Hacker News Reader

They weren't literally everywhere. Even today, with a much larger population and higher land usage, there is a lot of wilderness in the Southeastern United States. That's why finding a consistent indicator of an archeologicial site is important.

View on HN

Do you have any proof, that they were not everywhere? On next sentence you literally admit, there is no evidence for such claims! Much of the archeological sites were not explored! Another white supremacist manufacturing evidence!

All land in US was used, there is no "higher land usage" now. Single hunter needs several hundreds of miles of territory! They fully used the land. Until they were genocided, and colonizers called their land "wilderness"!

If your definition of "higher land usage" means a single hunter using "several hundred miles of territory" and a city and farmland on equivalent land is equal, then we just have fundamentally different definitions and this conversation useless. I'm fully aware that Europeans and their descendents committed genocide against the native population, that's not what I'm trying to argue against. But the idea that archeologically a deer trail that a hunter may have walked on once a year and his home he shared with a village, made tools with, and sheltered in are somehow equivalent because they were both "used" is absurd.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com