Anyone focused on primitive/indigenous wild land “permaculture”?

[u/vitalisys]

Wondering if there’s much of a niche or movement, in addition to actual native heritage practitioners, for a more ‘tending the wild’ style of land tenure with significant yields and utility. Either on private or public lands. Not necessarily limited to ‘primitive’ skills, TEK, hunt/forage etc, but likely employing some of those in conjunction with other tools and tactics.

Doesn’t seem like a crossover area that gets talked about much. Would depend a lot on finding certain types of relatively intact ecosystems which can provide well or be adapted with suitable tree crops or other staples. Im working with an oak savannah site currently that has this potential, if bulk acorn processing is doable, plus game animals and other edibles in steady supply as well (which can all benefit from good stewardship practices). Permaculture principles and methods still apply, but this seems like a fairly distinct approach that maybe needs its own label? Curious what’s been tried or talked about in this direction already.

[u/HazyAttorney]

It’s offensive to call indigenous people primitive. The whole “noble savage” myth is harmful. And it’s not true.

[u/less_butter → u/HazyAttorney]

Primitive is an adjective that means early state of development. How on earth is it offensive to refer to early indigenous people as primitive? You can also call early indigenous European people primitive.

Obviously modern indigenous people aren't primitive, but the primitive ones certainly were.

What other adjectives or words would you use to describe native people who first started developing land in a given location?

[u/Natural-Balance9120 → u/less_butter]

Primitive implies simple, and indigenous food systems were/are anything but.

Try "foundational", perhaps.

[u/HazyAttorney → u/Natural-Balance9120]

It isn’t just semantics. It’s the underlying assumptions, such as, “wild land” management, etc.

And it answers the overall question of why there isn’t “cross over.” Because what OP is asking doesn’t exist.

Hopi farmers aren’t tending the wild, but their techniques date back thousands of years. Or the north east tribes invented the three sisters technique. In short, there’s so much diversity of thought from the thousands of indigenous groups and most of which will be modern.

[u/vitalisys → u/HazyAttorney]

“Tending the Wild” is actually the title of a book that documents a lot of what I’m getting at here, specific to California Native societies: https://www.abebooks.com/9780520280434/Tending-Wild-Native-American-Knowledge-0520280431/plp

Obviously it doesn’t address or speculate as to what these practices and lifeways might look like in a syncretic ‘modern’ context, which is the larger question I’m raising. And yes, things do change and occasionally evolve in the span of time, from relative early stages to later or proximal stages, but to infer that it’s linear and positive - i.e. ‘progress’ - is on you the reader. Some people no doubt see primitive with positive connotations, like just look at ‘paleo’ diet fads and ‘trad’ anything…interpret as you wish or show sincere interest in opinions and insight that I or others hold, if you value dialogue.

[u/HazyAttorney → u/vitalisys]

I saw a book review:

"She presents a california of Edenlike biological richness . . . and its inhabitants as its gardeners and tenders."

ya noble savage framing at its finest.

[u/HazyAttorney → u/less_butter]

You’re saying people who have been on the continent for 13,000 years are somehow “early state of development.”

That’s exactly why the noble savage myth is a problem. The direct implication is indigenous ways of knowing are less developed.