Indians hunted carelessly, study says

Like the Europeans who came later, the first Americans apparently had a propensity for killing and eating any animal they could lay their hands on without giving a lot of thought to the future, judging by the bones they left behind at one notable site, a new study suggests.

"The general public probably buys into the 'Pocahontas version' that Native Americans were inherently different and more in tune with nature," said University of Utah archaeologist Jack Broughton. "The evidence says otherwise."

seattletimes.nwsource.com...

Well here we go again............conclusions not supported by the data.

More JUNK science. Conclusions that fit an "agenda" to get more funding (no doubt).

More "pig tooth" science.................

What? I can't believe this,Where were all the consevation groups 2000 years ago?
Did the indians not listen to their white coated scientists? 2000 years ago i'm sure they were not aware that they were hunting spieces to extinction and they were hunting everything as a matter of survival .
As was the case in many other places.

When I worked in anthropology, I did a review of bison kills on the American Plains. The findings I discovered fit in with the article cited at the top of the thread.

In the excavations I reviewed, bison had been killed by running them off over a cliff or trapping them in a canyon cul-de-sac. I looked at sites from the clovis culture, and compared them with Commanche, and Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara lifeways before 1580 (introduction of horse into the rio grande pueblos in New Mexico during the peublo revolt.)

My review was designed to help us locate heretofore unexcavated bison kill sites, particularly clovis culture kill sites.

What I discovered was that most kills included an average of 200 animals. On average, only 10 to 20 animals showed any signs of having been butchered. Of those that WERE butchered for meat, most were only processed on the side that was lying up after the fall from the cliff or other means of death.

In other words, the plains culture kill sites I studied generally killed massive herds, while processing only a fraction of the meat. Generally, most of the leftover carcasses were destroyed by spontaneous combustion, as the carcasses' rotting gave off flammable gases.

So, my personal experience and review of info available supports the idea that the native population had little regard for wasted wildlife resources.

Most of the time, their population numbers were so low that they had little impact on the environment.

Some biologists argue that bighorn bison were driven to extinction by the hunting practices I have described.

If you or others disagree with my conclusion that native american hunting practices sometimes resulted in massive carcass wastage, I challenge you to do your own research before accusing someone else of being UNSCIENTIFIC or having "an agenda."

Olsen-Chubbock, a famous Paleo-indian bison kill
Note the reference to "bison overkill," the hotly debated theory that paleo-indian hunting practices directly killed off the ancient american bison.

Licking Bison Kill site

[EDIT: additional comments added for clarity]

My point was, the article is showing that the modern anglo view of native americans as careful stewards of natural resources is largely a myth of the dominant culture.

While the facts of the article are outside my own experience, the conlusion fits in with what I have seen in a related field, the question of how native americans exploited mammoth and bison herds on the american plains. While I cannot speak to the factuality of the cited article, its conclusion certainly fits in with my own research.

If you disagree with that conclusion, you are certainly entitled to do so. Science thrives on the interplay of ideas.

But for you to call their efforts "an agenda" and insinuate that they are bad scientists because they disagree with you is, in itself, an agenda.

Have you researched this field, or do you just know what scientists "ought" to find, without ever doing any work yourself???

.

[edit on 22-2-2006 by dr_strangecraft]

I was recently at a museum where they had wolly mammoth on display.

the reason for their extinction was because the indians hunted them till there were none left, they used sharp objects and pretty much butchered the thing once it was down.

the wolly mammoth had a slow and painful death.

i urge you to go to your local museum and read up on this issue, see the proof in the bones, and the objects they used to hunt them.

this is not junk science, what it is is politically incorrect to say about a minority.

a is a, they did it, but you dont have to jump in their # about it now.

I read the title to this and well...kind of thought it was an article about how they found a bunch of hunters shot with their friends arrows....ya know, well, the indians did it too argument in defense of cheney...

I was close....basically, it's an well the indians wasted resources too....


just goes to show you.....no matter how far man advances, some things never change. they always act like the whole world is laid out before them for their personal gratification and well, there's no thought of the future.

Let's review what is known about native American relationship with natural resources.

The Salish culture of the PNW regularly culled plants and trees for which they had no use. Killed or uprooted them to make room for desirable and useful plants.

Southwestern cultures dammed streams and diverted the water through man-made ditches to irrigate their crops -- crops which had been the product of centuries of selective breeding and careful cultivation. The dams and ditches are still visible today.

The Washoe and Paiute practiced silviculture on the Pinyon stands -- a major source of nuts. They thinned and pruned the trees to enhance nut production. Individual Pinyon stands were considered private property and owned by individual clans. Anyone else caught harvesting nuts was punished as a thief.

The lower Mississippian tribes clearcut forests to grow crops.

There are recorded instances of Rocky Mountain area tribes replanting burned forests with Ponderosa Pine, which produced better and more abundant pine nuts than the Lodgepole Pine which would naturally regenerate. This is a real long view of nature, since the replanted forests would not produce nuts in the planter's lifetimes. They planted for their children and grandchildren.

The native Hawaiians practiced aquaculture on an industrial scale -- building artificial reefs and huge fish pens to grow food fish.

Numerous accounts of tribes across North America that happened to have flint or obsidian quarries on their home territory traded for other goods, and extracted as high a price they could. They were the first capitalist robber barons in North America and used violence to protect their wealth.

The Natives were hardly peaceful, either. The Crow-Blackfoot war is legendary. It still goes on to this day. Likewise many of the Pueblo cultures still are 'unofficially' at war.

The Plains tribes used fire as a weapon -- burning the prairie to destroy an enemy village. Clark noted this in his journal.

The Plains tribes also hunted and gathered to local depletion. Then they would migrate to another area of their home territory and start over. Very few North American cultures practiced what we would consider a conservation ethic. They exploited to the fullest extent they deemed necessary. It is only by virtue of low population numbers that all of North America was not depleted by the time Columbus showed up.

The native Americans regularly utilized natural resources and manipulated their environment to enhance their own survival. It is racist to assert they could not and flat-out wrong to claim they didn't.

Originally posted by TrueLies
I was recently at a museum where they had wolly mammoth on display.

the reason for their extinction was because the indians hunted them till there were none left, they used sharp objects and pretty much butchered the thing once it was down.

..

I can see it now, evil natives shooting the c**p out of those poor mammoths - with freezerays,


there's even a thread on the issue, d'uh

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by thermopolis

Like the Europeans who came later, the first Americans apparently had a propensity for killing and eating any animal they could lay their hands on without giving a lot of thought to the future, judging by the bones they left behind at one notable site, a new study suggests.

"The general public probably buys into the 'Pocahontas version' that Native Americans were inherently different and more in tune with nature," said University of Utah archaeologist Jack Broughton. "The evidence says otherwise."

seattletimes.nwsource.com...

Well here we go again............conclusions not supported by the data.

More JUNK science. Conclusions that fit an "agenda" to get more funding (no doubt).

More "pig tooth" science.................

I think it's you who are trying to push an agenda

[edit on 24-2-2006 by sardion2000]

All right then, let's go back to before Europeans became notoriously "modern" and see how they held hunts... Probably in the same manner. And I'm too lazy to look up the actual facts, go figure.

Let's not go judging a whole set of cultures based on a bunch of bones and statistcs. Fascinating as it may be to pick apart the methods of slaughter and war, it tends to bring too much focus to a particular group of people. And that's nearly always bad news.

The Native Americans were not perfect. They caused harm to the environment too. It is just logical that they would do so. But, bottom line, they had far more respect for nature, and their way of life was far less damaging, and sustainable than the one that replaced it. Ie, the PNW, specifically the Fraser Valley in SW BC. The entire valley was basically a salmon spawning ground, and is now a giant suburb. 2 million people live where salmon once gave birth to their next generation. And we wonder why they are no longer so numerous...
One front page newspaper article I read blamed mackerel for the demise of the salmon populations... yeah thats it, those darn mackerel!

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
The Native Americans were not perfect. They caused harm to the environment too. It is just logical that they would do so. But, bottom line, they had far more respect for nature, and their way of life was far less damaging, and sustainable than the one that replaced it...

They had less impact only because of low population numbers -- not because of lifestyle or philosophy. If there were 300 million natives in the U.S. the land use and resource consumption would be the same or greater than the contemporary population.

Look at contemporary reservation and tribal lands. Despite being given some of the most pristine land in the U.S. reservation lands are commonly more exploited and trashed than adjacent lands in the private and public sector. Tribal recreation areas tend to have more litter and more vandalized than nearby Forest Service, BLM, or NPS recreation areas utilized primarily by whites.

I once read a story from one of the early explorers. He observed a group of native women harvesting pecans. They chopped the tree down and picked them off the branches.

Originally posted by dave_54They had less impact only because of low population numbers -- not because of lifestyle or philosophy. Look at contemporary reservation and tribal lands. Despite being given some of the most pristine land in the U.S. reservation lands are commonly more exploited and trashed than adjacent lands in the private and public sector. Tribal recreation areas tend to have more litter and more vandalized than nearby Forest Service, BLM, or NPS recreation areas utilized primarily by whites.

I cannot know which culture, hypothetically speculating, would cause more, and faster ecological decimation, but I do know that their lifestyle and philosophy were generally far more respectful of nature. The seven generation maxim is a good example, out of many Native elders' quotes extolling the necessity of preserving the environment. "Take only memories, leave only footprints." is another. As for your contention that they were 'given' some of the most pristine land.... My view is far different. They were begrudgingly returned some of the most undesirable land. For example, in this area, the reserves are often right next to the garbage dumps, and sewage treatment plants. The settlers generally built their towns right on top of sites which were of critical importance to the original people, since these sites were highly desirable locations to settle. There are countless horrific accounts of the forced relocation of the locals. Check out 'the trail of tears'.

Native Americans have great respect for the animals they killed of which the Bison or Buffalo was Key to their lives. The non-native white people knew this and actively killed them to gain control, blackmail or kill off the natives.

The history of the buffalo is entwined with the plight of the Native Americans in the American West. Indian tribes settled these same grasslands centuries later because of the plenteous bison. Native peoples came to rely on the bison for everything from food and clothing to shelter and religious worship. They used almost every part of the animal, including horns, meat and tail hairs.

By the 1800s, Native Americans learned to use horses to chase bison, dramatically expanding their hunting range. But then white trappers and traders introduced guns in the West, killing millions more buffalo for their hides. By the middle of the 19th century, even train passengers were shooting bison for sport. "Buffalo" Bill Cody, who was hired to kill bison, slaughtered more than 4,000 bison in two years. Bison were a centerpiece of his Wild West Show, which was very successful both in the United States and in Europe, distilling the excitement of the West to those who had little contact with it.

To make matters worse for wild buffalo, some U.S. government officials actively destroyed bison to defeat their Native American enemies who resisted the takeover of their lands by white settlers. American military commanders ordered troops to kill buffalo to deny Native Americans an important source of food.

Click Link


A pile of Bison skulls

So who were the careless hunters?

[edit on 30-6-2006 by Xeros]

How they can even think about such things and compare them to todays standards is just totally absurd. Their only thoughts were of survival. Its not like they had capabilities to go around counting heads of bison and calculate how long they would last. As far as they probably knew or thought , their gods would keep supplying them with the prey they were hunting.

Did cavemen think about procreation when they had sex or did they just do it because it felt good?

Considering that we know that many animal predators kill more than is needed and do in fact at times kill for sheer enjoyment of the kill, why wouldn'y native americans have done the same?
Can anyone argue that native americans were more "in touvh" with naturee than wolves lions or bears?
Wolves have been observed in yellowstone hunting down and killing deer and elk and then only eating the cheeks of the animals while leaving the rest of the carcass to rot. This dispite the fact that the common misconception is that "animals never waste or kill needlessly"
If all other predators engage in some form of sprot or pleasure killing, why would men, the ultimate apex predator, be any different?

It,s a popular misconception that American indians were so ''in tune'' with nature.

This came about from when ''paleface come,speak with forked tongue''

The survival instict always comes first. The in tune part came about because the settlers, who were more interested in the skins for trade,left dead carcasses lying to rot and waste. whereas the Indians used the skins for clothes,shelter.Used the bones for tools.weapons.

And obvious used the flesh for food....

casseroles
balsamic glazed bison
Bison entrail pate
smoked buffalo kebabs n stuff..

BUT NEVER buffalo wings..thats another completely different conspiracy.No way they could fly.Just don,t get me started on that

Shazam, pieman, and agent t, I have made quite different conclusions from my study. The locals here were not so obsessed with 'survival', as you imply. The average workweek for an adult male pre-colonization was only one day long. The ample time left over was used to create masks, art, and carvings which the European elite of the time could not get enough of for their collections. The art done here was praised widely as being very advanced, and was in high demand by the art collectors of the day. Survival was far from a constant threat. In comparison with me, for example, who has 25 plus years of 5 plus day work weeks, their system is quite attractive. As for other animals killing wastefully, or for sport, with the rare exception, such as the orca, I have not seen that. The reverence for the world is a very common and widespread teaching found in most all tribal people. They see us as part of it, not above it, which the usurpers commonly, and I suggest vainly, feel that they are. One elder I listened to told of how his people felt that the power of reason is no gift, but a curse, as it impedes our ability to live 'in tune' with nature. The view that these people were uncivilized barbarians before the arrival of the conquering newbies is clearly popular, but when I look at the actual numbers, the known philosophical teachings, the aims, and the records, of both groups, I see a far different picture than most. I see one side teaching sustainability, respect for all things, humility, forethought about the impact of any new activity on the lives of their distant descendents, acceptance of others right to follow their own religion, and promoting equal treatment for all. The historical record shows that, for the most part, the other side acted just the opposite, with the rare, and very recent exception to that rule. They did not do most of those, imo critical, things for most of their time here. I know that I see it quite differently than most, but that is not out of ignorance, it is the result of my study on the subject.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII . As for other animals killing wastefully, or for sport, with the rare exception, such as the orca, I have not seen that. The reverence for the world is a very common and widespread teaching found in most all tribal people.

FANTASTIC postI agree totally.I only pointed out that survival is paramount though.I don,t believe they spent all day everyday only hunting for food.
As was said,Largely due to settlers tactics of killing off their food supply.When they went hunting I,m pretty sure they were more concerned about procuring a meal for their families than worrying about the environment..

With the arrival of horses and guns to the prairies the way of life for the Plains Indians changed. It was much easier to kill the bison. As more people came to the prairies larger numbers of bison were killed. By 1880 the huge herds of bison had disappeared

www.saskschools.ca...
Buffalo was in abundance beforehand..

As for their art... WOW!!! Beautiful

I have examples of their sandpaintings.dreamcatchers jewellery n carvings

I for one would like nothing better to retire to the past life that these dudes lived before ''paleface''

[edit on 30-6-2006 by AGENT_T]

Originally posted by dave_54Very few North American cultures practiced what we would consider a conservation ethic. They exploited to the fullest extent they deemed necessary. It is only by virtue of low population numbers that all of North America was not depleted by the time Columbus showed up.
It is racist to assert they could not and flat-out wrong to claim they didn't.
If there were 300 million natives in the U.S. the land use and resource consumption would be the same or greater than the contemporary population.
Look at contemporary reservation and tribal lands. Despite being given some of the most pristine land in the U.S. reservation lands are commonly more exploited and trashed than adjacent lands in the private and public sector. Tribal recreation areas tend to have more litter and more vandalized than nearby Forest Service, BLM, or NPS recreation areas utilized primarily by whites.

It is a racist statement that you have made, imo. It is not possible for you to know that if they were as numerous, they would do the same, or more damage. That is your opinion, and I would be glad to see any proof that that is even able to be found out. In my study, the reasons behind some of your contentions are of key import. ie: If you were removed from your ancestral home, your population decimated, degraded, segregated, treated as being less than human, abused, and humiliated purposely through practices such as scalping (which, to one who believes hair is sacred, is a meanspirited means of genocide), and many more things intended to destroy your self worth, and motivation, what would your condition be? I don't know. Some people can come through such criminal violations of their rights, and emerge in pretty good shape. Most of us, I have noticed, are not so resilient. In this area, a Native was not even legally considered a person until 1960. Almost all the cities here can be found to have been put on top of the local villages, or graveyards, or medicinal herb fields, etc. If you were a Native woman here, you'd be 5 times more likely to be murdered, than the average woman, and if you were a Native man, 3 times as likely to be in jail. Why is this? I hear many proposals of why, most of which are uninformed, and show traces of bias. It is my view this is the result of systematic oppression, population decimation, prejudice, discrimination, leading to desperation, depression, apathy, and sorrow. If what you say is true, about litter and vandalism, I am interested as to why. How does funding for the care of the two places match up? What is the condition of the local people as far as employment, education, income, substance abuse, child abuse, crime, etc.? It is a deep subject, and statements pointing out one or two surface symptoms of the problem are a start, but not much more. The solution lies elsewhere, imo, and I yearn for the day that this ugliness is behind us. It is still far away, imo.