5 ms·

There’s a lot of evidence indicating little to no contact and a paucity of evidence suggesting otherwise. So much so that “a” find like this is big news - a bea

by aksss 6y ago

There’s a lot of evidence indicating little to no contact and a paucity of evidence suggesting otherwise. So much so that “a” find like this is big news - a bead from the 15th century. It would not be big news if these things were found regularly, and they haven’t been, and people have been looking in earnest. I don’t understand why you would find the conclusion to be insulting or condescending. Do you feel some bias has covered up information or that there is a wealth of contact indicia as yet unfound? At the time of European contact, the written and archeological records both seem to agree that the indigenous population in North America was a Neolithic one. Some regions West of the Mississippi (out in the dry plains) were even Paleolithic. Even while there is evidence suggesting the Chinese made it to Alaska, and the Vikings to the East Coast much earlier than Columbian contact, it obviously was too expensive to stay. While trade goods trickled out to these far ends of the network, their paucity indicates that there was little worth trading for that far out that couldn’t be found elsewhere for less. In other words, even if western and eastern civilizations knew about the Americas an eon ago or more, the trade routes weren’t valuable enough on the balance to maintain. I suggest you think of this as a highly valuable distinction for the study of mankind. The indigenous populations of the Americas were human, the same as you and I today. They were wicked smart, capable, and well-adapted to living in insanely hostile conditions. Their until-recent isolation helps inform the understanding of all human societies in time. It further enables every human on earth confront themselves. Two books I would recommend to stir a fascination with these early cultures: Thundersticks by David Silverman, and Empire of the Summer Moon by S.C. Gwynn. These contain accessible descriptions of life before the 19th century Plains Indian Wars, which dominates a lot of people’s ideas about the indigenous Americans. In fact, European contact goes back another three centuries and there’s some fascinating, wondrous history and insight in those earliest periods of contact.

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
Yes, it's condescending because we're rapidly learning the only reason we didn't find the evidence is we weren't looking for it. Genetics in particular has established there was contact between Oceania and South America for something like 500 years before Columbus. Your description of native Americans as Neolithic or Paleolithic is more of the same problem, including the view that there's some sort of ladder of categories civilizations climb. We again know conclusively by the evidence this is wrong, that ancient cultures were a web of diffusion and adoption of different technologies and practices, where things were always adapted to the local context. In particular we're finding much more physical evidence of wide scale deliberate changing of the Amazon landscape to better suit the people living there. Going back even further, there's a growing body of evidence of exchange of technologies between ancient hominid species as well. Basically there's a whole lot more to this subject and story, and plenty of evidence out there to find and learn from, but the narrative of linear development and diffusion of civilization has hindered that. Likewise the idea that the only evidence of ancient civilizations that counts as advanced are greek/roman style constructions.
- aksss 6y ago
  Neolithic and paleolithic have definitions concerning material science and agricultural development. I think you are assigning a good/bad valuation to the terms that doesn't have anything to do with science. This is what I'm suggesting you recalibrate dispassionately. That other people are unfamiliar with the proper understanding of these terms is no excuse to acquiesce to ignorance. >exchange of technologies This is not a new insight, but a primary focus of archeology and anthropology in any theater. >we're rapidly learning the only reason we didn't find the evidence is we weren't looking for it Despite my quibbles with your gratuitous use of the pronoun "we", I think you couldn't be more wrong unless you're talking about more than a century ago. Particularly since the discovery in Clovis (1930s?), the archeological community has been rabidly (if not rapidly) looking for new clues as to how people came to, adapted to, and dispersed into the Americas, with very few theories discarded out of hand. The reality is that there is very little evidence to back up the various hypotheses that stray too far outside of the accepted conclusions today, but generally everybody is almost too eager to find evidence that would upset existing assumptions (i.e. reckless, see Ancient Aliens). > only evidence of ancient civilizations that counts as advanced are greek/roman style constructions Let's add the cultures from the Middle East (e.g. Persians), Eastern Asia (e.g. China), and parts in between, areas which were not coincidentally all connected by land. This, of course, all depends on understanding the context around "advanced". Typically when that word is used to characterize a civilization, it does imply a linear maturation of energy source and material science capabilities enabling new technologies that feed benefits back into that society for growth - things like employing the wheel, the lever, the screw, beasts of burden, plows, wind, etc for productivity gains, insulation from seasonal variation, defense, medicine, etc. The United States is a more advanced civilization today than it was two centuries ago, as are many (not all) civilizations on Earth today, though this pace of change is (to our knowledge) unprecedented since perhaps the Han dynasty. This view certainly does hinder many people's appreciation of how obstacles were overcome in societies that were less "advanced" (in the above sense of the word). But at the end of the day it doesn't grant those societies capabilities the evidence shows to be absent. It also doesn't make me any less fascinated in the societies in the Americas or less open to new data. On the contrary, in a way these societies are all the more fascinating because they put us closer to understanding what the human experience was like in those conditions.

by aksss 6y ago

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago

Yes, it's condescending because we're rapidly learning the only reason we didn't find the evidence is we weren't looking for it. Genetics in particular has established there was contact between Oceania and South America for something like 500 years before Columbus. Your description of native Americans as Neolithic or Paleolithic is more of the same problem, including the view that there's some sort of ladder of categories civilizations climb. We again know conclusively by the evidence this is wrong, that ancient cultures were a web of diffusion and adoption of different technologies and practices, where things were always adapted to the local context. In particular we're finding much more physical evidence of wide scale deliberate changing of the Amazon landscape to better suit the people living there. Going back even further, there's a growing body of evidence of exchange of technologies between ancient hominid species as well. Basically there's a whole lot more to this subject and story, and plenty of evidence out there to find and learn from, but the narrative of linear development and diffusion of civilization has hindered that. Likewise the idea that the only evidence of ancient civilizations that counts as advanced are greek/roman style constructions.

aksss 6y ago
Neolithic and paleolithic have definitions concerning material science and agricultural development. I think you are assigning a good/bad valuation to the terms that doesn't have anything to do with science. This is what I'm suggesting you recalibrate dispassionately. That other people are unfamiliar with the proper understanding of these terms is no excuse to acquiesce to ignorance. >exchange of technologies This is not a new insight, but a primary focus of archeology and anthropology in any theater. >we're rapidly learning the only reason we didn't find the evidence is we weren't looking for it Despite my quibbles with your gratuitous use of the pronoun "we", I think you couldn't be more wrong unless you're talking about more than a century ago. Particularly since the discovery in Clovis (1930s?), the archeological community has been rabidly (if not rapidly) looking for new clues as to how people came to, adapted to, and dispersed into the Americas, with very few theories discarded out of hand. The reality is that there is very little evidence to back up the various hypotheses that stray too far outside of the accepted conclusions today, but generally everybody is almost too eager to find evidence that would upset existing assumptions (i.e. reckless, see Ancient Aliens). > only evidence of ancient civilizations that counts as advanced are greek/roman style constructions Let's add the cultures from the Middle East (e.g. Persians), Eastern Asia (e.g. China), and parts in between, areas which were not coincidentally all connected by land. This, of course, all depends on understanding the context around "advanced". Typically when that word is used to characterize a civilization, it does imply a linear maturation of energy source and material science capabilities enabling new technologies that feed benefits back into that society for growth - things like employing the wheel, the lever, the screw, beasts of burden, plows, wind, etc for productivity gains, insulation from seasonal variation, defense, medicine, etc. The United States is a more advanced civilization today than it was two centuries ago, as are many (not all) civilizations on Earth today, though this pace of change is (to our knowledge) unprecedented since perhaps the Han dynasty. This view certainly does hinder many people's appreciation of how obstacles were overcome in societies that were less "advanced" (in the above sense of the word). But at the end of the day it doesn't grant those societies capabilities the evidence shows to be absent. It also doesn't make me any less fascinated in the societies in the Americas or less open to new data. On the contrary, in a way these societies are all the more fascinating because they put us closer to understanding what the human experience was like in those conditions.