Colonization of unihabitied Americas?

[Akhlut]

So, I was recently reading Loewan's Lies My Teacher Told Me and he suggested that it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for Europeans to colonize the Americas with pre-Industrial technology if it weren't for the American Indians 10,000+ years of inhabitation of the Americas.

So, if the Bering Strait had closed off earlier than it did historically and any early intrepid explorers had succumb to disease, could the early Europeans effectively colonize the Americas?

I believe that it would have been a difficult endeavor, to say the least. Polynesians probably wouldn't have made it to the shores of the Americas until the time Europeans started encountering it (1000 CE or later, as it took them nearly 2000 years to spread from New Guinea to Hawaii and New Zealand, so it'd probably take another 200-500 years to reach the Americas, as well as having similar problems to the Europeans, as I'll discuss later). Potential Siberian native expeditions would probably have been similarly difficult, especially given the sheer amounts of megafauna that would be present without enormous numbers of humans to exterminate them, as in OTL.

Thus, when the Europeans arrive, the continent really would be unspoiled, however, this would show immense difficulties, as early Spanish explorers would be have difficulty finding precious metals or other easily exportable goods, and they would not have any exploitable labor. I think that that alone would dissuade most further explorations, due to the lack of easily exploited wealth. Any later expeditions would also have to contend with large and dangerous fauna, such as mammoths, giant bears, sabertoothed cats, giant sloths, and other creatures. While the technology would allow for them to be slaughtered, there would still be difficulty in establishing large enough settlements with enough people to build a sufficiently well-defended and stocked fort or the like until perhaps the early or middle Industrial Age.

So, anyone disagree or anything to add about later developments if this occurred?

[Samuel]

I found that slightly doubtful. The large amount of unclaimed land would be an obvious untapped resouce and so would the easily exploited mineral wealth (no one has gotten the easier ores yet). The major difference would be the lack of extreme abundance- wasn't that due to the natives killing the predators off, so when they were killed by plague, the herbivore populations exploded? There wouldn't be parklike forests either.

as early Spanish explorers would be have difficulty finding precious metals or other easily exportable goods, and they would not have any exploitable labor.

Then you grow sugar. It was one of the major exports of the West Indies and was the reason those islands kept on changing hands in the various world wars. Given the Spanish managed to quickly kill the native population, labor shortage didn't really stop them historically- they quickly switched to slaves.

[Akhlut]

I found that slightly doubtful. The large amount of unclaimed land would be an obvious untapped resouce and so would the easily exploited mineral wealth (no one has gotten the easier ores yet). The major difference would be the lack of extreme abundance- wasn't that due to the natives killing the predators off, so when they were killed by plague, the herbivore populations exploded? There wouldn't be parklike forests either.

Partially, but it was also due to the early natives having killed off all the megafauna except grizzly bears, bison, moose, and elk. Pleistocene America was more biodiverse then the African savannas, so without natives to exterminate it, it would have resulted in something more resembling the African savannas prior to the 20th century. So, there would have been large numbers of herd animals and predators roaming about.

Further, while the mineral wealth was easy to exploit, would it have been as easy without the Native Americans to first work it? I'm honestly ignorant about that, although I imagine anything in the American southwest would be more difficult to procure due to the scrub forests that would be prevalent there without human intervention that turned it into a desert.

Then you grow sugar. It was one of the major exports of the West Indies and was the reason those islands kept on changing hands in the various world wars. Given the Spanish managed to quickly kill the native population, labor shortage didn't really stop them historically- they quickly switched to slaves.

The islands could have been much more easily exploited, but I wonder how difficult the continents would have been to exploit without steamer ships to transport large numbers of people and guns to get defend against megafauna that wouldn't fear man. A herd of mastodons would cause some problems if a village was right in the middle of a migration route.

[Samuel]

A herd of mastodons would cause some problems if a village was right in the middle of a migration route.

Free food! How much of these beasts would be on the coast? That is all that really matters- if the interior is infested with them, it just leads to interesting pioneer tales.

[Broomstick]

Well, obviously humans managed to colonize the Americas without advanced technology! Duh!

It would have been harder for the Europeans - natives had readily exploited domesticated foods, they knew the terrain and could act as guides, could educate newcomers about various hazards.... but this would have all, eventually, been figured out.

Cheap labor could have been provided by imports - African slaves or indentured Europeans, or, as in the case of Australians, convicts..

[Frank Hipper]

Someone needs to show me something conclusive that human activity resulted in the extinction of American megafauna, and most especially that human activity resulted in the desertification of the South West before I'm willing to even begin to accept this line of argument.

[Akhlut]

Someone needs to show me something conclusive that human activity resulted in the extinction of American megafauna, and most especially that human activity resulted in the desertification of the South West before I'm willing to even begin to accept this line of argument.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/quaternary/ple.html

It was during the Pleistocene that the most recent episodes of global cooling, or ice ages, took place. Much of the world's temperate zones were alternately covered by glaciers during cool periods and uncovered during the warmer interglacial periods when the glaciers retreated. Did this cause the Pleistocene extinctions? It doesn't seem likely; the large mammals of the Pleistocene weathered several climate shifts.

The Pleistocene also saw the evolution and expansion of our own species, Homo sapiens, and by the close of the Pleistocene, humans had spread through most of the world. According to a controversial theory, first proposed in the 1960s, human hunting around the close of the Pleistocene caused or contributed to the extinction of many of the Pleistocene large mammals. It is true that the extinction of large animals on different continents appears to correlate with the arrival of humans, but questions remain as to whether early human hunters were sufficiently numerous and technologically advanced to wipe out whole species. It has also been hypothesized that some disease wiped out species after species in the Pleistocene. The issue remains unsolved; perhaps the real cause of the Pleistocene extinction was a combination of these factors.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ction.html

Nogués-Bravo stopped short of saying that the mammoths would have survived had humans not happened along. But he did point out the species adapted to an earlier collapse of favorable environmental conditions before humans emerged.

While the second article only refers to mammoths in particular, it can be fairly well generalized to other megafauna in the Americas: climate change reduced habitat space, and then they were hunted to extinction within their reduced space. Without people there to hunt them, more species would have survived; it may not have been as many as 40,000 years ago, but there would probably still be large animals around aside from bears, elk, moose, and bison.


As for desertification, the only source I currently have for that is Collapse by Jared Diamond, and I don't have access to that at the moment, so I'll concede for the moment as I won't be able to get to it until Saturday at earliest.

[Akhlut]

Well, obviously humans managed to colonize the Americas without advanced technology! Duh!

It would have been harder for the Europeans - natives had readily exploited domesticated foods, they knew the terrain and could act as guides, could educate newcomers about various hazards.... but this would have all, eventually, been figured out.

True, but I was more curious as to how long it would have taken and if it would have been slowed until the Industrial revolution due to most settlers just saying 'to hell with this' and leaving, as most Europeans in OTL were more than happy to stay just long enough to make some money and leave for the home country. The Americas were usually only attractive with people who had no options, essentially, due to the vast distances between Europe and the Americas.

[Frank Hipper]

Akhlut, those articles do not present conclusive arguments for human activity driving megafauna to extinction.

And they don't mention human-induced desertification of the American southwest at all; where did you get that ridiculous idea in the first place?

[Broomstick]

It's been brought up a few times. From what I've read, it's sort of an open question if human activities increased desertification (there would have been desserts even if there would be no human) or if human activity increased in wet periods and decreased in drier ones as resources dwindled.

Slash and burn agriculture - which is what was most commonly practiced in the Americas prior to the arrival of Europeans (and continues to this day in some places) is very hard on the landscape and can contribute to all sorts of ills, such as deforestation and desertification, but the population levels are also a huge factor here. A few people doing slash-and-burn may have negligible impact where as a million or two could be as devastating as a plague of locusts.

I don't think there's sufficient information for a definitive answer.

[Akhlut]

Akhlut, those articles do not present conclusive arguments for human activity driving megafauna to extinction.

I was writing on my lunch break (and am currently on a coffee break), so I was presenting what I could find; further, from what I have been able to find so far, there is nothing conclusive for any theory on why American megafauna went extinct, only that it roughly coincided with human arrival in the Americas. Why correlation does not imply causation, the fact that most non-African megafauna went extinct shortly after the arrival of man does strongly suggest a couple of things: humans either killed most megafauna off or brought diseases with them that killed most megafauna off. As the first site I linked to mentioned, climate change may have been a factor, but most megafauna at least had a few representatives survive climate change, whereas in the Americas, only seven species over 300 pounds survive: polar bears, grizzly bears, black bears, bison, moose, and elk. Only small relatives of megafauna survive, such as sloths, armadillos, jaguars, and llamas.

Climate change that African megafauna and some Asian megafauna survived should also be survivable by American megafauna, especially those located in tropical or temperate climates. Lions, Eurasian horses, lots of African and Asian bovids, American bison, and pronghorns all survived climate change perfectly well, why not American horses, camels, lions, and the like when their environments were similar and their adaptations weren't all that dissimilar?

And they don't mention human-induced desertification of the American southwest at
all; where did you get that ridiculous idea in the first place?

As for desertification, the only source I currently have for that is Collapse by Jared Diamond, and I don't have access to that at the moment, so I'll concede for the moment as I won't be able to get to it until Saturday at earliest.

The main gist of it is that the US southwest was primarily scrub forests, but that in the past 2000+ years, the Native Americans clear-cut the region for agriculture and irrigated to such an extent as to ruin aquifers and strip topsoil, creating a desert.

[folti78]

And they don't mention human-induced desertification of the American southwest at
all; where did you get that ridiculous idea in the first place?

As for desertification, the only source I currently have for that is Collapse by Jared Diamond, and I don't have access to that at the moment, so I'll concede for the moment as I won't be able to get to it until Saturday at earliest.

The main gist of it is that the US southwest was primarily scrub forests, but that in the past 2000+ years, the Native Americans clear-cut the region for agriculture and irrigated to such an extent as to ruin aquifers and strip topsoil, creating a desert.

Chapter 4 of Collapse, about the history of the anasazi and their neighbours. Some added details:
In the chapter the original ecosystem was described as very sensitive to changes that the said civilization upset it's balance with it's agriculture and logging(in case of the anasazi, the others had different problems with their respective ecosystems).

The erosion has been increased by two things: the piss poor soil of the hills prevented the quick regrowth of trees resulting in faster downpour of rainwater from the hills and the local weather swinged between the extremes of long drought and sudden heavy rains.

What finally broke the anasazis' back was a string of even dryer years after ~1100AD when the collapsing agriculture no longer could fed the population which increased in the previous ~200 year period thanks to milder weather and fanning out to create more settlements in the nearby valleys.

P.S: I'm going to bed now, if you need more information I can check the Hungarian edition of the book tomorrow after 20:00 CET

[Frank Hipper]

That the Anasazi caused enviromental degradation in their limited area leading to their collapse is something entirely different than regional desertification of the southwest.

As to the disappearance of the megafauna, there's no consensus among experts, (exept that a combination of factors is likely) and no good evidence (yet!) to provide for one.

[Akhlut]

That the Anasazi caused enviromental degradation in their limited area leading to their collapse is something entirely different than regional desertification of the southwest.

I probably should have been more specific in that some of the US southwest was turned to desert, not the entirety of it. Sorry if that was the root of some of the misunderstanding.

However, as I recall (and Folti will have to confirm or not if I can't by Saturday), it was waves and waves of Native Americans causing small ecological collapses which caused a larger area to become desert.

As to the disappearance of the megafauna, there's no consensus among experts, (exept that a combination of factors is likely) and no good evidence (yet!) to provide for one.

Agreed, but I still feel human factors were the final push and that, had humans not been present, more megafauna would have survived than currently exists in America. Most of the food that the American megafauna herbivores ate is still present in the Americas, so, while several species may have gone extinct, there would have been more.


Anyway, something that wouldn't be in dispute if humans couldn't arrive in the Americas: the domestic crops of potatoes, cassava, sweet potatoes, and maize would all be absent, and thus it would be more difficult for northern European nations to grow in population as quickly without the large amount of calories supplied by potatoes, and Africans would be similarly slow in growth without cassava and maize.

[Broomstick]

You're also forgetting domestic crops like pecans, cranberries, pumpkins, several other varieties of squash, and a few types of beans as well. Quinoa is not a major crop, but it's becoming more common these days as well. Such would most likely be absent in such a world.

[Mayabird]

The Australian megafauna also went extinct soon after humans arrived there and started burning everything and that was about 45,000 years ago. Besides the things already mentioned, American and Australian megafauna had a disadvantage that their African counterparts did not: they would not have had a natural aversion to humans. African species had co-evolved with the hominids and knew that the little critters are dangerous.

I found a list of crops from the Americas. The list isn't perfect as there are plenty of non-American beans and Europe had some species very similar to blueberries so they wouldn't actually be missing anything. But speaking of other major crops, peanuts are very important in some African countries (and increasingly China), sunflowers are widely grown for their oil (I know I've seen pictures of vast fields of them in Russia), and CHOCOLATE!

* amaranth
* avocado
* bean
* bell pepper
* blueberry
* cashew
* chia
* chicle
* chili pepper
* chirimoya
* coca
* cocoa
* huckleberry
* maize (corn)
* manioc (cassava, yuca)
* papaya
* peanut
* pecan
* pineapple
* potato
* pumpkin
* quinoa
* rubber
* squash
* sunflower
* sweet potato
* tobacco
* tomato
* vanilla

[Broomstick]

Let's add QUININE to the list - it's not a food, but it is of South American origin and the very first really effective anti-malarial drug. We might have found it eventually, but it was the natives' use of it medicinally that first led others to investigate it's properties.

[folti78]

But speaking of other major crops, peanuts are very important in some African countries (and increasingly China), sunflowers are widely grown for their oil (I know I've seen pictures of vast fields of them in Russia)

While not Russia, sunflower is grown widely in Hungary for it's oily seed (and beekeepers freeloading for it's honey ), which used both as cooking oil* and in roasted form as a (INO messy) snack.

In a bit of tangent, Black locust(Robinia pseudoacacia) has been used since the late 18. century in the carpathian basin. At first it's been used wildly as an early coloniser to the nearly desertificated sandy regions of the hungarian plains and after 1920, as a quick growing tree** to replace the forests lost to the neighbouring countries. Because it likes the local climate it's honey became the biggest and most valued produce of the local beekepers.

* before the fall of communism the sunflover decorated bottle of Vénusz (eng. Venus) cooking oil was THE cooking oil in Hungary.

** Black locust's optimal age for logging is ~30 years, which is way shorter than the local hardwoods' (oak and beech) 60-80 years minimum time. Also it can grow on nearly every shitty soil while oak and beech's territory are limited to mountains and the hills of western part of the country with better water supply.

[Guardsman Bass]

Africans would be similarly slow in growth without cassava and maize.

Loewen actually implies that this was possibly a "supply" factor in the rise of the Cross-Atlantic Slave Trade - due to the arrival of those groups, African populations began to grow dramatically, creating more potential people to be grabbed (usually by other African tribes) to be sold as slaves.

The lack of potatoes would be a real bitch, since they were somewhat more resistant to being completely destroyed in an army's march, and helped to greatly reduce large-scale famine in Europe.

Looking at the OP, though, I wonder if we would actually get some earlier colonization on North America by the Norse were any human inhabitants of North America completely absent beforehand. Diamond's book says that a major factor in the decision to ultimately abandon the Vinland settlement was the fact that there happened to be a bunch of native American nearby.

Without them, North America is basically a godsend to any Norse explorers looking for lumber, and other things as well.

[Knife]

As I understand it, in real history, there was a similar population in the Americas as in Europe, only that a majority of the American's population was in central America. As for the 'if they didn't make things and mine ore the Spaniards wouldn't want them' argument; the Portuguese had already found, enslaved and killed off much of the Guanche on the Canary Islands before the discovery of the Western Indies. Even if conquistadors couldn't make easy money off of pillaging Aztec gold, it was only a matter of time before the Spanish opened up sugar plantations with enslaved Caribs and other locals as laborers.

Back to the OT; the reason the historic colonies went tits up in northern America from English and Dutch attempts were just due to poor planning and financing. Yes, those who did come over without plans and backing and goods, relied heavily on the Indians to get them by. However, with an uninhabited America, you wouldn't have Spain claiming it all for Aztec gold and you wouldn't have the Vatican determining indeed Spain gets most of it, letting England and France and others to plan and finance and exploit the resources more effectively.

[Frank Hipper]

An alternative theory to humans killing off the megafauna, one that has some pretty compelling evidence in support of it.

I'd forgotten about it until seeing it mentioned last night on TV.

[Lonestar]

I imagine that the Vikings would have stayed in Vinland longer, without natives there to throw them out.

[Broomstick]

I don't know about that - it was at the end of a long supply line for the technology of the time. The Greenland colony died out, and not because the other humans there killed them but purely from refusal to adapt their culture to changing conditions (well, as near as anyone can tell that's what happened).

[Samuel]

I don't know about that - it was at the end of a long supply line for the technology of the time. The Greenland colony died out, and not because the other humans there killed them but purely from refusal to adapt their culture to changing conditions (well, as near as anyone can tell that's what happened).

Yeah, but the Vinland colony can expand south into better territory. They have alot of land they can exploit and if things get bad, they can just move on. There is no chance of them starving to death.

[Guardsman Bass]

I don't know about that - it was at the end of a long supply line for the technology of the time. The Greenland colony died out, and not because the other humans there killed them but purely from refusal to adapt their culture to changing conditions (well, as near as anyone can tell that's what happened).

The margins for survival in Vinland, though, are much better than they are in Greenland - as mentioned, they can move south into warmer areas, and even if they stay in Labrador, Labrador is much better than Greenland (warmer climate, more game), particularly once the Little Ice Age starts getting into gear.

Plus, it's not as if Vinland would be much less isolated than, say, Greenland, which was cut off for decades at a time when the Little Ice Age started. Jared Diamond talks a lot about this in his book Collapse.