How long in one place to be considered "indigenous"?

[david]

Whether it is plants or animals, the term "indigenous" is not clear for me. I hear about invasive species of plants. But is would seem that all plants, except the very first of a kind, invaded a new territory. So that "native," or "indigenous," black oak tree in my neighbor's yard, did not originate in my neighbor's yard. In fact, it could have come from another state or country. So is it indigenous because that variety has been here a long time?

Similarly, native or indigenous black tail deer probably did not originate in Oregon, but in some other state, but Oregon still considers them a native or indigenous variety.

As the term applies to humans, I have similar questions, but think that in terms of the American Indians, or Aboriginal Australians, the term might be more understandable because, as far as I know, they did not displace another race or culture.

Any linguists or anthropologist, or other expert or opinionated layperson want to shed some light?

[Marshall]

Yes

[Cornflake]

A layman without expertise can't resist commenting.

"As the term applies to humans, I have similar questions, but think that in terms of the American Indians, or Aboriginal Australians, the term might be more understandable because, as far as I know, they did not displace another race or culture."

Actually they did, a lot. A few centuries before the Europeans arrived, for example, the Navajos and Apaches came down from western Canada and did to the Hopis and other predecessor tribes in Arizona what the Europeans subsequently did to them. That's by no means an isolated instance.

As far as indigenous species, you're right. They're always on the move in response to changing conditions. But I think most people would agree that when animal and plant species from the new and old worlds started moving onto each other's turf as part of the Columbia Exchange (along with people and microbes), the species weren't indigenous in any sense. Sometimes the results were beneficial. Sometimes the natural enemies that kept species in check in their native lands were missing in their new habitat and they became very invasive and problematic. I recently read a fascinating book about this by Charles Mann entitled 1493. Well, it's fascinating if you're interested in this kind of thing.

[david]

Marshall, You are an ever-shining beacon! Thank you for an illuminating comment.

[Russell Letson]

The sense would (as usual) depend on context. While I'm sure that anthropologists and ecologists have worked out definitions for their own specialties (too lazy to Google 'em right now), it's clear to me that with human populations it's going to depend on who's looking at the area/population. I recall that some native American groups insist on the (mythological) view that they were created/divinely placed in their territories and have been there forever--even if Western science has evidence that their particular group might have migrated from Asia. It becomes a battle of the epistemologies. And Australian aboriginals apparently had Australia to themselves for 40,000 years.

Since the word appears in English around the 16th century (according to my Shorter OED), when European explorers were encountering people "native to" ("born in") newly-discovered lands, it is tied up with all kinds of unexamined assumptions--unexamined partly because this experience predates the development of modern anthropology, let alone DNA analysis.

With non-human species, it would depend on how long a stable ecology has been in place--islands far from a mainland (e.g., Hawai`i or the Galápagos or Australia) can be stable for millennia, until something (usually humans) introduce "invasive" species.

[david]

Don,

My lack of American history studies is showing. I have heard of the 1493 book but haven't gotten around to it. I agree that the subject is fascinating, i.e. the landscape and culture of the area now known as the USA and Mexico prior to Christopher Columbus' 1492 discovery of America.

[epaul]

Jun 24, 2020 18:47:14 GMT -5 david said:

Don,

My lack of American history studies is showing. I have heard of the 1493 book but haven't gotten around to it. I agree that the subject is fascinating, i.e. the landscape and culture of the area now known as the USA and Mexico prior to Christopher Columbus' 1492 Thorvald the Norsk's discovery of America long, long ago; way, way ahead of that Swedish fellow.

[RickW]

The local tribes up and down the coast here were attacking and displacing each other in ongoing battles. So, they’ve been there for the most part for so long, that no one remembers them getting there, but their own boundaries were very fluid. They’re as human as the rest of us, so gleefully killed each other for the right to use a piece of land.

Everyone came from somewhere else. Borders are a more civilized concept that just represent a more well mapped out stake in the ground.

[Cornflake]

David, Mann has written two somewhat related books. The first, 1491, which Paul Schlimm has also read and liked, is about what the Americas were like before Columbus. Summary: (1) No one can be sure. (2) The Indians* were far more populous than we generally think. (3) Some civilizations were far more advanced than we generally think. (4) Indians changed the natural environment extensively.

The second, 1493, is about the Columbian Exchange--forms of life moving from old world to new and vice versa.

Your interests suggest that 1491 might be the better start.

*Mann explains that he uses the word "Indian" because, in his experience, that's the terms used by a vast majority of the people in question. Some object to and dislike the term Native Americans. That accords with my understanding. I did a lot of work on the Navajo Reservation, and a lesser amount on one of our Apache reservations, in my last ten years. I discussed terminology with some of the people. What I heard was that if you know what tribe they are, call them that. If not, call them Indians, as other Indians do. Tony Hillerman once wrote about asking a Navajo if they disliked the word "Indian." The answer was no, we're just glad Columbus wasn't looking for Turkey.

[Village Idiot]

Those sound like good reads, Don. Nice to find this after reading an interesting post!

[Deleted]

Jun 24, 2020 20:13:17 GMT -5 Village Idiot said:

Those sound like good reads, Don. Nice to find this after reading an interesting post!

1491 is a fascinating book, and not at all what some detractors, who probably never cracked the cover, think it's about. The author does a very good job examining a vast subject. Yes, the people who lived in the Americas had a tremendous transformative effect on the environment around them. It's a pretty cool story.

[t-bob]

I read the Indigenous Grandmothers. A brief one. 👍🏻

[millring]

It's a political term.

[Marshall]

Jun 24, 2020 18:39:38 GMT -5 david said:

Marshall, You are an ever-shining beacon! Thank you for an illuminating comment.

Always glad to help.



To me, indigenous means, anything that was naturally occurring before Columbus and the Euros decided to invade and subdue the rest of the world.

[Marshall]

Jun 25, 2020 4:59:11 GMT -5 millring said:

It's a political conspiracy term.

Fixed it for ya.

[dradtke]

Jun 24, 2020 19:59:10 GMT -5 Cornflake said:

David, Mann has written two somewhat related books. The first, 1491, which Paul Schlimm has also read and liked, is about what the Americas were like before Columbus. Summary: (1) No one can be sure. (2) The Indians* were far more populous than we generally think. (3) Some civilizations were far more advanced than we generally think. (4) Indians changed the natural environment extensively.

Reading 1491 kind of ruined the end of David Grann's The Lost City of Z for me, because I knew about the extensive earthworks that were built in South America.

Jun 24, 2020 19:59:10 GMT -5 Cornflake said:

Tony Hillerman once wrote about asking a Navajo if they disliked the word "Indian." The answer was no, we're just glad Columbus wasn't looking for Turkey.

[Chesapeake]

Nathaniel Philbrick, in his enlightening and very readable Mayflower (2007), showed how America was much more densely populated, and had better-organized societies before European contact, than we tend to think, and how if the Pilgrims hadn't begun forming alliances with nearby bands right away, they probably would have perished despite their superior armor and firepower.

As far as who were the original inhabitants in any substantial numbers, I guess it goes back to the Siberians who came over during (some say before) the last ice age, when America and Asia were connected by a land bridge. Archaeologists have put that period at 11,000 to 9,000 BCE, though recently some have claimed waves of arrivals as early as 22,000 BCE.

By the way, the terms American Indian and Amerindian are generally accepted archaeological designations. I think it's interesting that the various Indian groups the Smithsonian put in charge of creating the recently installed building on the National Mall themselves chose its official name, "The National Museum of the American Indian."

[TKennedy]

Wow. More books to read. Thanks.

[coachdoc]

I'm indigenous to the easy chair in my living room.