7 ms·

As a non American we learn (just a little) about ancient civilizacions from all around the globe but nothing about North American ones, as if they never existed

As a non American we learn (just a little) about ancient civilizacions from all around the globe but nothing about North American ones, as if they never existed.

cmckn 6y ago
I grew up in the southern US, and we didn’t learn a lot either beyond a couple chapters about local native populations. I learned much more in some classes in college — the American Southwest has been home to several very advanced civilizations and the archaeological record is astounding.
chapium 6y ago
Part of what makes this difficult is a lack of written language for many of these. Also, humans existing in north america is a lot more recent than other ancient civilizations.
freehunter 6y ago
For the most part we don’t learn about them because we don’t know a lot about them. Many of the pre-Colombian civilizations either didn’t build permanent structures or built them from wood that’s long since rotted away. With a few exceptions they also didn’t congregate in large stationary cities where we can dig to find hundreds/thousands of years of artifacts in the same place . Again with a few exceptions, they also didn’t write down their history for us to read it. As an American we only learn fairly superficial details about the people who were here before us, because we know they existed but there’s just not a lot of historical record. Look up Cahokia, which was a massive city (at Cahokia’s peak it likely had more residents than London did at the same time). And yet all that remains is some piles of dirt.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- derbOac 6y ago
  Many remains of the mound building civilizations in the present-day US were plowed away, as they were in prime farming geography. You're right that many of the structures were made of wood and dirt that are less lasting than stone, but there were a large number of them that were lost through field preparation. The reasons for this are complex, including a disregard for Native American structures, but in many cases people just didn't know what they were. The mound building civilizations of North America are fascinating to me, not the least of which is because of the pyramidal-mound structures of Central America.
- thaumaturgy 6y ago
  There is an additional complication too: North American archaeologists have to contend with modern descendants of indigenous cultures, who frequently insist that digs be halted and filled in, remains be reburied, and artifacts be repatriated to private owners. The efforts by assorted tribes against archaeology culminated in NAGPRA, which has hamstrung researchers quite severely. (Potential HN argument defuser: I'm not making a statement here on cultural values, merely observing that North American archaeology has an additional unique hurdle to understanding cultures of the past.)
  - RobertoG 6y ago
    That made me smile because it's a little the opposite of what happen in many places in Europe. When somebody try to build something new, they have to contend with the archaeologists, who frequently insist that the construction is halted and they start to dig there.
    - tt433 6y ago
      FWIW that's very close to California state law, one of my buddies is that guy who can tell the construction workers to drop everything (they hate him!)
  - AlotOfReading 6y ago
    As someone that's an archeologist in North America and has dealt with NAGPRA... Every country ought to have something similar. It's not ideal and I could go on for as long as anyone about its flaws, but giving people control over their heritage is a non-negotiable position for me.
    - donatj 6y ago
      Mind if I ask why? It seems to the great determent of society and to the benefit of nothing but superstition.
      - danielheath 6y ago
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  And what cultures that did survive the Colombian exchange were massively changed to the point where it’s very hard to determine what they looked like before. This means that a lot of the traditions that survived into the 1800s (when good written records start) are probably not terribly representative of what might have existed in the centuries prior. The horse in particular changed everything, and created the archetypical Buffalo hunting nomad of the Great Plains, a cultural arrangement that did not exist in North America before the introduction of the horse.
- lock-free 6y ago
  There are several piles of dirt in Cahokia. Part of the trouble is there has never been a serious attempt to uncover and restore the site. But unlike say Machu Pichu or Chichen Itza, it's on the shore of the Missippi with a highway cutting through it and a few centuries of both flooding and human development on top of what could be there. What's sad is that it's barely outside St. Louis and isn't a part of their tourist identity, despite basically being on top of one of the oldest settlements in North America.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    > one of the oldest settlements in North America Cahokia is actually among the newest settlements among North American civilization: it peaks around 1100, fully collapsing by around 1350. The earliest mound building site I'm aware of is Poverty Point, which begins to be built around 1800 BC. The Southwest cultures (e.g., Ancestral Pueblo) are developing clear settlements by around 750. Moving into Mesoamerica, Teotihuacan collapses sometime in the 500s, and dates back to perhaps 1-ish. Contemporary with them is the Classical Maya. San Lorenzo is the oldest Olmec center, dating back to 1200 BC-ish.
- geggam 6y ago
  In Casa Grande AZ there is a 2k yr old dirt house. If you go visit you see vandals carving their initials and dates from the 1800s
  - AlotOfReading 6y ago
    The Casa grande ruins aren't 2k years old. The main structure is a classic Hohokam pueblo, from around the 13th century as I recall with a few hundred years of earlier canal systems and villages nearby. You have to go a bit south to Tucson to see the 2-4k year old stuff.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  We've infested our continent pretty comprehensively. My wife who grew up around Los Alamos remembers exploring mesa tops as a kid with other kids. The boys would look the ruins and toss everything over the side to see it smash - pots, stones, whatever. The structures got pushed over and scattered. We've only fairly recently gotten to value antiquities I suppose. In the US anyway.
tsjq 6y ago
Is that because the European invaders almost wiped off all traces of culture, people, & civilization that existed before their arrival?
- dade_ 6y ago
  European viruses wiped out the people. Some of the culture is integrated, but most was lost.
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  That was only ~500 years ago. The artifacts being discussed here are allegedly an order of magnitude older.
alexmingoia 6y ago
Not necessarily ancient, but if you’re interested in learning about American civilizations prior to European contact, I highly recommend the book 1491 by Charles Mann. It’s a fascinating read.
MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
Imagine Europe during 6000-2000 BC. That is basically the equivalent of what colonizers came to. There wasn't enough to be discovered because the majority of them were still nomadic. Even the cahokia mounds showed that North American civilizations were short lived.

As a non American we learn (just a little) about ancient civilizacions from all around the globe but nothing about North American ones, as if they never existed.

cmckn 6y ago

I grew up in the southern US, and we didn’t learn a lot either beyond a couple chapters about local native populations. I learned much more in some classes in college — the American Southwest has been home to several very advanced civilizations and the archaeological record is astounding.

chapium 6y ago

Part of what makes this difficult is a lack of written language for many of these. Also, humans existing in north america is a lot more recent than other ancient civilizations.

freehunter 6y ago

For the most part we don’t learn about them because we don’t know a lot about them. Many of the pre-Colombian civilizations either didn’t build permanent structures or built them from wood that’s long since rotted away. With a few exceptions they also didn’t congregate in large stationary cities where we can dig to find hundreds/thousands of years of artifacts in the same place . Again with a few exceptions, they also didn’t write down their history for us to read it. As an American we only learn fairly superficial details about the people who were here before us, because we know they existed but there’s just not a lot of historical record. Look up Cahokia, which was a massive city (at Cahokia’s peak it likely had more residents than London did at the same time). And yet all that remains is some piles of dirt.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
derbOac 6y ago
Many remains of the mound building civilizations in the present-day US were plowed away, as they were in prime farming geography. You're right that many of the structures were made of wood and dirt that are less lasting than stone, but there were a large number of them that were lost through field preparation. The reasons for this are complex, including a disregard for Native American structures, but in many cases people just didn't know what they were. The mound building civilizations of North America are fascinating to me, not the least of which is because of the pyramidal-mound structures of Central America.
thaumaturgy 6y ago
There is an additional complication too: North American archaeologists have to contend with modern descendants of indigenous cultures, who frequently insist that digs be halted and filled in, remains be reburied, and artifacts be repatriated to private owners. The efforts by assorted tribes against archaeology culminated in NAGPRA, which has hamstrung researchers quite severely. (Potential HN argument defuser: I'm not making a statement here on cultural values, merely observing that North American archaeology has an additional unique hurdle to understanding cultures of the past.)
- RobertoG 6y ago
  That made me smile because it's a little the opposite of what happen in many places in Europe. When somebody try to build something new, they have to contend with the archaeologists, who frequently insist that the construction is halted and they start to dig there.
  - tt433 6y ago
    FWIW that's very close to California state law, one of my buddies is that guy who can tell the construction workers to drop everything (they hate him!)
- AlotOfReading 6y ago
  As someone that's an archeologist in North America and has dealt with NAGPRA... Every country ought to have something similar. It's not ideal and I could go on for as long as anyone about its flaws, but giving people control over their heritage is a non-negotiable position for me.
  - donatj 6y ago
    Mind if I ask why? It seems to the great determent of society and to the benefit of nothing but superstition.
    - danielheath 6y ago
ashtonkem 6y ago
And what cultures that did survive the Colombian exchange were massively changed to the point where it’s very hard to determine what they looked like before. This means that a lot of the traditions that survived into the 1800s (when good written records start) are probably not terribly representative of what might have existed in the centuries prior. The horse in particular changed everything, and created the archetypical Buffalo hunting nomad of the Great Plains, a cultural arrangement that did not exist in North America before the introduction of the horse.
lock-free 6y ago
There are several piles of dirt in Cahokia. Part of the trouble is there has never been a serious attempt to uncover and restore the site. But unlike say Machu Pichu or Chichen Itza, it's on the shore of the Missippi with a highway cutting through it and a few centuries of both flooding and human development on top of what could be there. What's sad is that it's barely outside St. Louis and isn't a part of their tourist identity, despite basically being on top of one of the oldest settlements in North America.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  > one of the oldest settlements in North America Cahokia is actually among the newest settlements among North American civilization: it peaks around 1100, fully collapsing by around 1350. The earliest mound building site I'm aware of is Poverty Point, which begins to be built around 1800 BC. The Southwest cultures (e.g., Ancestral Pueblo) are developing clear settlements by around 750. Moving into Mesoamerica, Teotihuacan collapses sometime in the 500s, and dates back to perhaps 1-ish. Contemporary with them is the Classical Maya. San Lorenzo is the oldest Olmec center, dating back to 1200 BC-ish.
geggam 6y ago
In Casa Grande AZ there is a 2k yr old dirt house. If you go visit you see vandals carving their initials and dates from the 1800s
- AlotOfReading 6y ago
  The Casa grande ruins aren't 2k years old. The main structure is a classic Hohokam pueblo, from around the 13th century as I recall with a few hundred years of earlier canal systems and villages nearby. You have to go a bit south to Tucson to see the 2-4k year old stuff.
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
We've infested our continent pretty comprehensively. My wife who grew up around Los Alamos remembers exploring mesa tops as a kid with other kids. The boys would look the ruins and toss everything over the side to see it smash - pots, stones, whatever. The structures got pushed over and scattered. We've only fairly recently gotten to value antiquities I suppose. In the US anyway.

tsjq 6y ago

Is that because the European invaders almost wiped off all traces of culture, people, & civilization that existed before their arrival?

dade_ 6y ago
European viruses wiped out the people. Some of the culture is integrated, but most was lost.
throwaway201103 6y ago
That was only ~500 years ago. The artifacts being discussed here are allegedly an order of magnitude older.

alexmingoia 6y ago

Not necessarily ancient, but if you’re interested in learning about American civilizations prior to European contact, I highly recommend the book 1491 by Charles Mann. It’s a fascinating read.

MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago

Imagine Europe during 6000-2000 BC. That is basically the equivalent of what colonizers came to. There wasn't enough to be discovered because the majority of them were still nomadic. Even the cahokia mounds showed that North American civilizations were short lived.