My apologies Metchosin, the reference to the 10,000 came from SRS with the quotation from the Wounded Knee book.

I'm sure your horses were extremely happy and content munching away at all that grass. But what 'work' did they do, what time did they spend grazing compared to the time spent working. By the bye, all those herds of wild horses roaming around the US do nothing, they do not have to 'perform' at all. Draught horses, racehorses, cavalry mounts, they are the horses and types of applications were the horse has to 'perform' for hours on end, day-in-day-out - They are not fed on grass - oats, barely, corn - not grass. During Scotland's War of Independence, the borderers could run circles round the heavier mounted English knights, but each lightly mounted borderer carried enough oats to keep himself and his horse fed, they didn't eat grass.

As to stampeding animals and driving them over cliffs to kill them being wasteful. Once while hunting red deer, one of the party shot a deer which then fell about 45 metres. The deer weighed in at around 110 kilos of which, in terms of meat, only about 18 kilos was useable as a result of the fall. Now you go back into that Head Smashed In web site and have a good read through the archeological evidence unearthed, what types of tools were found - straight out of the stone age (stone axes, knives, scappers). The dig could state the numbers of Buffalo killed, it could not tell how many of those carcasses were just left to rot. As an old hunter Metchosin, once dead, and remember it's the height of summer, how long can you leave a carcass before it becomes useless? What tasks have to be completed very quickly in order to save the meat?

Now with regard to the "stone-age" reference, I thought at the time of writing it that I should have qualified that, as when writing it North American peoples such as the Aztecs, Mayans, etc did come to mind. My ommission was based on the premise that the North American Indians we were discussing were the Plains Indians who fought Custer at the Little Big Horn.

As for:
"Exactly how far from the stone age was the average Scottish crofter, save a few metal tools, you arrogant prat?"

Point 1, No need for name calling.
Point 2, Unfortunate choice of example. Because of the Reformation in Scotland in 1560 by about 1592, the time all you guys were celebrating the hundredth anniversary of Columbus's 'discovery' of the New World in 1492. Scotland was probably the most literate country in Europe, due to John Knox's insistance that every Parish shall have a school and every city a university, that education up to the highest level was to be open and available to all. If you want evidence of that Metchosin take a look at the history of the Agricultural Revolution and, more markedly, the Industrial Revolution and see the significant contributions made in both by Scots. In America's own Hall of Fame take a look at the number of Scots or those of Scots descent compared to the percentage of those making up the current population of America. The first man on the moon - Neil Armstrong, the President who sent him there Richard Nixon. Nixons and Armstrongs, both Scottish Border families, both from Liddesdale. The Scots also made their mark in many other countries they settled in most noticeable are in Canada and Australia.

Now tell us about - "The warrior culture of the plains Indian". Generally they had a culture of "raiding", not of warfare as we understand it. Raiding consists of surprise predatory attacks directed against other tribes or groups. The primary objective of raiding usually is to plunder and then to escape unharmed with the stolen goods. The objective is achieved by killing the men in the target community as well as kidnapping the women and children. Although planned in advance, raiding by it's nature, can never be sustained over a prolonged period of time, and there is often a finite period of time in which raids can occur.

Raiding proved to be a quick and efficient way for young men to gain a reputation and wealth in terms of the horses they stole and the women and children they captured. Within the North American Plains Indian tribes, boys were encouraged to be brave and aggressive. They also gave high status to those men who succeeded in raids. In lean years, or when population pressure forced competition for scarce resources, it is not surprising that these peoples prized aggressive, violent behavior among men. But please, don't give me the "Noble Savage" bit, it's a myth, their battles, or skirmishes, were token in terms of scale and severity compared to what the 'whiteman' knew.   Why? The population sizes were generally too small to create armies, let alone sustain them. However, when they did fight, it was rare for there to be many fatalities. They usually could not afford the loss of more than a few men. It would have be too great a blow for the tribe to withstand. Subsequently, when casualties did mount up, they often broke off combat and withdrew. Being essentially nomadic they did not need to conquer, they only had to discourage and drive off their opponents, taking whatever plunder was on offer.

Exactly the same was true in Africa until the Zulu Chief Chaka developed the tactics and armed his warriors with the assegai with the deliberate intent of killing large numbers of the enemy. Prior to that battles were token demonstrations, one side would outface the other, casualties were slight and the 'losing' tribe submitted and paid tribute. Chaka Zulu's concept from the outset was to conquer and enslave whoever opposed him, during his reign of 8 years (1820 to 1828) he was responsible for the deaths of over 2 million people (equivalent to almost the entire native indian population of the US today).

To put the Little Big Horn into context (it was the largest 'battle' against the whiteman that the Indians ever fought). Those stone-age Scots Metchosin, commanded by the Black Douglas (James Douglas) on a border RAID in 1388 fought a battle against the pursuing English at a place called Otterburn. The numbers involved Scots 4,000, English under Percy 'Hotspur' 9,000, English under the Bishop of Durham 10,000. Result the Scots defeated the English under Percy, those under the Bishop of Durham declined to fight. Just over 1000 English captured and about 1400 slain.

"A highly communal, generous and efficient society and if it weren't for some of those people's expert generosity in providing tips and assistance, very few "civilized" individuals would have progressed farther across this land than their boats."

True in relation to the few English settler's on the east coast, further North neither the French nor the Scots had any problems, likewise with the Spanish to the South. But nonetheless, those early settlers learned, they adapted, they improved, they flourished, in fact they did everything the Plains Indians failed to do.

Talking about the Spanish and the Ka-Ky-Aakan word "Smets-shosin", or "place of stinking fish", a Spanish naval Lt. was the first European to appear in Metchosin in 1790, next to appear was a certain James Douglas of the Hudson Bay Company - good heavens another one of those stone-age Scots (Douglas, probably the most famous Scots Border name ever) - he bought the place from the Ka-Ky-Aakan, in order to develop it as a Trading Post.