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.
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
— Rennard J. Strickland
A general term for the past and aboriginal inhabitants of North America, thus distinguishing them from European and other settlers and their descendants.
"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.
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).
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."
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.
| Quechua women in the Andahuaylillas District of Peru, 2007 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Total population | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Approximately 48 million | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Regions with significant populations | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (not including mixed race populations in Latin America) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Languages | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Religion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Native American mythology Native American religion Christianity |
The indigenous peoples of the Americas are the pre-Columbian inhabitants of North and South America and their descendants. Pueblos indígenas (indigenous peoples) is a common term in Spanish-speaking countries. Aborígen (aboriginal/native) is used in Argentina, while "Amerindian" is used in Guyana, but not commonly used in other countries.[21] Indigenous peoples are known in Canada as Aboriginal peoples,[22] and in the United States as Native Americans.[23]
According to a prevailing New World migration model, migrations 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 migration could have taken place around 12,000 years ago, with the earliest period remaining a matter of some unresolved contention.[24][25] These early Paleo-Indians soon spread throughout the Americas, diversifying into many hundreds of culturally distinct nations and tribes.[25] 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.[26][27][28][29][30][31] Later the name was still used as the Americas at the time were often called West Indies. 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. The term "Indian" does not include indigenous peoples such as the Aleuts, Alutiiq, Cupik, Yupik, and Inuit peoples.
While some indigenous peoples of the Americas were traditionally hunter-gatherers, and many, especially in Amazonia still are, many groups practiced aquaculture and agriculture. The impact of their agricultural endowment to the world is a testament to their time and work in reshaping and cultivating the flora indigenous to the Americas.[32] 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 empires.
Many parts of the Americas are still populated by indigenous Americans; some countries have sizable populations, especially Bolivia, Peru, Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia, and Ecuador. At least a thousand different indigenous languages are spoken in the Americas. Some, such as Quechua languages, Aymara, Guaraní, Mayan languages, and Nahuatl, count their speakers in millions. 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
|
According to the New World migration model, a migration of humans from Eurasia to the Americas took place via Beringia, a land bridge that connected the two continents across what is now the Bering Strait. The most recent point at which this migration could have taken place, where the first Americans set foot on Alaska, is 40,000 - 12,000 years ago; a hotly disputed topic.[24][25] The early Paleo-Indians spread throughout the Americas, diversifying into many hundreds of culturally distinct nations and tribes.[25] 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.
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 and cultivating the flora indigenous to the Americas.[32] 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 empires.
Many parts of the Americas are still populated by indigenous Americans; some countries have sizable populations, especially Bolivia, Peru, Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia, and Ecuador. At least a thousand different indigenous languages are spoken in the Americas.[33] Some, such as Quechua languages, Aymara, Guaraní, Mayan languages, and Nahuatl, count their speakers in millions. 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 uncontacted peoples.
The specifics of Paleo-Indian migration to and throughout the Americas, including the exact dates and routes traveled, are subject to ongoing research and discussion.[36] The traditional Western theory has been that these early migrants moved into the Beringia land bridge between eastern Siberia and present-day Alaska around 40,000—16,500 years ago,[37][38][39][40] when sea levels were significantly lowered due to the Quaternary glaciation.[36][41] These people are believed to have followed herds of now-extinct Pleistocene megafauna along ice-free corridors that stretched between the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets.[42] Another route proposed is that, either on foot or using primitive boats, they migrated down the Pacific Northwest coast to South America.[43] Evidence of the latter would since have been covered by a sea level rise of hundreds of meters following the last ice age.[44]
The time range of 40,000—16,500 years ago is a hot topic of debate and will be for years to come. The few agreements achieved to date are the origin from Central Asia, with widespread habitation of the Americas during the end of the last glacial period, or more specifically what is known as the late glacial maximum, around 16,000 — 13,000 years before present.[40][45]
Stone tools, particularly projectile points and scrapers, are the primary evidence of the earliest human activity in the Americas. Crafted lithic flaked tools are used by archaeologists and anthropologists to classify cultural periods.[46] Scientific evidence links indigenous Americans to Asian peoples, specifically eastern Siberian populations. Indigenous peoples of the Americas have been linked to North Asian populations by linguistic factors, the distribution of blood types, and in genetic composition as reflected by molecular data, such as DNA.[47]
The Pre-Columbian era incorporates all period subdivisions in the history and prehistory of the Americas before the appearance of significant European and African influences on the American continents, spanning the time of the original settlement in the Upper Paleolithic to European colonization during the Early Modern period.[48]
While technically referring to the era before Christopher Columbus's voyages of 1492 to 1504, in practice the term usually includes the history of American indigenous cultures until they were either conquered or significantly influenced by Europeans, even if this happened decades or even centuries after Columbus' initial landing.[49] Pre-Columbian is used especially often in the context of the great indigenous civilizations of the Americas, such as those of Mesoamerica (the Olmec, the Toltec, the Teotihuacano, the Zapotec, the Mixtec, the Aztec, and the Maya) and the Andes (Inca, Moche, Chibcha, Cañaris).
Many pre-Columbian civilizations established characteristics and hallmarks which included permanent or urban settlements, agriculture, civic and monumental architecture, and complex societal hierarchies.[50] Some of these civilizations had long faded by the time of the first permanent European and African arrivals (ca. late 15th–early 16th centuries), and are known only through oral history and archaeological investigations. Others were contemporary with this period, and are also known from historical accounts of the time. A few, such as the Maya, Olmec, Mixtec, and Nahua peoples, had their own written records. However, the European colonists of the time viewed such texts as heretical, and much was destroyed in Christian pyres. Only a few hidden documents remain today, leaving contemporary historians with glimpses of ancient culture and knowledge.
According to both indigenous American and European accounts and documents, American civilizations at the time of European encounter possessed many impressive accomplishments.[51] For instance, the Aztecs built one of the most impressive cities in the world, Tenochtitlan, the ancient site of Mexico City, with an estimated population of 200,000. American civilizations also displayed impressive accomplishments in astronomy and mathematics. Inuit, Alaskan Native, and 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".[52]
So far, the only verifiable site of "pre-Columbian" European settlement anywhere in the Western Hemisphere is L'Anse aux Meadows, located near the very northern tip of the Canadian island of Newfoundland. It was settled by the Norse around the end of the 10th century.
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.[32][53] 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 Taínos died.[54] They had no immunity to European diseases, so outbreaks of measles and smallpox ravaged their population.[55] The increased ignorance towards the practice of punishing the Taínos for revolting themselves from forced labour, despite the measures brought by the encomienda which included religious education and protection from warring tribes,[56] eventually helped conceive the last great Taíno rebellion.
Mistreated, the Taínos began to adopt suicidal behaviors, with women aborting or killing their infants, men jumping from the cliffs or ingesting manioc, a violent poison.[54] Eventually, a Taíno Cacique named Enriquillo managed to hold out in the mountain range of Bahoruco for thirteen years conducting serious damage to the Spanish, Carib-held plantations and their Indian auxiliaries.[57] After hearing of the seriousness of the revolt, Emperor Charles V sent captain Francisco Barrionuevo to negotiate a peace treaty with the ever increasing number of rebels. Two months later, with the consulting of the Audencia of Santo Domingo, Enriquillo was offered any part of the island to live in peace.
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.[58] The Spanish crown found it difficult to enforce these laws in a distant colony.
Reasons for the decline of the Native American populations are variously theorized to be from epidemic 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.[59][60] 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.[61] Half the native population of Hispaniola in 1518 was killed by smallpox.[62] Within a few years smallpox killed between 60% and 90% of the Inca population, with other waves of European disease weakening them further.[63] 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.[64][65] Unintentionally introduced at Veracruz with the arrival of Pánfilo de Narváez on April 23, 1520, smallpox ravaged Mexico in the 1520s,[66] possibly killing over 150,000 in Tenochtitlan alone (the heartland of the Aztec Empire), and aided in the victory of Hernán Cortés over the Aztec empire at Tenochtitlan (present-day Mexico City) in 1521.[67]
Over the centuries, the Europeans had developed high degrees of immunity to these diseases, while the indigenous Americans had no such immunity.[68] 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.[69] In 1617–1619, smallpox reportedly killed 90% of the Massachusetts Bay Colony Native American residents.[70] In 1633, in Plymouth, the Native Americans there were exposed to smallpox because of contact with Europeans. As it had done elsewhere, the virus wiped out entire population groups of Native Americans.[71] It reached Lake Ontario in 1636, and the lands of the Iroquois by 1679.[72][73] During the 1770s, smallpox killed at least 30% of the West Coast Native Americans.[74] Smallpox epidemics in 1780–1782 and 1837–1838 brought devastation and drastic population depletion among the Plains Indians.[75][76] In 1832, the federal government of the United States established a smallpox vaccination program for Native Americans (The Indian Vaccination Act of 1832).[77][78]
In Brazil, the indigenous population has declined from a pre-Columbian high of an estimated three million to some 300,000 in 1997.[79][80]
Later explorations of the Caribbean led to the discovery of the Arawak peoples of the Lesser Antilles. The culture was destroyed 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.[81]
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.[82] 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.
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.[83] 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,[84] 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,[85] Solanum tuberosum ssp. tuberosum, where it was cultivated as long as 10,000 years ago.[86][87] According to George Raudzens, "It is clear that in pre-Columbian times some groups struggled to survive and often suffered food shortages and famines, while others enjoyed a varied and substantial diet."[88] The persistent drought around 850 AD coincided with the collapse of Classic Maya civilization, and the famine of One Rabbit (AD. 1454) was a major catastrophe in Mexico.[89]
Natives of North America 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.[90]
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.[91]
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.[92] 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.
Studies of contemporary indigenous environmental management, including agro-forestry practices among Itza Maya in Guatemala and hunting and fishing among the Menominee of Wisconsin, suggest that longstanding "sacred values" may represent a summary of sustainable millennial traditions.[93]
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.
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.[94]
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 pre-Columbian writing system 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 source 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.[95] 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, as can Mi'kmaq hieroglyphics.
Aboriginal syllabic writing, or simply syllabics, is a family of abugidas used to write a number of Aboriginal Canadian languages of the Algonquian, Inuit, and (formerly) Athabaskan language families.
Native American music in North America is almost entirely monophonic, but there are notable exceptions. Traditional Native American music often centers around drumming. Rattles, clappersticks, and rasps were also popular percussive instruments. Flutes were made of rivercane, cedar, and other woods. 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. The Apache fiddle is a single stringed instrument.
Music from indigenous peoples of Central Mexico and Central America often was pentatonic. Before the arrival of the Spaniards and other Europeans 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 CE), which depicts a stringed musical instrument which has since been reproduced. This instrument is astonishing in at least two respects. First, it is one of the very few string instruments 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.[96]
Visual arts by indigenous peoples of the Americas composes a major category in the world art collection. Contributions include pottery, paintings, jewellery, weavings, sculptures, basketry, carvings and beadwork.[97] 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.
|
|
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (September 2011) |
The following table provides estimates of the per-country populations of indigenous peoples of the Americas, and also those with partial indigenous ancestry, expressed as a percentage of the overall country population of each country that is comprised by indigenous peoples of the Americas, and of people of partial 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.
Argentina's indigenous population in 2005 was about 600,329 (1.6% of total population); this figure includes 457,363 people who self-identified as belonging to an indigenous ethnic group, and the remaining 142,966 who recognized themselves as first-generation descendants of an indigenous people.[10] The ten most populous indigenous peoples are the Mapuche (113,680 people), the Kolla (70,505), the Toba (69,452), the Guaraní (68,454), the Wichi (40,036), the Diaguita-Calchaquí (31,753), the Mocoví (15,837), the Huarpe (14,633), the Comechingón (10,863) and the Tehuelche (10,590). Minor but important peoples are the Quechua (6,739), the Charrúa (4,511), the Pilagá (4,465), the Chané (4,376), and the Chorote (2,613). 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.
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 19th century, originating from Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, with a mixed African, Carib, and Arawak ancestry make up another 6% of the population.[101]
|
|
This article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. Please help improve the article by updating it. There may be additional information on the talk page. (April 2012) |
In Bolivia, a 62% majority of residents over the age of 15 self-identify as belonging to an indigenous people, while another 3.7% grew up with an indigenous mother tongue yet do not self-identify as indigenous.[128] Including both of these categories, and children under 15, some 66.4% of Bolivia's population was registered as indigenous in the 2001 Census.[129] The largest indigenous ethnic groups are: Quechua, about 2.5 million people; Aymara, 2.0 million; Chiquitano, 181 thousand; Guaraní, 126 thousand; and Mojeño, 69 thousand. Some 124 thousand pertain to smaller indigenous groups.[130] The Constitution of Bolivia, enacted in 2009, recognizes 36 cultures, each with their own language, as part of a plurinational state. Others, including CONAMAQ (the National Council of Ayllus and Markas of Qollasuyu) draw ethnic boundaries within the Quechua- and Aymara-speaking population, resulting in a total of fifty indigenous peoples native to Bolivia.
Large numbers of Bolivian highland peasants retained indigenous language, culture, customs, and communal organization throughout the Spanish conquest and the post-independence period. They mobilized to resist various attempts at the dissolution of communal landholdings, and used legal recognition of "empowered caciques" to further communal organization. Indigenous revolts took place frequently until 1953.[131] While the National Revolutionary Movement government begun in 1952 discouraged self-identification as indigenous (reclassifying rural people as campesinos, or peasants), renewed ethnic and class militancy re-emerged in the Katarista movement beginning in the 1970s.[132] Lowland indigenous peoples, mostly in the east, entered national politics through the 1990 March for Territory and Dignity organized by the CIDOB confederation. That march successfully pressured the national government to sign ILO Convention 169 and to begin a still-ongoing process of recognizing and titling indigenous territories. The 1994 Law of Popular Participation granted "grassroots territorial organizations" recognized by the state certain rights to govern local areas.
Radio and some television in Quechua and Aymara is produced. 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.[133] 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".[133] A vote on further autonomy will take place in referendums which are expected to be held in December 2009.[133] The issue has divided the country.[134]
Indigenous peoples of Brazil make up 0.4% of Brazil's population, or about 700,000 people,[80] even though millions of Brazilians have some indigenous ancestry.[135] 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.[135]
In a 2007 news story, The Washington Post reported, "As has been proved in the past when uncontacted tribes are introduced to other populations and the microbes they carry, maladies as simple as the common cold can be deadly. In the 1970s, 185 members of the Panara tribe died within two years of discovery after contracting such diseases as flu and chickenpox, leaving only 69 survivors."[136]
Aboriginal peoples in Canada comprise the First Nations,[137] Inuit[138] and Métis;[139] the descriptors "Indian" and "Eskimo" are falling into disuse.[140] Hundreds of Aboriginal nations evolved trade, spiritual and social hierarchies. The Métis culture of mixed blood originated in the mid-17th century when First Nation and native Inuit married European settlers.[141] The Inuit had more limited interaction with European settlers during that early period.[142] Various laws, treaties, and legislation have been enacted between European immigrants and First Nations across Canada. Aboriginal Right to Self-Government provides opportunity to manage historical, cultural, political, health care and economic control aspects within first people's communities.
Although not without conflict, European/Canadian early interactions with First Nations and Inuit 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 Indigenous peoples to have a relatively strong influence on the national culture while preserving their own identity.[143] National Aboriginal Day recognises the cultures and contributions of Aboriginal peoples of Canada.[144] There are currently over 600 recognized First Nations governments or bands encompassing 1,172,790 2006 people spread across Canada with distinctive Aboriginal cultures, languages, art, and music.[145][146][147]
According to the 2002 Census, 4.6% of the Chilean population, including the Rapanui of Easter Island, was indigenous, although most show varying degrees of miscegenation.[148] Many are descendants of the Mapuche, and live in Santiago, Araucanía and the lake district. The Mapuche successfully fought off defeat in the first 300–350 years of Spanish rule during the Arauco War. Relations 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. Their land was opened to settlement by Chileans and Europeans. Conflict over Mapuche land rights continued until present days.
Other groups include the Aimara who live mainly in Arica-Parinacota and Tarapacá Region and has the mayority of their alikes living in Bolivia and Peru and the Alacalufe survivors who now reside mainly in Puerto Edén.
A 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.[149][150] 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.
There are over 60,000 inhabitants of Native American origins, representing 1.5% of the population. Most of them live in secluded reservations, distributed among eight ethnic groups: Quitirrisí (In the Central Valley), Matambú or Chorotega (Guanacaste), Maleku (Northern Alajuela), Bribri (Southern Atlantic), Cabécar (Cordillera de Talamanca), Guaymí (Southern Costa Rica, along the Panamá border), Boruca (Southern Costa Rica) and Térraba (Southern Costa Rica).
These native groups are characterized for their work in wood, like masks, drums and other artistic figures, as well as fabrics made of cotton.
Their subsistence is based on agriculture, having corn, beans and plantains as the main crops.
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 Indigenous population 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 Otavalos, 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 0.24% 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.
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 most noticeably the Señorío of Cuzcatlán . 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. Noticeable Meso-American Indigenous warriors to rise militarily against the Spanish are Prince Atonal and Atlacatl of the Pipil people in central El Salvador, and Princess Antu Silan Ulap of the Lenca people in eastern El Salvador, who saw the Spanish not as gods, but as barbaric invaders. After fierce battles, the Pipil successfully retreated the Spanish army led by Pedro de Alvarado along with their Mexican Indian allies the (tlaxcalas) sending them back to Guatemala for some time. At first the Pipil people had repelled Spanish Attacks but after many other attacks and reinforcing their army with Guatemalan Indian allies, the Spanish were able to conquer Cuzcatlán. Later the Spanish, after many struggles, were also able to conquer the Lenca people. Eventually the Spaniards had children with the Pipil and the Lenca women resulting in the Mestizo population, which later would become the majority of the Salvadoran people. Today many Pipil and other Indigenous populations live in small towns of El Salvador like Izalco, Panchimalco, Sacacoyo, and Nahuizalco.
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 European and indigenous ancestry) people. The area of Livingston, Guatemala is highly influenced by the Caribbean and its population includes a combination of Mestizos and Garifuna people.
About 5 percent of the population are of full-blooded indigenous descent, but upwards to 80 percent more or the majority of Hondurans are mestizo or part-indigenous with European admixture, and about 10 percent are of indigenous and/or African descent.[151] The main concentration of indigenous in Honduras are in the rural westernmost areas facing Guatemala and to the Caribbean Sea coastline, as well on the Nicaraguan border.[151] The majority of indigenous people are Lencas, Miskitos to the east, Mayans, Pech, Sumos, and Tolupan.[151]
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 P'urhépecha or Tarascan in present day Michoacán and surrounding areas, and the Aztecs/Mexica, 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. The CDI identifies 62 indigenous groups in Mexico, each with a unique language.[152]
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 or Nahua, P'urhépechas, Mazahua, Otomi, 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.[153] Along with Spanish, the law has granted them — more than 60 languages — the status of "national languages". The law includes all indigenous languages of the Americas regardless of origin; that is, it includes the indigenous 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,[154] and recognizes the languages of the Guatemalan indigenous refugees.[155] 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 5.4% of the country's population) speak an indigenous language and about a sixth do not speak Spanish (1.2% of the country's population).[156]
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:[157]
amongst other rights.
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.
Indigenous population in Peru make up around 30%[125] Native Peruvian 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.[158]
Indigenous peoples in what is now the contiguous United States are commonly called "American Indians", or just "Indians" domestically, but are also 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.
A number of Kumeyaay communities may be found in the Mexican State of Baja California.
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 Ye'kuana, the Wayuu, the Pemon and the Warao. 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 of Venezuela 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.
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 Uruguay (Native Charrúa). At least four of the native American languages (Quechua in Peru and Bolivia; Aymara also in Peru and Bolivia, Guaraní in Paraguay, and Greenlandic in Greenland) are recognized as official languages languages.
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.[159][160][161]
| Part of a series on |
| Indigenous rights |
|---|
| Rights |
| Conflict resolution · Cultural diversity Cultural heritage · Forced assimilation Forced relocation · Freedom of religion Gender equality · Human rights Intellectual property · Land rights Land-use planning · Language Racial discrimination · Right to identity Self-determination · Traditional knowledge |
| Governmental organizations |
| AADNC · ACHPR · Arctic Council Bureau of Indian Affairs · CDI Council of Indigenous Peoples FUNAI · NCIP · UNPFII |
| NGOs and political groups |
| AFN · Amazon Watch · CAP · COICA CONAIE · Cultural Survival · EZLN · fPcN IPACC · IPCB · IWGIA · NARF · ONIC Survival International · UNPO · (more ...) |
| Issues |
| Colonialism · Civilizing mission Cultural genocide · Manifest Destiny Postdevelopment theory · Bantustan Indian reservation · Indian reserve |
| Legal representation |
| ILO 169 · United Nations Declaration |
| Category |
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.
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.[162]
With the rise to power of 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.
The first indigenous president to be democratically elected in Latin America was Benito Juarez, a Mexican of the Zapotec ethnic group, who was elected President of Mexico in 1858.[163]
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.[164]
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.[164]
Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas primarily focus on Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups and Human mitochondrial DNA haplogroups. "Y-DNA" is passed solely along the patrilineal line, from father to son, while "mtDNA" is passed down the matrilineal line, from mother to offspring of both sexes. Neither recombines, and thus Y-DNA and mtDNA change only by chance mutation at each generation with no intermixture between parents' genetic material.[165] Autosomal "atDNA" markers are also used, but differ from mtDNA or Y-DNA in that they overlap significantly.[166] AtDNA is generally used to measure the average continent-of-ancestry genetic admixture in the entire human genome and related isolated populations.[166]
The genetic pattern indicates indigenous peoples of the Americas experienced two very distinctive genetic episodes; first with the initial-peopling of the Americas, and secondly with European colonization of the Americas.[37][167][168] The former is the determinant factor for the number of gene lineages, zygosity mutations and founding haplotypes present in today's indigenous peoples of the Americas populations.[167]
Human settlement of the New World occurred in stages from the Bering sea coast line, with an initial 15, 000 to 20,000-year layover on Beringia for the small founding population.[37][169][170] The micro-satellite diversity and distributions of the Y lineage specific to South America indicates that certain indigenous peoples of the Americas populations have been isolated since the initial colonization of the region.[171] The Na-Dené, Inuit and Indigenous Alaskan populations exhibit haplogroup Q (Y-DNA) mutations, however are distinct from other indigenous peoples of the Americas with various mtDNA and atDNA mutations.[172][173][174] This suggests that the earliest migrants into the northern extremes of North America and Greenland derived from later migrant populations.[175][176]
Scientific evidence links indigenous Americans to Asian peoples, specifically eastern Siberian populations. Indigenous peoples of the Americas have been linked to North Asian populations by linguistic factors, the distribution of blood types, and in genetic composition as reflected by molecular data, such as DNA.[47]
| Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Indigenous peoples of the Americas |
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)