tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post6750435219882003632..comments2024-03-28T18:32:05.933-04:00Comments on bensozia: Archaeology and Demography in Eastern North AmericaJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-91592312467384738092019-12-10T16:10:57.486-05:002019-12-10T16:10:57.486-05:00I'm not sure this helps very much, though, if ...I'm not sure this helps very much, though, if we can't also somehow measure the portion of the population that was permanently itinerant.<br /><br />I think one comparison we have to make is to the Steppes of Central Asia - just because there weren't a lot of permanent settlements doesn't mean there weren't substantial populations of people.<br /><br />For example, if we relied purely on maps of permanent settlements known from archaeology to estimate the population of the Mongol Empire, it'd be very hard to reconcile that data with what we know of actual history.<br /><br />When a traditionally itinerant group of peoples invades a bunch of their sedentary neighbors to establish the largest contiguous empire in history, looking solely at the places with permanent settlements is going to skew data toward the invaded peoples, rather than the invaders themselves. The Mongols themselves weren't the majority population in their empire, because they conquered so many other people, but their population also wasn't as small as you'd be led to believe from only looking at permanent settlements known via archaeology. Their were a minority, but not a tiny minority.G. Verlorennoreply@blogger.com