Thoughts on native inhabitants of a particular area

[Older The Better]

I’ve seen a lot of “experts” lately on various shows and some articles talk about certain areas, many of them in California, and they say the so and so tribe has been here for 10,000 years and then they talk about historical interactions with the same tribes.

This kind of assumption bothers me. I can’t imagine any band has remained in one area peacefully and maintained a continuous identity for 10,000 years. As more and more people claim such a thing it has me wondering if maybe I’ve got it wrong

Is there really any merit to a person claiming a group has lived in a certain valley for 10,000 years? Personally I think it’s a sloppy conclusion combining two facts they know, who was here historically, and how long have people been in North America. Spreading misinformation can cause confusion for those who have an interest in history.

One last thought I’ve had is it a political maneuver? if they can claim a group has been in an area throughout history then they can grant all ownership of artifacts to said tribe. I guess it makes things simple if that’s the case.

Personally I think a Clovis band stopping in the valley is a completely different group from the woodland groups which were different from historic tribes. People move, fight, bands die off, places experience drought, fire, floods, groups split, and mix. I just think it silly to say a named tribe has been around 10,000 years.

I’m curious if others feel differently or if these “experts” were just people with opinions that helped support the direction of the show or article.

I’ll throw in something to look at an all txt seems a bit boring, feel free to do the same if you want with your response

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[ole miss rebel]

I'm with ya, there is no certainty.
After a few courses of anthropology & archeology at the university I was left with more questions than answers. Especially after the anthropology professor lined up several skulls on his desk as his example of human evolution. Had to bite my tongue.

 

[T.C.]

I'm with ya, there is no certainty.
After a few courses of anthropology & archeology at the university I was left with more questions than answers. Especially after the anthropology professor lined up several skulls on his desk as his example of human evolution. Had to bite my tongue.

I’ve seen a lot of “experts” lately on various shows and some articles talk about certain areas, many of them in California, and they say the so and so tribe has been here for 10,000 years and then they talk about historical interactions with the same tribes.

This kind of assumption bothers me. I can’t imagine any band has remained in one area peacefully and maintained a continuous identity for 10,000 years. As more and more people claim such a thing it has me wondering if maybe I’ve got it wrong

Is there really any merit to a person claiming a group has lived in a certain valley for 10,000 years? Personally I think it’s a sloppy conclusion combining two facts they know, who was here historically, and how long have people been in North America. Spreading misinformation can cause confusion for those who have an interest in history.

One last thought I’ve had is it a political maneuver? if they can claim a group has been in an area throughout history then they can grant all ownership of artifacts to said tribe. I guess it makes things simple if that’s the case.

Personally I think a Clovis band stopping in the valley is a completely different group from the woodland groups which were different from historic tribes. People move, fight, bands die off, places experience drought, fire, floods, groups split, and mix. I just think it silly to say a named tribe has been around 10,000 years.

I’m curious if others feel differently or if these “experts” were just people with opinions that helped support the direction of the show or article.

I’ll throw in something to look at an all txt seems a bit boring, feel free to do the same if you want with your response
View attachment 1989440

I totally agree with you. Recently I have started watching youtube videos on history. It seems like the human race has been fighting since time began. Europe had so many wars and leader changes, you can't keep up with it. Even here in America, tribes warred amongst each other. The Sioux used to be woodland tribes until they were pushed out onto the Great Plains. They displaced other tribes when they were displaced.
One tribe living in an area for 10,000 years, is a bit of a stretch.

 

[newnan man]

I think all the Native American tribes were really disrupted by the colonization of the continent by Europeans. Between the diseases and genocide I doubt any "tribe" could have stayed even remotely intact the last 300 years. Maybe a few western tribes still have some semblance of the past but much was lost.

 

[CreakyDigger]

I think you are at the truth when you comment that if a tribe can claim 10,000 years of habitation they can claim and demand any archaeological finds in their geographic area. Older remains that contradict Indian habitation are especially sought for, and hidden.

 

[Charl]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/archeological-find-affirms-heiltsuk-nation-s-oral-history-1.4046088

Unearthed: Native Americans have actually been there since the beginning

Oral histories are usually considered fabulous. Now ancient skeletons and a genetic study proves that the Tlingit and Haida tribes' oral history of being there from the beginning is based on fact

www.haaretz.com

 

[T.C.]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/archeological-find-affirms-heiltsuk-nation-s-oral-history-1.4046088

Unearthed: Native Americans have actually been there since the beginning

Oral histories are usually considered fabulous. Now ancient skeletons and a genetic study proves that the Tlingit and Haida tribes' oral history of being there from the beginning is based on fact

www.haaretz.com

So, who did they displace?

 

[Out Of Time]

Regarding California, it's fairly well proven by combined disciplines of archeology, anthropology and linguistics, that some groups (tribes?) can claim continuous occupation to earliest traces, albeit in proto-form.
Yuki, Hutchnom, Pomo, Wappo and Chumash might be justified to say they are original occupants based on language alone.
Unlike some other areas of the continent, and presumably protected by geography and sustained by abundance, life was remarkably stable. There is little evidence of major warfare and migrations by outside groups, though little understood, seem to have been assimilated. No evidence (I'm aware of) shows major emigration either.
Archeology reflects this with an Archaic period that lasts longer than most, characterized by slow and subtle change, but was able to build and operate exchange networks that ran hundreds of miles and lasted thousands of years.
Pomo around Clear Lake in Lake County can point to 10,000 years at least.
Forced relocation by US government did the most to clear the hills and valleys. Pushed together on reservations and squeezed. Many groups lost sovereignty also.
That's the story in California.

 

[CreakyDigger]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/archeological-find-affirms-heiltsuk-nation-s-oral-history-1.4046088

Unearthed: Native Americans have actually been there since the beginning

Oral histories are usually considered fabulous. Now ancient skeletons and a genetic study proves that the Tlingit and Haida tribes' oral history of being there from the beginning is based on fact

www.haaretz.com

Since the beginning of what?

 

[Fat]

.... it’s all politics. Anything to make the USA the bad guy in the storyline.

 

[Charl]

Who they displaced, and “since the beginning of what?” we’re not the issues raised by the OP. The information I posted involved people who claim to have lived in an area a very long time, with later supporting evidence from archaeological studies and genetic studies. In other words, I posted an example that had been in the news fairly recently involving a particular people in the Canadian NW, in a particular region.

It might also be relevant that, in the case of Kennewick Man, the closest genetic affinities turned out to be the tribes living closest to where the remains of Kennewick Man had been found. That too might imply a fairly long residence in a specific geographic region.

We’re not going to answer the question one way or another by way of this thread. But we might find examples that point to the possibility that some people have indeed lived in a particular area for what most of us would consider a fairly long time. That’s what I was trying to do, find possible examples….

Ancient individuals from the North American Northwest Coast reveal 10,000 years of regional genetic continuity

The peopling of the Americas has been examined on the continental level with the aid of SNP arrays, next generation sequencing, and advancements in ancient DNA, all of which have helped elucidate evolutionary histories. Regional paleogenomic studies, however, have received less attention and may...

www.pnas.org

 

[Older The Better]

Regarding California, it's fairly well proven by combined disciplines of archeology, anthropology and linguistics, that some groups (tribes?) can claim continuous occupation to earliest traces, albeit in proto-form.
Yuki, Hutchnom, Pomo, Wappo and Chumash might be justified to say they are original occupants based on language alone.
Unlike some other areas of the continent, and presumably protected by geography and sustained by abundance, life was remarkably stable. There is little evidence of major warfare and migrations by outside groups, though little understood, seem to have been assimilated. No evidence (I'm aware of) shows major emigration either.
Archeology reflects this with an Archaic period that lasts longer than most, characterized by slow and subtle change, but was able to build and operate exchange networks that ran hundreds of miles and lasted thousands of years.
Pomo around Clear Lake in Lake County can point to 10,000 years at least.
Forced relocation by US government did the most to clear the hills and valleys. Pushed together on reservations and squeezed. Many groups lost sovereignty also.
That's the story in California.

I does seem more plausible In California that there were enough resources to remain peaceful, I can see how you can make the jump to a likely continuous occupation.

 

[Older The Better]

Who they displaced, and “since the beginning of what?” we’re not the issues raised by the OP. The information I posted involved people who claim to have lived in an area a very long time, with later supporting evidence from archaeological studies and genetic studies. In other words, I posted an example that had been in the news fairly recently involving a particular people in the Canadian NW, in a particular region.

It might also be relevant that, in the case of Kennewick Man, the closest genetic affinities turned out to be the tribes living closest to where the remains of Kennewick Man had been found. That too might imply a fairly long residence in a specific geographic region.

We’re not going to answer the question one way or another by way of this thread. But we might find examples that point to the possibility that some people have indeed lived in a particular area for what most of us would consider a fairly long time. That’s what I was trying to do, find possible examples….

Ancient individuals from the North American Northwest Coast reveal 10,000 years of regional genetic continuity

The peopling of the Americas has been examined on the continental level with the aid of SNP arrays, next generation sequencing, and advancements in ancient DNA, all of which have helped elucidate evolutionary histories. Regional paleogenomic studies, however, have received less attention and may...

www.pnas.org

Thanks for providing articles that shed light on the other side, I may need to read more carefully but I didn’t see any concrete evidence to support their theory’s but I suppose much of archaeology is built on things you can’t definitively prove.

I do find it interesting the difference in oral history out west. Most of the plains history I’ve been exposed to has a common theme that the people emerged from a different direction or even a different tier of the universe. Interestingly many claim to come from the south, which would be the opposite of the Siberian migration theory.

At any rate I appreciate the input, I can at least see where they are coming from and it’s not just a lazy attempt to explain the history of a place

 

[dognose]

A very hotly debated topic I think. Your point on being a political maneuver has merit as well. It seems that some individuals desire to seek tribal affiliation for some sort of benefits has been on the rise for a while. Someone is one-tenth of one-one hundredths of a point one percent can get something.

In many parts of the continental united states conflicts drove many bands from areas as others seeked better hunting grounds. Certain bands were more war like and placed a premium on fighting practices, while others were not or somewhere in the middle. As the historical period pushed bands westward the pressures to push others out of prime living grounds increased conflict and tensions.

Ten thousand years is a long time for a band to stay in one area. As climate changed and allowed for agriculture to flourish and wain, I think bands came together or separate into smaller groups and moved around to survive.

 

[Tnmountains]

The Cherokee that were in my area during the trail of Tears but they were a relatively new culture having replaced Creeks,Tuskegee and even Shawnee's and probably many other societies.
Before oral history they just go by the shapes of skulls from burials.
My town has built over many past society's while retaining an Indian name same as the state word " Tennessee".
Interesting topic for sure.

 

[Missouri Breaks]

The idea that a people originating from Asia with plenty of linguistic and cultural history before they made their way along the routes to N. America, arrived in any given location and remained linguistically and culturally static is unrealistic unless proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Since there’s virtually no way to prove continuity of language since it was an oral tradition then the basics of language evolution we see in just about every language on earth would apply. This is to say that the languages of all aboriginal people in the Americas changed over time along with their traditions. Bloodlines were mixed and sites were abandoned and perhaps repopulated and new areas found as changes in the wether occurred, all of this well documented. Then at one point there was stasis for millennia with certain groups staying put. When I see contemporary groups disassociating with the best we have in academia and setting themselves up as knowing it all when we know those cultures were all but tragically wiped out, then I think something is up and it’s not about truly understand history. Historic knowledge has always been arrived at through collaboration when it comes to the ancient world.

 

[crashbandicoot]

This is all very interesting as a historical discussion,I like history.What i don,t like is using history as a cudgel to beat some group or groups of people over the head. In all history some peoples have displaced others as opportunity arose. Nobody,s completely innocent in this.This occurred in Europe,Asia and in what we call the Americas today.Just my two cents.

 

[Missouri Breaks]

This is all very interesting as a historical discussion,I like history.What i don,t like is using history as a cudgel to beat some group or groups of people over the head. In all history some peoples have displaced others as opportunity arose. Nobody,s completely innocent in this.This occurred in Europe,Asia and in what we call the Americas today.Just my two cents.

Exactly, human history is a mess. Equally messy and unclean is to manipulate the story to fit a current agenda.

 

[Missouri Breaks]

A very hotly debated topic I think. Your point on being a political maneuver has merit as well. It seems that some individuals desire to seek tribal affiliation for some sort of benefits has been on the rise for a while. Someone is one-tenth of one-one hundredths of a point one percent can get something.

In many parts of the continental united states conflicts drove many bands from areas as others seeked better hunting grounds. Certain bands were more war like and placed a premium on fighting practices, while others were not or somewhere in the middle. As the historical period pushed bands westward the pressures to push others out of prime living grounds increased conflict and tensions.

Ten thousand years is a long time for a band to stay in one area. As climate changed and allowed for agriculture to flourish and wain, I think bands came together or separate into smaller groups and moved around to survive.

Exactly right about how obvious it is things would change over 10 or more thousands of years.

 

[Older The Better]

The idea that a people originating from Asia with plenty of linguistic and cultural history before they made their way along the routes to N. America, arrived in any given location and remained linguistically and culturally static is unrealistic unless proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Since there’s virtually no way to prove continuity of language since it was an oral tradition then the basics of language evolution we see in just about every language on earth would apply. This is to say that the languages of all aboriginal people in the Americas changed over time along with their traditions. Bloodlines were mixed and sites were abandoned and perhaps repopulated and new areas found as changes in the wether occurred, all of this well documented. Then at one point there was stasis for millennia with certain groups staying put. When I see contemporary groups disassociating with the best we have in academia and setting themselves up as knowing it all when we know those cultures were all but tragically wiped out, then I think something is up and it’s not about truly understand history. Historic knowledge has always been arrived at through collaboration when it comes to the ancient world.

That’s an interesting observation, seems logical. history, science and such stick like glue in my brain but math and linguistics go in one year and out the other. I just kind of have to have faith the linguistic studies weren’t flawed.

Kind of like my dad said the other day, nobody in my family can argue with me when I talk rocks because they don’t know enough to say I’m wrong, I could be making things up and they just go with it.