>I seriously cannot stress enough how enormous Yellowstone is. It's not the largest national park, but it's up there.

This.

My brother is a supervisory park ranger there, and it took us several days of him showing us around, and while we hit all the major stuff, we still didn't see everything. But we also spent a couple days in Cody, and took a day trip to see the Grand Tetons and have lunch in Jackson.

Got to stay in Ranger housing in the middle of the park. Pretty cool. And best of all, free! Even entrance to the park, since my brother is an employee and has a sticker on his vehicle.

One thing, though. If you're prone to altitude sickness like my father is, you're better off staying in Jackson or Cody and taking day trips into the park. Being at or above 8,000 feet 24 hours a day really kicked his ass. We even had to take him to Bozeman for treatment. The oxygen cans you can buy didn't help him much. The only thing that helped was getting him down to 6,000 feet or lower.

I was fine, but I definitely was shorter of breath than normal. I typically hike 3 to 4.5 miles a day carrying a 50 lb pack just for exercise, and walking there unencumbered felt like walking with the pack.

Just something to remember.

My gosh. The history we lost due to colonization is heartbreaking.

To get an objective understanding of what Native American’s treatment of nature was research what a Buffalo Jump was.

Thanks you, that makes a lot of sense.

So the very brief version is that there was just as much cultural diversity in eastern Mesoamerica as in the west; it's just that more recent events have led to the umbrella label "Maya" being applied to a disparate collection of cultures in the east, whereas no similar umbrella label has been applied to the west. (I suppose because "Aztec" already exists as a lazy label for anybody who doesn't want to get into the actual diversity in the region.)

The Cody Firearms Museum which is part of the Buffalo Bill Center of the West is a top-notch firearms museum too. Not really related to OP's question, but the admission to BBCotW is with it just for that.

Also, plan for two days at the BBCotW. The admission covers two days, and it takes nearly that to appreciate all of it. You could get there right as they open and stay until closing and see everything, but it's better to break it up.

BTW, I know the park archaeologist. I once asked her about her research, and the sad truth is her job is taken up mainly by digging test pits near proposed construction or infrastructure upgrades in the park, and subsequently writing reports about it.

On the plus side, though, she sees this kind of stuff every day. I literally took those pics right outside of her office.

There were no foreign trappers coming in. The Natives were the trappers and the people coming in were traders, bringing them technology they'd never seen before in exchange for the furs. As you might imagine, trading furs for metal cookwares or rifles was a pretty compelling arrangement before it all fell apart.

I think obviously your concerns are very well-founded but it is worth remembering that almost every pre-scientific society has a mixture of creation myths and metaphysical explanations for natural phenomena. In fact, you only have to look at the persistence of 'creationism' in the US, for example, to see that it isn't limited to pre-scientific societies either.

Even the modern world needed to understand both plate tectonics and radioactive decay before anything resembling a satisfactory understanding of Earth's geology was possible.

I don't think it would be calling the Ancient Egyptians savages for their interpretation of the Sun as being rolled across the sky or for the Ancient Greeks to regard lightning as the anger of Zeus etc. Nor would I be surprised to find that the many different Native American cultures who must have interacted with Yellowstone will have had their own interpretations and explanations for its geothermal activity etc.

I seem to remember reading on a plaque somewhere in the park that they tended to avoid the region which they perceived as haunted by evil spirits.

I would take this with a grain of salt for several reasons. First off, informational plaques at parks and musea are actually not anywhere near as rigorous as they should be (though, in general, the National Park Service is pretty good about this sort of thing). Secondly, it hits a lot of "lol stoopid savages" tropes that depict indigenous people as slaves to superstition. And finally, Yellowstone National Park is HUGE, beautiful and very abundant for people who live off the land. It would be stupid to avoid the entire region ignoring the material benefit to living there. (I seriously cannot stress enough how enormous Yellowstone is. It's not the largest national park, but it's up there. Please don't clog up Grand Loop Road trying to get in and see Old Faithful and then go back to your hotel in Jackson. Take Yellowstone slow and take it all in.)

I'd be interested in hearing some input from someone more familiar with the topic than me. I would email my old anthropology professor but I think she's getting sick of me bugging her every time I have a question about Native American archaeology or culture. 😅

Sounds fascinating! Definitely keeping an eye on this thread

[removed]

The Blackfeet and Crow were fierce warriors and Kit Carson killed them at every opportunity.

https://www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=read&author=abbottjc&book=carson&story=blackfeet

Just watch Yellowstone on tv! The duttons owned it that long ago :)

[removed]

[removed]

That was a great article. Sad in parts though. Such shameful history with the Native Americans. I don’t understand why McDonald is having trouble getting something accurate added to the park?

[removed]

Ah! That changes a lot. I parsed that as "[things] and and economy that worked]". As if the "that worked" was referring to just the economy not the rest of the things they listed.

I think they meant that the Romans introduced their versions of these things to those areas which would better integrate them into the Empire as a whole, whereas Egypt already had institutions and infrastructure that the Romans could use without issue.

Edit: re-reading it, I'm pretty sure that's what they meant. They said "the Egyptians already had [list of stuff] that worked" so I assume they meant the stuff worked for the Romans.

That's interesting, I would have thought it would be the reverse, since stone is so much harder to work (especially before they even had reliable iron working), the Egyptians only used it because clay was not as readily available. Obviously this has the same end result either way.

I wasn't asking about the parenthetical about Egyptian agriculture being different from the rest of Roman territory. It was the implication from how that comment was worded that Rome introduced the very concept of agriculture to most of the places they conquered which is extremely wrong.

In fact, the whole comment was worded in such a way that it seems like the author literally thought Rome was going into places and introducing the very concepts of farming, language (?!???! what?!) and government....

See:

>Instead of being a Roman settlement, Egypt...

(contrasting Egypt with the rest of Roman territory)

and

>No need for the Romans to come in and establish things that were already there.

Does this mean the author of the comment literally thought people in, say, pre-Roman Gaul were just walking around, grunting wordlessly until the Romans taught them Latin? I'm pretty certain that's not what they meant, but you have to admit it was worded very ambiguously. However, in light of the fact that they (apparently?) assume the Romans introduced agriculture to most of their empire, I'm not sure what to think...

Great read, thanks!

That was awesome! Thanks for sharing!

If you're into National Parks, Indigenous Americans, and want to be sad read up on Yosemite.

[deleted]

[removed]