Comments on: On Pre-Columbian Native American populations

By: Cesar

Cesar — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:28:11 +0000

Blair is someone with a clear agenda to downplay both the population size and advancement of pre-Colombian cultures. The historical and archaeological record does not support what he is stating. Tenochtitlan (Mexico City) at the time of the Europeans’ arrival was a major “developed” city comparable in size to the largest European cities of the time. For anyone who is interested in this topic I recommend you read 1491 by Charles C. Mann.

By: robert

robert — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:08:38 +0000

There is little archeological evidence to support the huge population of native americans before Columbus. The primitive agricultural methods used by the “survivors’ of the alleged plague could not support a huge population. And lastly no native oral history speaks of such devetating plagues whereas the history of the “Black death” is still sung in ethnic European nursery rhymes. The high population of native americans myth is nothing but another attempt to make Europeans look bad. If Powhatan had 100,000 people in his federation they would have easily overwhelmed the early settlements.

By: shelby cox

shelby cox — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:15:54 +0000

im confused

By: Serich

Serich — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:27:34 +0000

Daniel T. Reff, Dept. of Comparative Studies, Ohio State University estimated nearly half a million deaths between 1500 and 1678 in just a small portion of north america. He ‘itemizes’ the death toll by cultural group.

By: maia

maia — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:25:18 +0000

It’s also important to remember that Mooney’s work was only published posthumously and that the numbers in his notes were higher than the numbers that got published. Also, most Native American historians and anthropologists today agree that their were a significant number of methodological problems with his (very, very important and well-respected) research that caused his estimates to be biased on the low side.

Tha fact is population estimates for pre-Columbian America (which, by definition means the continents, not the US) range from a LOW of about 10 million all the way up to about 120 million. EVEYRONE’s estimates (low and high) and HIGHLY subject to questioning as they are ALL (low and high) based on a great deal of conjecture, extrapolation, and very little verifiable data.

Today, most reasonable historians (those who don’t beat their chests for a particular number and do review a wide variety of methodolgical issues in population estimates) agree BOTH that the low end and high end are unreasonable estimates.

If you want more information on where the wide varieties come from and how their proponents back them, you should check out The Native Populations of the Americas in 1492 by William Denevan. It is VERY academic and a slow read, but very well researched and one of the more balanced collections out there.

By: Tim Harris

Tim Harris — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:52:47 +0000

One more thing… Mooney’s estimate was as of 1491. That’s important, because the Native American population almost certainly rose and fell through time. At the height of the Mississippian cultures, it’s likely that the population was higher than that, due to the fact there were more centralized agricultural centers in North America. Or maybe not, we just don’t know. This has been a great discussion though, and I’ve enjoyed reading it.

By: Tim Harris

Tim Harris — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:46:13 +0000

From what I am reading, Blair was referencing the estimated population figure for North America, not the entriety of the Western Hemisphere. The population of Central America and the Caribbean was much, much higher, to say nothing of the population of South America. Not trying to speak for Blair, but I think he was merely stating the views of James Mooney who estimated 1.5-2.0 million inhabitants for North America, and this is still the standard estimate (though naturally it is very much debatable).

By: Josh

Josh — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:36:20 +0000

Rick: Thanks for commenting. At the time of Blair’s comment I thought that 1.5 to 2 million seemed an extremely low number (to put it kindly). I appreciate you commenting to correct the information. (By the way, just to clarify, the 1.5 to 2 million was not in my post, but in Blair’s comment; I actually linked to that Wikipedia article in my original post wayyy up above.)

By: Rick

Rick — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:59:51 +0000

I’m not entirely sure anyone will ever read this again, but if anyone does, I want to make sure there isn’t anyone get false information from here.

This notion that the Native American pre-Columbian population was 1.5 to 2 million before Columbus is absolutely ridiculous, I’m hoping I misread that or that it was presented incorrectly. James Loewen reported that the census of native adults on Haiti in 1496 was 1.1 million alone. When pre-Columbian populations of Native Americans is discussed, I think people forget the warmer climates of the Americas were far more heavily populated than the northern. The Inca and Aztec empires were enormous and account for about 30-40 million of pre-Columbian population estimates.

I understand this is a difficult topic. It is unfortunate, but due to the fragmented nature of Native American population information it is difficult to estimate accurately, in addition, most radical estimates low and high have motives.

Wikipedia has a decent breakdown of Native American peoples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples

By: Blair

Blair — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:52:05 +0000

Smallpox
Smallpox was a global contagion that originated in Africa and spread around the world. It devastated Old World as well as New World population. In North American, there were several smallpox epidemics that decimated the European as well as Native American population; however, it hit the Native Americans, who knew nothing about innoculation or quarantines, the hardest.

The smallpox pandemic that did the most damage begin in the Valley of Mexico and spread north across the Rio Grande to the Pueblo villages in New Mexico. Plains Indians who travled to the markets in Santa Fe, Taso and Pecos took the virus home with them. From the plains, the virus spread west over the Rockies and east across the Mississippi. The impact was comparable to the Black Death in Europe during Medieval times. It changed the balance of power on the plains by decimating the Pawnee, Blackfeet and Osage.

The Sioux, Chyenne and Commanche rushed in to dominate the plains. As the United States expanded west across the Mississippi, tribes that had been the most decimated by smallpox tended to ally with U.S. forces against tribes that had siezed the lands.

Smallpox certainly made the U.S. conquest of the west easier, but battles fought west of the Mississippi were inconsequental; the Indian Wars that really counted were waged east of the Mississippi. These wars usually pitted French troops and their Indian allies against British troops and their Indian allies. The American colonists frequently allied with tribes against other tribes. The Indian Wars fought west of the Mississippi were more or less “mopping up” operations.