Lecture 1 Outline
Indian and Environment; an Ecological History from Pre-contact to Present
Traditional Historiography—Columbus discovered a virgin continent, sparsely populated by Indians with protocivilization, i.e. savages.
Revisionist Historians—Populated, civilized world, destroyed by newcomers (violence, disease, etc.) Laden with
tones of Euro-American self-indictment. Indian became a mythical, noble savage that lived in peace and
balance with nature, vanishing in the wake of negative progress.
Arrival and the Pleistocene Extinctions—Estimations of human arrival vary. 80,000–23,000 BC possible, 23,000–
10,000 most probable. Glaciology traditionally sets date at 11,000 BC; archeology evidence still inconclusive.
Mass extinctions dated to 11k–10k BC. Climate change or hunting? Human hand likely as earlier ice age cycles
did not produce similar extinctions. Trophic cascade theory popular at present. The Pleistocene extinctions a
highly politically charged issue.
European Arrival—Europeans described pristine, “virgin” land, but also, somewhat paradoxically, a “peopled
land”. Pre-Columbian population estimates vary greatly, typically ½–50 million – also politically charged. Eden
was a European construct, an outsider’s view, a modern construct. “The acceleration of environmental
transformation blinds us to their antiquity” – David Lowenthal. Modern “widowed” land interpretation has
gained credence and acceptance.
The Landscape upon Contact—Native-altered landscapes in historical and ecological record. Many landscapes
viewed by Europeans as “natural” actually highly anthropogenic and/or pyrogenic. Indians understood the link
between timely burns and biodiversity but also abused land: “[the Indian], his country is large.” Destructive
aspects overshadowed by noble savage interpretations. Indian fires and land-use practices became akin to
forces of nature: not anthropogenic but “natural”.
The Prairie Ecosystem and the Buffalo—Noble savage tradition places blame solely on whites. Estimated
buffalo population at Columbus’ arrival ranges from 30–100 million – often called the greatest common
resource in North America. Indian utilization efficient or wasteful? Buffalo jumps and communal hunting invite
perspective fallacies. In the 1800s non-native market pressure hastened demise, but native pressure, horses
and guns, a factor as well. All parties eager to trade – traditional view sees Indian hunters forced to turn into
commercial (wasteful) hunters via demand for buffalo robes and meat. Native ideals about nature and
reincarnation/religion may partially explain native over-exploitation. White hunters came later, but at a
decisive moment. The era of the great buffalo hunts over by 1870s – reckoning begins in earnest.
Deer in the Southern Woodlands—“Deerskins for trifles” traditional interpretation, corruption by alcohol also a
popular take. Both interpretations laden with tones of “simple Indian” stereotype – a racist construct. Marxist
interpretation sees European market forces working to enslave Indians. Modern interpretations see Indians as
savvy, rational role players, found niches and persevered. Sustained contact after 1600 brought markets as well
as diseases, but also opportunity amid reorganization (the “middlemen theory”). Natives understood
advantages of Europeans technology and adapted fittingly. Elementary conundrum of Ecological Indian: Deer
were sacred to Indians but nonetheless were nearly hunted to extinction by them, why? Pre-contact protoeconomy for deerskins (as tribute) exacerbated by new markets, alcohol also played role. Withering stocks
leads to competition, impact on relations amongst tribes – excessive feuding over hunting lands, whites
infringed on Indian lands/privileges, exacerbating situation. Native cosmology also a factor
(reincarnation/religion): “The more we kill, the more we will prosper”. Around 1800 deer nearly extinct in SE,
then markets abruptly change. Indians of South seek out other roles to meet their economic needs.
Conservation—paradoxically, likely a European-inspired notion amongst Indians. The roles traditionally
associated with Indians as native natural conservationists are 20th-century concepts that are largely absent
from historical record. Indians quickly exploited perception that they were authorized to decide on natural
resource issues. Conservation, in effect, became a part of Indian culture and religious views on heels of game
decimation. Taboos changed, creative synthesis emerged.
End Result—Noble, conservation-minded savage ideal lacks historical validity, but has positive aspects
otherwise: Indians gained a voice in resource issues in the 20th century as a result. Undeniable indigenous
knowledge about nature has found respect amongst biologists, conservationists etc., as well as those who
support what Callicott called the “land ethic”. Native cosmologies have also been viewed as complement to
Western empirical scientific one. Negative aspects of this ideal is that it forces Indian into stereotyped role.
“Native peoples are supposed to be keepers of the earth, not protectors of its poison.” A difficult position when
Indians have differing opinions about resource use. Noble savage imagery has its deeper roots in European selfcriticism and attendant feelings of guilt – the myth oftentimes obscures that Indians are not an exceptional
type of human being.
Selected Reading:
“Skull Valley Goshutes and the Politics of Nuclear Waste”, David R. Lewis, in Native Americans and the
Environment (2007), Michael E. Harkin and David R. Lewis (eds)
AvP13
Andrew Pattison
Oulu University
Focus Areas in North American History 682373A