[sphinx]

True, but most of the great die-off occurred before European settlers met the Indians on the ground. We get glimpses of it: the accounts of the early Spanish and French explorers on the Mississippi vs. the accounts of the second wave a century later, or the observed annihilations of villages or tribes by recurring outbreaks of cholera or smallpox. But for the most part, the disease wave preceded settlement by many decades.

When I was in school, we were taught that the Europeans encountered a largely empty North American wilderness inhabited by perhaps a million Indians. This perception was based on the perfectly honest, but naïve, accounts of the early settlers. We now know that 90% or more of the Indian populations died before Europeans ever laid eyes on them. Central America, of course, is a different story.

[Carry_Okie]

True, but most of the great die-off occurred before European settlers met the Indians on the ground.

Smallpox, yes. Tuberculosis and syphilis, no.

But for the most part, the disease wave preceded settlement by many decades.

That was certainly true in South America, and most of Central and North America, but with islands or refugia that escaped the disease. In California it was probably not true, and for reasons that would surprise you. BTW, this is original research on my part that is causing not a little consternation among wildlife biologists and archaeologists.

We now know that 90% or more of the Indian populations died before Europeans ever laid eyes on them.

No, we don't "know." That is an estimated number; it is not knowledge. The arguments are ongoing. Hell we don't know enough about vegetative composition and carrying capacity to make such a projection reliably.