Fibea asked in Social ScienceAnthropology · 2 months ago

What makes a people indigenous?

I'm curious, because length of time does not appear to be the only factor.

The Anglo-Saxon's arrived in England 1500-1600 years ago but most would not consider them indigenous.

The Maori people arrived in New Zealand 800-1200 years ago but are considered indigenous.

Isolation, uniqueness of culture in present time, and the presents of other cultures prior to arrival probably play a factor, but I'm unsure how it is determined.

4 Answers

Relevance
  • if you can trace your lineage back many generations in the country you were born.

    • Fibea2 months agoReport

      What counts as many? I can trace 6. Most Maori Whakapap can trace 24 to 27. Is there a magic number between 6 and 24 where a person becomes indigenous?

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    The first group of people to arrive in a previously unoccupied area would be considered indigenous. For example, native Americans claim that they were the first people to occupy the Western Hemisphere and so they are indigenous. There is evidence, however, that the Solutreans were in North America long before them. Of course there is disbelief among native Americans and their supporters in academics of the Solutrean Theory, even though there is both DNA and archaeological evidence to support it.

    There is a rare genetic marker belonging to Solutreans found in some native American tribes in the NE USA, and the Clovis Point tools bear a strong resemblance to Solutrean tools. They do not resemble native American tools. Further, the Clovis Point tools were all found under a layer of cosmic dust that some people suggest is the remnants of a small comet hitting the earth 13,000 years ago, which ended the last ice age, and wiped out a lot of large mammals completely, and it probably devastated the human populations present at that time, because humans are also large mammals. Not as large as a horse or camel (both of which were wiped out completely in America 13,000 years ago), but we are still considered large.

    That means the makers of the Clovis Point tools were so devastated by the catastrophe that the few survivors no longer knew how to make those tools, and they were also swamped by the number of people crossing over from Asia via the Bering land bridge. Therefore almost all native Americans have DNA that shows that they came from Asia and all stone tools made since the end of the last ice age show resemblance to those made in NE Asia. The Clovis Point tools were so good that there is no reason to abandon them and at the same time start making completely new ones.

    If the Solutrean theory is correct, then perhaps the native Americans cannot claim to be indigenous, and therefore they would not be able to claim certain privileges granted to indigenous people. That may be why people are fighting tooth and nail against the Solutrean theory, and in many cases simply ignoring the DNA evidence and the similarity in tool technology or using dubious evidence to argue against it. For example, the skeleton of a human has recently been found near some Clovis Point tools, and the remains have the DNA of native Americans from Asia. This finding has been used to try to falsify the Solutrean Theory. The problem of course is that it does not. That is because there is no proof that this person or his relatives made the Clovis Point Tools. This person may have died accidentally after the Clovis people had disappeared from the area. He simply died next to some tools that were lying on the ground. There is also no reasonable explanation as to why the Clovis Point technology was completely abandoned 13,000 years ago from doubters of the Solutrean Theory. In other words, they already have a conclusion and they are just looking for evidence to support it.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 2 months ago

    Indigenous people are based on their descent from populations that inhabited the country when non-indigenous religions and cultures arrived—or at the establishment of present state boundaries—who retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.The status of the indigenous groups in the subjugated relationship can be characterized in most instances as an effectively marginalized or isolated in comparison to majority groups or the nation-state as a whole.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    Indigenous refers to a group of peopIe who emerged in specific area, as opposed to settIers from other pIaces. New ethnic groups form as a resuIt of isoIation over long periods of time. Things Iike genetic drift and possibIy adaptation to their environments resuIt in certain genetic markers and sometimes features over the course of many many years.

    AIso, if tribe A is indigenous and is invaded by tribe B and maybe Iater tribe C, shouId mixing occur between aII of them over enough time and isolation from other tribes, and should members of onIy tribe A, B, or C no longer exist, they wouId be considered indigenous as they are not reaIIy the same group as the settIers/invaders B and C nor the same as the originaI group A, none of whom exist anymore. This new group that formed from mixing and isolation would then be considered the indigenous people. lf members of just group A stiII existed on that Iand, then group A wouId be the indigenous peopIe and not this new group. 

    • ...Show all comments
    • 2 months agoReport

      Zirp... l take it you don't know what genetic drift nor random mutations are... 

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.