This is an odd discussion, especially for historical archaeologists.


(1) "Prehistory" does not imply that people have no history but that they do not have an internally produced written history. Is this difference important in scholarship - YES, of course. When I was a graduate student (1966) I worked at the Classic Maya site of Seibal and although the project could date the monuments (22 inscribed), the setting was "prehistoric" in regard to the texts. Since the 1980s Maya writing has been deciphered and what a difference it has made at Seibal. We speculated about events and people. Now they know the general historical outline, events and the names of all the rulers = a different world of knowledge.


(2) Take a look at the interesting article by Bunny Fontana ("On the Meaning of Historic Sites Archaeology" AMERICAN ANTIQUITY  1965 Vol. 31, No. 1, PP. 61-65- also reprinted in my 1978 source book) where he suggests a complex range of names and situations for North America. I think Bunny went a bit over the deep end with so many names but the article is excellent and right on what is being discussed. I wish Bunny was still with us to join in this discussion.


(3) The division between prehistory and history is significant not only in scholarly research but also in regard to cultural evolution.


(4) The division between prehistory and history is clear but there are many transitional situations:



 (a) full history - where a society is producing its own internal written history and there is enough of it to make even historians happy (e.g. 19th century Mormon Utah),


 (b) historic but functionally prehistoric because we can not read the texts (e.g. Indus Valley and during the 1960s Maya Civilization) or their system was not standard writing (e.g. the Inca),


 (c) "Proto-historic" which sometimes means the opening stage of a society moving into a literate setting (e.g. ancient Mesopotamia in its earliest phases of civilization),


 (d) "Ethnohistoric" - has many meanings but can mean a society is not producing its own internal history but outside observers are leaving detailed written descriptions (e.g. Romans on pre-conquest Gaul; the Jesuit Relations for NA).


If you accept "c" as a definition of "Proto-historic" then NA native societies were not moving toward a literate stage and only did so when they came under the influence of Europeans (e.g. the Cherokee).


Of course there are many other issues and situations such as the destruction of most primary documents because they were on perishable materials - this is much more true of ancient civilizations than most people realize and usually it is archaeology that comes to the rescue (monuments, inscribed artifacts such as coins).  Also there is the issue of entire segments of literate societies that do not usually produce their own documents (e.g. slaves, sometimes women and working class people).


I am an anthropologist, archaeologist and HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST and all these categories overlap but are different. Politically correct terminology is usually not going to please anyone outside of scholarship. The actual situations are complex enough.


Bob Schuyler








Robert L. Schuyler
University of Pennsylvania Museum
3260 South Street
Philadelphia, PA l9l04-6324


________________________________
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Jim Gibb <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 10:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Protohistory on the Utah site form

I don't have a completely satisfactory solution to the problem, but in reco=
gnition that indigenous peoples of the Americas have histories, regardless =
of whether or not we know much about them, I prefer as overlapping categori=
es Aboriginal History and European or EuroAmerican era. My solution at leas=
t acknowledges that these groups have histories, hence human agency. Prehis=
tory can imply that there is no history, no agency, and risking ethological=
, rather than ethnological perspectives. I realize that a fair amount of ef=
fort has been invested in the Utah situation, but protohistoric--a term wit=
h some history in the field, but not much currency--can be misconstrued as =
a vaguely transitional period when these peoples came out of the dark and i=
nto the light made possible by European writing. I doubt many who identify =
as Native American will like this concept any more than they like the conce=
pt of prehistory. Maybe before trying to resolve the problem of categorizin=
g those aboriginal sites contemporary with EuroAmerican expansion, but no d=
irect contact, we need to rethink the whole concept of prehistory. Given th=
e number of archaeologists who have long identified as prehistorians, this =
will be contentious, but perhaps necessary to advance our thinking. Full di=
sclosure: I identify as an archaeologist and not as any particular kind.

=20

Jim Gibb
Gibb Archaeological Consulting
Annapolis, MD
[log in to unmask]
410.693.3847

=20

=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy Scarlett <[log in to unmask]>
To: HISTARCH <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thu, Mar 22, 2018 10:00 am
Subject: Re: Protohistory on the Utah site form

Hannah-
I=E2=80=99m really glad to hear about this effort. It is a start at breakin=
g down that Prehistory/Natural History vs. history problem in Utah.
I wonder about the term =E2=80=9CEthnohistoric period.=E2=80=9D Given the i=
nterplay of oral history, ethnography, archival documents, archaeology, and=
 material culture analysis, I wonder if Ethnohistoric period wouldn=E2=80=
=99t capture the interdependence of those different research modes for the =
period?

Colonial era would work also, but it places the emphasis on the spread of c=
olonial power instead of the idea of indigenous history.

Some may not like the baggage of Ethnohistory and studies of ethnicity, how=
ever, or the associations with folklore.

I look forward to the discussion!
Best,
Tim Scarlett
Michigan Tech


> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:52 AM, Speal, Charles S <[log in to unmask]> wrot=
e:
>=20
> Some people out East use the terms pre-Colonial and Colonial to get past =
this issue. I would agree that Contact Period is preferable to "Proto-histo=
ric" as the latter still implies 'just learning to use history'.
>=20
>=20
> C. Scott Speal
> National Register Specialist, Archaeology
>=20
> Office of Environmental Planning=20
> Connecticut Department of Transportation=20
> 2800 Berlin Turnpike
> Newington, CT 06131=20
> Phone: 860-594-2918
> Fax: 860-594-3028
> [log in to unmask]
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Beh=
alf Of Hannah Russell
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 9:37 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Protohistory on the Utah site form
>=20
> Good Morning HistArch community,
>=20
> Over the past year in Utah, we have been working with a new site form (se=
e link below).  One of the new features on the site form is a new site clas=
s.  The state has added "Protohistoric" to "Prehistoric" and "Historic".  F=
or a lot of reasons, this addition is pretty exciting, the state has acknow=
ledged on the site form the false duality of "prehistory"
> and "history".  That's an awesome step towards better inclusivity in the =
archaeological record, and a more holistic way to talk about the historical
> experiences of Indigenous peoples!  As the site form and manual are
> written however, the use of the word is incorrect.  The manual defines pr=
ehistoric as Native American sites prior to 1800, Protohistoric as 1800-190=
0, and historic as non-native groups after 1800.
>=20
> These time frames, and the use of protohistry can and should be improved =
on our new form.  At the consultants meetings for the last two years, we've=
 been told that there is room to make changes on the form.  I've brought th=
is issue up at both of those meetings and have been told that the task forc=
e to create and improve the site form haven't found a better alternative wo=
rd to protohistory.
>=20
> I've been invited to the next site form task force meeting to discuss thi=
s issue further, and I'd like to workshop some ideas with the histarch grou=
p.  Personally, when I write and talk about the early and sustained interac=
tions between Indigenous and Euro-Americans in the archaeological record, I=
 use multiple terms together including protohistory, contact, and historica=
l Indigenous.  When talking about this issue with a friend, she suggested c=
ontact period as an alternative to protohistory.  Does anyone have any othe=
r suggestions?  Or for that matter suggested reading?
>=20
> https://heritage.utah.gov/history/archaeology-site-form-release
>=20
> Thanks so much for your time,
>=20
> --
> Hannah Russell, RPA
> Cottonwood Archaeology, LLC
> [log in to unmask]
> (435) 210-0414
>=20
> ############################
>=20
> To unsubscribe from the HISTARCH list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?SUBED1=3DHISTARC=
H&A=3D1
>=20
> ############################
>=20
> To unsubscribe from the HISTARCH list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?SUBED1=3DHISTARC=
H&A=3D1

############################

To unsubscribe from the HISTARCH list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?SUBED1=3DHISTARCH&=
A=3D1


############################

To unsubscribe from the HISTARCH list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?SUBED1=3DHISTARCH&A=3D1

############################

To unsubscribe from the HISTARCH list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?SUBED1=HISTARCH&A=1