Posted on 02/08/2025 7:05:35 PM PST by SunkenCiv
Science Magazine reports that Robert Kelly of the University of Wyoming and his colleagues compiled more than 60,000 radiocarbon dates for artifacts from the United States and Canada. Then, assuming that the amount of radiocarbon data collected from a given region reflects its population at that time, the researchers made comparisons between the possible size of the populations over time and between regions. The study suggests that North American populations grew for about 2,000 years and peaked around A.D. 1150, then the size of the population decreased by at least 30 percent by 1500. Yet populations grew and declined in different regions at different times, likely reflecting regional climate shifts, disease, and warfare. "The entire continent is not in lockstep," Kelly said. For example, the population of Cahokia, which is situated near the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, had an estimated population of more than 10,000 by A.D. 1100. Droughts are thought to have brought about a reduction in crops, population collapse, and migration to other regions, leading to the abandonment of Cahokia by 1350. Overall, the population of North America began to rebound around 1450, the researchers suggest, but was then decimated by disease, violence, and loss of territory following the arrival of Europeans.
(Excerpt) Read more at archaeology.org ...
Archaeologist Robert Kelly excavates a site in WyomingMadelein Mackie
I don’t see that they answered their own question.
I read it because I am curious as to the answer.
Nomads need about 50 sq miles per person. So, in North America, probably no more than 20 million. That’s still pretty crowded by nomadic standards, so it can’t be more than that under the best conditions. Even if you account that some natives did have urbanization.
Three.
Not 42?
132,618
5.56mm
And the answer is??? Nowhere to be found in the article.
But this caught my eye: "Yet populations grew and declined in different regions at different times, likely reflecting regional climate shifts, disease, and warfare." Climate changed? Well, how do you like that?
So is this a trick question? A multiple choice question? Why did I waste my time searching for the answer only to be told we don’t know. We didn’t try to estimate the number.
It’s Price is Right rules.
I’m sticking with three. A guy, a gal, and a kid.
I inferred the answer based on how many square miles a person needs to live the nomadic lifestyle, even if you had some adaptions in order to reduce the need to be nomadic.
The actual number of Indians is up for dispute. But interestingly enough, Sen. Elizabeth Warren claims to be related to all of them.
Would proximity to a sea coast be a factor?
Yes, as well as resources. I took the North America square miles and multiplied by 2/3, to account for the north. And it’s probably further reduced by the deserts.
No dog? With a yard that big, why not get a dog?
“Nomads need about 50 sq miles per person. So, in North America, probably no more than 20 million. That’s still pretty crowded by nomadic standards, so it can’t be more than that under the best conditions. Even if you account that some natives did have urbanization.”
I’ve heard 2 to 3 million. Roughly the amount that our country could sustain had the Russians retaliated for the Neocons shooting missiles into their country.
Dogs aren’t people.
I’m willing to allow a dog to be part of the family of 3.
Yes. Horrible article. wish I could shove shove a tarantula into the mouth of the writer.
One of the most effective retorts to climatards is to constantly point out all the many, many major changes in climate that exist in recorded history and from paleoclimatology research.
Well, there was a tribe that lived on the upper Texas coast that survived/thrived on grasshoppers when the French found them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.