Question on N.A. Cities

Highlander

Banned
Simply, what is the best way to figure out where cities/major settlements would be in a Native American state?
 
Simply, what is the best way to figure out where cities/major settlements would be in a Native American state?
Depends on your region, I would think- but a lot of times the same factors that would lead to white settlers building a settlement could also apply for Native Americans. (This I think would hold true more in the east than in the west, due to things like the Transcontinental Railroad and such)

Usually around navigable rivers is a good bet, I think?
 
I think that 'major' settlement sites can still be located with a little research, but that would be true mainly for Eastern and Southwestern Native Americans. Plains Natives were rather nomadic and never really stayed together for any extended period of time. However, any navigable rivers that could be used as a trade route, food and water supply would work as well as proximity to good and large hunting areas.
 
They'd be identical to where major cities are today in lots of cases. NY, Chicago, San Antonio all founded on the sites Native settlements.
 

Michael Busch

Saint Louis is another good example - the intersection of the two rivers makes it a logical site, and Cahokia was there long before the current city.
 
I have to agree with those who say they'd be where many modern US cities are. These cities were built on convenient locations for trade etc in a time before steam powered transport. I'd also suggest that they'd be located for convenient defence within these general locations.
 
In some cases tribes had "capitals" - really large primary villages that were not necessarily occupied year round. I only know some of my local ones. The Prairie Potawatomi used what is now the tiny town of Paw Paw, Illinois. It's in the middle of the prairie, though, and seems unlikely to ever be a major settlement unless it becomes a formal seat of government and attracts bureaucrats and the services needed to support them. The Sauk-Fox confederacy was centered at Saukenuk, modern Rock Island, IL - which today is at the center of the Quad Cities metropolis on both sides of the Mississippi.
 
I think it really depends on the kind of economy the inhabitants have. For instance, if their diet mainly consists out of fish, they'd live by a river or by the sea. But I think some fish require more technology then others. So you'll have to think what kinds of food they can and do produce/hunt.
 
Kind of old, but I've done a little development of just such a state for the Ill Bethisad project. It would be in the ASB category, since Ill Bethisad freely tosses butterflies out or piles them on, as seen fit, so this is really not a strict Alternative History at all. But it does portray the Illinois/Wisconsin region after only partial European colonization. Borders follow tribal divisions to a certain extent. The Potawatomi and Sauk capitals that I mentioned are on the map; the other tribe-type entities are administered from European-founded towns.

Ouisconsin_map.PNG
 
Depends on what you mean by "state". If you mean a purely indigenous state (complex, agricultural, urbanized, heirarchical, etc) which evolved from local hunting and farming cultures, I agree with other posters. Large settlements would initially develop near the confluences of major rivers with wide arable floodplains, where rivers enter good harbors, or in other areas with excellent farming, resource extraction, and/or defensive potential. In many instances, this would be the same places Euroamerican settlements developed.

There is one likely exception to the above general rule. The overseas pattern of Anglo-American settlement created a large number of major coastal cities on the Atlantic seabord. There is no reason to believe a native american nation would site so many major cities witin 50-100 miles of the Atlantic Ocean. While there would be some towns and cities located on the eastern coast, it is very improbable an evolving native american nation state including much of OTL USA would end up with a megalopolis stretching from Boston to Richmond. I might imagine instead a Great Lakes or Mississippi/Misouri River megalopolis.

If you mean a "state" as in a US state (or independent modern nation-state) established by and for native americans at somepoint during the expansion of the USA, the location of cities would have a lot to do with when the state was established. Prior to the 1850's, towns and cities would be located along, and at the confluences, of rivers. In the later 19th century, rail lines and rail hubs - or good places with a nexus of rail and water - would be chosen. In the 20th century roads and highways would begin to dictate city placement.

Based on known north american prehistory, a few general places stand out as location of locally evolved city/states or kingdoms: St Louis area, Phoenix area, several sites along the lower Mississippi valley (Baton Rouge, etc), several locations in the Ohio Valley, the Arkansas/Red confluence, and perhaps along the southern margins of the Great Lakes.
 
Some things are near universal

Natural harbors turn into towns as soon as fishing boats are in common use. When trading by sea becoms a big deal, then big natural harbors with a rivr are natural locations--New Orleans, New York, to name a few. Cities with great harbors, but no major rivers (Bosteon, perhaps) might not grow as fast

Locations near major resources, whatever they might be, also grow cities. So look at what resources are needed and traded.

Other cities might crop up in unexpected places--perhaps a traditional conference place between adjoining tribes sees more and more people there, and grows into a city despite no real resources. (That's like Washington DC in concept, though not origin--a city that produces treaties, laws, etc despite having no real value otherwise.)
 
Top