|
|
|
|
|
by twblalock
1266 days ago
|
|
This is where history and archeology diverge. We know how bad things were in Europe and East Asia because written records survive which describe the crop failures etc. We don't have records from that time period from Africa or South America. All we can do is assume that people there suffered as well, due to the global nature of the problem. Sometimes people get left out of historical narratives because there just aren't any written records. You can make assumptions, or you can try to make stuff up, but an intellectually honest historian is also likely to just say "we can't know." In contrast, archaeologists will try to make a case for how hierarchical a society was, or whether it was male-dominated, or what kind of religion it had, on the basis of a few tombs belonging to "high-status individuals" and a couple of pieces of pottery. It's always a bit of a stretch. A lot of what archaeologists believed about prehistory. especially migrations of people groups, has been overturned by genetic studies in the past decade. David Reich wrote a good book about it several years ago, which is probably itself outdated now due to the pace of discovery in that field. |
|
I think you're missing my point, which is that the erasure of these regions from the record (which runs through the history of archaeology, up to the publishing of this article) was a purposeful and avoidable tragedy. If we are to talk about the conditions of human life and civilization, we should aspire to do one better than the example of your intellectually-honest historian, and affirm that we simply don't know, not that we could not have.