Population
Explore the visualization and how we made it, and afterwards reflect on the discussion questions.
Select the images below to view various graphical depictions of the change in Native American tribes' population over the centuries, from the 1600s to present. The legend denotes each tribe's color in the graphs.
Population streams mapped to time period, in descending order of size.
Population of tribe over time; the wider the bar, the more the people.
Maps the tribes in thousands across the centuries.
Population of tribe over time; the wider the bar, the more the people.
Ordered by size in 1600; size of bubble is that in 2010.
Orders tribes by size in 1600.
Orders tribes by size in 2010.
Plots tribes along an x-axis of population in 1600 over a y-axis of population in 2010.
Reverse axes of Tessellation 1 to plot tribes along an x-axis of population in 2010 over a y-axis of population in 1600.
Visualization
We derived our population data from various sources, including Thornton (1987) and the U.S. Census. Based on archaeology, genetic studies, and formulaic extrapolation from small datasets, population estimates vary widely, but we have tried to err on the side of caution and use conservative numbers.
After we had compiled estimates for the ten largest Native American tribes, we developed a database that we then uploaded into Raw in order to create the various graphics. We selected the graphics we did because we thought they showed interesting population patterns. For example, the indigenous population declined steadily into the late 18th/early 19th centuries, and did not begin to rebound until the 20th century. This increase may be partially due to how the census and Federal government in general changed in its approach to recognizing Native American tribes, especially after 1960, when the census allowed for self-identification (Shumway & Jackson, 1995, p. 186).
It is also interesting to note that the tribes seemed to experience fairly uniform change across time; the order of tribes from largest to smallest has stayed consistent, except for the Navajo, who have surpassed the Cherokee in size as of the latest 2010 census.
The Making of...
How effectively do the charts portray the data (population across time)?
Which charts do you think are more effective than others? Why?
What sort of different interpretations do each of the different charts lend them to? How would you choose which chart to use in a presentation?
While we have pointed out in the "Making Of" section that the data used for the population estimates are often subject to academic debate, do the charts of the "Visualization" section have a type of authority, or "instant trust" inherent to the visualization?
Does a graphic represent something as-is, or is a graphic an interpreation of something? Are these two ideas (representation/interpretation) at odds with each other?
Is a population graphic more accessible than research article on genetic population estimates, such as Reich et al. (2012)? Is a graphic more authoritative than a research article? How do accessibility and authority interact, contradict, or support each other?