'"⁹ Rather, the serious student should rely upon "both the critical use of the sources and on a certain degree of demographic sense, to decide what is plausible or improbable."¹⁰ This means that instead of trying to find precise statistics in ancient sources, we should develop an "awareness of the way populations work" in order to more effectively interpret the partial, unreliable, and often contradictory population data that are inevitably found in these texts.¹¹ In particular, Parkin recommends that historians make more use of demographic models to make "conjectural calculations—or, better, plausible conjectures—based on what is demographically probable."¹²

[robuchan]

Besides Sarah, do you have any other examples of birth rates? Or am I to understand that you are judging the entire population model based on one woman?

How many listed generations do you have besides the one record keeper? Or am I to understand that you are judging the entire population model based on that one man?

We have no other birth rate examples of any other woman. The one we do have is an extreme outlier. John Sorenson said possibly God had a hand in it. That's one for one that God had a hand in. I don't know how you can assume God didn't manage the population growths, if he had a hand in that one.

I didn't understand your second set of questions.

[rodheadlee]

Hi rob, I think exceedingly more numerous would be more like 10 to 1 or 8 to 2 or something of that nature. I think the Lamanites melded with the others and the Nephites, not so much.becuase all those went with Nephi believed in God. All others became known as Lamanites.

2 Nephi 5: 6 Wherefore, it came to pass that I, Nephi, did take my family, and also ^aZoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother and his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger brethren, and also my sisters, and all those who would go with me. And all those who would go with me were those who believed in the ^bwarnings and the revelations of God; wherefore, they did hearken unto my words.

Jacob 1: 14 But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish ^athem by these names, but I shall ^bcall them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call ^cNephites, or the ^dpeople of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.

[Anijen]

I think the Lamanites melded with the others and the Nephites, not so much.

I agree with your entire post. I feel those that went with Nephi's group tried (and eventually failed) to keep the Law of Moses, specifically marriage. After some time as indigenous people converted they were approved for marriage until their population grew and some become inactive and the Law of Moses really didn't matter to them. This of course is just one of the points I was making, there are other points as well.

Not so much different today as the membership of the church grows I am positive we all can point to those in our own families who choose not to marry in the temple, who choose not even to be active. I am known as the "white sheep" in a family of many black sheep. In my own family, although I continue to hope and pray they will become fully active, I have not won that battle yet.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[robuchan]

Hi rob, I think exceedingly more numerous would be more like 10 to 1 or 8 to 2 or something of that nature. I think the Lamanites melded with the others and the Nephites, not so much.becuase all those went with Nephi believed in God. All others became known as Lamanites.

2 Nephi 5: 6 Wherefore, it came to pass that I, Nephi, did take my family, and also ^aZoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother and his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger brethren, and also my sisters, and all those who would go with me. And all those who would go with me were those who believed in the ^bwarnings and the revelations of God; wherefore, they did hearken unto my words.

Jacob 1: 14 But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish ^athem by these names, but I shall ^bcall them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call ^cNephites, or the ^dpeople of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.

Thanks. Exceedingly numerous as 10:1 or 8:2? What's your logic on that? I don't really know how to evaluate. Based on the answers I get from apologists related to the other questions on similar issue, I would think they would say it's impossible to know what it means. But I could be wrong.

The last part, we've gone over these arguments in several threads, and I don't want to rehash the same in this thread. I want to focus on population issues in this thread.

[Anijen]

Thanks. Exceedingly numerous as 10:1 or 8:2? What's your logic on that?

I think rodheadlee has a point. We cannot not tell the exact numbers. "Exceedingly numerous I interpret as larger than expected, at the least to a surprising degree. We know from the text the Lamanites outnumbered the Nephite's time and time again, yet a smaller portion chose to go with Laman and Lemuel while the larger portion went with Nephi (also from the text, see the verse rodheadlee quoted).

I don't really know how to evaluate.

Perhaps that is because it doesn't fit in your theory.

Based on the answers I get from apologists related to the other questions on similar issue, I would think they would say it's impossible to know what it means.

Impossible to know exact details but exceedingly numerous is not that hard to define.

But I could be wrong.

I think that is a viable and high percentage answer.

The last part, we've gone over these arguments in several threads, and I don't want to rehash the same in this thread. I want to focus on population issues in this thread.

His post had to do with population. Your last two sentences are a reflection of how you deflect valid points. Try opening up your view to a different perspective. Learning is good Edited July 12, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[ANACO]

1 Nephi 7:6

And it came to pass that as we journeyed in the wilderness, behold Laman and Lemuel, and two of the daughters of

Ishmael

,

and the two

sons

of

Ishmael

and their families

, did rebel against us; yea, against me, Nephi, and Sam, and their father,

Ishmael

, and his wife, and his three other daughters.

There were more than the two sons of Ishmael. Ishmael's grandchildren are included. No one knows how large or old these two families were.

Presumably, they were much older than Lehi's oldest children, Laman and Lemuel as the latter Laman and Lemuel hadn't married yet.

But if you create a strawman and call it the OTHERS then prop it up, it's just as good as knocking over a strawman. Most FARMS require a scarecrow.

Edited July 12, 2012 by ANACO

[Freedom]

We have no other birth rate examples of any other woman. The one we do have is an extreme outlier. John Sorenson said possibly God had a hand in it. That's one for one that God had a hand in. I don't know how you can assume God didn't manage the population growths, if he had a hand in that one.

I didn't understand your second set of questions.

You are basing your conclusion on an entire civilization from the recorded birthrate of a single person who’s birthrate is neither unusual nor improbable. At best it is not the norm. There is no indication in the text that their birthrates were unusually high or that some miraculous intervention caused them to have more children than normal.

You then base your conclusions of longevity on a single example of a man possibly having a child while in his 90s; again, not impossible and not even improbable, just uncommon. And again, there is no indication from the text that their lifespan’s were unusually long.

I suggest that you not create a theory for an entire civilization from a single example. It is simply unjustifiable. We have provided ample research that explains why we must be careful when interpreting data such as population size and lifespans but you are just ignoring it.

You are determined that the book is fantasy and you refuse to acknowledge any other possibility.

[Freedom]

But if you create a strawman and call it the OTHERS then prop it up, it's just as good as knocking over a strawman. Most FARMS require a scarecrow.

I think you need to pull out a dictionary and find out what a straman argument is.

[rodheadlee]

Thanks. Exceedingly numerous as 10:1 or 8:2? What's your logic on that? I don't really know how to evaluate. Based on the answers I get from apologists related to the other questions on similar issue, I would think they would say it's impossible to know what it means. But I could be wrong.

The last part, we've gone over these arguments in several threads, and I don't want to rehash the same in this thread. I want to focus on population issues in this thread.

My logic on that would be from personal experience in a former life. 4 to 3 in a gang fight is not being out numbered exceedingly. 10 to 1, forget it. We were not Navy Seals.

If the Lamanites didn't practice plural marriage and the Nephites did why were they out numbered exceedingly?

Could the "others" in the Americas be of the lost 10 Tribes and we just don't have their records yet?

3 Nephi 17: 4 But now I ^ago unto the Father, and also to ^bshow myself unto the lost tribes of Israel, for they are not ^clost unto the Father, for he knoweth whither he hath taken them.

Edited July 12, 2012 by rodheadlee

[zerinus]

This thread is dedicated to discussing and analyzing population sizes at various times in the BOM for various groups, and the theories of how those populations came about. The Others theory uses the explanation of mixing populations with Others to explain odd population size issues in the BOM text.

First up for discussion.

Jarom 1:6

much of the face of the land, and the Lamanites also. And they were exceedingly more numerous than were they of the Nephites; and they loved murder and would drink the blood of beasts.

I don't find this one very perplexing. This is 200 years into the America landing. Is that right?

<snip>

What are the verses at other points of time that reference population sizes that may suggest Others?

There are other verses that are indicative of relative population sizes:

Mosiah 25:

2 Now there were not so many of the children of Nephi, or so many of those who were descendants of Nephi, as there were of the people of Zarahemla, who was a descendant of Mulek, and those who came with him into the wilderness.

3 And there were not so many of the people of Nephi and of the people of Zarahemla as there were of the Lamanites; yea, they were not half so numerous.

This suggests that the Mulekites were more numerous than the people of Nephi, and the Lamanites were more numerous still, or approximately double the population of the Nephites and Mulekites combined. According to BoM chronology printed at the foot of the page, that relates to approximately 120 BC, or 480 years into the landing of Lehi's party on the Americas.

Alma 43:

51 Now, the Lamanites were more numerous, yea, by more than double the number of the Nephites; . . .

This verse relates to the relative sizes of their armies at the time; but we may assume that it is a reflection of their relative population sizes. The word "Nephites" here refers to all those who are "friendly to Nephi," meaning that it includes the Mulekites etc., as per Jacob 1:14. This relates to 74 BC, according to BoM chronology printed in the footnotes. The observation we make is that the relative population sizes of the Nephites and Lamanites has remained generally constant. The Lamanites tend to outnumber the Nephites by the ratio of two to one.

It should be remembered that it was prophesied that the Nephite/Lamanite division should take place. That is what the Lord said to Nephi before they had arrived in the promised land:

1 Nephi 2:

23 For behold, in that day that they [Laman and Lemuel] shall rebel against me, I will curse them even with a sore curse, and they shall have no power over thy seed except they shall rebel against me also.

24 And if it so be that they rebel against me, they shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in the ways of remembrance.

And of course later on Nephi saw in vision how the history of his people would unfold, how the wars and contentions between his seed and the seed of his brethren would continue, and its culmination with the visit of the Savior among them, and their eventual destruction four centuries later (1 Nephi 12). The Lords visit was preceded by great destructions, culminating with these words spoken by the Lord out of heaven, and heard by all the inhabitants:

3 Nephi 10:

5 And again, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, who have fallen; yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, ye that dwell at Jerusalem, as ye that have fallen; yea, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not.

6 O ye house of Israel whom I have spared, how oft will I gather you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if ye will repent and return unto me with full purpose of heart.

No sign of Gentiles, Jaredites, Mongolians etc. I notice. And of course, when He appeared among them, He again addressed them as the house of Israel:

3 Nephi 20:

25 And behold, ye are the children of the prophets; and ye are of the house of Israel; and ye are of the covenant which the Father made with your fathers, saying unto Abraham: And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

Indeed, He went even further; He made a clear distinction between them and the Gentiles, and said that the Gentiles should not see Him, whereas they had:

3 Nephi 15:

21 And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

22 And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching.

23 And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice—that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost.

24 But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath given me.

The Gentiles of course are mentioned everywhere, from 1 Nephi all the way down; but always in association with what is going to happen later on, after Book of Mormon saga has ended. They are never mentioned in direct association with the BoM people themselves. If the Gentiles are not important according to the writers of the Book of Mormon, then why are they mentioned at all? If they are important, then why are they not mentioned as part of the the Book of Mormon populations (assuming that they existed), but only in relation to future events?

The argument of the "others" theorists is that the reason whys the "others" among the BoM people are not mentioned by the BoM historians like Mormon and Moroni is that they were focusing on the doctrinal matters, and not the historical details. If that is true, then it appears that the Gentiles are considered important in prophecy, but not important in history. That doesn't make sense. In the Bible the Gentiles are as important in history as they are in prophecy. But in the Book of Mormon (according to the "others" theorists), it appears that the Gentiles are only important in prophecy, but not in history. I can't understand it. Perhaps somebody here can explain.

Edited July 12, 2012 by zerinus

[robuchan]

1 Nephi 7:6

And it came to pass that as we journeyed in the wilderness, behold Laman and Lemuel, and two of the daughters of

Ishmael

,

and the two

sons

of

Ishmael

and their families

, did rebel against us; yea, against me, Nephi, and Sam, and their father,

Ishmael

, and his wife, and his three other daughters.

There were more than the two sons of Ishmael. Ishmael's grandchildren are included. No one knows how large or old these two families were.

Presumably, they were much older than Lehi's oldest children, Laman and Lemuel as the latter Laman and Lemuel hadn't married yet.

But if you create a strawman and call it the OTHERS then prop it up, it's just as good as knocking over a strawman. Most FARMS require a scarecrow.

I didn't notice that verse before. This is confusing.

That verse seems to be saying Ishmael had only two sons. But it appears they were married and had children before they left for the journey. Nephi's (minimum?) two sisters married Ishmael's sons. Were they polygamous? Did Ishmael have four or more sons? Were Nephi's sisters already married to Ishmael's sons before the journey started?

Also, are you accusing me or FARMS of the straw man?

[robuchan]

You are basing your conclusion on an entire civilization from the recorded birthrate of a single person who’s birthrate is neither unusual nor improbable. At best it is not the norm. There is no indication in the text that their birthrates were unusually high or that some miraculous intervention caused them to have more children than normal.

On this, Sorenson said:

"While this may not be an unprecedented record of fertility and survival in the ancient world, it is highly unusual. "

He then theorizes that God's hand might have been involved with this high rate of fertility.

My point is: this is a religious book, miracles abound, fertility and population are also apparently part of the supernatural/miraculous nature of the events. This fairly well nixes any idea of using mathematical population models.

edit:

my point is strengthened as we look at Ishmael's wife, who had minimum seven children live to adulthood. That's 2/2 on the unlikely/high/miraculous end of child rearing for ancient times.

Edited July 12, 2012 by robuchan

[robuchan]

You then base your conclusions of longevity on a single example of a man possibly having a child while in his 90s; again, not impossible and not even improbable, just uncommon. And again, there is no indication from the text that their lifespan’s were unusually long.

That's not true at all. Read my initial post in the BOM and ages thread.

Six generations with average span of 77 years from Jacob down to Amaleki at the beginning of the BOM.

Then we have four generations that span about 350 years from Nephi 3 to Ammaron, including a father who lived to 100 and two sons who lived to 130.

I find this pattern of ages and fathering of sons in men's 70's, 80's, 90's to be so far outside the norm expected in Mesoamerica that any effort to do population modeling based on data from this text is unreasonable.

[robuchan]

That's not true at all. Read my initial post in the BOM and ages thread.

Six generations with average span of 77 years from Jacob down to Amaleki at the beginning of the BOM.

Then we have four generations that span about 350 years from Nephi 3 to Ammaron, including a father who lived to 100 and two sons who lived to 130.

I find this pattern of ages and fathering of sons in men's 70's, 80's, 90's to be so far outside the norm expected in Mesoamerica that any effort to do population modeling based on data from this text is unreasonable.

I found this on Rome life expectancy. I would expect Rome to be higher than expected for Mesoamerica.

http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html

Life expectancy for a 50 year old is 67.

For a 70 year old it is 76.

Again, the extraordinary thing here is not just one data point. It's the high frequency of living to old age and fathering at old age. More than half these men (out of a pool of 20 or so) lived to 75. With at least a quarter of them living to 90.

[robuchan]

I got this from John Welch's book Charting The Book of Mormon, he has a lot of nice tables and summaries.

I took all the men from Chart 26,27,28 Lehi's Lineage, Mosiah's Lineage, and Alma's Lineage

19 men showed calculable birth and death's.

Of these

17/19 lived to 50 or older

11/19 lived to 75 or older

6/19 lived to 85 or older

4/19 lived to 100 or older

I'm not a statistician, but I'm pretty sure this is sufficient enough for a statistician to reject as being an actual data set of life spans in ancient times.

[mledbetter]

I found this on Rome life expectancy. I would expect Rome to be higher than expected for Mesoamerica.

http://www.utexas.ed...ments/Life.html

Life expectancy for a 50 year old is 67.

For a 70 year old it is 76.

Again, the extraordinary thing here is not just one data point. It's the high frequency of living to old age and fathering at old age. More than half these men (out of a pool of 20 or so) lived to 75. With at least a quarter of them living to 90.

Why would you expect Rome to have had a higher life expectancy? That's just silly. They were surrounded by enemies and were in a constant state of war. They were also ravished by plague and disease on many occasions. However, pre-European incursion, there is not much evidence of wide-spread plague and disease with the Native Americans. On the contrary. The Native Americans were very healthy, and in many regards lived a far healthier life-styles than much of Europe. There is also evidence, as with the Inca, that they were able to completely wipe out hunger. There is a great book on this, "1491 - New Revelation of the Americas Before Columbus" by Charles C. Mann. There is also newly discovered evidences that the populations of the Native Americans cities were far greater than before realized. For instance, it is estimated that around 1000 A.D. the city of Tiwanaku (pre-Inca, I believe) had a population of over "115,000, with another quarter million in the surrounding country side-numbers that Paris would not reach for another five centuries." That's just one city.

The reason that we view Native American populations as being so small is because-as some evidence suggests-European disease and plague wiped out so many of them. For instance, just before Pizarro set foot on Inca lands, as many as 50 percent of them had just been wiped out by smallpox-which had spread through the Americas like wild fire from European incursions elsewhere in the Americas. Just before the Pilgrims landed in Massachusetts, as many as 96 percent of the natives in that region were wiped out by a plague brought in by a captured French sailor. Tisquantum-you know, the guy who showed the pilgrims how to survive-was the last survivor of his village. The Native Americans were "virgin soil" to European plague and disease.

Edited July 12, 2012 by mledbetter

[robuchan]

Why would you expect Rome to have had a higher life expectancy? That's just silly.

I gave it a half hearted effort googling around. Most of what I saw implied lower life expectancy, but I didn't know if the sources were trustworthy or if they were exactly pertinent, so I didn't provide any links. Here's one.

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/mxpoprev/cambridg3.htm

Paleodemography corroborates the findings of paleopathology. Extraordinarily low life expectancy was the rule for Mesoamerican populations. Paleodemographers favor life expectancy at birth as the measure of choice, but this indicator should be discounted because only extraordinary burial practices and exceptionally thorough archaeological recovery techniques yield representative samples. At most sites too few skeletons of infants and children are recovered to be credible (Teotihuacán is an important exception), and paleodemographers’ estimates of life expectancy at birth (e₀) are thereby greatly inflated. The ethnohistorian Ortiz de Montellano puts life expectancy at birth for the Aztec at 37 years, but the cited source does not, in fact, support this figure. A decidedly somber picture emerges when we examine life expectancies at older ages (see Table 1). At age 15 (e₁₅), Mesoamerican life expectancies were extremely low, ranging from 13 to 29 additional years of life. In other words, for those surviving to age 15, death came around age 28 through 44 on average. Even the most optimistic estimates are almost one-third worse than national figures for Mexico in 1940 (when e₁₅=43 additional years, to 58; in 1980 e₁₅=56, to 71). Indeed the figures for prehistoric populations fall well below the worst conditions in model life tables, such as Coale and Demeny’s Region South level 1, where e₁₅=34 (to age 49) and life expectancy at birth (e₀) is only 20 years.