I don’t see that they answered their own question.
I read it because I am curious as to the answer.
Three.
The actual number of Indians is up for dispute. But interestingly enough, Sen. Elizabeth Warren claims to be related to all of them.
Yes. Horrible article. wish I could shove shove a tarantula into the mouth of the writer.
There is no study which seeks to answer the question effectively. It’s rather pathetic and I make no bones about hiding my derision of those who practice - and report on - orthodox archaeology. The derision is well-deserved.
If North America was so awesome, why did the Nahuatl migrate south from Aztlán to found Tenochtitlán and become so successful there as the Aztecs?
Why did the Anasazi retreat to cliff dwellings?
Why were nearly all other tribes in NA - save for some east coast peoples - nomadic?
I think the answers reflect a general threat in NA which - by consequence - limited population. The ancient mounds - a nice little thorn in the side of orthodox scientists - reflect a knowledge of sky-borne catastrophe, some of which was likely volcanic in nature (Cascades & Yellowstone), never mind natural, persistent climate shifts/cycles which affected vast swaths of NA over millennia.
I believe that the human history of NA extends FAR longer than the accepted orthodoxy. This is a DEEP subject to those with open minds (a facet which doesn’t extend to ‘science’).
In the absence of conflicting hard data - dna or otherwise - I believe that the total indigenous population of NA was WELL under a half million by the arrival of our European ancestors. There is little to no evidence to suggest otherwise.
If these ‘normally intelligent’ so-called ‘scientists’ genuinely wanted to establish population trends, they would have performed a DNA study of remaining indigenous populations.
Thus, the logical conclusion is that they don’t want answers, just more controversy to fuel additional studies (i.e., “$$”).
To-wit:
“The new study also questions the inevitability of the conquest of the content. If Europeans had arrived a few centuries earlier and faced much larger Indigenous populations and well-organized tribal confederacies, the study authors conclude, “the history of North America might have been very different.””
Translated: “We’re intentionally provoking controversy.”
I noticed they didn’t answer the question either.