Which scientists do this? Where? Can we have an example? Even one? Just one reference where a “scientist” pretends that there was a census at contact.
Until you name some of these “scientists” and cite anything they have said that would reasonably support the claim that they “act as if there was a census at contact,” you are doing nothing but blowing hot air. I, for one, do not believe that any such “scientists” exist.
Until you cite any scholar “claiming an exact figure” as if it were an unquestionable number, I don’t believe that any such scholar exists. Scholars and scientists who make such projections set forth their assumptions, their methods, their research data, and they also set forth statistical evaluations about the reliability of their results. You could learn something from them.
Yet another digression. As addressed earlier, it’s clear the Spanish were more interested in the mineral resources of the New World than in establishing serfdoms, as per your initial contention.
And you yourself have provided a modern example of a disease that decimates populations (HIV), even in the face of modern medicine and further one that doesn’t actually care about the particular number of people involved.
So, back to your own contention about the pre-Columbian population of the Americas. Your sources and work, please.
A very rough estimate of the Iroquois population at the time of European contact would be approximately 10 000-15 000 people.
This comes from the Canadian Encyclopedia, which seems to be better informed.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0004060
Besides, it shows how weak are the studies of population at contact :rolleyes::rolleyes:
:smack: How many times I will have to cite the same wild claims?
It’s pretty clear what you’re doing is determining what answer you want to see and then going out and looking for references that seem not to contradict your pre-determined conclusion. Then you grace such reference with approbation like “better informed.” This exercise is absolutely meaningless.
Again, cite sources you disagree with and offer cogent arguments as to why they’re wrong. You very well might find that people in this thread will start to agree with you.
Since you have done it zero times so far, I’m not sympathetic to your head-smacking.
I just shown the mistake in the estimation of the Iroquois population. How many more mistakes do you demand I prove?
I have shown you guys wrong, with Cabeza de Vaca, the Spaniards and all the topics already.
Please, try to see the topic in a rational manner, looking to the evidence shown. And don’t hide the head on the ground, like the ostrich!
Here is an example: Population of Amazon: 5 millions. From where?
The population of the Amazon basin in 1492: a view from the Ecuadorian headwaters.
Newson LA.
Abstract
“Recent archaeological, ethnohistorical and ecological evidence has begun to challenge the view that ‘civilizations’ failed to develop in the Amazon basin due to limitations of the tropical forest environment. As a result, estimates of the native population in 1492 have become an issue of debate. These estimates are evaluated in the light of the ethnohistorical research on the Ecuadorian headwaters. Estimates are considered by examining estimated habitat densities, the impact of Old World diseases and contemporary evidence for native cultures. The study is based on documents found in archives in Quito, Seville, Madrid and Rome. It is suggested that the population of the Amazon basin in 1492 probably exceeded 5 million but that expectations of substantially higher populations appear unfounded.”
You have no idea about the history of Spanish Empire in the Americas. That empire lived on silver, of course, but also on suggar, rum, tobacco, goods from China and other richeness. Local agriculture was also important.
- Exactly which part is Newson pretending there was a census.
- What specific criticisms do you have of his assumptions, methods, and conclusions? Does Newson fail to acknowledge any weaknesses in his assumptions, methods, and conclusions?
OK. I will find you a exact reference to close this case.
- This is an abstract - not the actual paper. An abstract is simply a summary of the article. It does not present all the evidence (just as your own Canadian Encyclopedia simply mentions a number without any evidence or other backing).
- There’s no mention of any ‘census’. There is a mention of population estimates. You are still the only one claiming any ‘census’.
- If you actually read the paper, it goes through the estimates it uses to establish that figure. Have you done so?
Here’s a prediction: You will not “close this case,” and this is why:
-
You actually know nothing about the relevant fields of study. You have no idea how to analyze such studies. You have no basis for judging the strengths or weaknesses of any particular study.
-
To the extent that you do anything, you will do nothing more than:
– a. Find cites that you think might disagree with you and arbitrarily label them as “wild,” and
– b. Find cites that that you think might agree with you and arbitrarily label them as “better informed.”
This is quite a good article. Among the salient quotes: “In the long term, archaeological research probably has the greatest potential for yielding information on the contact period” (p. 8); there is a good discussion of her methods and further references following that; on p. 15 she states “Single epidemics might carry off one-third, or even one-half, of the population and many communities were hit not once but many times during the sixteenth century. As such, their populations could be rapidly hammered down to fractions of their aboriginal size. For example, Cook (1981) has shown how the six major epidemics that afflicted Peru between 1524 and 1615 could have reduced the native population there by between 79·3 to 91·7 per cent.” In her conclusion on p. 20 she states “On the basis of research on the Ecuadorian headwaters, it has been suggested that the population of the Amazon basin may have been about 5 million.”
Assuming that the population of the rest of North America averages out to a similar population density, that would put the numbers in 1492 at 25,741,000, give or take. Newson herself, however, is careful to take into account environmental conditions, and it is clear that her methodology applied to Mexico would produce very different results. She wouldn’t just times her five million by five!
ETA: I wanted to bold the section that pinguin finds so hard to believe.
This estimate is somewhat lower than the ones I find looking things up via databases – these put the Iroquois population at about 20,000. Do you regard the estimate in the Canadian Encyclopedia authoritative?
The entire issue is complex and in many cases bound up with ideology. Estimates by scholars aren’t “off the cuff” numbers produced by wild guesses, and there’s a considerably literature on the subject. You can start here:
This book puts total North American population as on the order of 4 million.
Cook has shown nothing. He is precisely the kind of pseudoscientist that is ruining the field. He is something like the Von Danniken of the population estimation. 
Better read: Numbers from Nowhere
http://books.google.com/books?id=1MJ9HPsGsrUC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=cook+population+1492+debate&source=bl&ots=qvzVjUoGSl&sig=XUXpoCzCZT00KUw8KS0XAH_FjRg&hl=en&ei=Cw6vTbLuN6Wx0QG6g7WiCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=cook%20population%201492%20debate&f=false
Of course, another book with guessings.
Why do you protect so much those pseudoscientists? I wonder
Better informed than Dean Snow? I doubt it very much.
Considering one Iroquoian village averaged 1000 people…
Jesus Christ.