This didn't get as much traction yesterday as I thought it might, but I have some thoughts on this that people need to consider in thinking about how to integrate this important history into our curriculum. Thread: https://twitter.com/tlecaque/status/1356754862139129856

The first point is that it's not at all clear how this can/should be done. I actually disagree that "precontact" history as a field is something that #VastEarlyAmerica should incorporate, for a couple reasons. It should be studied in specific VEA contexts where the continuities..

of specific traditions, geopolitical relationships, ecological relationships, etc are important, but not as a whole general segment prior to colonization. Why? Because "America" is a colonial construct, and did not exist before Europeans arrived in large numbers.

As much as I'm in favor of 'Medieval America' as a concept, it's inherently colonial and we have to approach this issue carefully and with respect, otherwise, we are literally just colonizing the history of others... again. For this reason, I think VEA should be postcontact.

Indeed, part of the reason we know so little about this period is because our knowledge can primarily be constructed from two sources: archaeology and oral traditions. Historians still manage to frequently fumble on this uneven ground as seen by the replies to this thread by..

people who still teach through the Bering Strait-Clovis Archaeological Complex. It's a sign that many still privilege archaeology over oral tradition in their pedagogy, and this is a problem that needs to be rectified before westerners begin exploring a field that isn't their own

We now know that Indigenous peoples have been living in the Americas for much much longer than what the archaeological record can accurately corroborate because of oral traditions, but we still need to break from privileging one over the other, the damage of which we saw recently

when archaeologists confirmed transoceanic passage across the South Pacific, an important historical moment Indigenous peoples of the South Pacific world have long known, but are seldom asked about. In fact, as Vine Deloria demonstrated in _Red Earth, White Lies_ there has been

a tendency to ignore both oral traditions AND archaeological sites that don't fit the Bering Strait timeline. Anyone who teaches the BS theory (great pun acknowledged) should read his book.

What does any of this have to do with Medieval America(s)? It highlights another problem embedded in current pedagogical thinking, that Indigenous peoples from before the Ice Age to 1491 were virtually the same. It should w/o saying that we need to be EXTREMELY specific here.

And when it comes to being specific, language matters. Historians have still not figured an adequate way around the problems highlighted in Jim Merrell's "Second Thoughts" article on the issues with loaded terms like Pre-Columbian or precontact. It raises of questions of what...

our intentions are in interrogating this history that inherently does not belong to us and has not been ours to tell. We need to approach this history from outside the gravitational pull of the United States, and this just isn't entirely possible for western academics to do, but

remains a hazard we need to be aware of. I'm in full agreement that the histories of moundbuilding societies and other Indigenous societies of this era are extremely important, and we might even rescue Inka/Mexica history from "antiquity" in the process. BUT...

We cannot assume this history is ours to study. For the reasons I've listed plus countless others, many Indigenous nations maintain their oral histories as internal knowledge in order to protect and preserve it from years of relentless scrutiny and erosion by settler academia.

We have the potential for a whole new field here of great importance to the continental history of the "Americas." I just want to throw some cautionary flags that if it's going to be a field, it needs to be done correctly, and in my mind, that means letting Indigenous scholars

lead the way in developing in, or at the very least working with them. There is a lot to be said about this that can still be unpacked here, but the point is that we as non-Indigenous scholars need to be aware of the power structures we drag with us into these spaces.

Absolutely none of this is a dig at @tlecaque who has demonstrated both skill and sensitivity in his countless threads on medieval "Iowa." He's perfect for this field. I just wanted to provide clarity to what promises to be very fertile ground for 'Americanists' and to caution...

that VEA can and should by design have boundaries that take into account the coloniality of historical knowledge production, both before 'contact' and after. Some new scholars unaware of these hazards might hop into these fields recognizing opportunities for self-advancement.

This is to serve as a reminder that such thinking would be wrong and irresponsible, but more importantly, exploitative to present-day Indigenous communities that have rightly grown weary of sharing their knowledge with us. I'm all for teaching this history, but let's do it right.