Speculations about Nephite Demography
The Nephites always seem outnumbered by the Lamanites. Yet Nephite ethnography describes the Lamanites as hunter-gatherers who live off of game. It’s possible that this is just a trope, some kind of traditional form of ethnic prejudice, and the Lamanites didn’t really live that way. In support of this is that the Gadiantons are later described in the same terms. I don’t think its just a trope. I think the idea came from somewhere. So if we take the scriptures seriously, the Lamanites are hunter-gatherers at least until part way through the book of Alma, while the Nephites grow things, yet the Lamanites outnumber the Nephites. This is real puzzle. Usually agriculture supports much higher populations than hunting does.
I have a speculation.
Suppose that the Nephite crop package is poorly adapted to their area. It is not very productive so it does not create the surpluses that allow for big populations and big population growth. Maybe most of the land in the area won’t support it. To the point that even the King working the fields makes a felt difference to people’s tax burden (Hi, Benjamin!)
Perhaps they requires a complex system of controls and precise methods to make their agriculture work in this marginal climate and soil, which means that when their society is highly unified they prosper quickly but as soon as they turn on each other just a little they are right on the edge of the Malthusian envelope. Their prosperity is fragile. The result would be a rapid and very pronounced pride cycle. If so, the people of Zeniff were unique in that being so surrounded kept their society unified even when they went wicked, which allowed for the unusual social situation of being wealthy and wicked for the whole span of a generation.
The writing of James C. Scott would indicate that a marginal agriculture set-up with a high degree of required social controls would be very prone to defection, which we sure enough see in the Book of Mormon.
If this hypothesis is true, it would also explain why there isn’t (I think) any real survival of barley and so forth in pre-columbian America. We could expect that the Lamanites were basically tribal but had proto-state institutions because of Nephite pressure and example but eventually adopted the superior corn agriculture from elsewhere in the Americas along with its associated idolatrous religious practices.
Yes, this is speculative. Yes, even if the main idea is sound some of the particular speculations could be off. Take it for what its worth.
E.C.
May 20, 2024
But here’s the thing: barley, maize, and even other crops such as knotweed that were essential to the pre-Columbian Americans devolve quickly when not tended to. There’s been studies done, and within about three generations (seasons), the crops turn into mere weeds, practically inedible, unless there’s a guiding hand deciding what traits continue to the next generation.
Conversely, the mere presence of humans who prioritize eating certain types of corn over others makes the rest more edible. I believe the most conclusive study was done with knotweed.
And the thing is, even poor soil can be built over less than three growing seasons. It does take work, but assuming the Nephites paid even marginal attention to native’s planting practices after seeing their success (or failures), the problem of ‘few Nephites, many Lamanites’ was probably more a problem of the Lamanites joining the native culture and population than simply not growing fast enough because of poor agricultural practices.
Zen
May 20, 2024
Native agriculture surpassed European, if I am not mistaken.
I would guess geography is more pertinent. If the Lamanites had South America, and the Nephites had Central America, any time they had excess numbers, they would migrate northward.
Further, there were fewer communities for the Nephites to assimilate because of the restricted geography.
So boots on the ground, at the border, would always favor the Lamanites. The Nephites were fighting “Geography is Destiny”.
Also more relevant, the Nephites were more urban. City living is associated with lower birth rates.
G.
May 20, 2024
Climate problems are not so easily fixed, EC. Thanks for the info about reversion, that is interesting.
Zen, certainly true once both sides have adopted agriculture, but agricultural populations always massively outweigh hunter-gatherer populations
E.C.
May 20, 2024
Your hypothesis isn’t quite supported by the text, though, G. Nephi himself states that all his seeds that he brought ‘did grow exceedingly’ (1 Nephi 18:24) Of course there are famines in the BofM, but for the most part they don’t seem to have been living a subsistence lifestyle.
Also, climate problems may not be fixable, but again, plants adapt or people adopt crops or growing techniques that are better suited to the climate. When it’s literally a matter of life or death, no one is stupid enough not to eat what grows naturally, and there are plenty of New World crops that would have been kosher, no matter what area of the Americas you believe Nephi landed in.
G.
May 21, 2024
Good point about nephi. And that being the first person account it is harder to dismiss that as ethnic chauvinism about our crops versus your crops.
But that still leaves us with the huge puzzle about nephite demographics vis-à-vis the hunter-gatherer lamanites
I am less confident than you are that any crop package is ipso facto going to be able to adapt to a particular climate. I am also less certain that a culturally embedded crop is easily adopted by a different group with a different culturally embedded crop package. These things are often slow and often involve massive cultural dislocation. For example the potato in many ways is an ideal crop for northern Europe but it was a few hundred years into the Columbian exchange before anyone really started growing it. If growing maize was deeply embedded with a bunch of idolatrous practices and blood sacrifices and things it would be challenging for the nephites to take it up
G.
May 21, 2024
Thanks for the stimulating discussion and excellent points
Jacob G.
May 30, 2024
The assumption that this piece rests on is that they were at or near carrying capacity for their mode of sustenance. Does hunter/gatherer population growth lag behind farmers if both are within carrying capacity?
What if the land is sufficiently rich, so they can hunter/gather without pregnant women or young children having to trek?
Another possible factor: Polygamy reduces per woman fertility. If Lamans sought to rule any native pops, while Nephites took their daughters for plural wives, that would be a significant differential. If this practice alienated the natives, so they sometimes resisted joining the Nephites, even more so.