4 ms·

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 esta

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.
- AlotOfReading 6y ago
  As a (former) archaeologist, you're using both terms incorrectly. Paleolithic refers broadly to lithic eras prior to the start of the Holocene. It is not applicable to anything after that and I suggest perusing the relevant wiki page [1] for later periodizations. Neolithic is also strictly improper as a descriptor of the Americas, but it gets some use in comparative work and people will "know what you meant". Similarly, most historians and archaeologists would protest using the term "advanced" unqualified. It's a bad word with lots of incorrect connotations, especially in the public mind. My rule of thumb is that you should avoid comparing societies that are thousands of years apart if at all possible. They're probably not comparable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_archaeological_periods_(North_America) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_archaeological_periods...
  - aksss 6y ago
    Hunting vs agriculture, nomadic vs settled lifestyle, both without notable metallurgical capability. These are the primary capability differentiators between the paleolithic and neolithic periods [0]. You are absolutely right that these terms are bound up in the study of particular places at particular times. They are generally not applied to the Americas directly for the time element skews the descriptors. However, relative to what the Europeans were encountering in North America upon contact - and indeed in some areas right up into the late 19th century, it was societies that shared these characteristics with their own history. Yes, people know what you mean when you use these terms in this context. I am not the first or last, and could point to contemporary books on early America that make these comparisons. Societies thousands of years apart are not at all to be strictly understood through the lens of one or the other, but the insights into how hunter-gatherer tribes live even today, and 100 years ago, are highly valuable to gaining insight into the human condition under similar constraints eons ago. This is highly valuable in anthropology and informs archeology, certainly. One must be careful, but to say it should be avoided? That's wasteful. >> protest using the term "advanced" unqualified Do you feel my use of the term was unqualified? My intention was to qualify it in the context of energy sources and material science, which I think is not an unreasonable way to understand development. It is iterative, societies can regress or progress along this continuum. Progress is generally synonymous with advancement. If I may ask, what is your discomfort with the term? [0] i.e. https://www.wappingersschools.org/cms/lib/NY01001463/Centricity/Domain/261/U1_L3_Comparison-Chart.pdf https://www.wappingersschools.org/cms/lib/NY01001463/Centric...

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.

AlotOfReading 6y ago
As a (former) archaeologist, you're using both terms incorrectly. Paleolithic refers broadly to lithic eras prior to the start of the Holocene. It is not applicable to anything after that and I suggest perusing the relevant wiki page [1] for later periodizations. Neolithic is also strictly improper as a descriptor of the Americas, but it gets some use in comparative work and people will "know what you meant". Similarly, most historians and archaeologists would protest using the term "advanced" unqualified. It's a bad word with lots of incorrect connotations, especially in the public mind. My rule of thumb is that you should avoid comparing societies that are thousands of years apart if at all possible. They're probably not comparable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_archaeological_periods_(North_America) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_archaeological_periods...
- aksss 6y ago
  Hunting vs agriculture, nomadic vs settled lifestyle, both without notable metallurgical capability. These are the primary capability differentiators between the paleolithic and neolithic periods [0]. You are absolutely right that these terms are bound up in the study of particular places at particular times. They are generally not applied to the Americas directly for the time element skews the descriptors. However, relative to what the Europeans were encountering in North America upon contact - and indeed in some areas right up into the late 19th century, it was societies that shared these characteristics with their own history. Yes, people know what you mean when you use these terms in this context. I am not the first or last, and could point to contemporary books on early America that make these comparisons. Societies thousands of years apart are not at all to be strictly understood through the lens of one or the other, but the insights into how hunter-gatherer tribes live even today, and 100 years ago, are highly valuable to gaining insight into the human condition under similar constraints eons ago. This is highly valuable in anthropology and informs archeology, certainly. One must be careful, but to say it should be avoided? That's wasteful. >> protest using the term "advanced" unqualified Do you feel my use of the term was unqualified? My intention was to qualify it in the context of energy sources and material science, which I think is not an unreasonable way to understand development. It is iterative, societies can regress or progress along this continuum. Progress is generally synonymous with advancement. If I may ask, what is your discomfort with the term? [0] i.e. https://www.wappingersschools.org/cms/lib/NY01001463/Centricity/Domain/261/U1_L3_Comparison-Chart.pdf https://www.wappingersschools.org/cms/lib/NY01001463/Centric...