4 ms·

Amazing data representation, but what does it mean? These boundaries were always fuzzy and constantly shifting, and whatever compromise or snapshots of history

Amazing data representation, but what does it mean? These boundaries were always fuzzy and constantly shifting, and whatever compromise or snapshots of history are made here, they may demonstrate the complexity and ubiquity of indigenous peoples in the Americas at the cost of suggesting these peoples exercised real territorial control usage patterns like those of Europeans of the time. Which sells them short. They found a different and perhaps better way to co-exist for many hundreds of years without formal states or territorial boundaries, largely without large-scale wars, plagues, and (for the most part) wholesale environmental collapse. We should study how this worked in the Americas without superimposing our ideas of land area control on them.

beloch 5y ago
Mapping out current or traditional native territories is an almost hopeless task. e.g. The Eastern Shoshone were, at the time of early European contact, in Alberta. Their territory on this map doesn't even touch Canada. Why? They were forced out (with violence) by the Iron Confederacy long enough ago that they no longer claim any land in Canada. Tribal territories change, often radically and especially so when nomadic tribes are involved. Hard, immutable, and sharply defined borders are a modern construction. If territory wasn't actively defended, it was free for the taking. Some territories might have had such plentiful resources that they could be shared in peace, but most probably had to be fought for. That's why you see so many territories overlapping. Several tribes may have used a territory and still consider it "theirs", even if their control was never solid. We tend to think of the land as offering limitless bounty to hunter-gatherers, but just the opposite was true. Compared to land under agricultural or pastoral use, even well-tended land used by hunter-gatherers was far less productive. If another tribe moved into your tribe's territory, that meant less food for your tribe. So, you had to defend your territory. Constantly. New Guinea is a good place to study if you want to learn about traditional hunter gatherer societies because tribal territories and conflict remained distinct well into the 20th century and have been studied extensively. As late as the mid 20th century, when two strangers met it was customary for them to sit down and try to establish the nature of their relationship. Who was on whose land? Was the person who was not on their own land in any way related to anyone who belonged on that land? They'd recount genealogies for hours towards this end. It was serious business because, if the trespasser had no connection to anyone in the territory he had entered, the other person was socially obligated to run them out of the territory with violence. Today, we mostly think of strangers as potential friends or, at least, people bringing money to local businesses. Hunter gatherers had to think of strangers as a resource drain that needed to be cut off for the good of their society. It's an alien way of thinking that we've largely forgotten, but it's reflected in this map. People died violently practically everywhere you see territories overlapping, and those borders are just a snapshot in time. As for peaceful co-existence... This is a modern myth. Hunter-gather societies in New Guinea, although they had no large-scale war or pitched battles, had constant, internecine, low-intensity tribal conflict. The death-toll due to violence of this kind of conflict adds up over time. Jared Diamond, in one of his books, estimated that deaths due to violent conflict in the tribes he was studying was actually higher in just the first half of the twentieth century than in Germany through two world wars. The world wars were catastrophic technological horrors, but they had a start and an end. Not so with tribal conflict. It just goes on.
- II2II 5y ago
  I have a hard time reading "peaceful co-existence" into the post you are responding to, particularly since conflicts between aboriginal groups are a recognized part of their history. What we don't seem to understand very well is the nature of territorial claims prior to European contact. It is overly simplistic to paint these aboriginal groups as small tribes that claimed small geographic spheres since they ranged from nomadic groups that migrated across large territories, to small villages dependent upon fishing or agriculture, to relatively advanced large cities. Yet regardless of the type of society they formed, our understanding of how they regarded their geographic sphere is tainted by the mostly Western histories written of them from the time of contact. Not only are these histories tainted by religion and politics, but they are tainted by how those historians understood the world.
golemiprague 5y ago
They didn't find any special way to do anything, they just lived like people used to live 3000 years ago in the old world.

beloch 5y ago

Mapping out current or traditional native territories is an almost hopeless task. e.g. The Eastern Shoshone were, at the time of early European contact, in Alberta. Their territory on this map doesn't even touch Canada. Why? They were forced out (with violence) by the Iron Confederacy long enough ago that they no longer claim any land in Canada. Tribal territories change, often radically and especially so when nomadic tribes are involved. Hard, immutable, and sharply defined borders are a modern construction. If territory wasn't actively defended, it was free for the taking. Some territories might have had such plentiful resources that they could be shared in peace, but most probably had to be fought for. That's why you see so many territories overlapping. Several tribes may have used a territory and still consider it "theirs", even if their control was never solid. We tend to think of the land as offering limitless bounty to hunter-gatherers, but just the opposite was true. Compared to land under agricultural or pastoral use, even well-tended land used by hunter-gatherers was far less productive. If another tribe moved into your tribe's territory, that meant less food for your tribe. So, you had to defend your territory. Constantly. New Guinea is a good place to study if you want to learn about traditional hunter gatherer societies because tribal territories and conflict remained distinct well into the 20th century and have been studied extensively. As late as the mid 20th century, when two strangers met it was customary for them to sit down and try to establish the nature of their relationship. Who was on whose land? Was the person who was not on their own land in any way related to anyone who belonged on that land? They'd recount genealogies for hours towards this end. It was serious business because, if the trespasser had no connection to anyone in the territory he had entered, the other person was socially obligated to run them out of the territory with violence. Today, we mostly think of strangers as potential friends or, at least, people bringing money to local businesses. Hunter gatherers had to think of strangers as a resource drain that needed to be cut off for the good of their society. It's an alien way of thinking that we've largely forgotten, but it's reflected in this map. People died violently practically everywhere you see territories overlapping, and those borders are just a snapshot in time. As for peaceful co-existence... This is a modern myth. Hunter-gather societies in New Guinea, although they had no large-scale war or pitched battles, had constant, internecine, low-intensity tribal conflict. The death-toll due to violence of this kind of conflict adds up over time. Jared Diamond, in one of his books, estimated that deaths due to violent conflict in the tribes he was studying was actually higher in just the first half of the twentieth century than in Germany through two world wars. The world wars were catastrophic technological horrors, but they had a start and an end. Not so with tribal conflict. It just goes on.

II2II 5y ago
I have a hard time reading "peaceful co-existence" into the post you are responding to, particularly since conflicts between aboriginal groups are a recognized part of their history. What we don't seem to understand very well is the nature of territorial claims prior to European contact. It is overly simplistic to paint these aboriginal groups as small tribes that claimed small geographic spheres since they ranged from nomadic groups that migrated across large territories, to small villages dependent upon fishing or agriculture, to relatively advanced large cities. Yet regardless of the type of society they formed, our understanding of how they regarded their geographic sphere is tainted by the mostly Western histories written of them from the time of contact. Not only are these histories tainted by religion and politics, but they are tainted by how those historians understood the world.

golemiprague 5y ago

They didn't find any special way to do anything, they just lived like people used to live 3000 years ago in the old world.