6 ms·

What use is prehistory to the historian?

• AmericanChopper 2y ago
  > The notion of ‘prehistory’ simply does not work for cultures that rely primarily on oral communication. It was this division based on writing that gave rise to the widespread notion in the West that much of Africa didn’t have a history. A rather asinine take. A culture without writing doesn’t produce a written record of its history. It would still produce an archeological record, but archeology alone doesn’t describe a history in very much detail.
  • drewcoo 2y ago
    > A culture without writing doesn’t produce a written record of its history But it can transmit an oral record, which seems to be the author's point. Paper, skins, and stone are not the only mediums for language.
    • AmericanChopper 2y ago
      The sort of oral record that is passed between generations will only let you know what people today (or people whenever it was first written down) are saying about the historical events, it does not provide testimony from the actual participants or witnesses to the historical events. They are secondary sources that are usually used to preserve mythologies rather than histories.
      • Ar-Curunir 2y ago
        This is not true. For example, in India the oral tradition has preserved texts like the Vedas as they were around 500BCE. This is in absence of any strong written tradition around these texts. We know that the contents are preserved due to linguistic evidence.
        • peterfirefly 2y ago
          And how much else was passed down orally in India? Not much. Imagine if all we had of ancient Greece were the Iliad and the Odyssey!
          • Ar-Curunir 2y ago
            we have a ton of other texts, the Upanishads, the Brahmanas, the Aranyakas, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, and countless more. I just listed the most famous other example.
        • petesergeant 2y ago
          Yes but most cultures don’t have a rote-memorization culture like the shruti, which seems very much like the exception
        • AmericanChopper 2y ago
          > They are secondary sources that are usually used to preserve mythologies rather than histories. > This is not true. For example, in India the oral tradition has preserved texts like the Vedas as they were around 500BCE You could say the same thing for The Odyssey, or The Quran, which along with The Vedas, are all mythologies, not histories.
          • Ar-Curunir 2y ago
            I was talking about the preservation technique, not the contents. There is not inherently anything preventing oral traditions from preserving historical events, just like theirs no guarantee that written texts capture only factual information.
            • AmericanChopper 2y ago
              If that were true then why have oral traditions only been used to preserve culturally significant mythologies? (and even then most frequently in form of a strict meter poem or song)
      • jcranmer 2y ago
        You're vastly underrating the value of oral records and overrating the value of written records. We have quite few surviving written records from Antiquity, and far fewer still if you discount those records which are (possibly edited!) copies of original works rather than original works themselves. Even for someone as consequential as Alexander the Great, we have exactly 0 surviving contemporary works (even in copied form) about him, and our oldest sources are 4 secondary sources (largely incomplete), some of which have clear bias in interpretation, drawing on the primary sources. There's also the matter that the decision of which written records to preserve itself is a reflection of bias from people in intervening years. I mean, we have some pretty ancient extant religious manuscripts (in the sense of "this copy was produced around AD 300"), but manuscripts of those sects deemed heretical haven't survived, so most of what we know about, say, gnosticism comes from its ideological opponents.
        • AlbertCory 2y ago
          > most of what we know about, say, gnosticism comes from its ideological opponents Bad example. The Gnostic Gospels tells us quite a lot about what they thought, and in their own terms. Secondly, saying "written records are incomplete and/or biased" does not say that oral records are any better. In fact, the Telephone Game grew up to illustrate their own weakness. https://www.wikihow.com/Play-the-Telephone-Game https://www.wikihow.com/Play-the-Telephone-Game
          • jcranmer 2y ago
            The Gnostic gospels were only relatively recently discovered (1945 per Wikipedia), perhaps I should have picked one of the other heresies in early Christianity that are virtually unknown outside of some early church father dismissing them. And my point isn't that oral records are better than written records, it's that they're not really worse. Or put differently, written records are rather incomplete accounts: there's a tendency to treat written records as the ground truth of history which isn't particularly warranted.
            • AlbertCory 2y ago
  • throwaway2562 2y ago
    Indeed, a dimwitted article. The author seems keen to uncover ‘racist tropes’ and so on: ‘Challenging the notion of history’ appears to be the preferred route.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • pvaldes 2y ago
    > A culture without writing doesn’t produce a written record of its history But... they can still draw it. And they did it a lot in the caves. We have careful pictures of recognizable species of animals, sculptures and strange pictograms that could depict particular concepts so they take the same role as words. We even have entire narratives about hunter campaigns drawn in the cave walls with a specific number of male humans, dogs and specific animals chased, and how they chased it. Even their personal objects were shown. In this sense, this is literature. Sort of. Is just that we can't read all the symbols and can't know if those symbols had a sound attached, but we can understand easily a lot of the history depicted.
    • AlbertCory 2y ago
      > they can still draw it. yes, and we should study those and learn what we can. As people are doing. However, the picture we get is pretty fuzzy, and there's no good way to increase the resolution sans DNA evidence or other newer techniques.
    • AmericanChopper 2y ago
      > But... they can still draw it The study of ancient drawings is archeology, which I mentioned. It’s a useful historical resource, but only paints a very limited picture of a history all by itself.
• jbandela1 2y ago
  > The distinction between history and prehistory has been dissolving for some time The difference between history and prehistory is like having the source code with comments (history) versus the compiled binary (prehistory). Now the comments may be wrong or misleading but they are valuable to help understand the why. And written records compared with oral traditions is the difference between having a git history versus just a source file. Having snapshots back in time is valuable to see how things evolved.
  • Ar-Curunir 2y ago
    oral traditions can provide a historical perspective. For example, the Vedas in India preserve pretty well the state of the texts as they were around 500BCE. We know this from linguistic evidence.
  • catlifeonmars 2y ago
    I’d add to this analogy: it’s a compiled binary with many chunks missing.
    • idontpost 2y ago
      [dead]
  • drewcoo 2y ago
    For software, prehistory would be design discussions before any code was written or there was anything in the ticketing system.
• woodpanel 2y ago
  > there is the unpleasant whiff of colonialism here [...] reinforced racist tropes [...] widespread notion in the West that much of Africa didn’t have a history It is indeed unpleasant – that people resort to this cheap rhetorical kick in the teeth of using white-shaming as an argument itself. Especially when the author touches on an important topic. Because doing it this way – by slipping in intent – contorts cause and effect. Yes, the dichotomy of history and prehistory is an underrated one. Yes, it deduces prehistoric cultures as dull. But this includes the pre-history of the alledged racists! The matter at play here is not the interlined plot to plunder and subjugate the world, but our inability to recognize that the written word is just a small appendix to our every-day culture, till this day. Even today we barely notice how much of our behaviours and rituals can be shaped in complete abscense of any written and oral communication. Nobody tells the Copenhagen cyclist to cycle much more considerate (with regards to other cyclists, drivers and pedestrians) than a Berlin cyclist. But they still do. When judging cultures, it's the insignificance of the written word that us writers fail to see. And thus today's richness is just as hidden as the richness of the past.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• AlbertCory 2y ago
  The ideology of this piece is overwhelming. > ‘Prehistory’, like so many categories that we use to frame the past, is not only a convenient label, but a deeply problematic inheritance. I'm all for learning everything we can from unwritten sources. The problem is that they're unwritten. Tools, coins, ruins ... all those survive and can be analyzed. But what you notice from the analyses of those is: they're pretty tenuous. Writers make inferences that are, well, open to question, but it's all they can do. As for "oral cultures" : yes, absolutely, if they survive. But AFAIK no Native American culture has any legend on how they came over from Siberia, nor do Australian aborigines "remember" how they migrated from Asia and Indonesia. Yet we know that they did.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • petesergeant 2y ago
    Note that you are quoting one of the five mini articles contained, and it’s worth reading the rest, although I generally agree with you here
    • AlbertCory 2y ago
      the fact that I didn't quote something from each of the five doesn't mean I didn't read them. sometimes scientists can do isotopic analyses on teeth to see what foods people were eating, or show that a particular material had to have been imported from far away. The Bronze Age relied on tin, which was only found in a few places. All those facts from "pre-history" are really valuable. But some of it does seem to be "collective imagination," as someone else here called it.
  • verisimi 2y ago
    To say "tenuous" is to wildly understate the problems. IMO, history is tenuous - even recent history. 'Prehistory' is just an act of collective imagination from licensed historians.
    • AlbertCory 2y ago