4 ms·

Why use "Eurasia" instead of Asia? Sri Lanka is nowhere near Europe...

mprovost 6y ago
The comparison is with Africa - these are the oldest bows found in Europe or Asia.
simonh 6y ago
This is common in archaeological and historical anthropological circles, where they're discussing time frames and historical eras where the distinction between Europe and Asia doesn't really matter. Populations, cultures and genetic groups ranged across the land mass freely so distinguishing them all the time would just be really awkward. There's no significant topological border and so the distinction just isn't useful in this context.
pritovido 6y ago
You can consider Europe and Asia the same portion of land, aka a continent, hence Euroasia as a continent, because it is, there is no big amounts of water in between. This is used in Archeology because humans could travel easily across the same pieces of land. E.g 10.000 years ago humans could cross easily the English channel because it did not exist as the water level was way lower. There are barriers that isolate parts of Europe and Asia, like desserts and mountains, but very early there were determined humans that crossed them.
- tomcooks 6y ago
  Brilliant, eye opening explanation. Thanks! Would the Hymalaian chain be considered a southern border with India, in the archeological sense?
  - User23 6y ago
    Not an archaeologist, just someone who reads a bit, but yes. Any effectively impassable barrier to large scale travel would qualify. For most of the time modern humans have been extant that meant the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, the Himalayas, and the Sahara desert to name a few really big ones. This is not to say that nobody ever crossed these barriers, they just didn't in any quantity. There are plenty of anomalous finds, like the apparently Solutrean tools found in North America that are dated 19,000 to 26,000 years ago[1]. One explanation is that it's just a coincidence, another is that a group of ancient Europeans (who by the way were probably not very related to modern Europeans) found their way to North America. My personal opinion is the most scientifically sound way to figure out these questions is genetic analysis of any skeletons that can be found in the area. However digging up American Indian grave sites for sequencing presents serious ethical considerations, to put it mildly. [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/new-evidence-suggests-stone-age-hunters-from-europe-discovered-america-7447152.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/new-eviden...
- PostPlummer 6y ago
  From Wikipedia: A continent is one of several very large landmasses. Generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria, up to seven regions are commonly regarded as continents. Always thought a continent was a clearly defined.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago
    There's also the issue of tectonic plates. The Eurasian plate is one, the Indian plate is another, and the Arabian plate is a third. So while all three might be part of Eurasia from the perspective of archaeology they're different geologically. Plates with large land masses are the Eurasian, Australian, North American, South American, African, Arabian, Indian, and Antarctic. The Caribbean plate has part of central America and several large islands on it, the Pacific plate has a number of large islands like Hawaii (and part of New Zealand), the Cocos plate has the tip of Baja California, and IIRC the remaining plates have only small islands (Filipino, Juan de Fuca, Nazca, and Scotia plates). So by a definition of "tectonic plate with large landmass" you'd get at least 8 continents.
- User23 6y ago
  As a good example of this, the peoples who now call themselves Europeans are descended from central Asians who exterminated (entirely on the male line, mostly on the female)[1] the prior indigenous European population about 4500 years ago. The Eurasian continent's geography is conducive to large scale migrations of people over relatively short time periods. The suspected proto-indo-european migration that is the suspected ancestor group of both western European and south Asian Indians is a good example. It's a wildly complicated area where we have archaeological, linguistic, and now genetic evidence that can be difficult to tease out and then to make things even harder there are often political complications too. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_Europe#Genetics_of_modern_European_populations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_Europe#Gene... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans
- ummonk 6y ago
  Ironically though, Sri Lanka is separated from mainland Eurasia by water.

The comparison is with Africa - these are the oldest bows found in Europe or Asia.

This is common in archaeological and historical anthropological circles, where they're discussing time frames and historical eras where the distinction between Europe and Asia doesn't really matter. Populations, cultures and genetic groups ranged across the land mass freely so distinguishing them all the time would just be really awkward. There's no significant topological border and so the distinction just isn't useful in this context.

pritovido 6y ago

You can consider Europe and Asia the same portion of land, aka a continent, hence Euroasia as a continent, because it is, there is no big amounts of water in between. This is used in Archeology because humans could travel easily across the same pieces of land. E.g 10.000 years ago humans could cross easily the English channel because it did not exist as the water level was way lower. There are barriers that isolate parts of Europe and Asia, like desserts and mountains, but very early there were determined humans that crossed them.

tomcooks 6y ago
Brilliant, eye opening explanation. Thanks! Would the Hymalaian chain be considered a southern border with India, in the archeological sense?
- User23 6y ago
  Not an archaeologist, just someone who reads a bit, but yes. Any effectively impassable barrier to large scale travel would qualify. For most of the time modern humans have been extant that meant the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, the Himalayas, and the Sahara desert to name a few really big ones. This is not to say that nobody ever crossed these barriers, they just didn't in any quantity. There are plenty of anomalous finds, like the apparently Solutrean tools found in North America that are dated 19,000 to 26,000 years ago[1]. One explanation is that it's just a coincidence, another is that a group of ancient Europeans (who by the way were probably not very related to modern Europeans) found their way to North America. My personal opinion is the most scientifically sound way to figure out these questions is genetic analysis of any skeletons that can be found in the area. However digging up American Indian grave sites for sequencing presents serious ethical considerations, to put it mildly. [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/new-evidence-suggests-stone-age-hunters-from-europe-discovered-america-7447152.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/new-eviden...
PostPlummer 6y ago
From Wikipedia: A continent is one of several very large landmasses. Generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria, up to seven regions are commonly regarded as continents. Always thought a continent was a clearly defined.
- SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago
  There's also the issue of tectonic plates. The Eurasian plate is one, the Indian plate is another, and the Arabian plate is a third. So while all three might be part of Eurasia from the perspective of archaeology they're different geologically. Plates with large land masses are the Eurasian, Australian, North American, South American, African, Arabian, Indian, and Antarctic. The Caribbean plate has part of central America and several large islands on it, the Pacific plate has a number of large islands like Hawaii (and part of New Zealand), the Cocos plate has the tip of Baja California, and IIRC the remaining plates have only small islands (Filipino, Juan de Fuca, Nazca, and Scotia plates). So by a definition of "tectonic plate with large landmass" you'd get at least 8 continents.
User23 6y ago
As a good example of this, the peoples who now call themselves Europeans are descended from central Asians who exterminated (entirely on the male line, mostly on the female)[1] the prior indigenous European population about 4500 years ago. The Eurasian continent's geography is conducive to large scale migrations of people over relatively short time periods. The suspected proto-indo-european migration that is the suspected ancestor group of both western European and south Asian Indians is a good example. It's a wildly complicated area where we have archaeological, linguistic, and now genetic evidence that can be difficult to tease out and then to make things even harder there are often political complications too. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_Europe#Genetics_of_modern_European_populations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_Europe#Gene... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans
ummonk 6y ago
Ironically though, Sri Lanka is separated from mainland Eurasia by water.