Which means you concede that it’s possible that the explanation for why Indians didn’t domesticate bison might be that bison weren’t domesticable given available tech, and not your implausible cultural theory.
What special case pleading is that? It’s not special case pleading to assert that two different species of animals might have different behaviour patterns. My position, since you seem to be misunderstanding it, is that we don’t know how hard it is to domesticate bison compared to aurochs, and it’s perfectly possible that the domestication of bison poses different challenges making it infeasible for their domestication by the pre-contact Indians whose territory overlapped with that of the bison. This explanation for the failure to domesticate bison is not unreasonable. It may be false, because the domestication of bison might not pose different challenges than the domestication of aurochs, but we don’t know that, even though you seem keen to argue that there aren’t any such differences. However, you are arguing that it’s an unreasonable explanation, and we must rather accept that hundreds of cultures over thousands of years all possessed the same arbitrary more against domestication, entirely without evidence. You are simply wrong on this point. ‘Bison weren’t domesticable with the tech available to the Indians’ is not an unreasonable hypothesis. It is unproven. It is possibly false. But it is not unreasonable on its face.
Bison are certainly intentionally bred. You just leave the herd alone during breeding season. Prior to that, you make sure that the bulls you don’t want breeding are removed from the herd. If you have a specific bull you want bred to specific cows, you have to isolate them as a seperate subherd away from the others. Bison breeding behaviour is substantially different from that of domestic cattles, making it infeasible to do the sort of “we’ll just release this cow and this bull into this pen for a bit and they’ll get the job done” sort of breeding that one can do with cattle, but the roundabout method does work.
I believe the problem with corn is that left to its own devices, if an ear of corn falls on the ground, the kernels will rot long before the corn husk does. It’s not a question of kernel scarification or competition (other grains grow with extremely high density as well). As far as I know, corn is self-fertile and also readily cross-fertilizes using the wind, without human aid (hence the flap about genetically modified corn contaminating nearby cornfields). When I’ve seen corn saved for seed, it has been husked and laid out to dry before the kernels can be safely removed from the cob to grow.
For the seventeenth time, I already addressed this. The practical difference between “geography made the choice sustainable” and “geography explains why they could make the choice” is nil. It doesn’t exist. Insanity and absurdity alone the practical outcome is the same. Japanese only made that choice (oops, Japanese were only able to sustain that choice and hence exist as people living with the consequences thereof) because of environment. Europeans were never able to sustain that choice and hence no European people could ever exist living with the consequences of that choice.
What I think hardly matters. What matters is that Diamond has presented no evidence at all. He may well be making it up out of whole cloth as far as we can ascertain at this point, or he may be mad, or lying or any other possibilities.
And that about ends it for the rest of your disingenuous cut and paste dismantling of my posts. You have already established that you only do this to construct a Micheal Moore style strawman, and you are continuing to do so. Instead of making any attempt at addressing my arguments you are deconstructing them line by line and arguing against the individual sentences, not because they are factually incorrect but because you can’t dispute the argument in toto.
I have already provided those references. I have no intention of doings again. The only possible way that you could have missed them is because of this piecemeal deconstruction of my posts you insist in engaging in.
ROTFLMAO.
Dude, Diamond not only doesn’t explain that, he doesn’t even say that. I’d give up on you right now, but we are here to fight ignorance, so I guess I should fight yours.
New Zealand is about 2000 km from Australia across cold open ocean. It was settled just a few centuries ago, and agriculture was largely restricted to the warmer North Island. The highlands were never the scene of agriculture before Europeans arrived because the Maori lacked domesticated animals, and the only vegetation capable of supporting agriculture there were grasslands.
In contrast the Torres Strait islands are less than 100 km away across a tropical sea. Agriculture was practiced on most of those islands. PNG is less than 200 km away and agriculture has been practiced over the whole island for millennia. The Timor and Tanimbar Islands are less than 500 km away and have likewise supported agicultural people for millennia.
As you can see if Diamond had “explained” why farming in the region was limited to the New Zealand highlands he would be explaining something that doesn’t exist. Thankfully he never says any such thing and you have totally failed to comprehend what he actually said.
And on that note I think I can leave you alone. Quite clearly you have no idea of what Diamond says, or what the truth is. You also clearly have no intention of trying to comprehend what I am saying, rather you prefer engaging in dishonest deconstruction and selective editing of my position. I have no wish to debate someone so dishonest who shows so much ignorance of the topic., both the facts and the Author’s works.
Cite please. Evidence that white people made more than cursory attempts at domestication via running mixed herds of cattle and bison. Evidence that people hunted bison to extinction because they couldn’t be domesticated rather than because they were interfering with cattle and sheep grazing and providing food to Indians.
Frankly this seems like absolute nonsense.
Cite please.
Which is of course exactly the same flawed logic Diamond uses. Bison are undomesticable because they weren’t domesticated by Indians. And overlook the fact that they have been domesticated by non-Indians.
And there may have been pink unicorns. This is exactly what I have been criticising all along. Every time some fact contradicts the conclusion we want to draw we go and find some unique factor to try to explain it away without actually explaining, it.
The trouble is that you have once again failed to understand your own reference. Read carefully” “many of them include animals with genes from domestic cattle”. Many, not all, many. Not even most, but many. Which means that many more of them don’t include animals with genes from domestic cattle. But all those herds that contain no animals with any cattle genes are still domestic herds. And all those animals living within contaminated herds that have no cattle genes themselves, they are also domesticated.
Quite clearly this goes no way at all to explaining more docile bison, because both herds and individual bison with no cattle genes are just as docile as hybrids.
First off there is no doubting that bison have been domesticated, Even Diamond doesn’t seek to challenge that point. He simply claims that they aren’t ‘really’ domesticated because they aren’t commercially competitive with pork and beef on a large scale. Exactly what that has to do with domestication I’m not quite sure.
Secondly aurochs were without a doubt huge, and not nearly as tractible as cattle. We have numerous references to attest to that fact. That alone proves that an animals being huge and less tractable than cattle doesn’t make it undomesticable because aurochs became cattle under domestication.
Thirdly there is no doubt that bison are intentionally bred.
Yes, but the problem with this is that it’s presupposing the conclusion. We want to conclude that bison can’t be domesticated, so we presuppose that and work backwards. It doesn’t actually address the problem that bison have been domesticated by people who aren’t; native Americans (and later by Native Americans too of course).
Concede? CONCEDE? WTF do you mean concede? I have never at any stage contended otherwise. In fact on at leats three occasions I quite clearly and explicitely said exactly that.
This isn’t something I am conceding, this is something that has been the crux of my argument from the outset. Yes, it’s possible, but it’s involves tortured, convoluted arguments based on ad hoc explanations and constant explaining awyain order to get to that conclusion. As I’ve said numerous times, it’s possible, it’s logical, hell it’s even scientific, but man it’s weak. This isn’t something I have to concede, it’s something that I have always explicitly held to be the case.
The problem I have with your position, and by extension Diamond’s, is that it is tortured and so weak scientifically that it has almost no predictive power left. Yes there might be differences that make bison uniquely undomesticable using Neolithic technology. That isn’t impossible, and by default it must therefore be possible.
It’s not the possibility that’s the problem, it’s the way that conclusion was arrived at, and that is basically post hoc reasoning and constant shoring up of holes in the hypothesis. That’s a problem because using the same tactics we could support any hypothesis that is physically possible simply because it is physically possible. It essentially allows us to continue to embrace any belief e desire so long as it doesn’t contradict the laws of physics. Don’t; you think that is a less than ideal way to establish the truth?
And of course Diamond at leats professes to be writing as a scientist. Science needs predictive power/falsifiability, and this tactic allows no falsification and little predictive power. There is no possible evidence that can be collected that would falsify your position that bison can’t be domesticated using neolithic technology, because as soon as the evidence is presented you can explain it away with fudge factors. Nor can the hypothesis truly predict anything because it contingent in knowing all possible possible fudge factors that might be added. IOW it predicts by subtly modifying itself to fit whatever observations may be found. That may not make it unscientific but as Popper said, it make sit weak science and puts it on par with astrology.
I know I have said this several times before. It’s not a new concession. I have never denied that such tortured explanations are physically possible, I have always simply said that they are weak.
And no, I have not argued that there are no differences in the domestication requirements of aurochs and bison. What I have said repeatedly is that there is no evidence of such differences. And we should be basing our positions on evidence shouldn’t we? Every time that you produce some fact that implies a difference I produce counter examples to show that in fact no such implication can be drawn. You say that farming was needed, I point out they were farmers. You say sedentary farmers, I show they had that to. You say bison were restricted to the Great Plains, I prove they weren’t. You say you need metal yards to herd bison, I show that people herd comparable beasts with wooden yards. And so it goes, ever onwards.
There may have been unique features that made bison undomesticable to Neolithic people, but there is absolutely no evidence to support such a position. Yes I am arguing that it’s unreasonable to accept something based on no evidence at all.
And for the 4th fricken’ time, I am NOT arguing that we must accept that hundreds of cultures over thousands of years all possessed the same arbitrary more against domestication. I trust you will understand that I am getting annoyed at you saying this, given that I have previously explicitly stated several times that “I never argued that the reason was cultural, simply that Diamond should have conceded that it was as possible as a geographic explanation, or his contradictory position that bison have been domesticated yet are undomesticable. Whatever problems cultural explanations have equally plague any biogeographic explanations.”
Gorsnak I am enjoying debating this point with you, but I am getting annoyed at you introducing the exact same strawman into every single post, and having to correct it in every single post. I have never argued that we must accept the cultural explanation. Never, ever. Never even implied anything that could be misconstrued that way. I have explicitly stated that I am not making any such argument on numerous occasions over several days now. So FFS please stop saying that I am making such an argument. It’s a blatant strawman.
It is unreasonable to the extent that it is based on no evidence and the ‘reasoning’ that led to it is tortured and convoluted and consists of an unending introduction of fudge factors. To you that may be reasonable, to me it isn’t simply because we could use the same type of reasoning to prove anything that isn’t actually physically impossible, including cultural and genetic explanations. If genetic and cultural explanations are unreasonable then so is this.
And you claim that it can be falsified, but can you explain how it could be falsified following the same pattern adopted so far? Even if I got a team of people to make domesticates bison as tame as dairy cattle in a four hundred year experiment using just wooden tools, you could then simply look at what is geographically unique now and exploit the difference as a fudge factor. For example you could argue that global warming has led to more C4 grasses and hence higher oxalate production and more placid bison. Or you could claim that rumen bacteria introduced form cattle have changed bison temperament. Or you could claim that since my bison weren’t free to migrate thousands of miles it wasn’t a reasonable experiment.
I can’t see what possible experiment or observation would falsify this hypothesis if you continue to modify it to account for every contradictory observation or experimental result. Yet that is exactly what has been done so far. Any evidence that shows that aurochs and bison are essentially identical WRT domestication is explained away whenever they are presented.
Jeez, don’t get your panties in such a knot. For the record, I have clearly misunderstood your view. I had thought you had been saying that the cultural explanation was more reasonable than the ‘not domesticable’ explanation. Probably because you said things like:
If you have actually been saying all along that maybe the explanation is maybe biological, maybe cultural, we just don’t know, then I apologize, because I agree. Between one thing and another, though, your posts have given me the distinct impression that you think (1) the cultural explanation is to be preferred, and (2) bison are no more difficult to domesticate than aurochs, both of which are views based on no more evidence than my gut feeling that the cultural explanation is wrong (which is itself not based on any evidence at all). If you are not actually arguing for (1) and (2) but only against their negations, then we are in agreement.
Oh FFS, that’s exactly what I was saying. You yourself have quoted where I said exactly that. I hope though that you can see that there is a gulf between “more plausible” and “must accept”. Your repeated assertions that I am saying we must accept the cultural explanation is not true, it’s a strawman, and one that I have set fire to far too many times for it to be fun any more.
Gorsnak, do you think it is more plausible that gravity is a result of string theory rather than being caused by invisible fairies? Do you see that because you believe that string theory is more plausible that does not mean that doesn’t mean that you also believe that we must accept it as the explanation? Do you understand that just because something is more plausible that doesn’t mean we must accept it? Do you see that I have been arguing that culture is more plausible, which is a far cry from your strawman that I have said we must accept it as the explanation?
Similarly I do believe that bison are no more difficult to domesticate than aurochs. There is absolutely no reason to believe otherwise. That is also a far cry from saying that we must accept a cultural explanation.
And it’s true that your belief that bison are inherently less domesticable than Aurochs is based on no more evidence than my contrary view, that’s because neither position has any evidence behind it. The difference is that my view is a default position, it’s the null hypothesis. It posits no difference. It is the position that we should take by default absent any evidence, and then set out to disprove it. Positing a difference absent any evidence at all isn’t logical. If we do that then we have to conclude that it’s equally plausible that Indians were genetically stupider and that’s why they didn’t domesticate bison. After all there is no evidence that bison are inherently less domesticable than Aurochs and there is no evidence that Indians are genetically stupid. Your view that Indians aren’t genetically stupid is based on no more evidence than my gut feeling that Indians are just born dumb. Does that seem like a reasonable position to you? I doubt that very much. That’s why science adopts the null hypothesis of no difference by default, and sets out to falsify it, rather than assuming that two things are different and constructing an argument from ignorance by saying that because it can’t be disproved we should accept it.
Let’s see: Evidence shows that they are both large and intractable in the wild state. Evidence shows that they both need solid yards for holding them. Evidence shows that the bulls of both species are highly aggressive in the breeding season. Evidence shows that their range overlapped strongly with sedentary agricultural people. Evidence shows that both species can be domesticated by humans if the effort is made.
What do you mean that you haven’t seen that evidence? You have responded to that evidence. You are well aware that it exists. The problem isn’t that you don’t know that evidence exists, you didn’t even contest the evidence. The problem is that you simply explain it away whenever it’s presented by subtly modifying your theory.
Contention: Bison can’t be domesticated (Diamond’s rather than yours)
Evidence: They have been domesticated.
Explanatory modification: They can’t be domesticated by non-agriculturalists.
Contention: Bison never overlapped in range with sedentary agriculturalists: Evidence: They overlapped hugely with sedentary agriculturalists.
Explanatory modification: Sedentary agriculturalists couldn’t contain them using Neolithic technology.
Contention: Sedentary agriculturalists couldn’t contain bison using Neolithic technology.
Evidence: Various groups right up to this century have contained equally destructive wild cattle using materials and methods easily adaptable to Neolithic technology.
And so one and on it goes. Every time some evidence is presented that shows that aurochs and bison are essentially identical WRT domestication you tack on another modification of the hypothesis to explain why that evidence doesn’t really apply.
Now I will ask you again, since you ducked it last time: you claim that the theory that bison are inherently less domesticable than aurochs can be falsified, but can you explain how it could be falsified following the same pattern adopted so far? I really can’t imagine any conceivable experiment or evidence that could falsify such a claim if I can tack on explanatory modification in response to the results.
You are equivocating here. If there is no difference between bison and aurochs, then we must either accept a cultural explanation, or postulate invisible faeries. That is precisely equivalent to saying that we must accept a cultural explanation in any ordinary usage of the phrase. You may wriggle on about Cartesian skepticism all you like, but nobody runs around qualifying their ‘must accept’ statements with worries about evil geniuses or brains in vats in ordinary discourse.
That is not my view. My view is that bison may be inherently less domesticable. We. Don’t. Know.
What? Bison and aurochs are two different species. They’re not even in the same freaking genus. Their most recent common ancestor lived a million years ago. And you’re saying the default assumption should be that they’re behaviourally identical? That’s just bizarre. That’s like saying that the null hypothesis would posit no difference in behaviour between chimps and gorillas if we couldn’t actually witness their very different behaviour patterns. Moreover, you’re just baldly asserting that you don’t need evidence for your position. Neither of us have evidence, you say, but my view is wrong, and we know this because you don’t have to provide evidence. Well, sorry bub, but in this particular case it’s just ridiculous to suppose that the burden of proof lies any heavier on either of us.
How in the hell is that evidence that bison and auroch domestication would be of equivalent difficulty? All that’s evidence of is that they’re roughly similar in some respects. I could make exactly the same points about horses and zebras (i.e., both large and intractable in the wild state, stallions of both species highly aggressive, etc), and yet it’s uncontroversially the case that zebras have even nastier, more evil temperments than feral horses, and even modern attempts to domesticate zebras have failed. And yet it would be simplicity itself to domesticate zebras in the sense that bison are domesticated. Build a fence around them and chase them through a chute now and then. That’s the extent of bison domestication. So by your argument this is all evidence that horses and zebras are equally difficult to domesticate? I sure as hell don’t see how. It’s evidence that the barriers to domestication are of the same sort in both cases, but it’s no evidence at all with regard to the magnitude of those barriers.
For the record, I said it might be false, not that it was falsifiable. Of course, it is falsifiable in the technical sense, but not feasibly so. If we had extant aurochs, it wouldn’t be difficult to compare their relative behaviour. But we do not, and so we’re not left with much. You are welcome to explain how your contrary view may be falsified any more feasibly.
False dilemma much? “We must either accept a cultural explanation, or postulate invisible faeries” WTF??
Apparently it has never occurred to you that we can admit ignorance, or accept a complex solution invoking culture, geography, biology etc., or accept a solution that is entirely geographic without there being any difference at all between the species (after all this is clearly the case with reinder/carobou).
And so ad infinitum. “We must either accept a cultural explanation, or postulate invisible faeries” is a false dilemma and nothing more. Personally I don’t believe in string theory one bit. Nonetheless it is far more plausible to me than invisible fairies. That doesn’t mean that I have to accept it just because it’s more plausible than something totally ridiculous.
Your suggestion that ““We must either accept a cultural explanation, or postulate invisible faeries” is a classic false dilemma and it deserves no more consideration.
OK, it’s a nitpick that sidesteps the point. I concede that it’s not specifically your stated view that bison are less domesticable. Now how about addressing the actual issue?
It’s true that a belief that bison are inherently less domesticable than Aurochs is based on no more evidence than my contrary view, that’s because neither position has any evidence behind it. The difference is that my view is a default position, it’s the null hypothesis. It posits no difference. It is the position that we should take by default absent any evidence, and then set out to disprove it. Positing a difference absent any evidence at all isn’t logical. If we do that then we have to conclude that it’s equally plausible that Indians were genetically stupider and that’s why they didn’t domesticate bison. After all there is no evidence that bison are inherently less domesticable than Aurochs and there is no evidence that Indians are genetically stupid. Your view that Indians aren’t genetically stupid is based on no more evidence than my gut feeling that Indians are just born dumb. Does that seem like a reasonable position to you? I doubt that very much. That’s why science adopts the null hypothesis of no difference by default, and sets out to falsify it, rather than assuming that two things are different and constructing an argument from ignorance by saying that because it can’t be disproved we should accept it.
What? Indians and Europeans are two different races. They’re not even from the same freaking continent. Their most recent common ancestor lived a hundred thousand years ago. And you’re saying the default assumption should be that they’re genetically identical? That’s just bizarre.
See, by this ‘reasoning’ the idea that Indians were too genetically stupid to domesticate large animals remains just as plausible as the idea that bison are genetically less domesticable. But it doesn’t work that way. We should never accept that something exists without any evidence simply because there is no evidence proving it doesn’t exist. If that is really what your position comes down to then it is nothing but an argument from ignorance.
That is precisely what the null hypothesis would predict, and exactly what any ethologist worth their salt would set out to falsify. You should never assume a difference exists absent any evidence, you should assume a commonality. The alternative inevitably forces us to accept the equal plausibility that Indians are genetically to stupid to domesticate bison. As you said above, different groups, different environments, no evidence against. The same argument that would lead us to accept equal plausibility of behavioural differences between two groups of apes also leads us to accept equal plausibility of genetic differences between two groups of people.
Well first off I never baldly asserted any such thing. If you contend otherwise, bub, then quote me.
Secondly I have no evidence specifically in favour of the cultural explanation, but then I don’t contend that the cultural explanation is the case, simply that it isn’t based on an argument from ignorance. The cultural case is stronger because we know beyond any shadow of a doubt that Indians has cultural traditions that led to them only accepting domestic grazers “at gunpoint” as one other poster put it. I’m not inventing a cultural difference that affects rates of uptake of domestication, we know they existed. The only question is, are they sufficient to account for the last 10, 00 years. The answer is “probably not”, but the position isn’t based entirely on “you can’t prove such cultural differences didn’t exist.”.
In contrast the biogeographic argument really does come down to “you can’t prove it isn’t fairies”. There isn’t one shred of evidence that bison were any harder to tame than aurochs. The only reason we would even entertain the idea is because it can’t be actively disproved. But by that standard we have to entertain the idea that Indians are mentally incapable of domesticating large animals because of genetics.
First off, you better tell us what you would consider to be evidence aurochs and bison are essentially identical WRT domestication. If all those things aren’t evidence of that then what would be evidence to your mind? It seems that the only thing that would convince you is to actually have wild aurochs and bison in the same place at the same time being tamed by the same people. IOW the only evidence you will accept as indicative of the conclusion seems to be evidence that forecloses the conclusion.
Secondly we can’t say exactly the same thing about zebras and horses. You can’t point to wild horses behaving as zebras do. In fact exactly the opposite is true. Any wild horse can be trapped and tamed to the point of taking a rider within a matter of days. They are in no way comparable to zebras, where it takes the most exceptional zebra to be trained to take a rider after many months of training. Any wild horse and a domestic horse are separated by at most a couple of weeks of human contact. Most zebras will simply never meet the standard of a horse and those outstanding individuals that do are hard work.
Compare that with cattle. Feral cattle and bison are pretty much identical for the purposes of domestication. There isn’t any gulf here. The behaviour of one groups is the behaviour of the other group. It’s not that outstanding bison are the same as average cattle, it’s that the behaviour of average bison is the same as the behaviour of the average feral cow.
This is the point your are missing. It’s not like people tame zebra as easily as they tamed feral horses, quote the opposite. Horses can be tamed in short order, zebra can not. While the effort required to domesticate feral cattle and bison is on par. There simply isn’t any comparison.
[parody]It would be simplicity itself to sail a kayak in the sense that life-rafts are sailed. Put them in the water and steer them away from danger if you can. That’s the extent of life-raft piloting. So by your argument this is all evidence that life-rafts and warships are equally difficult to pilot? I sure as hell don’t see how[/paradoy]
No, neither do, so it’s a good thing I never made any such argument. I stuck to comparing bovids with bovids and equids with equids. I didn’t shunt willy-nilly between bovids and equids. You unfortunately have, and as a result your whole line of reasoning is a fallacy of four terms.
All ungulates are able to be domesticated equally easily.
All equids are ungulates
Therefore all equids are able to be domesticated equally easily.
All boats are able to be sailed equally easily.
All naval vessels are sample boats.
Therefore all naval vessels are able to be sailed equally easily
Bud, you can’t do that. You have just attempted apply the same word to describe two completely different terms. Either would be valid on its own, but you just can’t use them together. In case you still don’t see it in this case the terms are “domesticated to the simple degree that bison are domesticated”, “domesticated to the complex degree that horses are domesticatable”, “equids” and “ungulates”.
There are levels of domesticability, and while horses and rabbits are both indisputably domesticable that does not allow you to conclude that rabbits and horses are equally difficult to domesticate. Yet this I precisely what you just attempted to do. Of course such an argument is nonsense. A horse can be domesticated to the point of taking a rider in warfare, serving as crowd control, leading the blind and many other tasks. rabbits can’t do any of that, yet you don’t dispute that rabbits are domesticable.
You have committed a logical fallacy with the information I provided, and tried to say that conclusion drawn from it is wrong my information must be wrong. Nope, the information is solid. You just used it wrong.
I no longer have any idea what your position is. Your arguments are all over the map, and moreover do very odd things with epistemology. They also involve a number of empirical assertions with regards to cattle and bison which run directly counter to my personal experience with members of those species. And finally, you insist on taking every analogy I make and demand on applying it beyond its applicability, and then assuming that the resulting absurdities render the analogy invalid. In light of all that, given that this is not the Pit or even GD, I see no point in further discussion.
I made that very argument to myself this morning. Near as I can figure they did it to improve their lifestyle, to go from predator to superpredator, and as a part of an arms race between warring tribes. I’m thinking that herding horses for war and buffalo hunting is different from herding animals to eat but I haven’t convinced myself how, yet.
I have no responsibility to address your argument as a whole, especially when it seems to be based on some clearly incorrect assumptions about the work in question. This is the sentiment I am criticizing:
Diamond never implies any such thing. He does not seek to “explain” (whatever you think that word means) cultural decisions as necessary consequences of geography.
Alright, this is lie. You have not referenced any passage in the book that would indicate such a thing.
dropzone:
Admittedly, I was winging it in my post regarding the bison (#158). Much of that was conjecture, and the rest was taken from vaguely remembered secondary sources. I should have pointed that out up front (or just refrained from posting it in the first place).
Actually, that was not a conclusion, but rather a reason for believing the conclusion (that bison domestication was not feasible for pre-contact native Americans). When you’re talking about hundreds (?) of competing societies over thousands of years, the fact that something didn’t happen is often a good reason for believing that it couldn’t have happened. Any society which could have domesticated bison would have gained an advantage and prospered, forcing other societies to adapt in the same way (or risk being overrun).
It’s not proof, of course, but I find it compelling.
I’ll even accept that there is a possibility that bison cannot be domesticated and appreciate your research. I just don’t think anybody has tried very hard when, on the one hand, Europeans had cattle to fall back on if they wanted meat, milk, or oxen and, on the other, Natives had a buffet of millions of bison roaming around the prairie.
