[Adder]

"30,000 years, 112 million people? If so, they were underachievers of historic proportions."

I tend to agree. That would be 112 million skeletons, too.
We barely find any and when we do its hailed as a major event.

[r9etb]

I tend to agree. That would be 112 million skeletons, too. We barely find any and when we do its hailed as a major event.

I'm not sure that's meaningful. We generally find skeletons in graves. The descriptions of how diseases traveled through Indian tribes are mostly of the "rapid spread, quick death, and dead people lying unburied" variety. Bodies lying in the open, exposed to animals and weather, would tend to completely disappear within a hundred years.

[RobbyS]

Unlikely. An earlier estimate is 50 million, which seems more likely.

[ccc_jr]

archeology never got in the way of the revisionists in the past ... why should it start now?

[Tokra]

I tend to agree. That would be 112 million skeletons, too. We barely find any and when we do its hailed as a major event.

Many of the American tribes put their dead in treetops for the birds to eat. The bones would just fall to the ground and deteriorate - there wouldn't be much left to find.