# Americas: Census at contact myth **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 14, 2011, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americas-census-at-contact-myth/578309 "2011-04-14T00:45:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![pinguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ac8455/32.png) [@pinguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pinguin)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americas-census-at-contact-myth/578309/261 "2011-04-19T03:11:10Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Here’s a good thought exercise. > > Without specifically mentioning the number of people you see, the number of buildings you see, the specific size of those buildings, the specific size (in square miles/kilometers) describe a city in such a way that we could reliably tell how many people lived there. For bonus points do so in such a way that we could distinguish between say, one city with 1,000,000 people and a city with 5,000,000. Or between one city with 15,000 people and one city with 60,000 people. > > The truth of the matter is that is an insanely difficult task. When de Vaca came to a village he often did not describe how large it was. He would occasionally mention numbers, but usually did not. He would occasionally mention number of houses, but usually did not. When he just spoke of villages generically he did often did not mention how many houses were there or how many people. Meaning it could have been 10 people or 100. When they fought large groups of natives, he often did not tell how many natives were attacking. When he traveled for extensive periods of time and spoke of seeing lots of inhabited land, he often did not mention the relative density. > > And finally, he cut a path from Florida to Mexico, stayed for some 6-7 years as a slave in one region, and probably did not visit many settlements that he traveled very closely to, so even if he had accurately told the size of every single village he visited we still would not have an easy time getting an accurate count based on de Vaca’s observations. > > What is interesting to note is that the region de Vaca traveled through could have had 5 million people and it would not conflict with his tales. Five million people spread from Florida to Mexico is not very many, and would look very sparse. Even 10 million would. > > You realize Florida today has 20 million people? I can take you to parts of Florida that are extremely sparsely populated, I could walk you 100 miles in around Florida in a path in which you would see few people. Is that evidence Florida has a low population? Of course not. > > At the same time, I wouldn’t suggest we accept that Florida has 20 million people just based on walking around Miami and Orlando. I would instead say that such voyages are not an accurate way to come about population estimates. We should instead look at the cities, how many streets are there, how many buildings, you can start to make estimates based on that. (Of course in the modern world we just send out census workers.) What’s interesting is the “Census at contact” premise you’ve started with is essentially a giant straw man. Who has ever claimed there was a census at contact? The work of all professionals I have ever seen in this field instead focuses on archaeological data, conclusions based on long accepted methods of estimating for example how many people would live in a village of x size, how many people would require farmland of x area. Indeed, but if there were some large urban centers around, De Vaca would have know it. Come on, when the Spaniards reached Panama they knew the Inca Empire was down South! In Panama they had the news. It is hard to believe there were 5 million people around his path, and all the battles he had weren’t with more than a handfull of natives. He would have been easily destroyed if attacked by a hundred or a thousand people :rolleyes: Nope. The impression that gives me it is that there were few people along the path, and people that had quite problems to survive, and that lived in hunger as a matter of routine. ---
**Author:** ![pinguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ac8455/32.png) [@pinguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pinguin)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americas-census-at-contact-myth/578309/262 "2011-04-19T03:14:16Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Because I have many reasons to be suspicious of a man who, upon returning to Spain with a fabulous tale, writes a book that glorifies his name, his faith and God’s love for him. Then why he didn’t exagerate the numbers? I have read other chronicles, and the exageration of the sizes of the enemy forces was a routine. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > There are countless examples in which first hand accounts of travels of European explorers have many wild fabrications in them. I’m not saying de Vaca was a bad man or his tale isn’t trustworthy, I’m just saying you can’t trust it without reservation because there are obviously things in it that are pretty clearly the work of fantasy and not something that ever could have happened. Obviously, I can’t trust modern scientists that love large numbers either. The difference is that De Vaca witnessed the events while modern researchers are just guessing. ---
**Author:** ![pinguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ac8455/32.png) [@pinguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pinguin)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americas-census-at-contact-myth/578309/263 "2011-04-19T03:17:36Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > What I’m saying is your personal experience actually could _never_ tell you that your city had 7 million people in it, unless you’re telling me you have some magical means of direct observation that causes you to intuitively “know” that you’re observing a city of 7 million. That just isn’t the case, you know it has 7 million because your government has counted them, and you might be capable of using that as a frame of reference when comparing it to other cities to generally guess as to whether they are larger or smaller. Why not. I can stay at the subway, count the trains that comes during an hour, and from the fact each train carry 1.000 people, and comes every minute, I can make a pretty good estimation of how many people crossed the city at peak hour per hour. Then I can do the same with a highway, and go to the higher hill downtown to count the buildings, and I am pretty sure I can get a figure close enough to the population of the city. ---
**Author:** ![Bartman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/779978/32.png) [@Bartman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bartman)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americas-census-at-contact-myth/578309/264 "2011-04-19T03:18:04Z")
> [@pinguin](#): > > First, La Vaca didn’t claim he raised a man from the dead. And this is why we don’t believe you when ever you say anything. This is what de Vaca said: > [@](#): > > Coming near their huts, I perceived that the sick man we went to heal was dead. Many persons were around him weeping, and his house was prostrate, a sign that the one who dwelt in it is no more. When I arrived I found his eyes rolled up, and the pulse gone, he having all the appearances of death, as they seemed to me and as Dorantes said. I removed a mat with which he was covered, and supplicated our Lord as fervently as I could, that He would be pleased to give health to him, and to the rest that might have need of it. After he had been blessed and breathed upon many times… Those to whom we gave the fruit tarried, and returned at night to their houses, reporting that he who had been dead and for whom I wrought before them, had got up whole and walked, had eaten and spoken with them and that all to who I and ministered were well and much pleased. That sure sounds like de Vaca is claiming to have healed a man from death to me. I’m not sure how you can claim that he isn’t. I think this is why you don’t like to provide actual cites. Every time you do we can see that you are misrepresenting what your cite says. And on edit this has already been addressed… too slow. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americas-census-at-contact-myth/578309/265 "2011-04-19T03:20:42Z")
> [@pinguin](#): > > Why not. I can stay at the subway, count the trains that comes during an hour, and from the fact each train carry 1.000 people, and comes every minute, I can make a pretty good estimation of how many people crossed the city at peak hour per hour. Then I can do the same with a highway, and go to the higher hill downtown to count the buildings, and I am pretty sure I can get a figure close enough to the population of the city. “Close enough” such an estimate could easily be off by an order of magnitude. Honestly the fact that you even think this is a valid way to count population, and that a first hand account of a single Spaniard is a more inclusive and holistic approach to population estimation than actual study and research on the whole area basically means the debate is over. I’m quite confident saying no rational individuals would look at your methods and accept them. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americas-census-at-contact-myth/578309/266 "2011-04-19T03:27:34Z")
I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but it’s an interesting question. I’d say one fact arguing against the high counters is the profusion of languages among Native Americans. To me, numbers as high as the high counters propose suggest large, stable societies, which I would think would mean less language variation. But I’m no linguist. ---
**Author:** ![pinguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ac8455/32.png) [@pinguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pinguin)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americas-census-at-contact-myth/578309/267 "2011-04-19T03:34:03Z")
> [@Bartman](#): > > And this is why we don’t believe you when ever you say anything. This is what de Vaca said: > > That sure sounds like de Vaca is claiming to have healed a man from death to me. I’m not sure how you can claim that he isn’t. > . Perhaps you can’t understand it because you aren’t a Catholic of the old school, I guess. Or perhaps you don’t read Spanish and something is missing in translation. De Vaca says clearly: “all the appearances of death”. If he believed the man was dead, why to use the word “appearances”? I read the story in Spanish, and for me it clearly describe a limit situation he had, where he took its chances, and he won thanks to the help of God, All conquerors were believers. Otherwise, you can’t understand how they took so many risks so willingly and with such confidence. ---
**Author:** ![pinguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ac8455/32.png) [@pinguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pinguin)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americas-census-at-contact-myth/578309/268 "2011-04-19T03:35:26Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > “Close enough” such an estimate could easily be off by an order of magnitude. Honestly the fact that you even think this is a valid way to count population, and that a first hand account of a single Spaniard is a more inclusive and holistic approach to population estimation than actual study and research on the whole area basically means the debate is over. I’m quite confident saying no rational individuals would look at your methods and accept them. An order of magnitude? Only if you are a bad mathematicians. But perhaps you are right, and that’s the reason why modern scientists estimate 100 millions, when it could easily had been only 10 millions. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americas-census-at-contact-myth/578309/269 "2011-04-19T03:36:20Z")
This is getting silly. There’s been a lot of goal post shifting going on, and it should end. **pinguin** has finally given one source and an unrelated quote from that source as an initial attempt to back up some numbers. Ok, that’s fine for a beginning. Now, how about some more sources (again, they don’t have to be in English - just title and author should be ok to start)? This shouldn’t take very long, especially for anybody claiming to have a well researched argument. Beyond that, how about some actual citations and figures for coming up with a population estimate? This part might take longer. But again, anybody claiming to have a well researched argument should already have a lot of the material assembled in some form. Until we get a full accounting of **pinguin** ’s numbers and sources, we’ll repeat the same pattern that’s existed for the last 300 posts: outrageous claim, a partial source, a digression from the main point, and finally a return to the original outrageous claim only to be sidetracked to yet another distraction. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americas-census-at-contact-myth/578309/270 "2011-04-19T03:38:20Z")
> [@pinguin](#): > > An order of magnitude? Only if you are a bad mathematicians. > > But perhaps you are right, and that’s the reason why modern scientists estimate 100 millions, when it could easily had been only 10 millions. Of course de Vaca didn’t count population _at all_ so his account lacks even such a rudimentary method. ---
**Author:** ![pinguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ac8455/32.png) [@pinguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pinguin)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americas-census-at-contact-myth/578309/271 "2011-04-19T03:38:52Z")
> [@Spoke](#): > > I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but it’s an interesting question. > > I’d say one fact arguing against the high counters is the profusion of languages among Native Americans. To me, numbers as high as the high counters propose suggest large, stable societies, which I would think would mean less language variation. But I’m no linguist. You maybe aren’t a linguist, but you are a genious. Indeed, when populations are large there is an uniformity of language. In Chile and Argentine, for instance, natives could talk each other in the same language for thousand of miles. In Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, Guarani was spoken in a large area as well, like Quechua and Aymara in the Andes. In the U.S., by contrasts, natives couldn’t communicate each other that well, and sign language was widespread. This shows, the tribes were small, were distant and probably they move quite often from place to place. You should write a paper and publish it. This is a very interesting idea. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americas-census-at-contact-myth/578309/272 "2011-04-19T03:40:52Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > This is getting silly. There’s been a lot of goal post shifting going on, and it should end. > > **pinguin** has finally given one source and an unrelated quote from that source as an initial attempt to back up some numbers. > > Ok, that’s fine for a beginning. Now, how about some more sources (again, they don’t have to be in English - just title and author should be ok to start)? This shouldn’t take very long, especially for anybody claiming to have a well researched argument. > > Beyond that, how about some actual citations and figures for coming up with a population estimate? This part might take longer. But again, anybody claiming to have a well researched argument should already have a lot of the material assembled in some form. > > Until we get a full accounting of **pinguin** ’s numbers and sources, we’ll repeat the same pattern that’s existed for the last 300 posts: outrageous claim, a partial source, a digression from the main point, and finally a return to the original outrageous claim only to be sidetracked to yet another distraction. This is an excellent point. You support a range of population for pre-contact Americas of 8 million to 15 million. You pointed to a few passages from de Vaca’s work that suggested a sparse population. What specifically in those passages suggests a population of 8 to 15 million for _the entire Americas_? Please elaborate, use detail and don’t just say something like “because it’s obvious.” What it really comes down to is you’ve made a very specific claim about population numbers and the only citation you’ve given is one that doesn’t talk about numbers at all, and in fact does so so infrequently that we can’t do any sort of numerical estimation from that source. So surely you have more sources that actually go into detail? ---
**Author:** ![pinguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ac8455/32.png) [@pinguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pinguin)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americas-census-at-contact-myth/578309/273 "2011-04-19T03:40:55Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Until we get a full accounting of **pinguin** ’s numbers and sources, we’ll repeat the same pattern that’s existed for the last 300 posts: outrageous claim, a partial source, a digression from the main point, and finally a return to the original outrageous claim only to be sidetracked to yet another distraction. I have no problem to give sources. In fact, I am the only one providing sources here, if you haven’t noticed. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americas-census-at-contact-myth/578309/274 "2011-04-19T03:41:55Z")
> [@pinguin](#): > > I have no problem to give sources. > > In fact, I am the only one providing sources here, if you haven’t noticed. Stop lying. People have posted many sources in this thread. You have not read them and/or you were unable to understand them. ---
**Author:** ![pinguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ac8455/32.png) [@pinguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pinguin)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americas-census-at-contact-myth/578309/275 "2011-04-19T03:43:31Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > This is an excellent point. > > You support a range of population for pre-contact Americas of 8 million to 15 million. You pointed to a few passages from de Vaca’s work that suggested a sparse population. > > What specifically in those passages suggests a population of 8 to 15 million for _the entire Americas_? Please elaborate, use detail and don’t just say something like “because it’s obvious.” > > What it really comes down to is you’ve made a very specific claim about population numbers and the only citation you’ve given is one that doesn’t talk about numbers at all, and in fact does so so infrequently that we can’t do any sort of numerical estimation from that source. So surely you have more sources that actually go into detail? Didn’t you read the three scientists I quoted? It was one of my first posts. They had estimations between 8 to 20 millions (more or less) for the Americas at contact. I even shown the figures region by region. If you want to advance in the discussion, talk about regional populations, then. And go to find my post. ---
**Author:** ![pinguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ac8455/32.png) [@pinguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pinguin)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americas-census-at-contact-myth/578309/276 "2011-04-19T03:44:35Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Stop lying. People have posted many sources in this thread. You have not read them and/or you were unable to understand them. It is against the rules of this forum to call lier to a fellow member. I hope the rules can be applied with yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americas-census-at-contact-myth/578309/277 "2011-04-19T03:49:23Z")
> [@pinguin](#): > > In fact, I am the only one providing sources here, if you haven’t noticed. Just the one reasonable source plus a reference to Henige that doesn’t actually say anything. You’ve made references to other authors without actually citing them or the specific works or passages you wish to use. The burden of proof is always on the one arguing against the consensus. No more digressions meant to distract from the lack of actual sources, for all our sakes. So, again, a list of sources, please. ---
**Author:** ![Bartman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/779978/32.png) [@Bartman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bartman)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americas-census-at-contact-myth/578309/278 "2011-04-19T03:50:36Z")
> [@pinguin](#): > > Perhaps you can’t understand it because you aren’t a Catholic of the old school, I guess. Or perhaps you don’t read Spanish and something is missing in translation. > > De Vaca says clearly: > > “all the appearances of death”. If he believed the man was dead, why to use the word “appearances”? Wow! I’m impressed at your ability to try and wriggle out. Let’s read some of it again shall we. > [@](#): > > the sick man we went to heal was dead. What condition is the man in? Dead. > [@](#): > > Many persons were around him weeping Why would they be weeping? Because he is dead. > [@](#): > > his house was prostrate The other natives had torn down the man’s house… Why? > [@](#): > > a sign that the one who dwelt in it is no more Because he is dead… as mentioned earlier in the thread, a tradition in the area is to destroy a man’s possessions after his death. > [@](#): > > the pulse gone No pulse… that is a solid sign of death. > [@](#): > > he who had been dead Again no equivocating there… the man was dead. de Vaca thought so. The natives thought so. And we was dead long enough for them to start preparing the body under a funeral mat and tear down the man’s house. I think I am understanding the quote just fine. I would suggest that you are the one who is having trouble understanding. ---
**Author:** ![pinguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ac8455/32.png) [@pinguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pinguin)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americas-census-at-contact-myth/578309/279 "2011-04-19T03:51:46Z")
OK. What do you want to know? Why don’t we start to analyze the population of the Americas by country? Otherwise, we won’t advance anything. We must study the population country by country and region by region, before adding it up. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americas-census-at-contact-myth/578309/280 "2011-04-19T03:52:06Z")
> [@pinguin](#): > > Didn’t you read the three scientists I quoted? It was one of my first posts. They had estimations between 8 to 20 millions (more or less) for the Americas at contact. I even shown the figures region by region. > > If you want to advance in the discussion, talk about regional populations, then. > > And go to find my post. Actually you just copy and pasted numbers. Earlier in the thread **Bartman** replied to your claim of having provided citations for your numbers with this: > [@](#): > > Umm… no, you really haven’t. You name dropped three names (Kroeber, Rosenblat and Steward). You provided a list a numbers with no cite for where they came from. And you provided a link to a related wiki page in a language virtually none of the other debaters in this thread speak. That is not a cite. Cites like that would get you a failing grade on any paper in any school I’ve ever heard of. Who are Kroeber, Rosenblat and Steward? What are their works that you are citing? Books? Journal Articles? Websites? Where is the relevant information located, page numbers etc? Now I can guess who you are talking about (Alfred Kroeber, Julian Steward, Angel Rosenblat) but I can’t tell that from your “cite.” If I wanted to I could probably do your research for you and identify where these numbers are from and how they were derived. But I’m not going to. As the debater on the side of the minimalists, it is your responsibility to argue your side. > > Likewise you have provided _absolutely no evidence_ on why we should accept your favored experts conclusions over say Henry Dobyns’ 112 million figure. All you have offered is ad hominem attacks on the scholars you disagree with. Hell, you haven’t even made particularly good ad hominems. You even invoked the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. After all Borah is (in your words) an idiot by definition. The fact that he was a professor of Latin American studies at Berkeley, is simply proof that Berkeley has a terrible Latin American studies program to you. (As an aside, Berkeley has a reputation as one of, if not the best Latin American studies programs in both the US and the Americas as a whole). > > You have stated your _opinion_ many times. It would be nice if you were to provide any evidence… at all. But at this point, I think it is obvious that you are never going to do so. Nor are you going to respond seriously to attempts to debate with you. So you go ahead and continue to make your jokes and your roll eyes smileys at scholars that disagree with your obviously deeply held opinions. You have done little to change things since then, still having given us no solid citations for your numbers. Even assuming that you are accurately representing the numbers, you still haven’t made any argument about why we should accept those numbers. Bartman again responded to you with this: > [@](#): > > A good cite would be a cite that would help convince us that “10-20 million is a figure that makes a lot of sense.” > A good cite would be more than a list of numbers. > A good cite would show the methodology that folks like Rosenblat used to derive their numbers. > A good cite would help you argue why their methodology is superior to the high-counters methodologies. > A good cite would be in English, because you are trying to convince an English speaking audience. > A good cite would be easily identifiable. Which Spanish language world almanac are you citing? There was more than one published in 1992. > > [Here](http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:-BAFW7zW9p0J:revistadeindias.revistas.csic.es/index.php/revistadeindias/article/download/557/624+borah+rosenblatt+americas+demographics&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiWt3nco7zdVgLnckPfx61erWx_Um1lkZGJesHzlxJM-vFVOhyJPw6HjeKeIo7rIgeDk7L41EJTSE9D7fofeUEcLpEqGsmhvLeWHFmP8pnVo5h9gy_kOZkP-ILkNj-rSf4BIpxo&sig=AHIEtbSmQM-gtWzxNmRhJonwA_cep-IYEQ) is an example of what a good cite looks like. It was originally posted by **Tamerlane**. In the cited paper William Denevan makes an argument that there were _at least_ 5 million indigenous inhabitants of Greater Amazonia in 1492. He uses previous research, including over 70 cites in his 13 page paper. He examines historical Spanish records. He looks at archeological evidence. He makes population density comparisons to Borneo. He individually looks at the three major land/vegetation types (floodplain, upland forest, and savannas) and makes separate calculations for each. > > Now if you are serious about debating this, you should provide a similar cite which would argue against the Denevan cite above. If you want to convince us that Rosenblat’s number of 2 million in the South American lowlands is a more believable number than Denevan’s number of at least 5 million in Greater Amazonia, your cite should include things like contemporary Spanish witnesses, archeology, comparative land use, and any other relevant points or arguments. > > Ineffectual arguments against this cite would include ad hominem attacks on Denevan or myself, appeals to Rosenblat’s authority, ignoring the cite, or stating your thesis as a conclusion. > > I’ve said this before… and I’ll say it again. I am willing to listen to a serious argument on this topic. I tend to think the 60-80 million people range is the likely pre-columbian population of the Americas. But I could certainly be convinced otherwise. In fact I am very interested in hearing your argument. However you need to actually present an argument with supporting evidence if you are going to try and convince anyone of your position. If you aren’t willing or able to present any evidence then please just stop posting and wasting all our time. You have given us a few passages from Cabeza de Vaca (which actually in another thread another poster even demonstrated there are many passages from de Vaca’s work describing regions that de Vaca said were as populated as his home country.) That certainly isn’t a _source_ for your numbers, because de Vaca’s account is just a first hand account of a long ordeal, it isn’t a numerical estimate an no estimates can be made from it, thus it is worthless in that regard. A debate is about making an argument and then supporting that argument. Your argument is that the population of the New World prior to contact was 8-15 million. You cite a few researchers that agree with you. I can cite a few researchers that say it was 100 million. Your response is, “well, those researchers who say the number is \> 15 million are garbage” I could respond “well those researchers who say the number is \< 80 million are garbage.” Do you see the problem? Both of us can just pick people who agree with our conclusions and then simply dismiss any other evidence because it doesn’t agree with our conclusion. Do you see how circular that is? Unless you’re willing to actually make an argument as to why the estimates at the low end are _intrinsically more valid_ than the estimates at the high end, you’ve posted in this thread dozens of times for no purpose at all. Do you understand at all what we’re doing here? If all you’re willing to do is post the numbers you think are correct and then say “any other numbers are wrong” but without giving a reason **why** , then you **are not making an argument** , you’re just stating an opinion over and over again. Saying that the low count must be right because the high count “doesn’t agree with historical chronicles” and then the historical chronicles you show us aren’t really instructive at all in terms of making an accurate population estimate, that just doesn’t cut it. I’m sorry if this forum is too “hard” for you, but the purpose of this forum isn’t to let someone just get on a soap box and preach their views about something without being contested. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americas-census-at-contact-myth/578309.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americas-census-at-contact-myth/578309.md?page=15)