In the bottom left it shows the current year in the Aztec calendar, presumably cut off and the "current year" in the Gregorian calendar at 2015 AD. I'm 95% sure this is just some guy's alt history map, especially considering how many wack ass names some of these places have
It's definitely an alternate history map, and I hope it's an accurate potential map of an uncolonized North America if it's cultures grew to nation state sizes.
I'm European so I'm not meaning to offend, but there's something very interesting to me try to visualise how America could have grown without colonisation, and perhaps this is through my European lense but I'd imagine borders would move and groups would swallow eachother up. The scale of countries on this map is pretty comparable to what we see in Europe and Asia, but I don't know enough about America to know if this is respectful to the placement and potential of Native American groups (e.g I think I've read before the the Comanche are a successful seperation from the Shoshone that was largely due to their expansion due to horses, which would have happened very differently sans colonisation), and I'm not even sure if this map follows natural borders like mountains and rivers, largely because I'm just not that familiar with America.
The Aztec empire being the dominant force on the continent could be a very unfortunate situation for everyone living there.
They were so unpopular with every surrounding nation (because of all the murdering and kidnapping and human sacrificing) that when the Spanish showed up, the vast vast majority of the soldiers that fought against the Aztecs were from the local peoples.
this map is complete nonsense because some of these groups only exist as a result of interactions with europeans, and even some of the other ones are from completely different places before europeans came in.
Could you point me to where I could better learn about these regions then? No offense, I'm just actually curious now.
This one seems most accurate: https://native-land.ca/
OP's map relies a lot more on Western notions of nations and land ownership than you would have found for many indigenous tribes.
It does, but it's also like 1000x more info than the average person knows
The First Peoples of North America definitely didn't have such sharp, well defined border lines. It's not as of they had a bunch of written treaties establishing hard borders.
This is a conceptual alternate history map of modern day North America without colonisation. It's still reasonably inaccurate of course but it's not meant to accurately portray the borders of a pre-colonised North America.
iirc its a word for enemy, IE the colonists encountered a rival tribe, and never cared to correct their mistake.
The Wikipedia says it comes from a French misspelling of an indigenous word that could be used to describe the people. So it might be a little less offensive than that, but still not great.
If they'd endured as independent groups into the 21st century without being colonised by Europeans, as the map shows, they would almost certainly have developed defined borders.
Huron Supremacy? The Jason Bourne series really went off track after the 3rd movie.
Is this one of those "this is uncomfortably political to me and I don't like that like that, therefore it isn't a wholesome chungus 100 maymay" things?
Why are the Hopi drawn in Texas? They were/are in current northern Arizona. Texas had Tawakoni, Wichita, Kickapoo and Comanche tribes.
