3 ms·

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. Bett

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".

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".