I guess it means "oldest known among post-european invasion"? :)
From the article
>"Native Americans undoubtedly had earlier grave markers (perhaps made of wood that did not survive), but they were not made of carved stone. Nor did the English settlers have the technology and skills to cut and engrave tombstones; that is why they imported them."
Tombstones hardly seem like a universal thing, grave monuments may be but tombstones in particular not really.
> Nor did the English settlers have the technology and skills to cut and engrave tombstones
Seems rather implausible. Engraving in wood is about the same thing but way less tideous. A chissel and a hammer.
It probably comes down to a matter of will (and funding...), not tech.
Polishing marble, limestone etc. (as opposed to just engraving something on a rock) still requires skilled workers, equipment etc. The small, underdeveloped early colonies couldn't really sustain such a specialized industry.
>cut and engrave
Stonecutting takes a lot of specialized tools and resources, things we could fairly easily know Jamestown lacked.
From the researcher quoted in the article:
”Native Americans undoubtedly had earlier grave markers (perhaps made of wood that did not survive), but they were not made of carved stone. Nor did the English settlers have the technology and skills to cut and engrave tombstones; that is why they imported them.”
also in defense of the title, Native Americans certainly did not consider themselves Americans around this period, some still don't feel like they are afforded the protections of other Americans. These were two nations entirely culturally separate but geographically overlapped
> two nations
500+ nations within the current US boundaries alone
Take a look at a map of Europe around the 1600s with all the free cities and sovereignties, and imagine that an undocumented version of North America looked like that as well
Its been too reductive to group the indigenous populations into one native american group, and one trend of "land acknowledgements" has been helpful in revealing that in a digestible way
This is a bit a matter of semantics. Using the term nation may potentially confuse those who have no experience with Native American history, true. They had many nations. Regardless, though, as the natives faced increased threat of elimination there did become a central united Native American community gradually and then explicitly. Thinking of things like the American Indian Movement (of course started considerably later than the event the OP is referring to, though)
> Take a look at a map of Europe around the 1600s with all the free cities and sovereignties
To be fair, those European states, groups, and entities were still extremely interconnected (in comparison) and shared societal, cultural, and religious traits. They viewed themselves as part of a single "Christian civilization," at least in very broad terms. I don't think such an argument could be made for North American societies.
And yeah viewing all Native Americans (I mean in the 1600s, not necessarily now) as belonging to some single "nation" seems like a purely European projection. That seem pretty superficial and essentially erases all of those diverse cultures (which is what is what ended up happening...).
There are megalithic sites in the North American region which may have served the purpose of gravestones, but it doesn't fit the European colonial/settler narrative to identify and recognize this fact.
Yet.
It always surprises me when some talk about european settlers like they have been the only ones in history that have conquered other places, who invaded and had battles through history. AFAIK there have been wars since the human being was born, many civilizations still exist, many were not worth and are extinct/almost extinct, like native americans, why do you feel the need to point out "Post-european invasion"? I feel it is some new woke bullshit
Spot on