Recently I posted about research positing a link between peoples of the Na-Dene/Athabaskan family (e.g. Navajo, Apache, Tlingit) and Central Asian refugees of Genghis Khan’s conquests. The connection, based on physical, cultural & religious similarities and linguistic and genetic evidence, has been proposed for decades but is only now being verified by concrete evidence.

The implications of such a realization are staggering – but no more than those of other recent discoveries challenging our conceptions of the early Americas.

In time for Columbus Day this year I thought it would be appropriate to note a few of the major convulsions in the established historical record that highlight the fact that the “era of Columbus” is now over. It’s already firmly established that Columbus didn’t discover America; and the illusion that the Americas existed in a bubble of cultural isolation is being shattered with every new finding of global interchange. But beyond that, it’s time to observe this ideological regime change by questioning whether Columbus is really so important after all – and what that means in the context of America’s colonial and imperialist legacy.

1: Norse Colonies & the First Native American in Europe

The presence of Scandinavians in North America before Columbus is well-established. At present they lay title to being the first Europeans to set foot on American soil. But one of the major revelations of the past year was the evidence of the earliest Native Americans in a European country – not as chattel transported via the English and Spanish slave trades, or even as diplomatic attaches to European monarchs – but as part of the saga of Norse exploration along the Atlantic seaboard.

The ill-fated Norse colony of L’anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland, dating to the 11th century, may have shared less than ideal relations with their Beothuk neighbors, according to extant records; but their association may have been closer than those records indicate. It remained for DNA science to reveal that many present-day Icelanders carry the genes of Newfoundland’s extinct indigenous populations, indicating that this Norse emigration was, at least on one occasion, a two-way street. This discovery marks a milestone in our understanding of early European involvement in North America and raises numerous questions about the nature and extent of the interaction between these groups.

2: Polynesian Trade with the Pacific Coast

There is a growing body of evidence that Polynesian sailors reached the Americas long before the 15th century, setting up an exchange that left clues on both sides of the Pacific. The Polynesians are an optimal candidate in the search for pre-Columbian contact, because they had both the technology and the motive to reach the Americas.

The prime evidence:

• Chickens – Ancient remains of chickens found on the coast of Chile predate the arrival of domesticated breeds introduced by European colonists. There were no chickens indigenous to the Americas; they are native to southeast Asia where they were first domesticated and later brought as far east as the Pacific islands. Obviously their presence in Chile could not be explained as a simple case of migratory spread. The carbon dating of the chicken bones gave them a tentative age of 600 years, right around the peak of the Polynesian’s Pacific expansion.

(National Geographic: Polynesians – And Their Chickens – Arrived in Americas Before Columbus)

• Sweet potatoes – As part of the Columbian Exchange, many of the New World’s important native foodcrops – including maize, potatoes, and cacao – were transported to Europe, Asia, and Africa where they became fundamental commodities. One of these crops, the sweet potato, has been cultivated for more than 5,000 years by peoples in Central and South America, where it first originated. Apart from direct human introduction, it is difficult to account for sweet potato cultivation by the Polynesians dating back more than a millennia. (Sweet potatoes propagate through tubers or plant cuttings, not by seeds that can be windblown or spread by birds.) It is even more difficult to explain how they came to be called by almost identical names in both regions.

There are even deeper connections on the horizon. Many researchers point to linguistic similarities and parallels in artifacts found in the Polynesia Pacific (including Easter Island) and in America’s Pacific coast cultures. Such suggestions of an information and technology exchange may be circumstantial at best. But there is considerable support rising from other fronts, not the least of which is recent DNA research confirming the exchange of much more than just trade goods.

3: Tibetan origins of Athabaskans

Historians and scientists have long understood that the genetic origins of most Native Americans lie in Central Asia, where they lived before crossing into the Americas sometime during the last Ice Age, and where their nearest living relatives can be found today. There are already observable parallels in language and culture that demonstrate this link. But in the case of the Athabaskan peoples (a linguistic group encompassing an extended range from Alaska to the Southwest) a much later entrance onto the historical stage supports a more recent connection.

The spread of Athabaskans – in particular the Navajo and Apache – is documented by archaeology and by the ancient records of Pueblo peoples who witnessed their arrival to the region around 1400. They were originally warlike migratory peoples seen by others as outsiders – and while this alone does not prove a recent origin beyond the Americas, the striking congruities between Athabaskan and Yeniseian languages pose important questions first asked by scholars as early as the 1800s. Why would one ethnic branch of Native Americans have such a well-preserved connection to an ancestral Asian tongue?

The research into this area has since evolved far beyond linguistic analysis to include technologies such as modern genetics and physical anthropology which further corroborate the recent timeline, and have helped to hone in on a more exact point of origin. The evidence points towards a conglomerate of Central Asian peoples in what is today Tibet who absconded from the region under the scourge of Genghis Khan’s Mongol invasions in the 13th century. The examination of Native oral accounts describing an exodus from a dangerous world, and an exhaustive comparison of ceremonial/ritual practices all bear this out in astonishing clarity. It’s pointless for me to describe the issue in further detail when it has been so deftly laid out in this well-annotated academic paper:

Relatives Halfway Round the World: Southern Athabaskans and Southern Tarim Fugitives

While controversial, these are three examples of scenarios that are rapidly gaining credence within the academic community and among Native leaders and scholars eager to re-examine their respective cultures’ roles on the broader stage of global history. It is interesting that these studies are so unfamiliar to the general public, and are rarely or never mentioned among the ranks of “fringe theories” about seafaring Egyptians, wandering Celts, marauding Templars or even Atlanteans. And it is also hard to believe that old misconceptions about the exploration of the Americas should die so hard in the face of so much information, when the reality is potentially much more incredible than we could have imagined.

These theories raise provocative questions about both Native and non-Native perceptions of Indian identity, and about of the role of colonialism in shaping the history of the Americas. If they were not always isolated, as previously thought, and carried on as lively and extensive an interchange with other cultures as new evidence leads us to believe, then was the high cost of European settlement – and the subsequent cultural dominance it has always taken for granted – really so inevitable? What transpired in these other contacts that set them so much apart – or in what ways were they more similar than we suppose? As time is quick to remind us, history is not always clearly in black and white.

What an irony that in the wake of a massive cultural genocide, where lost lifeways and endangered languages define much of the discussion of America’s indigenous peoples, we are on the threshold of such breakthroughs unveiling the staggering complexity of America’s culturally dynamic past. Of course it is hardly necessary to add to the topic by mentioning the continuous stream of new discoveries steadily demolishing the old view of pre-Columbian America at every turn. These paint a new landscape of astonishingly complex and advanced infrastructures, economies, and methods of land management: the point being that today’s Native Americans don’t need the establishment of these discoveries as a device to reinvent their modern identity or to legitimize their past. At present, the prospect of a profound interchange of shared knowledge and experience with other cultures – beyond the confines of colonial exploitation – does more than enrich our understanding of history and challenge prevailing concepts of pre-colonial America. It offers the vision of a new gateway of communication between modern Native Americans and cultures beyond the borders of the Americas, many of whom have far more in common than the shared experience of a colonial past.

Bottom line: the native peoples of the New World are not a subcategory of American or Western culture – a relic, frozen in time, leftover from the story of European colonialism. They are, as they have always been, a living part of the spectrum of the human family. It could never be said that it was Columbus who played the role of introducing the Americas to the world. If we can take away anything new from this Columbus Day, perhaps it should be that there’s no longer any reason to continue seeing America from the point of view of Columbus. It’s about time we can all start looking at our world from a wider, more complete perspective.

References:

• Weatherford, Jack: “Reexamining the Reputation of Columbus” (Baltimore Evening Sun, Oct. 1989)

• Wilson, Joseph: “Relatives Halfway Round the World: Southern Athabaskans and Southern Tarim Fugitives” LIMINA University of Western Australia (PDF)

• National Geographic: “Native Americans Sailed to Europe With Vikings?” (Nov 23, 2010)

• Ebenesersdottir, et al: “A new subclade of mtDNA haplogroup C1 found in icelanders: Evidence of pre-columbian contact?” American Journal of Physical Anthropology (November 10, 2010)

• Inman, Mason: “Polynesians — And Their Chickens — Arrived in Americas Before Columbus” (June 4, 2007) National Geographic News

• Montenegro, Alvaro, et al: “Modeling the Prehistoric Arrival of the Sweet Potato in Polynesia” (April 2, 2007) – Journal of Archaeological Science (PDF)

• Lebot, Vincent: Tropical root and tuber crops: cassava, sweet potato, yams and aroids (CABI, 2008) p. 94

• Thorsby, et al: “Further evidence of an Amerindian contribution to the Polynesian gene pool on Easter Island” Tissue Antigens, Immune Response Genetics (March 16, 2009)

The portrait is based on a 1906 photograph by Edward Curtis entitled “Tsahizn Tseh.”

JESSICA CRABTREE NATIVE AMERICAN PORTRAITS & WILDLIFE: Apache

The Apache people, along with their close relatives the Navajo, call themselves “Dine,” meaning “the people.” These nations are part of an extended group of closely related nations and bands who once inhabited large areas of the Western Plains. When they reached the deserts of the Southwest in the 1500s, the Navajo gradually adopted a farming lifestyle similar to the region’s Pueblo peoples, while the Apache continued their traditional nomadic ways. Their fierce independence and their incredible knowledge of desert survival have made them legendary.

After more than 25 years on the run from both the American and Mexican militaries, Geronimo (called “Goyathlay” in Apache) and his band of Chiricahua Apache surrendered to US forces under Gen. Nelson Miles. In a bitter irony, this last stand of Native Americans resisting reservation confinement occured only weeks before the dedication of America’s great new monument to freedom – the Statue of Liberty.

After his capture, Geronimo became an instant celebrity. He was paraded throughout the country, appearing at fairs, high-profile society functions, and presidential processions. Nevertheless he died a prisoner of war at the Fort Sill Military Prison in Oklahoma. The surviving Apache from Geronimo’s band, as well as the Apache who had served as scouts in the Army, were sent along with their families to military prisons in the Florida Everglades and across the South. The were never allowed to return home, and their imprisoned descendants remained prisoners of war until 1913 – a year before the first World War.

While Americans tend to view Geronimo as a cultural hero, many Apache feel that his ambivalent actions brought unnecessary hardship on the Apache people.

Geronimo – third from the left. Can you name the others? Find out here –

Left to Right: Chief Joseph (Nez Perce), Sitting Bull (Hunkpapa Lakota), Geronimo (Chiricahua Apache), and Red Cloud (Oglala Lakota)

Here’s the latest shot of my new painting Apache, 12×16.

More to come!

First stage of Apache, 12×16, pastel on suede. It will be in full-color, but in a painting with lots of dark shadows I find it works better to put in the darkest areas first. This look of this initial black layer has a really neat effect, I think. More coming soon!