Dude is speaking to himself. Sad....

Population Amerindians 1500 AD

1 million Caribbean
2 Million (USA Canada)
2 Million central america outside Aztec)
6 million Aztec empire
6 million Inca
3 million South America outside Inc

File: image.png (107 KB, 533x551)

107 KB PNG

>>18597419
>>18597363
You're sort of right, though only technically and unintentionally

There weren't 150m people across all of the Americas, let alone even in the portions that only used stone tools. And going with mid range estimates (for example, Denevan in his 2nd edition of "The Native Population of the Americas in 1492", see pic), if you total up those areas that lacked Bronze, there's right around 20m people

However, Mesoamerican and Andean civilizations DID smelt and use Bronze (tho calling any New World society "Stone Age" or "Bronze age" is dumb regardless, even before Mesoamerica had Bronze, they built Classical Roman tier cities), and if you include them, the pop. total more then doubles to just under 53m. And Denevan is, again, a mid range estimate going by modern research standards, perhaps even leaning low: There are credible estimates that go more towards 70m, or even plausible 100+ million ones, though the latter do start to get to be highballing things by quite a bit and 150 m is almost certainly way too high

I actually helped a friend of mine with a post responding to somebody else trying to claim a 20m figure was accurate for all of the Americas a few weeks ago, so I'll basically repeat what we said there here:

Mesoamerica is what we know best, so using that as the focus of our breakdown: 20 million is a mid-range, arguably high leaning estimate for Mesoamerica ALONE. Looking back to Denevan's estimates again in pic related, with his book sort of being a meta-review of past estimates, you can total up the rows that compose Mesoamerica (Central Mexico, Yucatan-Tabasco, Chiapas, Soconusco, Southern Guatemala, and Honduras-Belize. Technically only parts of Honduras are in Mesoamerica by most definitions, and conversely parts of El Salvador and Nicaragua are too, but for simplicity's sake let's ignore the Salvadorian and Nicuarguan parts of the region and just count all of Honduras instead), and that gives you 18-19m people for the region

1/?

>>18597363
So called panchitos hate Amerindians. They are die hard cock suckers for Spain and white cock. They are extremely mean to Amerindians.

>>18597560
Can they just admit they are making shit up and that revising a 1974 retard tier guestimate down 8% is blatantly total retard tier?
The P value of of these people being correct is the same as the P value of asking a random dude on the sidewalk.

>>18597560
>>18597419
>>18597363
Cont:

It's also worth noting that while Denevan reduces his estimates from his 1st vs 2nd edition, our impression (tho we could be off base here) is that pop. estimates for a lot of the americas has credibly RISEN, not dropped, over the past 30ish years since the 2nd edition was published, though maybe that's moreso applicable to the Americas a few centuries or millenia before Spanish contact since the Classic Maya LIDAR research is obviously not relevant to the 16th century and off the top of my head I have no clue when the Amazonian LIDAR stuff is dated to

But speaking of the Classic Maya and LIDAR, it is worth noting this paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X25003219 found that even a PORTION of a PORTION of Classic Maya civilization (namely, part of the Central Maya lowlands) had between 9-16 million people, which as noted by this media article: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/feb/12/apocalypse-no-how-almost-everything-we-thought-we-knew-about-the-maya-is-wrong would have potentially made Classic Maya civilization more densely populated then the height of Roman Italy

Now, that seems kind of nuts to us, but my friend has another friend really into demography (more then we are, our thing is really moreso urbanism, architecture, art, and warfare) and her assessment was that the methodology seemed solid. Again, the population as of the Classic period really doesn't inherently have much to do with the contact period population, but even assuming the Maya population at contact was only a fraction of what it was in the Classic period, that would still mean many millions of Mayas in the early 16th century is reasonable

Anyways, the only research which backs figures of like 5-7m (or less) for all of Mesoamerica are extremely old publications from like 100 years ago. You can find research suggesting like 10-15m for all of Mesoamerica within the past 50 years, but most sources go with 18-30m

2/?

>>18597598
>>18597419
>>18597363
Cont:

For reference, these publications:

users.pop.umn.edu/~rmccaa/mxpoprev/cambridg3.htm
users.pop.umn.edu/~rmccaa/noncuant/democat0.htm

Both by McCaa, goes over a bunch of historical population estimates for Mesoamerica (or maybe it was all of Mexico instead, in any case it really focuses on...) or moreso the inconsistently defined "Central Mexican" subsection of Mesoamerica (which is, again, inconsistently defined, but generally in this context means "everything but the Maya", in contrast to how I often use the term in my posts which more specifically means Mexico City, Puebla, Tlaxcala, Moreloes, Hidalgo, and the State of Mexico), and outlines low vs moderate vs high count estimates, but that's from a mid 20th century perspective when "low count" meant like 1-5 million people for "Central Mexico" and often relied on other papers from the 1910s, 20s, and 30s

Furthermore, the table at the bottom of the first link is misleading, as what geographic area(s) are included in their estimate isn't always listed and isn't defined, and each researcher's row in the table does cover significantly different geographic areas, so you can't just look at the table, you need to read each paper

Even looking at what I can find for say Zambardino (jstor.org/stable/202984), which is one of the only relatively recent lower end estimates I can find, still would probably (assuming a proportional total for the Maya areas, other parts of the Americas etc by Denevan's ratios to Zambardino's "Central mexico" figure) have him supporting a figure of like 10-12 million for all of Mesoamerica and 25-30 million for the whole landmass, which is still like 1.5x to 2x higher then what you anons are both claiming, and I think Zambardino is probably too low still: Personally i'd say 40 million for the whole landmass and like 14-16 million for Mesoamerica is a safely plausible low end estimate, even if I think Denevan's ~54m and ~19 million are more likely

3/?

>>18597624
>>18597419
>>18597363
COnt:

And, again, there are plenty of plausible estimates higher then both: Thornton goes with 72m for the Americas (https://google.com/books/edition/American_Indian_Holocaust_and_Survival/9iQYSQ9y60MC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=I%20assert%20that%20the%20aboriginal%20population%20of%20the%20Western%20Hemisphere%20circa%201492%20numbered%20at%20least%2072%20million%20and%20probably%20slightly%20more) and a number of publications by Cook & Borah, Dobyns (https://journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/200749) go with 100m+ etc, and as far as I know these are all considered credible even if I know at least I consider Cook & Borah's figures to be too high

>>18597578
If you want to critique the methodology I'd be happy to read it, as I admit my area really isn't demography to begin with and I'm not as confident about all the info here as I normally am when infodumping, so I'd welcome other people's inputs and breakdowns, though I hope I've illustrated at least that <20m for all of the Americas is just obviously too low to take seriously.

But you'd need to actually break down the methodology then, not just assert/accuse it of being nonsense like you're doing now. If you need PDF's of Denevan's book or other papers let me know and I'll try to get you them.

4/4 for now

>>18597631
Try to imagine a methodology that verifies shit from thousands of years ago with very little record of any kind.
They don't even know if these people were original inhabitants.
It's just so clearly made up bullshit if you say more "there were quite obviously quite a few."

The original group was obviously had their head far less up their ass and kept the rounding to 50k.
The group in 90 is estimating down to the thousand.
I mean...come on. lmao

>>18597631
cont

>>18597815
No shit there's going to be speculation involved, but obviously that's unavoidable to some degree, even in regions with censuses there's a degree of extrapolation. The bar can't be "have no estimation", I'm asking you if you have specific critiques with their estimation methodology, as in if they made errors or if some of the assumptions they made they shouldn't have, and they could have gone with a different method or estimation method instead, not just "they shouldn't have tried at all"

>They don't even know if these people were original inhabitants

I'm not totally sure what you're implying. If you mean we don't know if, say, that the Aztec, Maya etc built their own cities or not, we absolutely do know that: The people who built and lived in cities in Mesoamerica + Andes were definitely the ancestors of modern indigenous populations in Mexico, Guatemala, Peru, etc. I'd give you an in depth explanation but the same friend I already mentioned already has a multi-paragraph breakdown explaining how we know this for certain, and I'm not typing out another 4 posts in a row just to repeat shit they already have posted: x.com/Majora__Z/status/2072204336445227326

TL:DR:

>Various structures are literally inscribed with the names of the kings or nobles who commissioned the construction and the year/date they were made
>Spanish accounts describe the construction process of how bridges, temples etc were built by the people they encountered
>We've excavated sealed tombs that were untouched by looters with inscriptions telling us who was buried there, in some of the same structures that are inscribed with their exact construction date (such as the Temple of Inscriptions at Palenque), and there's been genetic analysis of some remains from tombs which show that they match current Maya etc populations
>Other monuments and paper books (tho very few of the latter survive today) detail the births, deaths, political marriages etc of rulers

5/5 for now

>>18597867
>We've excavated sealed tombs that were untouched by looters with inscriptions telling us who was buried there, in some of the same structures that are inscribed with their exact construction date (such as the Temple of Inscriptions at Palenque), and there's been genetic analysis of some remains from tombs which show that they match current Maya etc populations

I'm a bit of a historian. I catch the subtle variation in desciption.
The date isn't in the IN the untouched tomb.
Post facto inscription is rampant. Freemasons the worst offenders.
I've got a two hundred year old book where the author happily describes post facto chiseling shit in because he knew it was correct.
lmao

>>18597560
>even before Mesoamerica had Bronze, they built Classical Roman tier cities
lol

>>18597874
"the freemasons are vandalising mayan tombs with false date inscriptions" is a new one

>>18597946
Read closer. I said the freemasons are the worst offenders of post facto inscription.
I didn't realize you were too young to post.

>>18597874
I don't think the Maya script and calendar had been deciphered 200 years ago for anyone to chisel fake dates into ruins with it and if any archaeologist who was both fluent in the script and somehow also good enough of a stoneworker to do so got caught carving shit into tombs within the past 70 years or so they'd definitely be kicked out of the field in disgrace

>>18597363
>Panchito
This board has a very warped perception of what latin americans think of pre-columbian indian shit. Most people over there think that delving any deeper than using superficial symbolism is cringe as shit and that amerindians (who still do exist as a separate sector of society from actual Hispanics) are an undesirable thing to be, and no one from LatAm who thinks otherwise would ever post on 4chan due to its reputation alone. Even the mesofag is just some autistic westerner. Maybe 10 years ago you could end up having an argument with some left-leaning fourth generation LA chicano, but even that's probably not a thing these days.

>>18597999
Checked and kekked.
Had I separated line 2 from line 3 I think I'd have avoided confusion.
The book I'm speaking of is a book of Holy Land articles. I was just using it as an example that it was so common that people even write about doing it openly.
An inscribed date cannot be trusted at all. Especially one from as long ago as the person I was speaking to.

>>18598022
>here is what normie spics are like..

Normie spics don’t post here, but several retarded latrinos who literally think their bone-in-nose ancestors had a fucking space program before they got BLACKED by Spaniards do. Yes, you read that right.

>>18597874
What book?

>>18598201
Normie spics are precisely the ones who get the closest to thinking the way the spics who live in your head do, retard. The type of hispanic who posts on 4chan is the type that hates injuns the most and associates pride on aztec type shit with the cringey brown communists whom he thinks are holding his country back. You're fighting ghosts, the panchitos you're raging against are more likely to be autistic westerner who actually reads the mesoautist's text walls than somebody with even a drop of latin american blood in them.

File: brave_screenshot_www.goog(...).png (82 KB, 851x492)

82 KB PNG

>>18598225
Freemasonry in the Holy Land.
They are horrible. Guy hikes the Levant and inscribes things with square or compass at every stop because he can tell it's the work of Freemasons.
This is quite common and you can find many proven examples of this in the literature.

They've faked most of history.
Fomenko mentions and proves probably 50 or so in the first few volumes of "History: Science or Fiction" which is one of the most important historical series to ever e published.
>inb4 he was wrong on thing
Yea, probably was, and his conclusions can be argued with, but he provides quite literally 1000 examples of improperly dated art and buildings, using a wide scope of evidence, that are still accepted as their "original" dates to this day.

Forbidden Archeology by what's his name does the same.

Now...i can admit it's possible the above posters are dealing with actually correctly dated things.
But you can see how they seethe when it's brought up.
Very touchy subject.
Again, the body of the Mayan he mentions, in the untouched tomb, there is no date there.
Just a date on the OUTSIDE and ALSO there is this Mayan buried in there.
Goes along well with the "they are all tombs" stories quite well, doesn't it?