5 ms·

> “This is the first documented instance of the presence of indubitable European materials in prehistoric sites in the Western Hemisphere as the result of overl

> “This is the first documented instance of the presence of indubitable European materials in prehistoric sites in the Western Hemisphere as the result of overland transport across the Eurasian continent,” add the authors." The 15th century is pre-history?! My garden wall is older than that (literally).

mongol 3y ago
Then your garden wall is older than most
brnt 3y ago
Locally it may be pre-history: nobody wrote down that the beads traveled across the Bering strait to the New World.
AlotOfReading 3y ago
There's a lot of hedging and qualification in the article you're quoting. For one, it uses a writing-centric definition of "prehistory" that's pretty dumb. Better definitions don't have the problem of "prehistory" being in the 15th century. This is not the oldest known artifact from Eurasia either. It's usually difficult to identify things as specifically from one side of the strait or the other, but we have a few examples (e.g. Chinese bronzes [1]) that are clearer. These beads happen to be an incredibly distinctive artifact that show up basically everywhere the Eurasian trade network reached. We use similar diagnostic beads for Roman/postroman trade in the north sea. [1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/bronze-buckle-shows-trade-between-asia-and-north-america-180959378/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/bronze-buckle-show...
- zdragnar 3y ago
  What other definition of prehistory is there? It literally means before written records. For example, 1788 is considered the end of prehistory in Australia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_Australia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_Australia
  - AlotOfReading 3y ago
    Many archeologists (e.g. Renfrew) use a methodological definition. "Prehistory" in that definition isn't a specific period of time, it's just what you're studying whenever you apply certain types of methods. Others (e.g. Peter Schmidt, Kehoe) argue that it's just a archaic term without any meaningful communicative value. Resolutions to this include just swapping "prehistory" for "history", or defining it arbitrarily as something like 5000 BCE. The main result of all of these is to avoid the idea that some random dude shows up for a week, never to be seen again, and using that as the date when "history" starts. European contact in most of the Americas (or Africa, Australia, etc) took centuries from initial contact to full colonialism and the word "prehistory" carries a lot of negative connotations in English. Moreover, the term "writing" itself excludes a lot of written communication systems because it's typically defined only for systems that can record the complete breadth of verbal speech. A system that only encodes a domain of human communication (e.g. tax records and religious stories like Aztec script) is not "true writing" and hence "prehistoric".
sonofhans 3y ago
“In Europe, 100 miles is a long way. In the US, 100 years is a long time.”
II2II 3y ago
History is based upon written records, which is in contrast to archaeology which considers physical evidence. Another way to think of it is that archaeology can tell us what happened, why history helps us to understand why it happened (with a whole slew of caveats based upon the limitations of each field). So the distinction is important and the term pre-history is both context dependent and relevant. It is quite possible that both parties exchanging beads were in the prehistoric period for that part of the world. Then again, maybe not. One party may have had writing. Even if they didn't, the oral histories should be close enough to the introduction of writing to be considered as reliable as writing.
- whinenot 3y ago
  600+ tribes in North America and there is no evidence of pre-contact written language for any tribe north of the SW desert border.

mongol 3y ago

Then your garden wall is older than most

brnt 3y ago

Locally it may be pre-history: nobody wrote down that the beads traveled across the Bering strait to the New World.

AlotOfReading 3y ago

There's a lot of hedging and qualification in the article you're quoting. For one, it uses a writing-centric definition of "prehistory" that's pretty dumb. Better definitions don't have the problem of "prehistory" being in the 15th century. This is not the oldest known artifact from Eurasia either. It's usually difficult to identify things as specifically from one side of the strait or the other, but we have a few examples (e.g. Chinese bronzes [1]) that are clearer. These beads happen to be an incredibly distinctive artifact that show up basically everywhere the Eurasian trade network reached. We use similar diagnostic beads for Roman/postroman trade in the north sea. [1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/bronze-buckle-shows-trade-between-asia-and-north-america-180959378/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/bronze-buckle-show...

zdragnar 3y ago
What other definition of prehistory is there? It literally means before written records. For example, 1788 is considered the end of prehistory in Australia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_Australia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_Australia
- AlotOfReading 3y ago
  Many archeologists (e.g. Renfrew) use a methodological definition. "Prehistory" in that definition isn't a specific period of time, it's just what you're studying whenever you apply certain types of methods. Others (e.g. Peter Schmidt, Kehoe) argue that it's just a archaic term without any meaningful communicative value. Resolutions to this include just swapping "prehistory" for "history", or defining it arbitrarily as something like 5000 BCE. The main result of all of these is to avoid the idea that some random dude shows up for a week, never to be seen again, and using that as the date when "history" starts. European contact in most of the Americas (or Africa, Australia, etc) took centuries from initial contact to full colonialism and the word "prehistory" carries a lot of negative connotations in English. Moreover, the term "writing" itself excludes a lot of written communication systems because it's typically defined only for systems that can record the complete breadth of verbal speech. A system that only encodes a domain of human communication (e.g. tax records and religious stories like Aztec script) is not "true writing" and hence "prehistoric".

sonofhans 3y ago

“In Europe, 100 miles is a long way. In the US, 100 years is a long time.”

II2II 3y ago

History is based upon written records, which is in contrast to archaeology which considers physical evidence. Another way to think of it is that archaeology can tell us what happened, why history helps us to understand why it happened (with a whole slew of caveats based upon the limitations of each field). So the distinction is important and the term pre-history is both context dependent and relevant. It is quite possible that both parties exchanging beads were in the prehistoric period for that part of the world. Then again, maybe not. One party may have had writing. Even if they didn't, the oral histories should be close enough to the introduction of writing to be considered as reliable as writing.

whinenot 3y ago
600+ tribes in North America and there is no evidence of pre-contact written language for any tribe north of the SW desert border.