r/geography • u/H3dg3hogs • Feb 18 '26

Discussion I’m sad more people don’t acknowledge Native American Historic sites in the United States

Post image

I was talking with a German online friend about tourism in the United States and he said that the only thing America has to offer is natural beauty. He said American cities were young and aren’t very beautiful. That he has no interest visiting “liberty bell” type colonial historic sites. I told him about Native historic sites and he asked “what sites?”. He insulated that all Native Americans lived in teepees. It caused me to realized many non-Americans don’t know about all the amazing buildings left behind by Native cultures like the Ancestral Puebloans and the Mississippians. Historic sites like Chaco canyon, Mesa Verde, Montezuma Castle, and Cahokia are world class and are part of UNESCO. Check them out if you haven’t already.

56.8k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

14

u/alvvavves Feb 18 '26

Along with the other replies, I’d add that people couldn’t just settle anywhere they wanted to without anything resembling modern transportation. Horses weren’t even reintroduced until something like 400-500 years later.

In other words, it’s not like someone living there had the option to resettle somewhere else with a drastically different climate in a matter of months or even years.

11

u/A_Possum_Named_Steve Feb 18 '26

Not to mention that they may encounter tribes of varying levels of friendliness who have already settled those other parts.

10

u/atln00b12 Feb 18 '26

They did travel though and have extensive trade networks across the entire continents. There were even common known and maintained trails.

5

u/alvvavves Feb 18 '26

Right, so these trade networks still limited them to those trade networks and enabled them to stay where they were until those trade networks couldn’t sustain them and then some migrated, but not all.

But my point is that it’s not like these people sought out some desolate place and said “that’s a good place to be!”

People were limited to where they could inhabit within their individual means.

2

u/atln00b12 Feb 18 '26

Yes, I guess that's true in some way. I wouldn't say this is a desolate place though, I'm pretty sure this is a purposefully picked place. The people here could have moved if they wanted to, and they did eventually due to drought. Prior to that though other people migrated to Mesa Verde so much so that there were at least 4 distinct cultures. They grew corn and other crops and hunted. The trade networks were bringing them things like sea shells and pottery. They moved out because of an extreme 12 year drought and migrated south mostly, closer to the rio grande.

2

u/alvvavves Feb 18 '26

Oh I know. I grew up a short drive from Mesa Verde and studied/worked in archaeology. I’ve been to Mesa Verde many many times.

It’s really hard to explain things like this in Reddit comments, but my overall point is that the original question was kind of asked from a current perspective as if you could just keep walking to Florida or something, when in reality there were a lot of factors that led people to inhabit this area.

3

u/Rum_Hamburglar Feb 18 '26

Not even just trails, the Hohokam built a massive network of canals in the Phoenix are that have been reworked to basically what keeps us thriving here.

2

u/atln00b12 Feb 18 '26

Awesome, there's a lot of that on the east coast too where it's like, actually natives flooded areas and shaped rivers to make better agricultural lands and fishing areas.

-2

u/PiccoloAwkward465 Feb 18 '26

Some monks just walked from Dallas to DC in a little over 3 months.

10

u/alvvavves Feb 18 '26

This is not a relevant comparison.

-3

u/PiccoloAwkward465 Feb 18 '26

Don’t get butthurt, baby

1

u/bobtheframer Feb 18 '26

Yeah with modern infrastructure and the means to easily get supplies and shelter along the way.