However, these have often been criticized as being too conservative or using questionable data to begin with, and often they are simply trying to produce estimates based on ethnohistorical data and not trying to use projection techniques to estimate pre-contact figures. For even a somewhat accurate population estimate, it seems that there needs to be an emphasis on individual tribal estimates. This is the only way to accommodate different tribal depopulation rates. At the same time, however, such a task would be difficult at best because of the scant data on many different groups. For wider population estimates to be credible, they must first make sense at the tribal level.
Higher estimates mean more significant population decline as a result of epidemic disease.
Tied to the previous point is the idea that European civilization was not superior at the point of contact and that the only reason that the Europeans managed to push native groups off the land and at least somewhat out of their way is because of the devastating impact of the waves of epidemic disease that were moving ahead of the colonizers themselves. Lower estimates imply the land was empty and here for the taking. Higher estimates also are important for land claims cases. If you can argue a larger pre-contact population, you can argue that more land was lost as a result of European colonization, and that the land claims decisions should be larger. Problems One thing that this entire debate ignores is that population fluctuations are a normal part of the cycle for any population.