The video actually covers your objections. Even the PNW examples always speak of human individuals living in the wilderness. No bigfoot in anything native.
Pre-Columbian Native American cultures, PODs and alternate histories discussion
- Thread starter Petike
- Start date
What if the Aztecs didn't do large scale human sacrifice and antagonize all the other tribes to the point where they sided with the Spanish? Could they have avoided the Spanish Conquest?
Emergence of a Steppe Warlord culture and a Species like the Neanderthals (muscular, well built and warlike), animal herding based agriculture and a possible invention of wheels (which is relatively easy post these), could create an interesting culture in the Americas.
IIRC the emetic effects were the point of the black drink ceremony, otherwise they would not have spiked the drink with emetic herbs. I think the two would need to be decoupled, and ironically Mesoamericans are probably good for that. Colonies of pochteca along the Gulf Coast (they may have visited on rare occasions, although their northernmost known limit was sailing to southern Texas) wouldn't have the full context and culture of the black drink ritual and reappropriate it as needed.
IIRC only Mesoamericans had distillation. In the Old World, consumption of distilled drinks doesn't seem to have been a thing until the 12th century. But if they did, I think the Mesoamericans would probably distill a corn beer or maybe pulque first, hence inventing tequila/mezcal.
They were not perceived as human individuals living in the wilderness, but dangerous supernatural beings who stole away children and raised them as their own, could turn adults into other "wild men" like them (i.e. Tlingit "land otters"/khutsda), and were worthy of being killed in hopes of gaining their power or simply self-defense (as they were in some cultures perceived as rival tribes of supernatural origin). Or from the Flathead people of western Montana, stories about giants who stood 10-15 feet high, wore no clothes but had fur like animals, were strong enough to throw people a distance of over a mile, but became extremely rare/extinct since Indians became so numerous the giants could no longer find enough food. Or the "wild woman of the woods" who is said to be a wealthy but cruel woman who is a hairy giantess who is strong enough to uproot trees. There are also stories of hairy dwarves in the forests too, some of whom are also evil, and whom always live in very remote places.
How is that not "Bigfoot?" Bigfoot is supposedly an ape-looking creature who often keeps to itself but sometimes interacts with humans. Some say it is dangerous and has threatened or attacked people like these mythological examples supposedly did. Some say Bigfoot is sentient and is an alien creature linked with UFOs. We know from history that working class whites and American Indians/First Nations worked together in the same industries such as lumber, canning, etc. and otherwise interacted in general. I don't see how it's implausible that Amerindian folklore inspired at least some of those beliefs in addition to traditional European views on races of wild men living deep in the woods.
I hate to brag about myself, but I am writing a timeline about the Tlingit inventing the outrigger canoe around 250 AD called -When The Tlingit Embraced the Seas- (you can go check it out) and I have to ask- was there any hostile relations between the Aleutians and the Native Americans of the Pacific Northwest? I want to make so the Native Americans, with their enhanced searfaring technology, eventually contact and start trading with Asia.
The Tlingit seemed to view them as dirty, and occasionally did have clashes with the Alutiiq (who were culturally similar). But they also traded with them too sometimes, especially for ivory. IIRC archaeologically they possibly drove them out at one point around 1,000-1,500 years ago. Their term for all Inuit-related groups (although precontact they only knew the Alutiiqs and Yupiks) roughly translates to "bone in the nose" (because of a particular piercing) and is about as derogatory as that term is in English.
BTW, if you aren't aware, the Smithsonian has freely available what is the most complete and reliable ethnography on the Tlingit.
twovultures
Donor
Man, Trey the Explainer's videos are so good. I hadn't considered that the "Sasquatches" might have been an Ishi type situation, with a band of unassimilated Natives-possibly having run into the wilderness to escape a massacre decades ago-just living off the grid near a reservation. A great, but tragic, story if so.
Of course, I also have my suspicions that the Chehalis people being too slow-witted and good natured to just spin tall tales for outsiders might not be exactly true either, so who knows.
Obviously I agree with Trey's overall point; there is nothing in extant American Indian folklore that seems to suggest empirical knowledge of some extraordinary ape creature. There's just a bunch of different stories about all sorts of human or humanoid creatures as we find in literally every single culture in the world, regardless of contact with any non-human humanoid species.
But Trey does have a tendency to overstate his cases across videos, and I think he does in this video as well (even if he's correct), and that shows through the most in the section on "Wild Indians". Beyond specific cases (and there are no doubt many where these are to be taken as none other than human beings), Trey uses the fact that "Wild Men", "Wild Indians", or "Stick Indians" are called 'men' or 'humans' to categorically rule out the possibility that they were meant to be anything other than normal human beings of uncouth manner.
Well the issue with this categorical ruling is that for the cultures that did, as a matter of fact, have contact with humanoid apes, it was not uncommon at all to call them "men" or "wild men". "Orangutan", of course, literally means "Forest Man." The "Gorillai" of Hanno the Navigator (probably actually chimpanzees) were described as a tribe of savage people, not as animals. Both of these in areas where monkeys were common and well known, and yet a comparison was still drawn between men and human. The sasquatch, if it did exist, would be by far the most human-like non-human since the extinction of Neanderthal Man, in an environment without any monkeys which would be the next-closest comparison. Calling such a creature a "wild man" would be the most natural thing in the world.
Again, I obviously agree with the overall point of the video, and I even agree with this specific subsection, but the fact that wild men are men is not an a priori disproof of a comparison with the Bigfoot.
I am already writing it and about to post the third chapter.
This thread has always fascinated me. What if the Inca (Or some other people before) domesticated the Andean Bear. My curiosity was increased significantly once I began reading PeterEzgo's The Good Berry. It really got my mind thinking about what a bear dominated Andean culture would be like. Plus, war bears are always a fun idea.
I feel like society would revolve around bears, since they can be used for meat (Maybe even milk?), as a beast of burden (especially useful for mountain cities), and pest control. In some rough drafts of a timeline I'm writing around this idea, I had cities form around people who had access to the bears, especially since the Andean Bears don't reproduce nearly as fast as animals like cows, so they wouldn't come cheap. From these cities centered around one person comes kings, and then emperors, and so on.
I feel like society would revolve around bears, since they can be used for meat (Maybe even milk?), as a beast of burden (especially useful for mountain cities), and pest control. In some rough drafts of a timeline I'm writing around this idea, I had cities form around people who had access to the bears, especially since the Andean Bears don't reproduce nearly as fast as animals like cows, so they wouldn't come cheap. From these cities centered around one person comes kings, and then emperors, and so on.
Tame or domesticated, I'm not sure I like the idea of ever of getting down to milk a bear... or any other carnivore for that matter.
I assume you're already familiar, but I'd recommend reading over DValdron's "Bear Cavalry" to see the prospects of bear domestication.
They'd be closer to pigs than anything since their diet is omnivorous and turning them loose in a forest would let them gain their diet. Although it seems like they enjoy eating maize (the entire plant even), so they'd be as easy to feed as a pig rather than something like a moose which only eats certain stems and such. Successful elites who own them could probably slaughter bears for feasts as a means of social control and distribute goods made from the bear like its pelt, paws, teeth, claws, etc. to subordinate rulers of nearby villages.
Speaking of which, I find it interesting that black bears were never domesticated since it too is fairly small, not particularly dangerous (compared to most bears), and is an omnivore mostly content to eat whatever plants it finds and occasionally snack on a small animal. They're infamously attracted to human garbage dumps, which is a pathway to domestication, and will gladly munch on rats, rabbits, and other pests.
I'd guess that the main impediment was that they're largely solitary, not especially social animals. That's bad enough for the prospects of domesticating an herbivore, but would make things very difficult indeed for a large dangerous omnivore. The two large dangerous omnivores we've domesticated, pigs and dogs, are extremely social animals. I wouldn't say that that makes it impossible for humans to domesticate bears, but it's a very large hurdle to overcome.
Obsidian blades with food traces reveal 1st settlers of Rapa Nui had regular contact with South Americans 1,000 years ago
The earliest settlers of Rapa Nui, also known as Easter Island, appear to have had some sort of contact with people from South America as early as 1,000 years ago, a new plant study finds.
Heres an intersting article about how deep Polynesian-South American trade networks go, a timeline where Polynesians introduce the domestic pigs to the Americas would be very interesting, as we already know they introduced chickens
Stretch
Donor
There was a documentary on Australian SBS about DNA links and cultural similarities between the natives of Rapa Nui and a native Bolivian coastal tribe.Obsidian blades with food traces reveal 1st settlers of Rapa Nui had regular contact with South Americans 1,000 years ago
The earliest settlers of Rapa Nui, also known as Easter Island, appear to have had some sort of contact with people from South America as early as 1,000 years ago, a new plant study finds.www.livescience.com
Heres an intersting article about how deep Polynesian-South American trade networks go, a timeline where Polynesians introduce the domestic pigs to the Americas would be very interesting, as we already know they introduced chickens
This just adds up to one very big question (imo): why did the Polynesians stay for such a short time on the Coasts of South America?Obsidian blades with food traces reveal 1st settlers of Rapa Nui had regular contact with South Americans 1,000 years ago
The earliest settlers of Rapa Nui, also known as Easter Island, appear to have had some sort of contact with people from South America as early as 1,000 years ago, a new plant study finds.
Heres an intersting article about how deep Polynesian-South American trade networks go, a timeline where Polynesians introduce the domestic pigs to the Americas would be very interesting, as we already know they introduced chickens
I think an interesting POD would be the development of brackish water chinampas, or a general improvement in wetland utilization during the Classic Period (250-900 AD) in the Valley of Mexico, specifically at Lake Xaltocan. This time period covers the zeniths of both Tenochtitlan and Tula, and theoretically could provide not only food for humans but fodder for an ATL expansion of rabbit husbandry, adding protein to the diet while lessening the diversion of the maize crop for animal feed. Does anyone know what candidate plants could provide the basis for a brackish water chinampa?
Rapa Nui went through some sort of issue beginning in the 13th century, with the most pessimistic conclusions arguing that civilizational collapse occurred. Personally, I don't think they outright collapsed, but they had to find a new equilibrium to deal with a changed environment and climate, which may have meant ending continuous contact.
Okay, that is a good point, but shouldn’t there have been greater transfer of crops from Polynesia to South America and from South America to Polynesia? I know it could be possible because somehow the Polynesians got the sweet potato, so why didn’t the Polynesians and Native American South Americans exchange other crops?