Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Email
Answers.com

Native American

Did you mean: Native American (people, North America), Native Americans (in dreams), antiquity and prehistory of the Americas (in history), Native American (dream symbols) More...

 
Dictionary: Native American

n.
A member of any of the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere. The ancestors of the Native Americans are generally considered by scientists to have entered the Americas from Asia by way of the Bering Strait sometime during the late glacial epoch.

Native American Native American adj.

USAGE NOTE   Many Americans have come to prefer Native American over Indian both as a term of respect and as a corrective to the famous misnomer bestowed on the peoples of the Americas by a geographically befuddled Columbus. There are solid arguments for this preference. Native American eliminates any confusion between indigenous American peoples and the inhabitants of India, making it the clear choice in many official contexts. It is also historically accurate, despite the insistence by some that Indians are no more native to America than anyone else since their ancestors are assumed to have migrated here from Asia. But one sense of native is "being a member of the original inhabitants of a particular place," and Native Americans' claim to being the original inhabitants of the Americas is unchallenged. • Accuracy and precision aside, however, the choice between these two terms is often made as a matter of principle. For many, Native American is the only choice for expressing respect toward America's indigenous peoples; Indian is seen as wrong and offensive. For others, the former smacks of bureaucracy and the manipulation of language for political purposes while the latter is the natural English term, its inaptness made irrelevant by long use. Fortunately, this controversy appears to have subsided somewhat in recent years, and it is now common to find the two terms used interchangeably in the same piece of writing. Furthermore, the issue has never been particularly divisive between Indians and non-Indians. While generally welcoming the respectful tone of Native American, most Indian writers have continued to use the older name at least as often as the newer one. • Native American and Indian are not exact equivalents when referring to the aboriginal peoples of Canada and Alaska. Native American, the broader term, is properly used of all such peoples, whereas Indian is customarily used of the northern Athabaskan and Algonquian peoples in contrast to the Eskimos, Inuits, and Aleuts. Alaska Native (or less commonly Native Alaskan) is also properly used of all indigenous peoples residing in Alaska. See Usage Notes at American Indian, First Nation, Indian.


Search unanswered questions...
Enter a question here...
Search: All sources Community Q&A Reference topics
US Supreme Court: Native Americans
Top

The legal relationship between the United States and the Indian nations is both unique and complex. From the early nineteenth century the Supreme Court has played a major role in defining this body of law, often working at odds with Congress and the executive branch. The Indian nations are “domestic dependent nations” with Indian law based on this political status rather than on race. The Indian nations, together with the states and the federal government, constitute the three components of American federalism, of coexisting legal and political sovereignties, that define the United States.

This body of law has evolved over more than two hundred years, and is not easily described, nor consistent. Scholars of federal Indian law (ordinarily distinguished from Native American law, the law of the Indian nations themselves), have characterized it in different ways. Rennard Strickland, a leading scholar, has termed it “genocide at law,” referring to the many ways that the imposition of federal Indian law on the Indian nations both pushed Native law and tradition to the side. Such law accompanied social, economic, political, and military attacks on the Indian nations, killing their people and taking their land. Another view is that the policy was paternalistic, perhaps even rooted in Chief Justice John Marshall's personal sympathy for Native Americans, caught up in American political and economic forces relentlessly driving west.

The Constitution and the Foundational Federal Indian Law Cases

In an opinion by Chief Justice Marshall, the Supreme Court in Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823) for the first time directly addressed the issue of the legal status of Native Americans. Relying on international law, English common law, civil law, and what is now somewhat ironically called the “weight of history,” the Court unanimously decided that, while the Indians held right of occupancy to their lands based on their long‐term use, they did not own their lands in fee simple and therefore could not sell their title except to the United States. This decision put Indian land rights on a legally inferior basis to European land title regimes, setting the stage for the wholesale extinguishment of Indian title across the American continent. Since the Indian nations could only sell to the United States, they were forced into a treaty‐based land cession process in which the American government “purchased” these lands in hundreds of treaties, negotiated “nation to nation” but in unequal processes. The recognition of the Indians as “nations” thereby also provided a legal framework for taking their lands. Finally, Marshall put the federal government in control of Indian affairs, with sole right to purchase Indian lands, a position that weakened the power of the states over land, the major source of wealth and political power in early‐nineteenth‐century America.

The U.S. Constitution did not directly give the federal government exclusive authority over the Indian tribes, but this has been consistently held from the earliest cases, and was probably the intent of the original framers. Indians are referred to only three times in the Constitution. The federal government, in the Commerce Clause, is given authority to regulate trade among the states and with the Indian tribes, the so‐called Indian commerce clause, still a basis for much federal authority over Indian nations. “Indians not taxed” are excluded from apportioning taxes and representatives in Congress by both Article I and the Fourteenth Amendment, a recognition of their separate status.

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1832) and Worcester v. Georgia (1834)—known collectively with a third case, Corn Tassel (1831), as the “Cherokee Cases”—brought the conflict between the federal government and the states to the center of federal Indian law, with Chief Justice John Marshall once again setting out a legal relationship that largely endures to this day. The State of Georgia was encroaching on Cherokee lands, through white settlement, caused in part because gold had been discovered there. The Cherokees took their case to the Supreme Court. President Andrew Jackson strongly supported states rights, and the settlers against the Indians. William Wirt, formerly attorney general under John Quincy Adams, represented the Cherokees and the position that the Cherokees were a sovereign nation, entitled to federal protection of their rights against state incursions. The cases began badly as Corn Tassel, a Cherokee seized by Georgia authorities and tried for murder and sentenced to death by a Georgia court, was hanged in defiance of a writ of mandamus issued by Marshall, stopping the execution.

In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia the Cherokees argued that they were an independent nation, protected by treaties negotiated with the United States, and entitled to the protection of the United States in keeping Georgia off its lands. In a hopelessly divided opinion, now overshadowed by Worcester v. Georgia, the Supreme Court divided three ways over this issue. Two justices, led by Joseph Story, wrote that the Cherokees were, in fact, sovereign nations, a high watermark of tribal sovereignty in American law. Two justices, led by John Marshall, held that the Cherokees were not sovereign nations, but held a lessor kind of national status, under the protection of the United States. Two other justices denied that the idea of Cherokee national sovereignty was possible. Because jurisdiction in the case was based on the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction in cases involving foreign governments and American states, the case was dismissed—the two latter positions, while very different, agreed on this issue.

Worcester v. Georgia is now seen as the foundational Supreme Court case in Indian law. Worcester, a Yankee missionary, was also a U.S. postmaster in the Cherokee nation. He was jailed by Georgia for aiding the Cherokees. The case posed a direct conflict between federal authority and states' rights that had no relationship to the Cherokee Indians—except that it occurred in their lands. Marshall rose to his highest legal powers in crafting his opinion, still cited in most Indian law cases. The Indian nations were of an anomalous status, held Marshall, using paternalistic language with the now classic phrase, “domestic dependent nations,” as the most important language of the opinion. Marshall's use of “nations” has given the Indian nations a legal framework for a “nation to nation” relationship to the United States, based on the inherent sovereignty of the Indian nations. But, that status is analyzed in a context of dependency and paternalism, focusing on the forced incorporation of the tribes within the geographical American nation, and their dependency on the federal government for protection.

The opinion, rich in historical references, contains many phrases that are frequently repeated in the thousands of subsequent federal Indian law cases. The Court held, for example, that “the Cherokee nation … is a distinct community occupying its own territory … in which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter” (p. 561), a powerful attack on states' rights and still limiting the authority of the states over the Indian nations. Further, Marshall wrote, “The whole intercourse between the United States and this nation is, by our constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States” (p. 561). This is an equally powerful statement of the power of the United States over the Indian nations.

In reaction to Worcester, President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have remarked, “John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.” While this anecdote is time‐honored in teaching the relationship between the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and the separation of powers doctrine, Jackson may never have said it. Yet, Jackson's contempt for any hint of Indian sovereignty describes the next sixty years of American Indian policy, which derogated to Congress and the executive branch. Between the 1830s and the 1890s most eastern Indian nations were “removed” to the West; and dozens of Indian wars were fought from Florida to Minnesota to the Pacific Ocean. Thousands of Indians were killed; hundreds of thousands died of disease or starvation. Tribal cultures were attacked; children were removed from their families; Indian leaders were murdered—and the Supreme Court and U.S. law were irrelevant to these events. No law protected the Indian nations from these attacks. The few Indian law cases that reached the Supreme Court between Worcester and the early 1880s had to do with such matters as the taxation of Indian nations in the Indian Territory (Cherokee Tobacco, 1871); the right of Indian tribes to confer citizenship on whites (United States v. Rogers, 1846); and liquor sales on reservations (United States v. Forty Three Gallons of Whiskey, 1876 and 1883).

Crow Dog and Native American Law in the Indian Nations

The fundamental outline of federal Indian law was transformed in the late nineteenth century. In Ex parte Crow Dog (1883) the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Dakota Territorial Court conviction and death sentence of Crow Dog, a Brule Sioux who killed his chief in a political dispute. The holding relied on Worcester in reaffirming the sovereignty of the Indian nations. While the prosecution argued that a line of federal treaties had limited Sioux sovereignty, the Supreme Court held that their sovereign status as nations inherently encompassed the right to be governed by their own laws.

While the Supreme Court had itself mischaracterized Brule law as a case of “red man's revenge” (p. 571), it was clear that Native American law was the appropriate law to govern sovereign Native American people. By the late nineteenth century, following years of an explicit policy of “assimilation,” it was politically controversial that the Indian nations retained their own law. But, at the same time, the existence of Native American law was itself testimony to the strength of the Indian nations.

Law, as a social institution, derives from the structure and social purpose of society. The law as practiced by the various Native American nations was as diverse as those nations themselves were. The Sioux had a highly developed law to structure a band‐based society, organized around the traditional buffalo hunt. Eastern nations had more sedentary and agricultural social structures, with legal systems that allocated clan‐based property rights to fields and hunting territories. A law of the fur trade had evolved in northern hunting and trapping nations. The nations of the Northwest Coast had a highly stratified legal order, based on an economy wealthy on salmon.

In general Indian nations had legal orders that were not rigidly separated from political or religious systems. The emphasis of law was on the preservation of social harmony, with reintegrative and restorative norms prevailing over the punitive norms characterizing English and European law. Disputes were processed quickly, but according to well‐defined principles. These principles, based on natural law, were deeply held. To this day the uncertain quality of American law is a puzzlement to the Indian nations: the idea that every legal principle can be balanced or compromised, and can change from context to context, strikes Indians as not being law at all. Native law is natural law; based on immutable principles passed down from generation to generation, but still adapted by tribal councils to reflect changing times. The Indian nations still adhere to their own law and more than four hundred tribal courts operate in the various Indian nations. Some of these legal systems, for example, in the Navajo nation, are highly developed, with appellate courts and reporting systems. Other Indian nations still use traditional courts, composed of tribal councils or elders, applying the law as has been handed down from generations immemorial. Decisions of these courts have the full force of law in the United States and federal and state courts, through the doctrine of comity, must recognize the judgments of tribal courts. Each Indian nation, as an attribute of its sovereignty, can apply its own law as it sees fit, subject to some restrictions placed on tribal courts by Congress, through the Major Crimes Act, the Indian Civil Rights Act, and other exercises of the plenary power doctrine.

The Supreme Court and Federal Indian Law in the Assimilation Period

Congress, in 1885, passed the Major Crimes Act, specifically designed to prevent the application of Crow Dog in future Indian criminal cases. In the act, Congress established federal jurisdiction over seven “major” crimes when committed by Indians in Indian country: murder, kidnapping, robbery, rape, and similar serious crimes. While the timing of this act makes it appear that the main issue was congressional “outrage” over the result in Crow Dog, the actual context was a federal move to force “assimilation” of the Indian nations. By the late nineteenth century, following the end of the Indian wars, and the spread of the United States across the continent, the continued existence of Indian nations, practicing their own religion and their own law in their own land, was increasingly unacceptable to political interests rooted in the expanding West. The Dawes Act, “allotting” Indian lands in severalty to individual Indians in order to undermine “communistic” Indian social organization, then “selling” the rest to the federal government to “open” the West to settlement was passed a year later, in 1887.

The Supreme Court acquiesced to the will of Congress and paved the way for this assault on Indian land and Indian sovereignty. In United States v. *Kagama (1886), the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act, articulating a new “plenary power doctrine” that, while based on the “domestic dependent” language of Worcester, undermined the “nation to nation” status that was fundamental to the balance struck in that case. Under the plenary power doctrine the authority of the Congress over the Indian nations was “plenary” or “complete” and all matters of Indian policy were subject to the will of Congress. This left no legal protection for the fundamental doctrine of Indian sovereignty.

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903), decided more than ten years later, upheld the forced sale of Indian land and the allotment process on the same basis that Kagama had upheld congressional authority over tribal law. Lone Wolf, sometimes referred to as the “Indian Dred Scott case,” held that Indian lands could be sold by the authority of Congress, in violation of existing treaty rights, and without being subject to the “just compensation” clause of the Fifth Amendment. This completed the logic of Johnson v. M'Intosh in refusing to recognize a fee simple title to Indian lands. Thus, both Indian law and Indian land could be disposed of at the political whim of Congress, with no further regard to Indian rights as protected by the Constitution. These were dark days for the Indian nations and these cases still represent a low point in Indian law before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court and Federal Indian Law in the Twentieth Century

In the twentieth century federal Indian law became more complicated as both politics and law changed. The best way to understand these developments is that the Indian nations refused to defer to what they saw as theft of their land, their law, and their culture. They began an unending series of lawsuits to defend their rights and their lands. The sheer volume of cases—thousands of cases filed in federal courts, with hundreds reaching the Supreme Court—speaks to this determination. To this day, Indian law is among the most litigated areas before the Court. These cases span the broadest possible range of issues, litigating every aspect of Indian/U.S. relations. Many have been won by the Indian nations, but many have been lost. Doctrinally, because so many issues are involved, the cases range all over the legal map, and defy simple doctrinal classification, but some patterns clearly emerge. There is a continuing tension between the “Indian sovereignty” line of cases stemming from Worcester, and the “Indians as dependents” line of cases, finding expression in the plenary power doctrine.

At the same time, the Indian nations themselves have a clear position: United States law, and the Supreme Court, do not define their legal status. Rather, it is one arena—albeit an important arena—where they must defend their legal rights. To the Indian nations, their legal status is as sovereign nations, existing since time immemorial, under their own laws.

Among the most contested of Indian law cases before the Supreme Court are issues involving access to natural resources. The Indian nations, besides occupying much land, also used natural resources. It should not be surprising that many cases involving claims against Indian use of resources have reached the Court. Two of the most important are United States v. Winans (1905) and Winters v. United States (1908). The Supreme Court held in Winters that the creation of an Indian reservation carries with it an implied reservation of sufficient water rights to fulfill the purpose of the reservation. In the water‐starved West, this means that each Indian nation holds extensive water rights, with “priority” dating from the creation of the reservation. In United States v. Winans the Court recognized that the United States had power to protect fishing rights reserved to Indians by treaty. This basic doctrine has been applied to other hunting and fishing rights as well. In Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association (1979) the Supreme Court relied on Winans in affirming a federal court decision that an undefined treaty “right of taking fish” was presumptively shared “50-50” between Indians and non‐Indians. The rights of Minnesota Chippewa to hunt, fish, and gather over much of northern Minnesota, as defined by an 1837 treaty, was upheld by the Court in Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians (1999).

The “termination era” of the 1950s led to a shift in the direction of the Supreme Court's Indian law cases. In Tee‐Hit‐Ton Indians v. United States (1955) the justices denied the Tlingit nation any aboriginal land rights in the forests of southeastern Alaska that had been theirs since time immemorial, an injustice partially remedied by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act a generation later. The Court harkened back to the era of Lone Wolf and forced assimilation.

Arizona v. Williams (1959) marked a change in the Supreme Court's Indian law cases. For a run of about one hundred cases through the 1980s, the Supreme Court carried forward a policy of a “new” federalism in Indian/U.S. relations based on the doctrine that U.S. Indian law should, within the structure of the paradigm set out in Worcester, promote tribal sovereignty and the functioning of the Indian nations within the federal system. Williams involved a debt collection case on the Navajo nation, removed to the Arizona state courts. But, citing Worcester, the Court held that the courts of the Navajo nation were the appropriate venue. In light of the tension between Indian nations and states, this policy was necessary in order to promote Indian sovereignty and, incidentally, referring to the traditional tension between the Indian nations and the states that was the subject of Worcester 120 years before. This policy led to a number of decisions upholding the rights of Indian nations to act to support tribal sovereignty—the right to tax, to police, to regulate, to exercise local self‐government. These legal developments paralleled national politics as a civil rights era led to more consciousness of the right of Indians to simply be “left alone as Indians.” Their continued survival, in a multicultural United States, was seen as enriching our national heritage and their political and legal functioning carrying out important functions within American democracy. The rise of Indian gaming—upheld by the Court in Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. Wilson (1986)—was one product of this era: sovereignty gave the Indian nations the right to control their own economies, within a broad national framework, as long as other federal interests were not impaired.

The intervention of the Congress in the gambling issue, requiring tribes that wish to operate gambling casinos to enter into “compacts” with the respective state governments, has highlighted another legal issue, one brewing since the Cherokee Cases. Traditionally, the Indian tribes were protected against the incursions of state authority by the federal government. But modern considerations of federalism often require that the states and the Indian nations, neighbors on the ground, enter into political relationships that are mutually beneficial—as basic as, for example, shared police and fire protection, ambulance services, zoning, and environmental protection. In Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996) the Court ruled that under the Eleventh Amendment Congress could not authorize suits by Indian nations seeking to require states to carry out a legal obligation to negotiate with the Seminole over gaming activities.

Oliphant v. Suquamish (1981) heralded another change in Supreme Court Indian law jurisprudence to a line of cases inconsistent with Williams. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, an adopted Arizonan, brought a western anti‐Indian jurisprudence to the Court, a jurisprudence offended by rising Indian sovereignty and the increased political influence of the Indian nations, particularly in the West. In Oliphant, a young white man was convicted of drunk and disorderly behavior by the Suquamish Tribal Court. The chief justice, ordinarily a “law and order” conservative on criminal matters, overturned his conviction on the ground that the Indian nations in the exercise of their sovereignty had no criminal jurisdiction over whites. Rehnquist's analysis ignored the fact that any person who travels into the jurisdiction of any sovereign country is subject to their laws, whether the country be France or the Suquamish nation. Analytically, Oliphant departed from the sovereignty‐based focus of Williams and balanced tribal sovereignty factors against a broad range of other social factors, including the location of the Suquamish reservation, the number of whites who lived there, and the history of tribal jurisdiction over whites. The problem with such a “balancing test” is that tribal sovereignty often does not “balance” very well with the rights of the dominant white population, which is more numerous, more powerful, owns more land, has more money, and, generally, more interests to balance.

Oliphant since has been used many times by the Supreme Court in cases that overrule exercises of tribal jurisdiction in matters of commerce, taxation, regulation of hunting and fishing rights. Since lower federal and state courts follow these precedents, the damage done to Indian sovereignty has been considerable.

Bibliography

  • Angie Debo, A History of the Indians of the United States (1970).
  • Vine Deloria and Clifford Lytle, American Indians, American Justice (1983).
  • David Getches, Charles Wilkinson, and Robert A. Williams, Jr., Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law, 4th ed. (1998).
  • Sidney L. Harring, Crow Dog's Case: American Indian Sovereignty, Tribal Law, and United States Indian Law in the Nineteenth Century (1994).
  • Francis Paul Prucha, The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indian (1984).
  • Judith V. Royster and Michael C. Blumm, Native American Natural Resources Law (2002).
  • Rennard Strickland, Felix S. Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law, 3rd rev. ed. (1982).
  • Rennard Strickland, Genocide at Law: An Historic Contemporary View of the Native American Experience, University of Kansas Law Review 34 (1986): 713–755.
  • Charles Wilkinson, American Indians, Time, and the Law (1987).
  • Robert Williams, Jr., The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest (1990)

— Rennard J. Strickland

Archaeology Dictionary: Native American
Top

[Ge]

A general term for the past and aboriginal inhabitants of North America, thus distinguishing them from European and other settlers and their descendants.

US History Encyclopedia: Native Americans
Top

"Native American" is the official term used by the U.S. government to refer to the original inhabitants of the lower 48 states. It was adopted by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the 1960s after considerable "consciousness raising" on the part of Native activists to abandon the official use of the misnomer "Indian."

Although accepted by many tribal groups and people, many Native people reject the term because it is the "official" government designation and therefore immediately suspect. Also, the term still refers to "America," considered by many to be an inappropriate Eurocentric term. Finally, the term is confusing because it is also used to refer to people born in the United States—"native Americans."

Bibliography

Bellfy, Phil. Indians and Other Misnomers: A Cross-Referenced Dictionary of the People, Persons, and Places of Native North America. Golden, Colo.: Fulcrum Press, 2001.

 
Columbia Encyclopedia: North American Natives
Top
Natives, North American, peoples who occupied North America before the arrival of the Europeans in the 15th cent. They have long been known as Indians because of the belief prevalent at the time of Columbus that the Americas were the outer reaches of the Indies (i.e., the East Indies). Most scholars agree that Native Americans came into the Western Hemisphere from Asia via the Bering Strait or along the N Pacific coast in a series of migrations. From Alaska they spread east and south. The several waves of migration are said to account for the many native linguistic families (see Native American languages), while the common origin is used to explain the physical characteristics that Native Americans have in common (though with considerable variation)-Mongolic features, coarse, straight black hair, dark eyes, sparse body hair, and a skin color ranging from yellow-brown to reddish brown. Some scholars accept evidence of Native American existence in the Americas back more than 25,000 years, while many others believe that people arrived later than that, perhaps as recently as 12,000 years ago. In pre-Columbian times (prior to 1492) the Native American population of the area N of Mexico is conservatively estimated to have been about 1.8 million, with some authorities believing the population to have been as large as 10 million or more. This population dropped dramatically within a few decades of the first contacts with Europeans, however, as many Native Americans died from smallpox, influenza, measles, and other diseases to which they had not previously been exposed. Native Americans were far more likely to die. From prehistoric times until recent historic times there were roughly six major cultural areas, excluding that of the Arctic (see Eskimo), i.e., Northwest Coast, Plains, Plateau, Eastern Woodlands, Northern, and Southwest. Information about particular groups can be found in separate articles and in separate biographies and subject articles (e.g., Pontiac's Rebellion; Dawes Act).

The Northwest Coast Area

The Northwest Coast area extended along the Pacific coast from S Alaska to N California. The main language families in this area were the Nadene in the north and the Wakashan (a subdivision of the Algonquian-Wakashan linguistic stock) and the Tsimshian (a subdivision of the Penutian linguistic stock) in the central area. Typical tribes were the Kwakiutl, the Haida, the Tsimshian, and the Nootka. Thickly wooded, with a temperate climate and heavy rainfall, the area had long supported a large Native American population. Salmon was the staple food, supplemented by sea mammals (seals and sea lions) and land mammals (deer, elk, and bears) as well as berries and other wild fruit. The Native Americans of this area used wood to build their houses and had cedar-planked canoes and carved dugouts. In their permanent winter villages some of the groups had totem poles (see totem), which were elaborately carved and covered with symbolic animal decoration. Their art work, for which they are famed, also included the making of ceremonial items, such as rattles and masks; weaving; and basketry. They had a highly stratified society with chiefs, nobles, commoners, and slaves. Public display and disposal of wealth were basic features of the society (see potlatch). They had woven robes, furs, and basket hats as well as wooden armor and helmets for battle. This distinctive culture, which included cannibalistic rituals, was not greatly affected by European influences until after the late 18th cent., when the white fur traders and hunters came to the area.

The Plains Area

The Plains area extended from just N of the Canadian border S to Texas and included the grasslands area between the Mississippi River and the foothills of the Rocky Mts. The main language families in this area were the Algonquian-Wakashan, the Aztec-Tanoan, and the Hokan-Siouan. In pre-Columbian times there were two distinct types of Native Americans there, sedentary and nomadic. The sedentary tribes, who had migrated from neighboring regions and had initally settled along the great river valleys, were farmers and lived in permanent villages of dome-shaped earth lodges surrounded by earthen walls. They raised corn, squash, and beans. The foot nomads, on the other hand, moved about with their goods on dog-drawn travois and eked out a precarious existence by hunting the vast herds of buffalo (bison)-usually by driving them into enclosures or rounding them up by setting grass fires. They supplemented their diet by exchanging meat and hides for the corn of the agricultural Native Americans.

The horse, first introduced by the Spanish of the Southwest, appeared in the Plains about the beginning of the 18th cent. and revolutionized the life of the Plains Indians. Many Native Americans left their villages and joined the nomads. Mounted and armed with bow and arrow, they ranged the grasslands hunting buffalo. The other Native Americans remained farmers (e.g., the Arikara, the Hidatsa, and the Mandan). Native Americans from surrounding areas came into the Plains (e.g., the Sioux from the Great Lakes, the Comanche and the Kiowa from the west and northwest, and the Navajo and the Apache from the southwest). A universal sign language developed among the perpetually wandering and often warring Native Americans. Living on horseback and in the portable tepee, they preserved food by pounding and drying lean meat and made their clothes from buffalo hides and deerskins. The system of coup was a characteristic feature of their society. Other features were rites of fasting in quest of a vision, warrior clans, bead and feather art work, and decorated hides. These Plains Indians were among the last to engage in a serious struggle with the white settlers in the United States.

The Plateau Area

The Plateau area extended from above the Canadian border through the plateau and mountain area of the Rocky Mts. to the Southwest and included much of California. Typical tribes were the Spokan, the Paiute, the Nez Percé, and the Shoshone. This was an area of great linguistic diversity. Because of the inhospitable environment the cultural development was generally low. The Native Americans in the Central Valley of California and on the California coast, notably the Pomo, were sedentary peoples who gathered edible plants, roots, and fruit and also hunted small game. Their acorn bread, made by pounding acorns into meal and then leaching it with hot water, was distinctive, and they cooked in baskets filled with water and heated by hot stones. Living in brush shelters or more substantial lean-tos, they had partly buried earth lodges for ceremonies and ritual sweat baths. Basketry, coiled and twined, was highly developed. To the north, between the Cascade Range and the Rocky Mts., the social, political, and religious systems were simple, and art was nonexistent. The Native Americans there underwent (c.1730) a great cultural change when they obtained from the Plains Indians the horse, the tepee, a form of the sun dance, and deerskin clothes. They continued, however, to fish for salmon with nets and spears and to gather camas bulbs. They also gathered ants and other insects and hunted small game and, in later times, buffalo. Their permanent winter villages on waterways had semisubterranean lodges with conical roofs; a few Native Americans lived in bark-covered long houses.

The Eastern Woodlands Area

The Eastern Woodlands area covered the eastern part of the United States, roughly from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi River, and included the Great Lakes. The Natchez, the Choctaw, the Cherokee, and the Creek were typical inhabitants. The northeastern part of this area extended from Canada to Kentucky and Virginia. The people of the area (speaking languages of the Algonquian-Wakashan stock) were largely deer hunters and farmers; the women tended small plots of corn, squash, and beans. The birchbark canoe gained wide usage in this area. The general pattern of existence of these Algonquian peoples and their neighbors, who spoke languages belonging to the Iroquoian branch of the Hokan-Siouan stock (enemies who had probably invaded from the south), was quite complex. Their diet of deer meat was supplemented by other game (e.g., bear), fish (caught with hook, spear, and net), and shellfish. Cooking was done in vessels of wood and bark or simple black pottery. The dome-shaped wigwam and the longhouse of the Iroquois characterized their housing. The deerskin clothing, the painting of the face and (in the case of the men) body, and the scalp lock of the men (left when hair was shaved on both sides of the head), were typical. The myths of Manitou (often called Manibozho or Manabaus), the hero who remade the world from mud after a deluge, are also widely known.

The region from the Ohio River S to the Gulf of Mexico, with its forests and fertile soil, was the heart of the southeastern part of the Eastern Woodlands cultural area. There before c.500 the inhabitants were seminomads who hunted, fished, and gathered roots and seeds. Between 500 and 900 they adopted agriculture, tobacco smoking, pottery making, and burial mounds (see Mound Builders). By c.1300 the agricultural economy was well established, and artifacts found in the mounds show that trade was widespread. Long before the Europeans arrived, the peoples of the Natchez and Muskogean branches of the Hokan-Siouan linguistic family were farmers who used hoes with stone, bone, or shell blades. They hunted with bow and arrow and blowgun, caught fish by poisoning streams, and gathered berries, fruit, and shellfish. They had excellent pottery, sometimes decorated with abstract figures of animals or humans. Since warfare was frequent and intense, the villages were enclosed by wooden palisades reinforced with earth. Some of the large villages, usually ceremonial centers, dominated the smaller settlements of the surrounding countryside. There were temples for sun worship; rites were elaborate and featured an altar with perpetual fire, extinguished and rekindled each year in a "new fire" ceremony. The society was commonly divided into classes, with a chief, his children, nobles, and commoners making up the hierarchy. For a discussion of the earliest Woodland groups, see the separate article Eastern Woodlands culture.

The Northern Area

The Northern area covered most of Canada, also known as the Subarctic, in the belt of semiarctic land from the Rocky Mts. to Hudson Bay. The main languages in this area were those of the Algonquian-Wakashan and the Nadene stocks. Typical of the people there were the Chipewyan. Limiting environmental conditions prevented farming, but hunting, gathering, and activities such as trapping and fishing were carried on. Nomadic hunters moved with the season from forest to tundra, killing the caribou in semiannual drives. Other food was provided by small game, berries, and edible roots. Not only food but clothing and even some shelter (caribou-skin tents) came from the caribou, and with caribou leather thongs the Indians laced their snowshoes and made nets and bags. The snowshoe was one of the most important items of material culture. The shaman featured in the religion of many of these people.

The Southwest Area

The Southwest area generally extended over Arizona, New Mexico, and parts of Colorado and Utah. The Uto-Aztecan branch of the Aztec-Tanoan linguistic stock was the main language group of the area. Here a seminomadic people called the Basket Makers, who hunted with a spear thrower, or atlatl, acquired (c.1000 B.C.) the art of cultivating beans and squash, probably from their southern neighbors. They also learned to make unfired pottery. They wove baskets, sandals, and bags. By c.700 B.C. they had initiated intensive agriculture, made true pottery, and hunted with bow and arrow. They lived in pit dwellings, which were partly underground and were lined with slabs of stone-the so-called slab houses. A new people came into the area some two centuries later; these were the ancestors of the Pueblo Indians. They lived in large, terraced community houses set on ledges of cliffs or canyons for protection (see cliff dwellers) and developed a ceremonial chamber (the kiva) out of what had been the living room of the pit dwellings. This period of development ended c.1300, after a severe drought and the beginnings of the invasions from the north by the Athabascan-speaking Navajo and Apache. The known historic Pueblo cultures of such sedentary farming peoples as the Hopi and the Zuñi then came into being. They cultivated corn, beans, squash, cotton, and tobacco, killed rabbits with a wooden throwing stick, and traded cotton textiles and corn for buffalo meat from nomadic tribes. The men wove cotton textiles and cultivated the fields, while women made fine polychrome pottery. The mythology and religious ceremonies were complex.

Contemporary Life

In the 1890s the long struggle between the expanding white population and the indigenous peoples, which had begun soon after the coming of the Spanish in the 16th cent. and the British and French in the 17th cent., was brought to an end. Native American life in the United States in the 20th cent. has been marked to a large degree by poverty, inadequate health care, poor education, and unemployment. However, the situation is changing for some groups. New economic opportunities have arisen from an upswing in tourism and the development of natural resources and other businesses on many reservations. With the passage of the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, many tribes began operating full-scale casinos, providing much-needed revenue and employment. An increasing interest among the general population in Native American arts and crafts, music, and customs has also brought new income to many individuals and groups.

The first tribal college opened on the Navajo reservation in 1968; by 1995 there were 29 such colleges. A number of Native American radio stations now broadcast in English and native languages. Although there have been Native American newspapers since the early 1800s, there has been an increase in all types of native periodicals since the 1970s, including academic journals, professional publications, and the first national weekly, Indian Country Today. Many of these publications are now produced in cities as more Native Americans move off reservations and into urban centers. Over the years many Native Americans have bitterly objected to the disturbing of the bones of their ancestors in archaeological digs carried out across the country. These concerns brought about the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990). Under its terms some 10,000 skeletons had been returned to their tribes by the end of the 20th cent., and efforts to repatriate and rebury other remains were ongoing. In 1990 the Native American population in the United States was some 1.9 million, an increase of almost 38% since 1980. Oklahoma, California, Arizona, and New Mexico have the most Native American inhabitants; most Eskimos and Aleuts live in Alaska.

Bibliography

The Bureau of American Ethnology, The American Indian Historical Society, The American Museum of Natural History, and the Heye Foundation have published many useful works on Native Americans. For some general works see A. L. Kroeber, Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America (1939, repr. 1963); R. F. Spencer et al., The Native Americans (1965); C. Wissler, Indians of the United States (rev. ed. 1966); W. Haberland, The Art of North America (1968); A. Josephy, The Indian Heritage of America (1968); A. L. Marriott and C. K. Rachlin, American Indian Mythology (1968); A. Debo, A History of the Indians of the United States (1970); W. Moguin and C. Van Doren, ed., Great Documents in American Indian History (1973); W. H. Oswatt, This Land Was Theirs (2d ed. 1973); W. C. Sturtevant, ed., Handbook of North American Indians (20 vol., 1978-98); J. Axtell, The European and the Indian (1981); R. Thornton, American Indian Holocaust and Survival (1987); F. M. Bordewich, Killing the White Man's Indian (1996); S. Malinowski et al., ed., The Gale Encyclopedia of Native American Tribes (1998); A. Hirschfelder and M. K. de Montaño, The Native American Almanac (1999); S. Krech, The Ecological Indian (1999); J. Wilson, The Earth Shall Weep: A History of Native America (1999).


Science Dictionary: Native Americans
Top

The descendants of the original inhabitants of North America and South America before the arrival of white settlers from Europe, also called Indians or American Indians. The term Native American is sometimes preferred over Indian because the latter is a misnomer that originated with Columbus, who mistook the inhabitants of America for the people of India. Both terms, however, are accepted.

  • In recent years, Native American activism has taken the form of calls for the protection of their tribal or ancestral shrines and artifacts.
  • Quotes By: Native Americans
    Top

    Quotes:

    "We know what the animals do, what are the needs of the beaver, the bear, the salmon, and other creatures, because long ago men married them and acquired this knowledge from their animal wives. Today the priests say we lie, but we know better."

    Wikipedia: Indigenous peoples of the Americas
    Top
    Quechua woman and child in the Sacred Valley, Andes, Peru
    Nahua man of Morelos, Mexico ploughing a bean field by mule

    The indigenous peoples of the Americas are the pre-Columbian inhabitants of North, Central, and South America, their descendants, and many ethnic groups who identify with those peoples. They are often also referred to as Native Americans,[1] Aboriginals,[2] First Nations,[2] Amerigine, and by Christopher Columbus' geographical and historical mistake, Indians, [1]now disambiguated as the American Indian race, American Indians, Amerindians, Amerinds, or Red Indians.

    According to the still-debated New World migration model, a migration of humans from Eurasia to the Americas took place via Beringia, a land bridge which connected the two continents across what is now the Bering Strait. The most recent point at which this migration could have taken place is c. 12,000 years ago, with the earliest period remaining a matter of some unresolved contention.[3][4] These early Paleo-Indians soon spread throughout the Americas, diversifying into many hundreds of culturally distinct nations and tribes.[4] According to the oral histories of many of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, they have been living there since their genesis, described by a wide range of traditional creation accounts.

    Application of the term "Indian" originated with Christopher Columbus, who thought that he had arrived in the East Indies, while seeking Asia. This has served to imagine a kind of racial or cultural unity for the aboriginal peoples of the Americas. Once created, the unified "Indian" was codified in law, religion, and politics. The unitary idea of "Indians" was not originally shared by indigenous peoples, but many over the last two centuries have embraced the identity.

    While some indigenous peoples of the Americas were historically hunter-gatherers, many practiced aquaculture and agriculture. The impact of their agricultural endowment to the world is a testament to their time and work in reshaping, taming, and cultivating the flora indigenous to the Americas.[5] Some societies depended heavily on agriculture while others practiced a mix of farming, hunting, and gathering. In some regions the indigenous peoples created monumental architecture, large-scale organized cities, chiefdoms, states, and massive empires.

    Many parts of the Americas are still populated by indigenous Americans; some countries have sizeable populations, such as Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay, Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia, and Ecuador. At least a thousand different indigenous languages are spoken in the Americas. Some, such as Quechua, Guaraní, Mayan languages, and Nahuatl, count their speakers in millions. Most indigenous peoples have largely adopted the lifestyle of the western world,[citation needed] but many also maintain aspects of indigenous cultural practices to varying degrees, including religion, social organization and subsistence practices. Some indigenous peoples still live in relative isolation from Western society, and a few are still counted as uncontacted peoples.

    Contents

    History

    Pre-history

    Map of possible early human migrations throughout the world

    Scholars who follow the Bering Strait theory agree that most indigenous peoples of the Americas descended from people who probably migrated from Siberia across the Bering Strait, anywhere between 9,000 and 50,000 years ago. The time frame and exact routes are still matters of debate, and the model faces continuous challenges. A 2006 study reported that DNA-based research had linked DNA retrieved from a 10,000-year-old fossilized tooth from the Prince of Wales Island in Alaska with specific coastal tribes in Tierra del Fuego, Ecuador, Mexico, and California.[6][7] Unique DNA markers found in the fossilized tooth were found only in these specific coastal tribes and were not comparable to markers found in any other indigenous peoples in the Americas. This finding lends substantial credence to a migration theory that at least one set of early peoples moved south along the west coast of the Americas in boats. It also suggests there may have been waves of migration, which numerous scholars believe. But, these results may be ambiguous, as there are other issues with DNA research and trying to affiliate biological and cultural groups.[8]

    One result of these waves of migration is that large groups of peoples with similar languages and perhaps physical characteristics as well, moved into various geographic areas of North, and then Central and South America. While these peoples have traditionally remained primarily loyal to their individual tribes, ethnologists have variously sought to group the myriad of tribes into larger entities which reflect common geographic origins, linguistic similarities, and lifestyles.[9]

    Pre-Columbian era

    Language families of North American indigenous peoples

    Remnants of a human settlement in Monte Verde, Chile dated to 12,500 years B.P. (another layer at Monte Verde has been tentatively dated to 33,000–35,000 years B.P.) suggests that southern Chile was settled by peoples who entered the Americas before the peoples associated with the Bering Strait migrations. It is suggested that a coastal route via canoes could have allowed rapid migration into the Americas.[10]

    The traditional view of a relatively recent migration has also been challenged by older findings of human remains in South America; some dating to perhaps even 30,000 years old or more. Some recent finds (notably the Luzia Woman in Lagoa Santa, Brazil) are claimed to be morphologically distinct from most Asians and are more similar to Africans, Melanesians and Australian Aborigines. These American Aborigines would have been later displaced or absorbed by the Siberian immigrants. The distinctive Fuegian natives of Tierra del Fuego, the southernmost tip of the American continent, are speculated to be partial remnants of those Aboriginal populations. These early immigrants would have either crossed the ocean by boat or traveled north along the Asian coast and entered America through the Northwest, well before the Siberian waves. This theory is currently viewed by many scholars as conjecture, as many areas along the proposed routes now lie underwater, making research difficult. Some scholars believe the earliest forensic evidence for early populations appears to more closely resemble Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders, and not those of Northeast Asia.[11]

    Scholars' estimates of the total population of the Americas before European contact vary enormously, from a low of 10 million to a high of 112 million.[12] Some scholars believe that most of the indigenous population resided in Mesoamerica and South America, with approximately 10 percent residing in North America, prior to European colonization.[13]

    The Solutrean hypothesis suggests an early European migration into the Americas[14][15][16][17] and that stone tool technology of the Solutrean culture in prehistoric Europe may have later influenced the development of the Clovis tool-making culture in the Americas. Some of its key proponents include Dr. Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian Institution and Dr. Bruce Bradley of the University of Exeter. In this hypothesis, peoples associated with the Solutrean culture migrated from Ice Age Europe to North America, bringing their methods of making stone tools with them and providing the basis for later Clovis technology found throughout North America. The hypothesis rests upon particular similarities in Solutrean and Clovis toolmaking styles, and the fact that no predecessors of Clovis technology have been found in Eastern Asia, Siberia or Beringia, areas from which or through which early Americans are thought to have migrated.[18][19]

    American Indian creation myths tell of a variety of originations of their respective peoples. Some were "always there" or were created by gods or animals, some migrated from a specified compass point, and others came from "across the ocean".[20]

    Vine Deloria, Jr., author and Nakota activist, cites some of the oral histories that claim an in situ origin in his book Red Earth, White Lies, rejecting the Bering Strait land bridge route. Deloria takes a Young Earth creationism position, arguing that Native Americans actually originated in the Americas.[21]

    European colonization

    Cultural areas of North America at time of European contact

    The European colonization of the Americas forever changed the lives, bloodlines and cultures of the peoples of the continent. The population history of American indigenous peoples postulates that infectious disease exposure, displacement, and warfare diminished populations, with the first the most significant cause.[5][22] The first indigenous group encountered by Columbus were the 250,000 Taínos of Hispaniola who were the dominant culture in the Greater Antilles and the Bahamas. In thirty years, about 70% of the Tainos died.[23] Enslaved, forced to labour in the mines, mistreated, the Tainos began to adopt suicidal behaviors, with women aborting or killing their infants, men jumping from the cliffs or ingesting manioc, a violent poison.[23] They had no immunity to European diseases, so outbreaks of measles and smallpox ravaged their population.[24]

    The Laws of Burgos, 1512-1513 were the first codified set of laws governing the behavior of Spanish settlers in America, particularly with regards to native Indians. They forbade the maltreatment of natives, and endorsed their conversion to Catholicism.[25]

    Reasons for the decline of the Native American populations are variously theorized to be from diseases, conflicts with Europeans, and conflicts among warring tribes. Scholars now believe that, among the various contributing factors, epidemic disease was the overwhelming cause of the population decline of the American natives.[26][27] After first contacts with Europeans and Africans, some believe that the death of 90 to 95% of the native population of the New World was caused by Old World diseases.[28] Half the native population of Hispaniola in 1518 was killed by smallpox.[29] Within a few years smallpox killed between 60% and 90% of the Inca population, with other waves of European disease weakening them further.[30] Smallpox was only the first epidemic. Typhus (probably) in 1546, influenza and smallpox together in 1558, smallpox again in 1589, diphtheria in 1614, measles in 1618—all ravaged the remains of Inca culture. Smallpox had killed millions of native inhabitants of Mexico.[31][32] Unintentionally introduced at Veracruz with the arrival of Pánfilo de Narváez on April 23, 1520, smallpox ravaged Mexico in the 1520s,[33] killing 150,000 in Tenochtitlan alone, including the emperor, and was credited with the victory of Hernán Cortés over the Aztec empire at Tenochtitlan (present-day Mexico City) in 1521.[34]

    Drawing accompanying text in Book XII of the 16th-century Florentine Codex (compiled 1540–1585), showing Nahuas of conquest-era central Mexico suffering from smallpox

    Over the centuries, the Europeans had developed high degrees of immunity to these diseases, while the Native Americans had no such immunity.[35] Europeans had been ravaged in their own turn by such diseases as bubonic plague and Asian flu that moved west from Asia to Europe. In addition, when they went to some territories, such as Africa and Asia, they were more vulnerable to malaria.

    The repeated outbreaks of influenza, measles and smallpox probably resulted in a decline of between one-half and two-thirds of the Aboriginal population of eastern North America during the first 100 years of European contact.[36] In 1617–1619, smallpox reportedly killed 90% of the Massachusetts Bay Native Americans.[37] In 1633, in Plymouth, Massachusetts, the Native Americans were exposed to smallpox because of contact with Europeans. As it had done elsewhere, the virus wiped out entire population groups of Native Americans.[38] It reached Lake Ontario in 1636, and the lands of the Iroquois by 1679.[39][40] During the 1770s, smallpox killed at least 30% of the West Coast Native Americans.[41] Smallpox epidemics in 1780–1782 and 1837–1838 brought devastation and drastic population depletion among the Plains Indians.[42][43] In 1832, the federal government of the United States established a smallpox vaccination program for Native Americans (The Indian Vaccination Act of 1832).[44][45]

    In Brazil, the indigenous population has declined from a pre-Columbian high of an estimated 3 million to some 300,000 in 1997.[46][47]

    Later explorations of the Caribbean led to the discovery of the Arawak peoples of the Lesser Antilles. The culture was extinct by 1650. Only 500 had survived by the year 1550, though the bloodlines continued through the modern populace. In Amazonia, indigenous societies weathered centuries of colonization.[48]

    The Spaniards and other Europeans brought horses to the Americas. Some of these animals escaped and began to breed and increase their numbers in the wild.[49] The re-introduction of the horse had a profound impact on Native American culture in the Great Plains of North America and of Patagonia in South America. By domesticating horses, some tribes had great success: they expanded their territories, exchanged many goods with neighboring tribes, and more easily captured game, especially bison.

    Agriculture

    Over the course of thousands of years, American indigenous peoples domesticated, bred and cultivated a large array of plant species. These species now constitute 50–60% of all crops in cultivation worldwide.[50] In certain cases, the indigenous peoples developed entirely new species and strains through artificial selection, as was the case in the domestication and breeding of maize from wild teosinte grasses in the valleys of southern Mexico. Numerous such agricultural products retain native names in the English and Spanish lexicons.

    The South American highlands were a center of early agriculture. Genetic testing of the wide variety of cultivars and wild species suggest that the potato has a single origin in the area of southern Peru,[51] from a species in the Solanum brevicaule complex. Over 99% of all modern cultivated potatoes worldwide are descendants of a subspecies indigenous to south-central Chile,[52]Solanum tuberosum ssp. tuberosum, where it was cultivated as long as 10,000 years ago.[53][54]

    A bison hunt depicted by George Catlin

    Natives of North American began practicing farming approximately 4,000 years ago, late in the Archaic period of North American cultures. Technology had advanced to the point that pottery was becoming common, and the small-scale felling of trees became feasible. Concurrently, the Archaic Indians began using fire in a widespread manner. Intentional burning of vegetation was used to mimic the effects of natural fires that tended to clear forest understories. It made travel easier and facilitated the growth of herbs and berry-producing plants, which were important for both food and medicines.[55]

    In the Mississippi River valley, Europeans noted Native Americans' managed groves of nut and fruit trees as orchards, not far from villages and towns, in addition to their gardens and agricultural fields. Wildlife competition could be reduced by understory burning. Further away, prescribed burning would have been used in forest and prairie areas.[56]

    Many crops first domesticated by indigenous Americans are now produced and/or used globally. Chief among these is maize or "corn", arguably the most important crop in the world.[57] Other significant crops include cassava, chia, squash (pumpkins, zucchini, marrow, acorn squash, butternut squash), the pinto bean, Phaseolus beans including most common beans, tepary beans and lima beans, tomato, potatoes, avocados, peanuts, cocoa beans (used to make chocolate), vanilla, strawberries, pineapples, Peppers (species and varieties of Capsicum, including bell peppers, jalapeños, paprika and chili peppers) sunflower seeds, rubber, brazilwood, chicle, tobacco, coca, manioc and some species of cotton.

    Culture

    Cultural practices in the Americas seem to have been mostly shared within geographical zones where otherwise unrelated peoples might adopt similar technologies and social organizations. An example of such a cultural area could be Mesoamerica, where millennia of coexistence and shared development between the peoples of the region produced a fairly homogeneous culture with complex agricultural and social patterns. Another well-known example could be the North American plains area, where until the 19th century, several different peoples shared traits of nomadic hunter-gatherers primarily based on buffalo hunting. Within the Americas, dozens of larger and hundreds of smaller culture areas can be identified.[citation needed]

    Technology

    The limited distribution of pack animals available for domestication, and the resultant difficulty of transportation, is certainly one of the factors in the lack of development of certain technologies in pre-Hispanic America. Also, the orientation of the continents along the north-south axis made the dissemination of crops along with migration unlikely, barring climate change due to altitude. Note that Eurasia has a predominant east-west orientation that allowed the dissemination of certain technologies and crops along the latitude bands that varied little. Another factor that distinguished America Eurasia is the absence in the latter as the hydraulic cultures that emerged in Egypt or China, due to the different configuration of the rivers in America.

    On arrival of Europeans in America the use of metal technology was very limited, and many of the technologies of lithic cultures were essentially American. However, in some particular aspects of American Civilian achieved important successes. In Mesoamerica the knowledge of the calendar and astronomy had reached remarkable levels of development. Regarding agriculture the Aztecs used intensive agricultural systems based on chinampas with total food production per hectare is likely much higher than elsewhere in the world. Even some Americans were particularly productive crops, corn was brought to China when such makeshift largely settled hunger and was a co-factor responsible for population explosion that geographic area around the seventeenth century.

    Writing systems

    Maya glyphs in stucco at the Museo de sitio in Palenque, Mexico

    An independent origin and development of writing is counted among the many achievements and innovations of pre-Columbian American cultures. The Mesoamerican region produced a number of indigenous writing systems from the 1st millennium BCE onwards. What may be the earliest-known example in the Americas of an extensive text thought to be writing is by the Cascajal Block. The Olmec hieroglyphs tablet has been indirectly dated from ceramic shards found in the same context to approximately 900 BCE, around the time that Olmec occupation of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán began to wane.[58]

    The Maya writing system (often called hieroglyphs from a superficial resemblance to the Ancient Egyptian writing) was a combination of phonetic symbols and logograms. It is most often classified as a logographic or (more properly) a logosyllabic writing system, in which syllabic signs play a significant role. It is the only writing system of the Pre-Columbian New World which is known to completely represent the spoken language of its community. In total, the script has more than one thousand different glyphs, although a few are variations of the same sign or meaning, and many appear only rarely or are confined to particular localities. At any one time, no more than around five hundred glyphs were in use, some two hundred of which (including variations) had a phonetic or syllabic interpretation.

    Aztec codices (singular codex) are books written by pre-Columbian and colonial-era Aztecs. These codices provide some of the best primary sources for Aztec culture. The pre-Columbian codices differ from European codices in that they are largely pictorial; they were not meant to symbolize spoken or written narratives.[59] The colonial era codices not only contain Aztec pictograms, but also Classical Nahuatl (in the Latin alphabet), Spanish, and occasionally Latin.

    The Wiigwaasabak, birch bark scrolls on which the Ojibwa (Anishinaabe) people wrote complex geometrical patterns and shapes, can also be considered a form of writing.

    Music and art

    Native American music in North America is almost entirely monophonic, but there are notable exceptions. Traditional Native American music often includes drumming but little other instrumentation, although flutes are played by individuals. The tuning of these flutes is not precise and depends on the length of the wood used and the hand span of the intended player, but the finger holes are most often around a whole step apart and, at least in Northern California, a flute was not used if it turned out to have an interval close to a half step.

    Music from indigenous peoples of Central Mexico and Central America often was pentatonic. Before the arrival of the Spaniards it was inseparable from religious festivities and included a large variety of percussion and wind instruments such as drums, flutes, sea snail shells (used as a kind of trumpet) and "rain" tubes. No remnants of pre-Columbian stringed instruments were found until archaeologists discovered a jar in Guatemala, attributed to the Maya of the Late Classic Era (600–900 AD), which depicts a stringed musical instrument which has since been reproduced. This instrument is astonishing in at least two respects. First, it is the only string instrument known in the Americas prior to the introduction of European musical instruments. Second, when played, it produces a sound virtually identical to a jaguar's growl. A sample of this sound is available at the Princeton Art Museum website.

    Art of the indigenous peoples of the Americas composes a major category in the world art collection. Contributions include pottery, paintings, jewellery, weavings, sculptures, basketry, carvings and hair pipes.[60]

    Due to the many artists posing as Native Americans, the United States passed the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, requiring artists prove that they are enrolled in a state or federally recognized tribe.

    Demography of contemporary populations

    The following table provides estimates of the per-country populations of indigenous people, and also those with part-indigenous ancestry, expressed as a percentage of the overall country population of each country that is comprised by indigenous peoples, and of people with partly indigenous descent. The total percentage obtained by adding both of these categories is also given.

    Note: these categories are inconsistently defined and measured differently from country to country. Some are based on the results of population wide genetic surveys, while others are based on self identification or observational estimation.

    Indigenous populations of the Americas
    as estimated percentage of total country's population
    Country Indigenous Ref. Part Indigenous Ref. Combined total Ref.
    North America
    Canada 1.8% [61] 3.6% [61] 5.4% [61]
    Mexico 30% [62] 60% [62] 90% [62]
    USA 0.9% [63] 0.6% [63] 1.5% [63]
    Central America
    Belize 16.7% [64] 33.8% [64] 50.5% [64]
    Costa Rica 1% [65] 15% [65] 16% [65]
    El Salvador 8% [66] 90% [66] 98% [66]
    Guatemala 40.8% [67]  %  %
    Honduras 7% [68] 90% [68] 97% [68]
    Nicaragua 5% [69] 69% [69] 74% [69]
    Panama 6% [70] 84% [70] 90% [70]
    Caribbean
    Antigua and Barbuda  %  %  %
    Barbados  %  %  %
    The Bahamas  %  %  %
    Cuba  %  %  %
    Dominica 2.9% [71]  %  %
    Dominican Republic  %  %  %
    Grenada ~0% [72] ~0% [72] ~0% [72]
    Haiti ~0% [73] ~0% [73] ~0% [73]
    Jamaica  %  %  %
    Puerto Rico 0.4% [74] 84% [75] 84%
    Saint Kitts and Nevis  %  %  %
    Saint Lucia  %  %  %
    Saint Vincent and
    the Grenadines
    2% [76]  %  %
    Suriname 2% [77]  %  %
    Trinidad and Tobago 0.8% 88% 80%
    South America
    Argentina 1.0% [78] 2% 3% [79]
    Bolivia 55% [80] 30% [80] 85% [80]
    Brazil 0.4% [81]  %  %
    Chile 4.6% [82]  %  %
    Colombia 1% [83] 61% [83] 62% [83]
    Ecuador 25% [84] 65% [84] 90% [84]
    French Guiana  %  %  %
    Guyana 9.1% [85]  %  %
    Paraguay  % 95% [86]  %
    Peru 45% [87] 37% [87] 82% [87]
    Uruguay 0% [88] 8% [88] 8% [88]
    Venezuela  %  %  %

    History and status by country

    Argentina

    Argentina's indigenous population is about 403,000 (0.9 percent of total population).[89] Indigenous nations include the Toba, Wichí, Mocoví, Pilagá, Chulupí, Diaguita-Calchaquí, Kolla, Guaraní (Tupí Guaraní and Avá Guaraní in the provinces of Jujuy and Salta, and Mbyá Guaraní in the province of Misiones), Chorote (Iyo'wujwa Chorote and Iyojwa'ja Chorote), Chané, Tapieté, Mapuche (probably the largest indigenous nation in Argentina) and Tehuelche. The Selknam (Ona) people are now virtually extinct in its pure form. The languages of the Diaguita, Tehuelche, and Selknam nations are now extinct or virtually extinct: the Cacán language (spoken by Diaguitas) in the 18th century, the Selknam language in the 20th century; whereas one Tehuelche language (Southern Tehuelche) is still spoken by a small handful of elderly people.

    Belize

    Mestizos (European with indigenous peoples) number about 34 percent of the population; unmixed Maya make up another 10.6 percent (Ketchi, Mopan, and Yucatec). The Garifuna, who came to Belize in the 1800s, originating from Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, with a mixed African, Carib, and Arawak ancestry make up another 6 percent of the population.[64]

    Bolivia

    In Bolivia, about 2.5 million people speak Quechua, 2.1 million speak Aymara, while Guaraní is only spoken by a few hundred thousand people. Also there are 36 recognized cultures and languages in the country. Although there are no official documents written in these languages, Quechua and Aymara were historically only ever oral languages until fragmented modern attempts at transcription and written standardization. Radio and some television in Quechua and Aymara is produced. However, the constitutional reform in 1997 for the first time recognized Bolivia as a multilingual, pluri-ethnic society and introduced education reform. In 2005, for the first time in the country's history, an indigenous descendant Aymara, Evo Morales, was elected as President.

    Morales began work on his “indigenous autonomy” policy which he launched in the eastern lowlands department on 3 August 2009, making Bolivia the first country in the history of South America to declare the right of indigenous people to govern themselves.[90] Speaking in Santa Cruz Department, the President called it "a historic day for the peasant and indigenous movement", saying that he might make errors but he would "never betray the fight started by our ancestors and the fight of the Bolivian people".[90] A vote on further autonomy will take place in referendums which are expected to be held in December 2009.[90] The issue has divided the country.[91]

    Brazil

    Brazilian Indigenous chiefs of the Kayapo tribe: Raony, Kaye, Kadjor, Panara

    The Amerindians make up 0.4% of Brazil's population, or about 700,000 people.[47] Indigenous peoples are found in the entire territory of Brazil, although the majority of them live in Indian reservations in the North and Centre-Western part of the country. On 18 January 2007, FUNAI reported that it had confirmed the presence of 67 different uncontacted tribes in Brazil, up from 40 in 2005. With this addition Brazil has now overtaken the island of New Guinea as the country having the largest number of uncontacted tribes.[92]

    Canada

    Bill Reid's sculpture The Raven and The First Men. The Raven represents the Trickster figure common to many mythologies.

    The most commonly preferred term for the indigenous peoples of what is now Canada is Aboriginal peoples. Of these Aboriginal peoples who are not Inuit or Métis, "First Nations" is the most commonly preferred term of self-identification. Aboriginal peoples make up approximately 3.8 percent of the Canadian population.[93] Canadian Inuit live in subarctic and arctic Canada, as well as Alaska, Greenland, and Siberia, and maintain their own distinct Inuit culture. First Nations are the American Indian tribes of Canada, while Métis are a distinct group of people descended from First Nations peoples and French traders.

    Despite an ancient history of their own, Canadian Aboriginal peoples cultures have sometimes been written about as if their history began with the encroachment of Europeans onto the continent.[94] This is because the First Nations, Inuit and Métis "written" history began with European accounts, as in documentation by trappers, traders, explorers, and missionaries (cf. the Codex canadiensis). Although not without conflict or some slavery, Canada's early interactions with First Nations populations were relatively peaceful, compared to the experience of native peoples in the United States. Combined with relatively late economic development in many regions, this peaceful history has allowed Canadian native peoples to have a relatively strong influence on the national culture while preserving their own identity.[95] Nevertheless, explorers and traders brought European diseases, such as smallpox, which killed off entire villages. Relations varied between the settlers and the Natives. Today, a revival of pride in First Nations, Inuit and Métis art and music is taking place, and the beauty created by traditional Aboriginals has become a dominant art style in Canada.[96]

    Chile

    According to the 2002 Census, 4.6% of the Chilean population was Indian, although most show varying degrees of miscegenation.[97] Many are descendants of the Mapuche, and live in the country's central valley and lake district. The Mapuche successfully fought off defeat in the first 300–350 years of Spanish rule during the Arauco War. Relation with the new Chilean Republic were good until the Chilean state decided to occupy their lands. During the Occupation of Araucanía the Mapuche surrendered to the country's army in the 1880s. The former land was opened to settlement for Chileans and Europeans. Conflict over Mapuche land rights continued until present days.

    Colombia

    Sculpture of a Chibchan-Sutagao Native American standing at the entrance of Fusagasugá, Colombia

    A small minority today within Colombia's overwhelmingly Mestizo and Afro-Colombian population, Colombia's indigenous peoples nonetheless encompass at least 85 distinct cultures and more than 1,378,884 people.[98][99] A variety of collective rights for indigenous peoples are recognized in the 1991 Constitution.

    One of these is the Muisca culture, a subset of the larger Chibcha ethnic group, famous for their use of gold, which led to the legend of El Dorado. At the time of the Spanish conquest, the Chibchas were the largest native civilization between the Incas and the Aztecs.

    Costa Rica

    Costa Rica was the site of many indigenous cultures, but only eight remain today: Bribri, Boruca, Cabecar, Chorotega, Guaymí, Huetar, Maleku and Terraba, also called Teribe or Naso.[citation needed]

    Ecuador

    Otavaleña girl from Ecuador

    Ecuador was the site of many indigenous cultures, and civilizations of different proportions. An early sedentary culture, known as the Valdivia culture, developed in the coastal region, while the Caras and the Quitus unified to form an elaborate civilization that ended at the birth of the Capital Quito. The Cañaris near Cuenca were the most advanced, and most feared by the Inca, due to their fierce resistance to the Incan expansion. Their architecture remains were later destroyed by Spaniards and the Incas.

    Approximately 96.4% of Ecuador's are Highland Quichuas living in the valleys of the Sierra region. Primarily consisting of the descendents of Incans, they are Kichwa speakers and include the Caranqui, the Otavaleños, the Cayambi, the Quitu-Caras, the Panzaleo, the Chimbuelo, the Salasacan, the Tugua, the Puruhá, the Cañari, and the Saraguro. Linguistic evidence suggests that the Salascan and the Saraguro may have been the descendants of Bolivian ethnic groups transplanted to Ecuador as mitimaes.

    Coastal groups, including the Awá, Chachi, and the Tsáchila, make up 24% percent of the indigenous population, while the remaining 3.35 percent live in the Oriente and consist of the Oriente Kichwa (the Canelo and the Quijos), the Shuar, the Huaorani, the Siona-Secoya, the Cofán, and the Achuar.

    In 1986, indigenous people formed the first "truly" national political organization. The Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) has been the primary political institution of the Indigenous since then and is now the second largest political party in the nation. It has been influential in national politics, contributing to the ouster of presidents Abdalá Bucaram in 1997 and Jamil Mahuad in 2000.

    El Salvador

    Much of El Salvador was home to the Pipil, Lenca, and a number of Maya. The Pipil lived in western El Salvador, spoke Nahuat, and had many settlements there. The Pipil had no treasure but held land that had rich and fertile soil, good for farming. This both disappointed and garnered attention from the Spaniards who were shocked not to find gold or jewels in El Salvador like they did in other lands like Guatemala or Mexico, but later learned of the fertile land El Salvador had to offer and attempted to conquer it. At first the Pipil had repelled Spanish Attacks but after many other attacks they had stopped fighting and many were used for labor by Spaniards. Today many Pipil and Indigenous populations live in small towns of El Salvador like Izalco, Panchimalco, Sacacoyo, and Nahuizalco.

    Guatemala

    Many of the indigenous peoples of Guatemala are of Maya heritage. Other groups are Xinca people and Garifuna.

    Pure Maya account for some 40 percent of the population; although around 40 percent of the population speaks an indigenous language, those tongues (of which there are more than 20) enjoy no official status. Guatemala's majority population holds a percentage of 59.4% in White or Mestizo (of mixed White and Amerindian ancestry) people. The area of Livingston, Guatemala is highly influenced by the Caribbean and its population includes a combination of Mestizos and Garifuna people.

    Honduras

    About 5 percent of the population are of full-blooded Amerindian descent, but upwards to 80 percent more or the majority of Hondurans are mestizo or part-Amerindian with Caucasian, and about 10 percent are of Amerindian and/or African descent. The main concentration of Amerindians in Honduras are in the rural westernmost areas facing Guatemala and to the Caribbean Sea coastline, as well on the Nicaraguan border. The majority of indigenous people are Lencas, Miskitos to the east, Mayans, Pech, Sumos, and Tolupan.

    Mexico

    Benito Juárez, an indigenous Zapotec and President of Mexico from 1858 to 1872. He was the first president with indigenous roots in the Americas.

    The territory of modern-day Mexico was home to numerous indigenous civilizations prior to the arrival of the Spanish conquistadores: The Olmecs, who flourished from between 1200 BCE to about 400 BCE in the coastal regions of the Gulf of Mexico; the Zapotecs and the Mixtecs, who held sway in the mountains of Oaxaca and the Isthmus of Tehuantepec; the Maya in the Yucatán (and into neighbouring areas of contemporary Central America); the Purepecha or Tarascan in present day Michoacán and surrounding areas, and the Aztecs, who, from their central capital at Tenochtitlan, dominated much of the centre and south of the country (and the non-Aztec inhabitants of those areas) when Hernán Cortés first landed at Veracruz.

    In contrast to what was the general rule in the rest of North America, the history of the colony of New Spain was one of racial intermingling (mestizaje). Mestizos quickly came to account for a majority of the colony's population; however, significant numbers and communities of indígenas (as the native peoples are now known) survive to the present day.

    In the states of Chiapas and Oaxaca and in the interior of the Yucatán peninsula the majority of the population is indigenous. Large indigenous minorities, including Aztecs, P'urhépechas, and Mixtecs are also present in the central regions of Mexico. In Northern Mexico indigenous people are a small minority.

    The General Law of Linguistic Rights of the Indigenous Peoples grants all indigenous languages spoken in Mexico, regardless of the number of speakers, the same validity as Spanish in all territories in which they are spoken, and indigenous peoples are entitled to request some public services and documents in their native languages.[100] Along with Spanish, the law has granted them — more than 60 languages — the status of "national languages". The law includes all Amerindian languages regardless of origin; that is, it includes the Amerindian languages of ethnic groups non-native to the territory. As such the National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples recognizes the language of the Kickapoo, who immigrated from the United States,[101] and recognizes the languages of the Guatemalan Amerindian refugees.[102] The Mexican government has promoted and established bilingual primary and secondary education in some indigenous rural communities. Nonetheless, of the indigenous peoples in Mexico, only about 67% of them (or 7.1% of the country's population) speak an Amerindian language and about a sixth do not speak Spanish (1.2% of the country's population).[103]

    The indigenous peoples in Mexico have the right of free determination under the second article of the constitution. According to this article the indigenous peoples are granted:[104]

    • the right to decide the internal forms of social, economic, political and cultural organization;

    the right to apply their own normative systems of regulation as long as human rights and gender equality are respected;

    • the right to preserve and enrich their languages and cultures;
    • the right to elect representatives before the municipal council in which their territories are located;

    amongst other rights.

    Nicaragua

    The Miskito are a native people in Central America. Their territory extended from Cape Camarón, Honduras, to Rio Grande, Nicaragua along the Mosquito Coast. There is a native Miskito language, but large groups speak Miskito Coastal Creole, Spanish, Rama and other languages. The Creole English came about through frequent contact with the British who colonized the area. Many are Christians.

    Traditional Miskito society was highly structured with a defined political structure. There was a king, but he did not have total power. Instead, the power was split between himself, a governor, a general, and by the 1750s, an admiral. Historical information on kings is often obscured by the fact that many of the kings were semi-mythical.

    Peru

    Most Peruvians are either indigenous[105] or mestizos (of mixed Indigenous and European ancestry). Peru has the largest indigenous population of South America, and its traditions and customs have shaped the way Peruvians live and see themselves today. Cultural citizenship—or what Renato Rosaldo has called, "the right to be different and to belong, in a democratic, participatory sense" (1996:243)—is not yet very well developed in Peru. This is perhaps no more apparent than in the country's Amazonian regions where indigenous societies continue to struggle against state-sponsored economic abuses, cultural discrimination, and pervasive violence.[106]

    United States

    A Choctaw Belle, Painted by P. Romer

    Indigenous peoples in what is now the contiguous United States are commonly called "American Indians", or just "Indians" domestically, but are also often referred to as "Native Americans". In Alaska, indigenous peoples, which include Native Americans, Yupik and Inupiat Eskimos, and Aleuts, are referred to collectively as Alaska Natives.

    Native Americans and Alaska Natives make up 2 percent of the population, with more than 6 million people identifying themselves as such, although only 1.8 million are recognized as registered tribal members. Tribes have established their own rules for membership, some of which are increasingly exclusive. More people have unrecognized Native American ancestry together with other ethnic groups. A minority of U.S. Native Americans live in land units called Indian reservations. Some southwestern U.S. tribes, such as the Yaqui and Apache, have registered tribal communities in Northern Mexico. Similarly, some northern bands of Blackfoot reside in southern Alberta, Canada, in addition to within US borders.

    An Inuit woman

    A number of Kumeyaay communities may be found in Baja California del Norte.

    Venezuela

    Most Venezuelans have some indigenous heritage, but the indigenous population make up only around 2% of the total population. They speak around 29 different languages and many more dialects, but some of the ethnic groups are very small and their languages are in danger of becoming extinct in the next decades. The most important indigenous groups are the Yekuanas Wayuu, the Pemons and the Waraos. The most advanced native people to have lived in present-day Venezuela is thought to have been the Timoto-cuicas, who mainly lived in the Venezuelan Andes. In total it is estimated that there were between 350 thousand and 500 thousand inhabitants, the most densely populated area being the Andean region (Timoto-cuicas), thanks to the advanced agricultural techniques used.

    The 1999 constitution gives them special rights, although the vast majority of them still live in very critical conditions of poverty. The largest groups receive some basic primary education in their languages.

    Other parts of the Americas

    Indigenous peoples make up the majority of the population in Bolivia and Peru, and are a significant element in most other former Spanish colonies. Exceptions to this include Costa Rica, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Argentina, Dominican Republic, and Uruguay. At least three of the native American languages (Quechua in Peru and Bolivia; Aymara also in Peru, Bolivia and Chile, and Guaraní in Paraguay) are recognized along with Spanish as national languages (or Aymara in Chile, by regional basis).

    Native American name controversy

    The Native American name controversy is an ongoing dispute over the acceptable ways to refer to the indigenous peoples of the Americas and to broad subsets thereof, such as those living in a specific country or sharing certain cultural attributes. Once-common terms like "Indian" remain in use, despite the introduction of terms such as "Native American" and "Amerindian" during the latter half of the 20th century.[107][108][109]

    Rise of indigenous movements

    Amerikanska folk (Native Americans), from the Nordisk familjebok (1904), vol. 1., accredited to the Bibliographisches Institut, Leipzig

    In recent years, there has been a rise of indigenous movements in the Americas (mainly South America). These are rights-driven groups that organize themselves in order to achieve some sort of self-determination and the preservation of their culture for their peoples. Organizations like the Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin and the Indian Council of South America are examples of movements that are breaking the barrier of borders in order to obtain rights for Amazonian indigenous populations everywhere. Similar movements for indigenous rights can also be seen in Canada and the United States, with movements like the International Indian Treaty Council and the accession of native Indian group into the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization.

    There has also been a recognition of indigenous movements on an international scale, with the United Nations adopting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, despite dissent from the stronger countries of the Americas.

    Moves towards the rights of the indigenous in Leftist countries of Latin America, led to a surge in activity in historically the most right-winged state in South America. In Colombia various indigenous groups protested the denial of their rights. People organized a march in Cali in October 2008 to demand the government live up to promises to protect indigenous lands, defend the indigenous against violence, and reconsider the free trade pact with the United States.[110]

    Legal prerogative

    With the rise to power of Leftist governments in Venezuela, Ecuador, Paraguay, and especially Bolivia where Evo Morales was the first indigenous descendant elected president of Bolivia, the indigenous movement gained a strong foothold.

    Representatives from indigenous and rural organizations from major South American countries, including Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia, Chile and Brazil, started a forum in support of Morales' legal process of change. The meeting condemned plans by the European "foreign" power elite to destabilize the country. The forum also expressed solidarity with the Morales and his economic and social changes in the interest of historically marginalized majorities. Furthermore, in a cathartic blow to the US-backed elite, it questioned US interference through diplomats and NGO's. The forum was suspicious of plots against Bolivia and other countries, including Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Paraguay and Nicaragua.[111]

    The forum rejected the supposed violent method used by regional civic leaders from the called "Crescent departments" in Bolivia to impose their autonomous statutes, applauded the decision to expel the US ambassador to Bolivia, and reafirmed the sovereignty and independence of the presidency. Amongst others, representatives of CONAIE, the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia, the Chilean Council of All Lands, and the Brazilian Landless Movement participated in the forum.[111]

    Genetics

    mtDNA-based chart showing Haplogroups
    A, C, D, X and B entering the Americas.
    Genealogy by Genetics -Family Tree DNA, c.2005

    Molecular genetics study suggests that Amerindian populations derived from a theoretical single founding population, possibly from only 50 to 70 genetic contributors.[112] Preliminary research, restricted to only 9 genomic regions (or loci) have shown a genetic link between original Americas and Asia populations. The study does not address the question of separate migrations for these groups, and excludes other DNA data-sets.[113]

    The American Journal of Human Genetics released an article in 2007 stating "Here we show, by using 86 complete mitochondrial genomes, that all Indigenous Americans haplogroups, including haplogroup X, were part of a single founding population."[114] Amerindian groups in the Bering Strait region exhibit perhaps the strongest DNA or mitochondrial DNA relations to Siberian peoples. The genetic diversity of Amerindian indigenous groups increase with distance from the assumed entry point into the Americas.[115][116] Certain genetic diversity patterns from West to East suggest at least some coastal migration events.[117] Geneticists have variously estimated that peoples of Asia and the Americas were part of the same population from 42,000 to 21,000 years ago.[118]

    See also

    Notes

    1. ^ a b "Terminology of First Nations, Native, Aboriginal and Indian" (pdf). the Office of the Aboriginal Advisor for Aboriginals. http://www.aidp.bc.ca/terminology_of_native_aboriginal_metis.pdf. Retrieved 2009-11-11. "Native is a word similar in meaning to Aboriginal. Native Peoples or First peoples is a collective term to describe the descendants of the original peoples of North America" 
    2. ^ a b "Terminology". Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ap/tln-eng.asp. Retrieved 2009-11-11. "The Canadian Constitution recognizes three groups of Aboriginal people — Indians (First Nations), Métis and Inuit. These are three separate peoples with unique heritages, languages, cultural practices and spiritual beliefs" 
    3. ^ Jacobs, James Q. (2001). "The Paleoamericans: Issues and Evidence Relating to the Peopling of the New World". Anthropology and Archaeology Pages. jqjacobs.net. http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleoamericans.html. Retrieved 14 September 2009. 
    4. ^ a b Jacobs, James Q. (2002). "Paleoamerican Origins: A Review of Hypotheses and Evidence Relating to the Origins of the First Americans". Anthropology and Archaeology Pages. jqjacobs.net. http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleoamerican_origins.html. Retrieved 14 September 2009. 
    5. ^ a b Mann, Charles C. (2005). 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. New York: Knopf Publishing Group. ISBN 1-400-04006-X. OCLC 56632601. 
    6. ^ Chawkins, Steve (11 September 2006). "DNA Ties Together Scattered Peoples: Data on descendants of the Chumash spur new ideas about the first settlers of the Americas". The Los Angeles Times. National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. http://www.nathpo.org/News/NAGPRA/News-NAGPRA103.html. Retrieved 14 September 2009. 
    7. ^ Kemp, Brian M.; et al. (2007). "Genetic Analysis of Early Holocene Skeletal Remains From Alaska and its Implications for the Settlement of the Americas". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 132 (4): 605-621. doi:10.1002/ajpa.20543. ISSN 0002-9483. OCLC 103724002. http://www.sjdimond.us/document/2007_AlaskanRemains.pdf. 
    8. ^ Jones, Peter N. (2005). Respect for the Ancestors: American Indian Cultural Affiliation in the American West. Boulder, Colo.: Bauu Institute. ISBN 0-9721349-2-1. OCLC 123903667. 
    9. ^ See also Classification of indigenous peoples of the Americas
    10. ^ Fagundes, Nelson J.R.; Ricardo Kanitz, Roberta Eckert, Ana C.S. Valls, Mauricio R. Bogo, Francisco M. Salzano, David Glenn Smith, Wilson A. Silva, Marco A. Zago, Andrea K. Ribeiro-dos-Santos, Sidney E.B. Santos, Maria Luiza Petzl-Erler, and Sandro L.Bonatto (2008). "Mitochondrial Population Genomics Supports a Single Pre-Clovis Origin with a Coastal Route for the Peopling of the Americas". American Journal of Human Genetics 82 (3): 583-592.
    11. ^ Jablonski, Nina G.; I Randolph Daniel Jr. (2001). "Book Reviews - The First Americans: The Pleistocene Colonization of the New World". Journal of Field Archaeology 28 (3): 459-462. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3181448. 
    12. ^ Thornton, Bruce S. (2 July 2006). "New World, Old Myths: A review of Charles C. Mann's 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus". VDH's Private Papers. Claremont Review of Books. http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton070206.html. Retrieved 14 September 2009. 
    13. ^ Taylor, Alan (2001). American colonies. The Penguin history of the United States. New York: Viking. p. 40. ISBN 0-670-87282-2. OCLC 45804613. 
    14. ^ Carey, Bjorn (19 February 2006).First Americans may have been European.Life Science. Retrieved on August 10, 2007.
    15. ^ Conner, Steve, Science Editor, (3 December 2002).Does skull prove that the first Americans came from Europe?. Published in the UK Independent. Retrieved on August 14, 2007.
    16. ^ Hecht, Jeff (4 September 2003).Skulls narrow clues to First AmericansNew Scientist. Retrieved on August 12, 2007.
    17. ^ Gonzalez, Sylvia, C. Jimenez-Lopez, R. Hedges, D. Huddart, J.C. Ohman, A. Turner, J.A. Pompa y Padilla (2003). Earliest humans in the Americas: new evidence from Mexico, Journal of Human Evolution 44, 379–387.
    18. ^ "Atlas of the Human Journey". National Genographic. https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html?era=e003. 
    19. ^ "Indians in the Americas: the untold story". By William Marder. http://books.google.ca/books?id=Obgdz8auwkMC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=8000+years+ago+in+the+americas&source=bl&ots=c47JAVxZ-Z&sig=KorOEXZ4UJ1DRvakZhjG73wlH0o&hl=en&ei=SBWeSpKvAozTlAfK4vDTDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#v=onepage&q=8000%20years%20ago%20in%20the%20americas&f=false. 
    20. ^ Richard Erdoes, Alfonso Ortiz, (Eds.) "American Indian Myths and Legends." Pantheon, 1985.
    21. ^ Vine Deloria, Jr. "Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans and the Myth of Scientific Fact." Fulcrum Inc. 1999.
    22. ^ "Native Americans of North America", Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2006, Trudy Griffin-Pierce. Retrieved September 14, 2006. Archived 2009-11-01.
    23. ^ a b "Espagnols-Indiens: le choc des civilisations" in L'Histoire, n°322, July-August 2007, pp.14–21
    24. ^ "Smallpox Through History". Archived from the original on 2009-10-31. http://www.webcitation.org/query?id=1257008292443871. 
    25. ^ Laws of Burgos, 1512-1513
    26. ^ Cook, p. 1.
    27. ^ BBC Smallpox: Eradicating the Scourge
    28. ^ The Story Of... Smallpox – and other Deadly Eurasian Germs
    29. ^ American Indian Epidemics
    30. ^ Smallpox: The Disease That Destroyed Two Empires
    31. ^ Epidemics
    32. ^ American plague, New Scientist
    33. ^ Oaxaca
    34. ^ Smallpox's history in the world
    35. ^ Stacy Goodling, "Effects of European Diseases on the Inhabitants of the New World"
    36. ^ "Aboriginal Distributions 1630 to 1653". Natural Resources Canada.
    37. ^ David A. Koplow, Smallpox: The Fight to Eradicate a Global Scourge
    38. ^ Dutch Children's Disease Kills Thousands of Mohawks
    39. ^ Smallpox
    40. ^ Iroquois
    41. ^ Smallpox epidemic ravages Native Americans on the northwest coast of North America in the 1770s.
    42. ^ The first smallpox epidemic on the Canadian Plains: In the fur-traders' words
    43. ^ Mountain Man Plain Indian Fur Trade
    44. ^ Lewis Cass and the Politics of Disease: The Indian Vaccination Act of 1832
    45. ^ Wicazo Sa Review: Vol. 18, No. 2, The Politics of Sovereignty (Autumn, 2003), pp. 9–35
    46. ^ '500 Years of Brazil's Discovery'
    47. ^ a b Brazil urged to protect Indians
    48. ^ See Varese (2004), as reviewed in Dean (2006).
    49. ^ Ancient Horse (Equus cf. E. complicatus), The Academy of Natural Sciences, Thomas Jefferson Fossil Collection, Philadelphia, PA, (See: species Equus scotti) Others died out at the end of the last ice age with other megafauna.
    50. ^ "Native Americans: The First Farmers." AgExporter October 1 1999
    51. ^ Spooner, DM; et al. (2005). "A single domestication for potato based on multilocus amplified fragment length polymorphism genotyping". PNAS 102 (41): 14694–99. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507400102.  Lay summary
    52. ^ Miller, N (2008-01-29). "Using DNA, scientists hunt for the roots of the modern potato". American Association for the Advancement of Science. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-01/uow-uds012908.php. Retrieved 2008-09-10. 
    53. ^ Solis, JS; et al. (2007). "Molecular description and similarity relationships among native germplasm potatoes (Solanum tuberosum ssp. tuberosum L.) using morphological data and AFLP markers". Electronic Journal of Biotechnology 10 (3): 0. doi:10.2225/vol10-issue3-fulltext-14. http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0717-34582007000300011&lng=en&nrm=. 
    54. ^ John Michael Francis (2005). Iberia and the Americas. ABC-CLIO. http://books.google.com/books?id=OMNoS-g1h8cC&pg=PA867&dq=artistic+potato&as_brr=3&client=firefox-a. 
    55. ^ Owen, Wayne (2002). "Chapter 2 (TERRA–2): The History of Native Plant Communities in the South". Southern Forest Resource Assessment Final Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain/report/terra2/terra2.htm. Retrieved 2008-07-29. 
    56. ^ David L. Lentz, ed (2000). Imperfect balance: landscape transformations in the Precolumbian Americas. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 241–242. ISBN 0-231-11157-6. 
    57. ^ Michael Pollan, The Omnivore's Dilemma
    58. ^ Skidmore, Joel (2006). "The Cascajal Block: The Earliest Precolumbian Writing". Mesoweb Reports & News. pp. 1-4. http://www.mesoweb.com/reports/Cascajal.pdf. Retrieved 14 September 2009. 
    59. ^ Elizabeth Hill Boone, "Pictorial Documents and Visual Thinking in Postconquest Mexico". p. 158.
    60. ^ ""Hair Pipes in Plains Indian Adornment" by John C. Ewers". Sil.si.edu. http://www.sil.si.edu/DigitalCollections/BAE/Bulletin164/tptoc.htm. Retrieved 2009-09-14. 
    61. ^ a b c Aboriginal Ancestory, 2006 Census
    62. ^ a b c Mexico entry at The World Factbook
    63. ^ a b c Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin, 2000 US Census (Page 3-4)
    64. ^ a b c d "Belize 2000 Housing and Population Census". Belize Central Statistical Office. 2000. http://celade.cepal.org/cgibin/RpWebEngine.exe/PortalAction?&MODE=MAIN&BASE=CPVBLZ2000&MAIN=WebServerMain.inl. Retrieved 2008-09-30. 
    65. ^ a b c "CIA - The World Factbook - Costa Rica". Cia.gov. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cs.html. Retrieved 2009-09-14. 
    66. ^ a b c El Salvador entry at The World Factbook
    67. ^ Guatemala entry at The World Factbook
    68. ^ a b c Honduras entry at The World Factbook
    69. ^ a b c Nicaragua entry at The World Factbook
    70. ^ a b c Panama entry at The World Factbook
    71. ^ Dominica entry at The World Factbook
    72. ^ a b c Grenada entry at The World Factbook
    73. ^ a b c Haiti entry at The World Factbook
    74. ^ Puerto Rico entry at The World Factbook
    75. ^ Bonilla et al., Ancestral proportions and their association with skin pigmentation and bone mineral density in Puerto Rican women from New York City. Hum Gen (2004) 115: 57-58, and Reconstructing the population history of Puerto Rico by means of mtDNA phylogeographic analysis, Martinez-Cruzado et al, Am J Phys Anthropol. 2005 [1]
    76. ^ Suriname entry at The World Factbook
    77. ^ Suriname entry at The World Factbook
    78. ^ Primeros Resultados de la Encuesta Complementaria de Pueblos Indígenas (ECPI)
    79. ^ Argentina entry at The World Factbook
    80. ^ a b c Bolivia entry at The World Factbook
    81. ^ População residente, por cor ou raça, segundo a situação do domicílio - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística
    82. ^ Chile entry at The World Factbook
    83. ^ a b c Colombia entry at The World Factbook
    84. ^ a b c Ecuador entry at The World Factbook
    85. ^ Guyana entry at The World Factbook
    86. ^ Paraguay entry at The World Factbook
    87. ^ a b c Peru entry at The World Factbook
    88. ^ a b c Uruguay entry at The World Factbook
    89. ^ INDEC: Encuesta Complementaria de Pueblos Indígenas (ECPI) 2004 - 2005
    90. ^ a b c "Bolivian president Morales launches the “indigenous autonomy”". MercoPress. 2009-08-03. http://en.mercopress.com/2009/08/03/bolivian-president-morales-launches-the-indigenous-autonomy. Retrieved 2009-08-05. 
    91. ^ "Bolivian Indians in historic step". BBC. 2009-08-03. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8180790.stm. Retrieved 2009-08-05. 
    92. ^ Brazil sees traces of more isolated Amazon tribes
    93. ^ Aboriginal People. Statistics Canada. Release No. 5: 15 Jan 2008 . Retrieved 12 March 2009.
    94. ^ George Woodcock A Social History of Canada, 1988; Eric Wolf, Europe and the People Without History, 1982.
    95. ^ A Dialogue on Foreign Policy. Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. 2003-01. pp. 15-16. http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca/pdf/DialogueEng.pdf. Retrieved 2006-11-30. 
    96. ^ Wolf, chapter 8
    97. ^ El gradiente sociogenético chileno y sus implicaciones ético-sociales.
    98. ^ DANE 2005 national census
    99. ^ "HEALTH EQUITY AND ETHNIC MINORITIES IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS", Pier Paolo Balladelli, José Milton Guzmán, Marcelo Korc, Paula Moreno, Gabriel Rivera, The Commission on Social Health Determinants, Pan American Health Organization, World Health Organization, Bogotá, Colombia, 2007
    100. ^ (Spanish) "Ley General de Derechos Lingüísticos de los Pueblos Indígenas (General Law of the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples)" (PDF). CDI México. http://cdi.gob.mx/derechos/vigencia/2006_ley_general_derechos_linguisticos_pueblos_indigenas.pdf. Retrieved 2007-10-02. 
    101. ^ "Kikapúes — Kikaapoa". CDI México. http://www.cdi.gob.mx/index.php?id_seccion=291. Retrieved 2007-10-02. 
    102. ^ "Aguacatecos, cakchiqueles, ixiles, kekchíes, tecos y quichés". CDI México. http://cdi.gob.mx/index.php?id_seccion=1378. Retrieved 2007-10-02. 
    103. ^ "Poblicación de 5 años y más por Entidad Federativa, sexo y grupos lengüa indígena quinquenales de edad, y su distribución según condición de habla indígena y habla española" (PDF). INEGI, México. http://www.inegi.gob.mx/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/censos/poblacion/2000/definitivos/Nal/tabulados/00li01.pdf. Retrieved 2007-12-13. 
    104. ^ Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos MexicanosPDF (779 KB). Second article.
    105. ^ Dean, Bartholomew 2009 Urarina Society, Cosmology, and History in Peruvian Amazonia, Gainesville: University Press of Florida ISBN 978-081303378 [2]
    106. ^ Dean, Bartholomew 2009 Urarina Society, Cosmology, and History in Peruvian Amazonia, Gainesville: University Press of Florida ISBN 978-081303378 [3]
    107. ^ The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2000. ISBN 0-395-82517-2 (hardcover), ISBN 0-618-08230-1hardcover with CD ROM)
    108. ^ Mandel, Michael. The Charter of Rights and the Legalization of Politics in Canada. Revised, Updated and Expanded Edition. (Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing, Inc., 1994), pp. 354-356.
    109. ^ ( R.S., 1985, c. I-5 )Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, Section Twenty-five of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 35.
    110. ^ http://africa.reuters.com/world/news/usnTRE49M10G.html Reuters[dead link]
    111. ^ a b http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B59DF5FFB-B4C1-4E06-B315-BA3A23C1F081%7D)&language=EN[dead link]
    112. ^ "On the Number of New World Founders: A Population Genetic Portrait of the Peopling of the Americas". PubMed Central (PMC) is the U.S. National Institutes of Health. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1131883. Retrieved 2009-11-17. 
    113. ^ "Nomenclature for Incompletely Specified Bases in Nucleic Acid Sequences". NC-IUB. 1984. http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iubmb/misc/naseq.html. Retrieved 2009-11-19. 
    114. ^ "First Americans". Southern Methodist University-David J. Meltzer, B.A., M.A., Ph.D. http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10794.php. Retrieved 2009-11-17. 
    115. ^ "The peopling of the Americas: Genetic ancestry influences health". Scientific American. http://www.physorg.com/news169474130.html. Retrieved 2009-11-22. 
    116. ^ First Americans Endured 20,000-Year Layover - Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News, http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/13/beringia-native-american-02.html, retrieved 2009-11-18 
    117. ^ "Genetic Variation and Population Structure in Native Americans". PLoS Genetics. 2007. p. 3(11). http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.0030185. Retrieved 2009-11-18. 
    118. ^ Fagundes, Nelson J.R.; Ricardo Kanitz, Roberta Eckert, Ana C.S. Valls, Mauricio R. Bogo, Francisco M. Salzano, David Glenn Smith, Wilson A. Silva, Marco A. Zago, Andrea K. Ribeiro-dos-Santos, Sidney E.B. Santos, Maria Luiza Petzl-Erler, and Sandro L.Bonatto (2008). "Mitochondrial Population Genomics Supports a Single Pre-Clovis Origin with a Coastal Route for the Peopling of the Americas" (pdf). American Journal of Human Genetics 82 (3): 583-592. http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Fagundes-et-al.pdf. Retrieved 2009-11-19. 

    References

    External links



     
     

    Did you mean: Native American (people, North America), Native Americans (in dreams), antiquity and prehistory of the Americas (in history), Native American (dream symbols) More...

    Learn More
    Apaches (History)
    Hatteras
    Rogue River War

    Are you a native american? Read answer...
    What is an native american? Read answer...
    What is a native american? Read answer...

    Help us answer these
    Where are the native americans from?
    What do native americans get?
    Where is native american?

    Post a question - any question - to the WikiAnswers community:

     

    Copyrights:

    Dictionary. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2007, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.  Read more
    US Supreme Court. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Copyright © 1992, 2005 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.  Read more
    Archaeology Dictionary. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology. Copyright © 2002, 2003 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.  Read more
    US History Encyclopedia. © 2006 through a partnership of Answers Corporation. All rights reserved.  Read more
    Columbia Encyclopedia. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/ Read more
    Science Dictionary. The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Edited by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.  Read more
    Quotes By. Copyright © 2008 QuotationsBook.com. All rights reserved.  Read more
    Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Indigenous peoples of the Americas" Read more