First Americans Pre-Contact People of the New World

Origins Between 15,000 and 30,000 years ago (your book) Newer evidence has more or less established the earliest arrival at 35,000 BCE (Archeology) Main migration 12,000 to 9,000 BCE (paleoanthropology) The easiest way to describe the first people arrive in North America. Nomadic- Hunted the big game of the era. How did they most likely arrive?

The Other Theories How else might early people have traveled across the Pacific?

Other migration theories

Which one is correct? The answer is…. “Yes” There is evidence to support multiple theories about how, when, and why people made it over to North and South America. “HATJ”- They all work for me. Let the people who dig in the dirt figure that one out.

Slow Migration The result of this slow migration (or migrations) resulted in vastly different cultures spread across a wide space. The variations in Ancient American cultures is not my area of expertise. There is no shortage of work to be done for anyone who would like to pursue a career in paleoanthropology, archeology, etc. Just keep in mind the diversity of the people who were here long before Cristobal.

Early Civilizations Agricultural Revolution between 9,000 and 10,000 years ago. Crops like maize (a note about “corn”), pumpkins, peppers, squash were the primary sources of food. Like other agricultural societies, the establishment of permanent settlements accompanied the advent of agriculture. Interestingly- Animal husbandry does not seem to have taken off in the Americas like other parts of the world.

MESOAMERICA Mesoamerica is the region we most commonly associate with Mexico and Central America. Here, a variety of cultures developed. The best known is the Mayan Culture. Most cities were abandoned around 900 C.E. A few cities in present day Guatemala lasted much longer, but were on the decline by the 1500s.

Diversity of Early American (USA) Peoples Hohokam (South-Central Arizona) vanished by 1500 Anasazi (Four Corners Region)- “Pueblos” starting in 850(ish) until the 12 th Century “Mound Builders” (Eastern Woodlands) 1500 BCE Hopewell- Around 200 CE Mississippi Valley- 700 CE – 1300 CE Cahokia near present day St. Louis (16,000 people at its peak)

“Pueblo People” Pueblo Bonita- Chaco Canyon, NM

Northwest Villages of several hundred people. Very successful society based on fishing. Europeans taken with the architecture and art of these tribes.

The Iroquois – Northeastern Woodlands “The League of the Iroquois” “Iroquois Confederation” Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca(s). Shortly before their own contact with Europeans, the Iroquois became a loose Confederation based on kinship networks. Kinship in these tribes was matrilineal (which means?)

Unification of the Iroquois (16 th Century. Maybe) Stable political systems allowed the Confederacy to experience peace, grow in size, and present a unified front to European people. The size, location, and policies of the Iroquois Confederacy placed them in an ideal situation to have a lasting influence on the development of the Colonies that would become the United States.

How does the interaction between European and Native people play out? What are some of the reasons this may have happened?

Broad Differences Native More egalitarian societies Communal ownership Polytheistic Trade as a bond Ancient weaponry European Male dominated societies Property rights Monotheistic Trade as economic Gunpowder and metal weapons/armor

Problems Between Worlds Despite their variety, vibrancy, and established societies, the native people were not generally seen as equals by the Europeans. In the European worldview, Europeans were “civilized.” Native people were “barbarians” or “savages” at worst and “children” at best. In the European worldview, Europeans were “civilized.” Native people were “barbarians” or “savages” at worst and “children” at best. We can pretty easily see how the two (more like hundreds) of cultures came into conflict.

Final Thoughts Be wary of broad generalizations. They are often necessary, but also misleading (They cause nightmares for history teachers) Avoid falling into the trap of thinking along the lines of “paternalism” Don’t buy into a “history of the superior” Finally, and maybe this seems weird, Avoid allowing yourself to buy into the false construct of the “noble savage.” Keep in mind that these were real people, they were diverse, they had good qualities, and foolish qualities.

Further Reading Guns, Germs, and Steel - Jared Diamond Facing East from Indian Country – Daniel K. Richter