"What was the New World like at the time of Columbus?" Topic

"The myth persists that in 1492 the Americas were a sparsely populated wilderness, -a world of barely perceptible human disturbance.- There is substantial evidence, however, that the Native American landscape of the early sixteenth century was a humanized landscape almost everywhere. Populations were large. Forest composition had been modified, grasslands had been created, wildlife disrupted, and erosion was severe in places. Earthworks, roads, fields, and settlements were ubiquitous. With Indian depopulation in the wake of Old World disease, the environment recovered in many areas. A good argument can be made that the human presence was less visible in 1750 than it was in 1492….."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Excellent study . Thanks Tango

Agreed. But a couple of hedges.
1. I've noticed that when people wish to minimize the number of Amerinds, they give a number for the United States. When they wish to maximize, they give a number for the entire hemisphere. So it is here. No one ever denied that Mexico and Peru were densely populated in pre-Columbian times. The new world was certainly not uninhabited in 1492, but it might seem so to those of us living north of the Rio Grande. The population of the United States and Canada he gives 1% of current numbers.

2. The absence of underbrush in forests is sometimes cited as evidence of management by a human population, and so it is here. Sadly, the presence of underbrush is also sometimes so cited, since the humans are presumed to limit the spread of natural fires. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

3. "There must have been roads because there must have been a hierarchy giving orders, long-distance trade and so forth" is what is known in some circles as "mirror-imaging." One's own current behavior is treated as a law of nature. It ain't necessarily so.

A votre service mon ami!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Ahem…..1491 by Charles C. Mann is a good place to start.