Re: Native America
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:52 am
The map looks great, but if you're aiming for accuracy, it's going to be hard, especially for the year 1500. Many of the names you gave Indian groups were given by Europeans when they encountered and/or learned about them, which happened much later than 1500. Names like "Crow" "Blackfeet" "Nez Perce" and "Pawnee" that don't have their origins in a native language reflect this. I don't know how to resolve this, but it's just an observation. I guess my point is it seems like you're trying to depict the continent before the sustained impact of white people, empires, and modern nations, and so the name thing might get in the way. It might not be important to you however.
Some of the groups in 1500 didn't occupy the areas where you have them. The Comanche are a Shoshone-related group that immigrated to the southern plains in the 1700s to take advantage of the buffalo economy. The Choctaws weren't really an entity until after 1500, and the Seminoles weren't around until well into the 18th century. These are only a few examples. It might take a little research.
I like the idea.
Long-ranging sea routes will be hard, REAL hard for 1500.
By the way, I think you mean the "Flatheads" and not the "Flatfeet." They weren't infamous for being a clumsy, awkwardly-moving people.
Some of the groups in 1500 didn't occupy the areas where you have them. The Comanche are a Shoshone-related group that immigrated to the southern plains in the 1700s to take advantage of the buffalo economy. The Choctaws weren't really an entity until after 1500, and the Seminoles weren't around until well into the 18th century. These are only a few examples. It might take a little research.
I like the idea.
Long-ranging sea routes will be hard, REAL hard for 1500.
By the way, I think you mean the "Flatheads" and not the "Flatfeet." They weren't infamous for being a clumsy, awkwardly-moving people.