400 million? Granted, Pre-Colombian and early Post-Discovery American history is not my forte, but I have not ever heard of a reputable source that has put that figure any where near that.
Why? Consider the Ebola virus. The hemorraghic fever associated with it is fatal in 80-90% of cases, no matter the population size involved.
It’s not a stretch to posit a population with no resistance experiencing a 90% decrease in population after initial contact with a new disease or several new diseases - no matter the actual size of the population.
Note that large population decreases due to disease are hardly limited to the Americas. The plague killed off somewhere between 30-60% of the population of Europe (and note that even that is an estimate in line with the types of estimates made about native deaths in the Americas).
How exactly are you certain about that? What happened to your “there was no census taken so we don’t know anything about populations” bit? At best you can say that they have no evidence for making that claim.
However, outside of the population debate, we do have some incontrovertible evidence in this debate. We have several examples of large city ruins in Central and South America. We have first hand accounts of the explorers describing these cities and other towns. We have first hand accounts of these explorers describing deserted towns and epidemics among the native population.
While it may be true we can’t come close to pinning down an exact number, there is no doubt that there was a large population of natives in the Americas when Columbus arrived, and that these civilizations suffered massive epidemics in the century after Columbus.
In Europe the estimation of population are more reliable given the writen sources.
And with respect to the Ebola Virus… This is not science fiction. The Ebola virus exist but has never wiped out the population of Africa, so far. Not even HIV has done that. During the black plague mortality was very high but the demographic depresion lasted only one generation.
The point is, the demographic of the Americas at contact is just guessing.
I think that word doesn’t mean what you think it means.
What is your evidence that it is exaggerated? What is your evidence that there is something unethical happening? Shall I accuse you of pseudoscience?
Actually, what’s seems to be emerging is that you have a chip on your shoulder about pre-Columbian population estimates. But you haven’t proposed any reason to doubt any particular estimate as either “pseudoscience” or exaggeration.
No it’s not. We have ruins to look at, first hand accounts of European explorers, later written accounts of settlers and others, estimations based on possible food production, and other archaeological evidence. The results off of that method aren’t going to be particularly precise, but they are far from just guessing.
Ok, show yours figures and justifications.
I think you’ve got it backwards. You pick a study that you disagree with and set forth your criticisms of its assumptions, techniques, and conclusions.
Too much words, too few figures. I have already cited my sources that makes me skeptical.
Of course there are serious scientists worried about the invention of figures. Like this David Henige.
Here is his book: Numbers from Nowhere.
Of course there are serious scientists worried about the invention of figures. Like this David Henige. Here is his book: Numbers from Nowhere.
Yes, and then we gave cites from other equally respectable scientists who diagree with Henige.
You can argue that he was right and the others wrong. We all wish you would do so, analyzing his methods and conclusions against others. Saying “I like his conclusions better so I won’t even bother looking at any others” is not science or a convincing argument.
That link doesn’t work. However, I am curious as to whether David Henige’s argument is “There was no census in 1492; therefore, any educated estimate has no scientific value whatsoever, and is childish number-crunching, guessing, and pseudoscience.”
I recall reading a review of a book on the Northwest Coast Indians and Smallpox. The book review was in Scientific American about 30 years ago. For a good overview of the history of some of that epidemic, visit the Victoria museum. There are newspaper articles about such things as the Victoria locals finding a group of sick natives dying in the woods, only 10 miles out of town. They had started on their way in their canoe, all got sick at once, and put ashore to shelter in the woods - and died.
The book describes analysis of the memoirs of several priests in BC and Alaska at the time. It’s not that the locals died more easily than europeans; the problem was this - when someone gets sick, typically there is some else, older, immune, or reckless, that will bring water and tend the person until their fever breaks. In a subsistence village, where nobody has immunity from an earlier infection - everyone got sick at once. With nobody to feed or even bring water, most of the village dies of dehydration or can’t fight the disease due to starvation. In villages that had a missionary priest (usually with immunity) much of the village survived, and mortality rates for smallpox were about the 5% to 10% seen in european outbreaks.
So it’s nothing special about the natives immune systems - it’s their total lack of support systems when sick.
I also recall reading about the mound-builders and other groups in the central Mississippi valley area. Apparently there were “large towns”, in the 1,000 to 3,000 inhabitant range, the central focus of a large number of smaller villages. IIRC National Geographic had a recent article on them. Many of these were deserted by the time the early explorers reached them.
OTOH, the Iroquois had an extensive social organization and agriculture, and were very advanced for stone-age technology… But they had fire-cleared fields in the forests of the upper north-east, not extensive fields with patches of forest. They would exhaust the soil’s fertility and make new fields every few years, and still hunted for much of their protein.
Scientist? Hardly. Historian and bibliographer.
Also, a better link to the book (since I can’t seem to use your link).
I notice that around page 180, the author uses both the phrases “High Counters” and “pseudo-scientific number crunching”. If you’re going to use only one book, you should be a bit more careful about lifting stock phrases verbatim.
You also mis-represent his position. It’s not that he denies 90% figures but simply states there’s no direct evidence for it on quite the scale presented by some people.
But it’s still a weak position.
For example, he cites the case of the massive depopulations of Hispaniola and Florida over the course of a couple decades and notes that there is no record in “the relevant sources”. He doesn’t deny that massive depopulations occurred in limited cases, at least (especially in cases like the smallpox ridden blankets). Also, his arguments are along the lines of “evidence of absence”. Basically, there’s not much other than disease to describe how Hispaniola was depopulated by 99.8%. There’s no written evidence for a massacre, mass migration, etc, so his argument would be that you can’t count on any of those. So, apparently, he thinks even reasonable speculation for the cause is out of bounds. That strikes me as silly.
Also, the idea that there was a population around 50 million is still sound - he’s denying the ultra high end of the curve - not the notion that the middle of the range is reasonable. You’ve taken his arguments to an extreme (and untenable) position.
For what it’s worth, around page 180 of Henige’s book, Henige denies there’s any credible evidence of the depopulation of the Northwest via disease, claiming how ridiculous it would be for such diseases to travel thousands of miles “almost instantly”. Considering it was written around 1998, you’d think he’d check his sources better, too. Also, you’d think he’d realize that diseases should be able to spread thousands of miles over the course of a couple decades (historically “almost instantly”), especially when dealing with nomadic tribes of natives across the Great Plains.
It seems he was attacking the lack of written sources. But a bunch of empty villages should be acceptable as a substitute for direct observation of sick and dying people. His arguments approach pedantry.
It looks like his academic field is the study of appropriate use of sources. His main concern is a lack of credible written sources. But, the depopulation of the Americas by disease doesn’t rely solely on written sources. If it did, he might have a point. But there’s a ton of other physical evidence involved.
It seems pretty obvious at this point that the OP is not seriously looking for information, but merely trying to argue a position. So this is better suited to GD than GQ.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Since this was never really an OP that belonged in General Questions(but, in our defense, we try to allow six unreasonable things before breakfast every day), it is with great regret that I send it to Great Debates. Regret in the sense that the mods there will hate me forever.
samclem Moderator
Damn! We seem to have the same breaking point. 
What depopulation by disease? For a strange reason, it was the U.S. the region of continental Americas which suffered the largest depopulation. If so, why only in the U.S. virus and bacteria were so efficient?
Yes, there was large mortality in Mexico, Central and South America, as well. But the populations recovered. So, something weird is going on here-
:dubious:
I think that the emphasis in bacteria (and virus) is only an excuse to hide the real causes of the depopulation.
I agree with the OP, a position argued with bold capital letters in large font is incontrovertible.
Hang on one cotton picking minute!
-
How do you know how many people " leaved at its peak in Easter Island". How can you possibly quote such a figure? Was there a reliable census? Or are you just making up unreliable figures and quoting them as facts?
-
Easter Island has an area of 164 square kilometres, That means that, based on your figures, it had a density of 61 people/square kilometre. Hispaniola has an area of 76480 square kilometers. That means Hispaniola had a population of over four and a half million people, even if it only had the same population density as Easter Island. And this is using your own figures. The United States, using the same population figures, would have a population of over six hundred million people. The population of New York alone would have been over seven million people.
Your own figures are demolishing your argument. In order to undertake large construction projects and “demolish the environment” the people of the pre-Columbian Americas must have numbered in the hundreds of millions, based on your own figures.