Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Igel

(37,455 posts)
22. The map's a representative fiction.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:33 PM
Jun 2014

It's not false. But it's not true.

He took earliest mentions of names of tribes and tried to avoid exonyms. The problem is that in much of the territory plagues had swept through before "first contact." In others, first contact happened in 1520, in others it happened in 1720. During that time tribes came and went as the result of disease, war, famine. As tribes spread out, they differentiated.

It also suffers from the problems that modern ethnolinguistics has. Take the "Lapplanders", the Saami (or whatever they're called now). If they compare themselves with outsiders, there's one language. But when it comes to establishing a standard, there are perhaps a dozen "languages," each with its norm and tribe behind it. So are they one tribe or many? It's not a historical problem--you get 40 of them together from different tribes, and you get a different answer in the morning in one context from in the afternoon, in a different content. At one point I studied "Serbo-Croatian"; now I have to specify that I studied ekavski stokavski Serbian, because the language is split into three N-S dialect zones, two E-W zones, and between Bosnian, Montenegran, Serbian, and Croatian. What was one language with different "varieties" is now a dozen languages. It's the same problem in determining the speciation of plants like echinofossulocactus in the Sonoran or Haworthia in S. Africa--how different does something need to be from something else before it's in a different category and gets a different name? Both botanists, linguists, and ethnologists form "splitters" and "lumpers".

Look at this guy's map for New Jersey. It's a large area. Other similarly wooded, fertile areas have multiple tribes. But he has one, because that's how they were perceived and how they found it convenient to band together. Given a different context, it's likely that they'd have been numerous tribes. Or the one tribe there had recently been busy with a genocidal campaign that wiped out the previous groups or assimilated them. (Or they'd recently spread into areas recently depopulated as a result of disease.)

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I like maps. Uncle Joe Jun 2014 #1
Intersting liberal N proud Jun 2014 #2
Heard about this on the news yesterday. Meant to look it up. Thanks for posting riderinthestorm Jun 2014 #3
du rec. xchrom Jun 2014 #4
This is wonderful. hunter Jun 2014 #5
Studied anthropology and am familiar with a few. I also love maps even if I get slammed KittyWampus Jun 2014 #6
Awesome n/t fleabiscuit Jun 2014 #7
I love this! Thanks for posting. SalviaBlue Jun 2014 #8
This has been posted before but is a nice reminder..... blackspade Jun 2014 #9
This is a great starting point for further research. WHEN CRABS ROAR Jun 2014 #10
Interesting! I wonder what the Apache nations/tribes were called... TygrBright Jun 2014 #11
A little work with Wikipedia should answer your questions. Jackpine Radical Jun 2014 #18
Yes, I knew about the Navajo. TygrBright Jun 2014 #20
Did you find a group corresponding to the (A)Nasazi on the map? Jackpine Radical Jun 2014 #21
wondering if they were the precursor to Hopi tomm2thumbs Jun 2014 #26
The map's a representative fiction. Igel Jun 2014 #22
i give more credence to what we american indian peoples call ourselves hopemountain Jun 2014 #27
Yep... Deuce Jun 2014 #32
The perfect Christmas gift for my oldest Step-son...Thanks Lochloosa Jun 2014 #12
Thanks for the post. ctsnowman Jun 2014 #13
Okay, that's super-interesting. Now for an hour with the full map. byronius Jun 2014 #14
Work like this maindawg Jun 2014 #15
There were 60 million people living in the Western Hemisphere when Columbus came KurtNYC Jun 2014 #16
The estimates vary. Igel Jun 2014 #23
links to support your statements, please. nt hopemountain Jun 2014 #28
K & R malaise Jun 2014 #17
Back in 1970 my Aunt gave me a present of a beautiful book, Almost Ancestors, The First Californians aint_no_life_nowhere Jun 2014 #19
Recommended. H2O Man Jun 2014 #24
neat! tomm2thumbs Jun 2014 #25
Here is a link to his... reACTIONary Jun 2014 #29
nice indeed! G_j Jun 2014 #40
Super cool map G-j lovemydog Jun 2014 #30
Thanks for this post... KoKo Jun 2014 #31
In the US nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #33
Wow. This is beautiful and a treasure. DesertDiamond Jun 2014 #34
k and r and thank you for posting this niyad Jun 2014 #35
This is so cool -- I couldn't wait to show my wife theHandpuppet Jun 2014 #36
What a wonderful post! Gumboot Jun 2014 #37
K&R. Thanks for this! nt raouldukelives Jun 2014 #38
Sadly the American historians have lied about the actual numbers of rhett o rick Jun 2014 #39
Thank you so much for posting this. n/t cntrygrl Jun 2014 #41
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Map Of Native America...»Reply #22