I         read your blog fairly often so was quite surprised to see you talking         about my book. I'm sorry you thought I was being "slippery" in         not specifying more often when I was talking about the area north or         south of the Rio Grande. You probably saw an artefact of my struggle         with terminology. Problem is, the way we divide things up now (splitting         the area north of Colombia into North America and Central America)         doesn't fit very well with how things were then, when you had a bunch of         related, highly urbanized societies in a region extending from about the         Honduras-Nicaragua border to the American SW, and then everything else.         In earlier drafts I tried saying when referring to the not-as-urbanized         places something like "the area north of the Rio Grande except for         the Southwest," but this was shouted down by my editors. I tried         not using that kind of label as much, and hoping the reader would catch         on to what area I was talking about, but obviously that didn't work for         you. My apologies .
          
         No, I should         apologize. I was rushing to feed the blog beast after a spell of         computer troubles and I posted something quick and dirty about an         impressive book that Mr. Mann had clearly worked on for years, a topic         where experts hold conflicting views, which he rightly refused to         oversimplify.
          
         I         would say, though, that you're not quite right about Cahokia. Cahokia         was by far the biggest of the mound cities of the SE and Mississippi         Valley, but there were many thousands of these places--ten thousand is         the estimate I've heard most often. Most of them probably held 3-10,000         people, so they weren't huge places. It's as if the moundbuilders went         straight past urbanization to suburbanization, skipping the cities and         going right to the strip malls. A lot of these places are just a few         miles apart, and presumably would have had maize fields between, exactly         the sort of situation that most urban historians think would have led to         cities.
       
        The other thing is... ten thousand of these places. If you do the math,         3K x 10K = 30M = far more than the total number of people supposed to be         north of the Rio G (<20m).>         
 
         Another interesting         topic would be the population of California Indians -- how dense can a         population in a pleasant climate but fairly dry get without agriculture?         We know the Northwest Indians were pretty thick on the ground due to         fish, even without farming, but California Indians didn't leave a lot of         relics behind.
          
         I         would argue with you a little that urban life was MORE feasible in the         New World than the old because of the lack of pathogens. A lot of         archaeologists think that it was LESS feasible because of the lack of         draft animals, which made communications and infrastructure-creation         much harder. It seems to me that the situations were so different that         it's hard to make useful comparisons. Mesoamerica was almost freakishly         urbanized, with some geographers claiming it was the most urbanized         place on Earth in 1000-1400. But the second most urbanized place was         China, which was absolutely swimming in disease. You can look to Africa         for insight, as you do, but the situation is muddy. In Sub-Saharan         Africa you certainly had major cities--Great Zimbabwe, Ingombe,         Mbanzakongo, Loango. But there weren't as many packed in as Mesoamerica,         that's for sure. A good book on this is Chris Ehret's Civlizations of         Africa.
          
         The Yucatan         Peninsula is a horrible place -- not just hot and humid, but the         limestone soil means that water sinks into the ground almost         immediately. It's completely flat, with no rivers or lakes, and covered         with low scrubby trees about 15 feet tall. Looking out the back window         of a hotel room on a beautiful beach in Cozumel, I had a hard time         shaking the feeling that I was an astronaut in some Twilight Zone         episode who had landed on a planet where the beach was wonderful, but         the rest of the planet was just a cheap backdrop slapped together in         some alien movie studio. And yet the Mayans built extraordinary urban         centers like Chichen Itza and Tikal on this unpromising landscape, while         North American Indians, blessed with a temperate climate and rich soils,         rarely created cities.
         
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer