0:00 Prehistory does not exist. Well, actually, it’s not a neutral analytical category. Those who decided to name the period of history before the appearance of writing "prehistory" were Eurocentric. In this video, I propose we analyze the category of prehistory that we use to name that period prior to the invention of writing, which hides behind its origin a highly racist and evolutionist view of American peoples, and I invite you to think of new categories for thinking about history. My lanteris, well, first of all, for this video I am super sunburned, as you can see, in a while the sunburn will fade, but I wanted to record this video now because I was very inspired. So I couldn't wait until it got later and the natural light stopped coming through my window, so
0:45 you'll have to bear with the slightly blown-out image for the first 5 minutes . I really wanted to make this video, which is a bit more theoretical, if you will, than what I usually make; but I don't know, it's something I feel people should think about and reflect on, because when we use the word " prehistory," we are falling into a European, ethnocentric, racist, and otherwise discursive trap. And I thought it would be interesting to think about what other ways we can call the different historical chronologies that are not disrespectful to American peoples. Why? Because the word prehistory, which is used so much to the point that, I don't know, I had a prehistory and archaeology course at university, is a word that perhaps we should no longer use because, as I say, it hides a highly Eurocentric bias. We
1:33 know that prehistory is that moment in history that spans from the origin of humanity until the appearance of writing, approximately in 3000 BCE. It assumes that everything that existed before writing is not history; that is, it turns the appearance of alphabetic writing into something like the threshold of humanity. You existed before 3000 BCE, you have no history, you have no humanity. You have no humanity to the point that if you are considered a people without writing, your body can be exhibited in a museum as if you were a piece of the natural world. When we think of prehistory, we think, for example, of cavemen, right? Of hunter-gatherer civilizations, perhaps Neolithic civilizations, but without complexity in their structures.
2:20 We think of civilizations, I don't know , stateless, with ancient traits, but we are falling into a stereotype that was conceived from Europe. The traditional timeline, let's say, the one we use in history, at least in high school, divides history into different stages, right? The first stage is prehistory, which we know goes from the origin of humanity to the invention of writing. Next is ancient history, from the appearance of writing to the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Then we have the Middle Ages, from the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the conquest of the Americas. Then we have the modern age from the conquest of the Americas to the French Revolution, and then the contemporary age from the French Revolution to the present. The problem with this periodization is that it only responds to European events and interests. It's as if we divide history
3:07 based on what happened in Europe or what Europe was interested in happening in the world. Of course, it is a periodization that leaves out the existence of American and African peoples, or the chronologies of other civilizations, and responds to a European need to organize time. Of course we need chronologies, we need timelines, we need to organize the passage of time in history because we work from the origins of humanity. But by using this chronology, as I said, we are falling into a European point of view. In college, I had subjects like prehistory, ancient history, the Middle Ages, the modern age, and the contemporary age. In other words, we continue to fall into those European biases because we need to organize ourselves in a methodical way somehow. But the truth is that it is a way of ordering time that is quite outdated
3:53 because it responds to European interests. But well, what about the word prehistory? What about the concept of prehistory? In the end, it turns out to be a concept that absolutely minimizes the existence of any non-European people. The term prehistory began to be used in the mid- 19th century to refer, as I just said, to every moment in history prior to the appearance of writing. There is a whole debate about who was the first person to coin the term or if prehistory is actually a translation error, because the first person who in 1833 wanted to refer to prehistory actually used another word in French, but it was mistranslated. I don't want to get too much into that because, honestly, it doesn't add anything to the video. But we should know that it is a category
4:39 that appeared in the mid-19th century, when the scientists of that era were, let's say, imbued with a positivist logic, a logic that appealed to scientific evidence, to an evolutionist , and also, let's say it, somewhat European supremacist mindset, which at the time was very novel because it allowed for breaking with the biblical chronology that had been used until then, where all the periodization of history was done based on the Church, that is, on biblical times. When the term prehistory appears, it allows history to be organized into scientific categories, which although today we know they are scientific categories, perhaps not so great, there was a scientific criterion in the context of that time. It ordered the history of civilization from its origin and also adopted another chronology that also
5:25 emerged at the time to define the times —let's say, what we would call prehistoric today—which were the Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages. The problem is that this way of categorizing history assumed that before writing, there is no history. As I said in the video's introduction, if there is no history, there is no humanity, let's say, there is no record , you are not a civilization that matters as much as one that does have history. So, any people that does not have written history, has no history. The problem with this category is that, as I told you, it only takes into account European events. Because in Europe, by the year 1850, there were no peoples that did not have writing. They considered themselves the cradle of knowledge, of scientific thought, and they considered any civilization that did not have writing to be uncivilized,
6:12 backward, prehistoric. The problem is that this chronology assumes that before the year 3000 there was no writing and that after the year 3000 all civilizations have writing. And that is not the case, because by the 15th century, for example, there existed many civilizations that did not possess alphabetic writing, but were super complex civilizations like the Tawantinsuyu, like the Mexica or Aztecs , and so many other super complex civilizations that were super complex but did not have writing. So they were considered prehistoric, backward. As I told you, these scientists who coined the term prehistory were steeped in evolutionary theory. They were contemporaries, for example, of Darwin, of this evolutionary thought that
6:58 believed that societies advanced and evolved from a primitive and savage stage to a civilized and orderly stage. So, they applied that same evolutionary logic: ancient civilizations equaled savage and primitive civilizations, modern civilizations equaled advanced, contemporary, perfect civilizations. Therefore, everything that is prehistoric, everything that is far back in the past, is savage. What is in the present is civilized. What is in the past has no writing; it is savage. What is in the present has writing; it is civilized. Focus on the fact that if you don't have writing, you are primitive. I want to emphasize this when we look at what was happening with American civilizations. These scientists thought that civilizations
7:44 became more sophisticated, intelligent, and advanced over time. Of course, deeply soaked, as I say, in Darwinian logic. And they will think that if history begins with writing, prehistory does not simply name a period, but rather names a deficiency, a lack of civilization. Even if in the 19th century they encountered civilizations with writing living in the 19th century , they were considered prehistoric, because prehistory would become a synonym for backward. This shows how, in a way, time becomes a tool of power, because ultimately it is an instrument for the allocation of power. If you are a civilization anchored in the present, you will have more power. It places you in another ancient, previously anchored time, even if that civilization
8:31 coexists. in the 19th century it will continue to be seen as ancient. This applies, above all, to African civilizations in a context I didn't mention, of course: imperialism, where, towards the end of the 19th century, the main European powers began to colonize different regions of Africa and Oceania, with the argument: "we, white Europeans, are more civilized than you, prehistoric societies, societies without writing." Thus, the category of prehistory becomes an argument for colonialism, in a way, to justify how modern European nations, with writing, must colonize and must civilize by force, of course, those African nations, for example, that are considered prehistoric for having a way
9:16 of life typical of hunter-gatherer societies, even if they live in the 19th century. I know this is getting a bit messy here, but you will see that in the following segment this is explained much more with a concrete example. I already warned that this was a theoretical video. This is how the concept of prehistory reinforced, in a way, the idea of progress, colonialism, and served as a justification for it. But as I told you, the chronology of prehistory only considers events that occurred in Europe or in relation to Europe. The issue is that in America until 1492 alphabetic writing, as conceived in the West, was not known. So, American civilizations, all American civilizations prior to the conquest are considered prehistoric for
10:03 not possessing writing, even though they were extremely complex civilizations. In Europe, prehistory ends at different moments, but it always ends because all European civilizations eventually end up having, uh, a writing system. In America, no. When Spain arrives in America in 1492, the American people did not possess alphabetic writing as it is known in the West. So it is considered a continent totally linked to prehistory, even though it was an extremely complex continent. For example, the Tawantinsuyu, what is known as the Inca Empire, did not possess alphabetic writing, let's say, of letters like Spain had, but it did have the quipus that...The quipus were a writing system
10:50 and an extremely complex accounting system made through knots on colored threads; which, if you want, we can make a specific video about, because I can talk for hours about quipus, because to this day, it hasn't been fully deciphered how these quipus were used, these knot systems that served for accounting. And, as I say, also to tell stories and write. Then, I don't know, Mesoamerican civilizations had codices that also told extremely complex stories through infograms, through drawings that, as I tell you, were super complex. I don't know, the Florentine Codex, for example, is something super complex that, okay, doesn't have letters, but it is a form of writing that we can also make a video about the codices. Well, we can do a mix, like of the codices and the quipus. You can leave it for me in the comments if you want that. We want the
11:36 video on the quipus and the codices. I will read them. But anyway, these civilizations were categorized as prehistoric only for not having writing . It doesn't matter if they were very complex politically, it doesn't matter if they had a super complex economy, if they had an advanced construction system with structures that remain standing to this day. Their demographic density didn't matter; only that they didn't have writing mattered, and therefore they were prehistoric. And remember that prehistory is linked to ancient, savage, primitive. So, under this logic, a state that administers millions of citizens, that builds, I don't know, super complex irrigation networks, one that conquers giant territories, is placed on the same level as a Paleolithic hunter-gatherer
12:23 society. Why? Because both are prehistoric. I mean, under this Spanish logic, an Inca falls into the same category as a group of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who barely spoke, more or less. I mean, this category doesn't really distinguish anything of historical importance; it only measures a distance from what is European. Now, the historical discipline has sought different ways to replace the word " prehistory," which, as I tell you, remains very deeply rooted. I mean, I myself had a "Prehistory and Archaeology" course at university, which, in fact, still exists today at the National University of Córdoba within the history degree program. The course is called Prehistory. But well, consensus sometimes takes a while to arrive, but we do have alternatives for naming this period. It could be pre-Hispanic, pre-Columbian, or pre-colonial. The problem is that these
13:09 three forms—pre-Hispanic, pre-Columbian, and pre-colonial— define the American continent in relation to the arrival of others, that is, in relation to the arrival of the Spanish. It doesn't define us based on our own history. Many also choose to call it the ancient history of America, which, although it has the most consensus, is also somewhat contradictory because, after all, we are using a Mesopotamian category— that of "antiquity"—to define the American continent. We have to find a way to define our history, not from the very concept of those who came to invade us. There were and are many attempts by Latin American academics to find an alternative to this. For example, Luis Guillermo Lumbreras, who was an extremely important
13:54 archaeologist in Latin America, especially in Andean archaeology, criticized traditional archaeological approaches, which were essentially the analysis of a material piece, and insisted that it be the analysis of a piece produced by a human. I mean, it's something called social archaeology. But well, as an archaeologist, he also stated that it is important to find an alternative to the concept of prehistory, because ultimately this concept implies that we are prior to a "true" history and casts aside the complexity of all the elements that make American history unique. In other words, history is European; the "pre-" is everything else, the part that doesn't matter. And now, I took almost 20 minutes to tell you about a concrete
14:40 case that blew my mind when I read it, which demonstrates the real weight that using these categories has, because up until now everything was kind of theoretical. One might say, "Well, what does it matter what they call it?" At the end of the day, one can then ask the right questions while knowing that "prehistory" is not the appropriate term. The issue is that, often, the use of this term starts to generate meanings and senses that lead to terrible things happening in material, in real terms. When you refer to a people as prehistoric, you link them to something very distant, something very much of the past, something perhaps not even human. And if that people were not human, their remains are not either.
15:25 And if their remains are not human, they can be exhibited in a museum; they don't go to a cemetery. They can go, for example, to a natural history museum. How would you feel if one day you went to a natural history museum and saw the bodies of your grandparents exhibited in an anthropological display ? Let me give you a bit of context for this story. It was the year 1888, in Argentina, the year the La Plata Museum was inaugurated by expert Francisco Moreno. A natural history museum which, in a context as I told you of positivism, evolutionism, and an explosion of much more positivist scientific knowledge, this museum was created with the intention of having an exhibition of elements from the natural world. Well, in that museum, the body
16:11 of a person who had died that same year was exhibited for almost 60 years. I am talking about the cacique Inacayal. Cacique Inacayal was a Tehuelche chief who lived in Patagonia and who, in the context of the Conquest of the Desert —that moment in which the Argentine State advanced over Patagonia with an atrocious massacre of the indigenous populations of the region—in that advance of the armies led by the Argentine State, indigenous populations , Mapuche, Tehuelche, and others, were massacred. And this cacique is captured , a cacique who was emblematic in indigenous resistance. Once they capture Inacayal, they take him to Buenos Aires, he and his whole family captured; and Francisco Moreno, who had met him on his travels in Patagonia,
16:58 asks the State to please transfer Inacayal and his entire family to the La Plata Museum for scientific and ethnographic purposes. Basically, he said it was to analyze them as well because, well, he knew him. The chief refused. He did not want to be an exhibit piece. He lived in a museum, but well, of course, he had no voice or vote because he was a captive. And he and his whole family were transferred to the museum. The thing is, this man died in the museum between September 1887 and September 1888. It is not a minor detail that there is no concrete record of his death, because it speaks a bit to the treatment this human being , this person, received. And when he dies, his body becomes an exhibit piece for the museum. He is taken apart, studied, and exhibited as a piece in
17:45 1888. I mean, 1888 wasn't that long ago , and he was being exhibited in a museum. The thing is, he was exhibited in the museum until 1940. I mean, my grandmother was alive; she had already been born. Just think about going to a museum and coming across a friend's great-grandfather, grandfather, or father. It’s insane. Now I bring a question to you all. An ethical one, perhaps, or if you will, I don't know, something to think about. What is the difference between exhibiting this indigenous chief and exhibiting, for example, Napoleon's body? I mean, exhibiting a body is exhibiting a body, right? Like, in a tomb. People would be horrified if, all of a sudden, the body was displayed dismantled—I don't know —Napoleon's bones, his teeth, skin, brain. People would say, "More respect for Napoleon." Well, with Chief Yayal,
18:30 there wasn't that respect because the chief was considered prehistoric, savage, from a civilization that didn't have writing, belonging to the present but with a way of life from antiquity —primitive, animal—so he could be exhibited. Only in the year 1994 was his body returned to a community in Chubut, and he had the burial he deserved within the framework of his spirituality and so on. It was the first case of repatriation of indigenous human remains in Argentine history, not until '94. But the story doesn't end there, because in 2006, the news spread that parts of him had remained in the museum: soft tissues, the brain, the scalp, and the ears of a
19:16 person. A person who had descendants; I mean, there are direct descendants of this person like, "My great-great-grandfather’s ears are in the museum." And well, they were delivered in 2014; I mean, they returned only the bones in '94, and the rest in 2014. This opens up a debate that I’d like to make a specific video about: why some bodies are okay to exhibit and others are not. Because I go back to the same point: would you look kindly upon Manuel Belgrano's body being exhibited, like Belgrano's ear, his eye, scalp, hair, bone? One would say, "No, more respect for the father of the country." But an indigenous chief who lived 70 years later? Yes. And that same debate applies, for example, to a very important museum in Salta, Argentina, which is the Llullaillaco Museum, featuring the Llullaillaco mummies, which are three
20:02 Inca mummies dating back about 500 years that are currently on display. There is a very interesting debate surrounding that, regarding exhibiting them because they do have a very strong heritage value, but at the same time, they are the ancestors of people who are alive today. But I'm going to make a specific video about that. If you want the video about the Llullaillaco mummies—the word is really difficult —comment "mummies" or put a mummy emoji. But well, it opens up a debate, a debate that was initiated at the time and in which the Argentine State took some form of action. What was decided? It was decided that all indigenous human remains being exhibited in museums that had a verifiable identity —that is, having a first and last name, a history that could be recognized—should be returned. If
20:48 it's an "X" that no one knows, it's okay to exhibit it. This law asks for the identity of the remains, which is quite contradictory, because that person's identity was destroyed by the same apparatus that now asks for it to be restored. I mean, at the end of the day, it demands a written document from a person who lived in a civilization that had no writing. So there is a paradox right there, like if they don't have an ID or a written record that they existed, they won't give them back , and it's like, but those societies didn't have writing, I mean, you are asking them for a criterion imposed by yourself. But well, for you to see this , the concrete case—I should have started the video with this because it is perhaps the most revealing—shows how using categories like "prehistory" has a concrete consequence in the real
21:34 world. The concrete consequence was that, for 60 years, the body of a person with a first and last name and a history was exhibited under the pretext that they belonged to a prehistoric, backward, savage, primitive civilization. I am interested in this question, I ask you all. Do you see any contradiction between exhibiting, for example, the body of a soldier from the independence wars, or Manuel Belgrano, or Napoleon Bonaparte, or whichever historical figure you want, San Martín or Bolívar, and the body of an indigenous chief? Because yes, at the end of the day, the word "prehistory" solved a problem at the time, because in the mid-19th century, there was a need to somehow break with the Christian chronology, the religious chronology. There was a need to
22:20 organize time under a more rational, human, and scientific criterion. But perhaps over time, that category became anchored to a way of understanding the world that assumed there were civilizations that were more civilized and less civilized. And it is a criterion, a concept that today carries a very heavy symbolic weight when defining different civilizations, because we all link prehistory with the primitive, with the caveman; we keep linking the word prehistory with something backwards. When you go to Machu Picchu or any place in Latin America and see Mesoamerican or Incan archaeological remains and so on, you’re going to say this: they were anything but backwards. I mean, they had an irrigation system, a construction system that still endures
23:06 to this day. "Oh, but they didn't have writing, they're prehistoric, they're before history." The good thing is that today we can replace this word with more concrete things: direct dating, sequences, references. Instead of saying something was prehistoric, right ? Well, you can say it's from 8,500 years ago. We have other ways of perhaps naming the past that don't box it into these "savage" or "primitive" labels. But anyway, that's what I wanted to bring you: this video, which is mostly open questions; I didn't bring you any option other than to talk about the concrete date, to situate, to say, instead of saying prehistory, to say "it was 8,000 years ago." But I didn't bring you a new category because , as I say, it is the academics themselves who are in charge of thinking about these things. I am simply a communicator, which is why I provide the disclaimer that I don't do
23:52 this a lot. I am a teacher and a history graduate, and I make these videos not to give a masterclass, but to bring you information that generates doubts, questions, and curiosity. So, the academic world hasn't even found an alternative to the term prehistory yet. As I tell you, academic advances take time, and consensus is slow to arrive, but the important thing is that the question and the discomfort have already been sown. So, well, you can leave your like, your comment, you know , a mummy; if you want one about the Llullaillaco mummy, or about Incan and Mesoamerican writing, you can also ask for it. Remember that I have a historical stand-up show called "It Depends on the Past, That's Not the Problem." I will be in Comodoro Rivadavia, Puerto Madryn, and Bariloche . And I have my Halloween special,
24:38 which is the important thing; I will be in Montevideo, Uruguay, Córdoba, Rosario, La Plata, and Buenos Aires. And in January, I'll be in Mexico. I had it in my head that this was going to be a short video, but I don't think it's going to be short at all because I got carried away talking, since you know that everything to do with American history drives me crazy, especially colonial American history, which I'm going to start talking about a bit more, even though it's hard for me because, well, I have a special fondness for it and perhaps feel a double responsibility when discussing those topics. So anyway, uh, you can leave a comment and subscribe since I'm close to 200,000. I hope to reach 200,000 before the end of the year. So it would really help me out if you subscribed. See you next Monday.
