3 ms·

Can you give me an example of a "structure" in the present day US that was built prior to 1000 AD? I'm not talking about a pit underground, which is not a "stru

Can you give me an example of a "structure" in the present day US that was built prior to 1000 AD? I'm not talking about a pit underground, which is not a "structure". Can you give me an example of a "medieval-era houses in the US" that somebody lives in today? The ones you mentioned were built after the middle ages, your dates are not right and describe the time the settlement was created, not the time the structures were built. Which Taos structure has been inhabited since the 13th century? The Taos pueblo structures standing today were built around 1400, not the middle ages, not the 13th century. The Oraibi _settlement_ has been inhabited for centuries. The structures were built in the 17th century, not the middle ages, not 1150.

AlotOfReading 4y ago
Generally the "medieval period" extends from sometime in the first few centuries CE to as late as the end of the 16th century. Obviously this is being used in the same informal sense that I'd have talking with friends, rather than a specific technical sense that would be more regionally appropriate. The 13th century when the earliest kivas and walls at Taos Pueblo are well-agreed to be dated. Oral histories date it rather earlier, but I'm being conservative. I have pretty terrible internet access right now, so I can't link anything on those dates, but I'm fairly sure that's how the UN filings date it at least, though I couldn't tell you whether those apply to the north or south houses specifically. Re: oraibi, I tried to make it clear that I was talking about the town itself rather than specific structures within it. The earliest structures are below the cliff, not above where the modern town is. That move happened in the 17th and 18th centuries to make it more defensible. As far as I'm aware, most of the extant buildings are 20th century at the earliest. As for "structure", a pithouse is a structure and a primarily aboveground one at that. The name refers to the fact that they're dug into the ground for thermal and flooring reasons. The late archaic ones in the Tucson area along the Santa Cruz river were often built alongside small irrigation canals and house groups often had low walls around them. Again, can't link, but there are experimental reconstructions of Pueblo I era pithouses that you can look at pictures of. They're "similar enough" to be worth looking at, even though there are meaningful reasons they're part of different archeological periods.
- mgraczyk 4y ago
  Seems pretty tenuous, and I don't see any radiocarbon dating or high quality archeology. It's not surprised this doesn't "occupy anyone's mindspace". I think the claim "There are still people living in medieval-era houses in the US " is misleading and possibly wrong. A more accurate claim would be "It is possible but unconfirmed that there are a handful of occupied houses in one location in the US with walls that were originally built in the late medieval era. These are extremely far from population centers, so it's unsurprising most people don't think about them the way Europeans think about older structures".
  - AlotOfReading 4y ago
    Well, there were some issues with genocide between then and now that cut down on the number of example I can give you and inherently limit them to places far from major population centers. There are a lot of places all over the country with fairly continuous habitation records that abruptly terminate in the colonial period. The Southwest broadly managed to retain a higher degree of independence than most other parts of the continent until the 20th century partly as a result of that remoteness and more organized military responses.
    - ido 4y ago
      I think you’re arguing past each other. Nobody (I hope at least) disputed European settlers treated the native Americans horribly. The argument was that in many places in Europe it’s literally unremarkable that people live in houses significantly older than the mentioned 1910 specimen in DC (my completely unremarkable apartment building in Berlin was built around the same time and nobody thinks of it as significant in any way & I know multiple people in Austria and Germany living in houses built in the 1800s and earlier). While Native Americans built structures before colonizations the number of Americans currently living in such is negligibly small.

AlotOfReading 4y ago

Generally the "medieval period" extends from sometime in the first few centuries CE to as late as the end of the 16th century. Obviously this is being used in the same informal sense that I'd have talking with friends, rather than a specific technical sense that would be more regionally appropriate. The 13th century when the earliest kivas and walls at Taos Pueblo are well-agreed to be dated. Oral histories date it rather earlier, but I'm being conservative. I have pretty terrible internet access right now, so I can't link anything on those dates, but I'm fairly sure that's how the UN filings date it at least, though I couldn't tell you whether those apply to the north or south houses specifically. Re: oraibi, I tried to make it clear that I was talking about the town itself rather than specific structures within it. The earliest structures are below the cliff, not above where the modern town is. That move happened in the 17th and 18th centuries to make it more defensible. As far as I'm aware, most of the extant buildings are 20th century at the earliest. As for "structure", a pithouse is a structure and a primarily aboveground one at that. The name refers to the fact that they're dug into the ground for thermal and flooring reasons. The late archaic ones in the Tucson area along the Santa Cruz river were often built alongside small irrigation canals and house groups often had low walls around them. Again, can't link, but there are experimental reconstructions of Pueblo I era pithouses that you can look at pictures of. They're "similar enough" to be worth looking at, even though there are meaningful reasons they're part of different archeological periods.

mgraczyk 4y ago
Seems pretty tenuous, and I don't see any radiocarbon dating or high quality archeology. It's not surprised this doesn't "occupy anyone's mindspace". I think the claim "There are still people living in medieval-era houses in the US " is misleading and possibly wrong. A more accurate claim would be "It is possible but unconfirmed that there are a handful of occupied houses in one location in the US with walls that were originally built in the late medieval era. These are extremely far from population centers, so it's unsurprising most people don't think about them the way Europeans think about older structures".
- AlotOfReading 4y ago
  Well, there were some issues with genocide between then and now that cut down on the number of example I can give you and inherently limit them to places far from major population centers. There are a lot of places all over the country with fairly continuous habitation records that abruptly terminate in the colonial period. The Southwest broadly managed to retain a higher degree of independence than most other parts of the continent until the 20th century partly as a result of that remoteness and more organized military responses.
  - ido 4y ago
    I think you’re arguing past each other. Nobody (I hope at least) disputed European settlers treated the native Americans horribly. The argument was that in many places in Europe it’s literally unremarkable that people live in houses significantly older than the mentioned 1910 specimen in DC (my completely unremarkable apartment building in Berlin was built around the same time and nobody thinks of it as significant in any way & I know multiple people in Austria and Germany living in houses built in the 1800s and earlier). While Native Americans built structures before colonizations the number of Americans currently living in such is negligibly small.