Combination of the 2 (apologies ahead to janis joplin)

[john]

OK.

We have in the one corner of tonight's bout............"Early Migration".

And in the other corner ............"Written Sources to Trojan War".

Anyone ever wondered why jesus, mohammed and buddha were basically contemporaneous?

Could it be, rather than being prophets, they were leaves in the flood of a major cultural shift from oral tradition to written tradition? And from tribal wisdom to national identity/politics? Perhaps they were the final, brilliant flowering of a wisdom based on oral tradition put up against the wall of early national realpolitik and politically organized religion.

Maybe they were the last of the true keepers of the oral traditions, and revered as such. It is clear that all three were despised by the political entities then in power.

This isn't as cut and dried as it might seem. There seems to have been a period of a couple thousand years when this transition was being fought out in many forms - its just that those three have survived - (just as "King Arthur" following the disintegration of Roman England), as arbiters of a previous moral and ethical code which was being systematically taken apart by a newer, more "advanced" culture.

have at.............


john

[Minimalist]

Buddha c 500 BC.

Mohammad c 630 AD

Jesus c 30 AD.

That's stretching "contemporaneous."

[john]

Buddha c 500 BC.

Mohammad c 630 AD

Jesus c 30 AD.

That's stretching "contemporaneous."

Min -

Stretching contemporaneous, yes, in terms of an individual's own birth and death. Put it into a cultural context. 1030 years is an eyeblink, and there is plenty of oral tradition out there to support.

Presently, our oral tradition seems to have shrunk to the duration of the New York Times Bestseller List.

Or perhaps you would prefer TV Guide?

And on, and on.


So. Big question.

Who, these days, are the caretakers of lasting and ongoing knowledge?

With the concomitant stewardship of society (ex tribes) to maintain the balance, both human and natural.

john

[Minimalist]

1,000 years is 20%, more or less, of all of recorded history.

It's a very complex issue, though.

[john]

1,000 years is 20%, more or less, of all of recorded history.

It's a very complex issue, though.

Min -

Who sez oral history is not "recorded" history? Now we get to the heart of the matter.

i.e., your family history - or mine.

john

[Forum Monk]

So. Big question.

Who, these days, are the caretakers of lasting and ongoing knowledge?

With the concomitant stewardship of society (ex tribes) to maintain the balance, both human and natural.

john

John, that truly IS the big question when you give it some thought. Which is what I will do....tomorrow...it too late now.

[Minimalist]

Historians generally define written records as "history" and oral traditions as "pre-history."

I did not create this definition although I agree with it. Nonetheless, either way people have been known to stretch the truth of any situation to fit their own needs...be it written or oral.

[john]

Historians generally define written records as "history" and oral traditions as "pre-history."

I did not create this definition although I agree with it. Nonetheless, either way people have been known to stretch the truth of any situation to fit their own needs...be it written or oral.

Min -

So all graphical ( i.e., non written representations) are oral 'istorin?


john

[Minimalist]

I don't know about "all." That covers a lot of ground.

[Forum Monk]

Here is a question for anyone who cares to answer. Does history exist outside of human involvement? For example, are timelines which discuss formation of the universe, dinosaurs, the emergence of man, migration theories, etc. history? Or does history not exist apart from a human context?

Or conversely, is it not history until a man begins to interpret the past in a cohesive and somewhat linear fashion?

[Leona Conner]

Here is a question for anyone who cares to answer. Does history exist outside of human involvement? For example, are timelines which discuss formation of the universe, dinosaurs, the emergence of man, migration theories, etc. history? Or does history not exist apart from a human context?

Or conversely, is it not history until a man begins to interpret the past in a cohesive and somewhat linear fashion?

I'll bite, of course this is only my opinion on the subject. According to the dictionary "history" is really just the story of something. We have both oral and written history, since much of what is written comes from our oral traditions where is the line separating the two, is there is one. but then again we have a history of the earth as told by geology. I think that it does tell a story of sorts, but since man wasn't involved in the telling it has a different context. So I suppose that history is history whether man is writing it done as it is happening (for tomorrow) writing down the oral stories he hears, or is interpreting what is discovered from the rocks and other natural sciences.

[marduk]

but why is it history and not herstory
of course the answer is that early women couldn't write

[Minimalist]

All history needs to be interpreted. It does not matter if it is written or oral or if it was oral that was later written down.

Again, strictly reading Caesar's commentaries one would assume that he never lost a battle because he spins the tale. But he did. He outright lost at Gergovia to the Gauls and at Dyrrachium to Pompey. There were also a few other occasions when poor judgement put him in unnessarily dangerous situations.

Historians have virtually no chance of ever finding out the whole truth of ancient history even when we have documents. Writing served poltical purposes and it doesn't matter if it is Caesar's commentaries, Rameses II's inscriptions on a temple wall or the bible. Someone with an agenda directed what was written down.

In a sense, mute artifacts with no spin to impart, might almost be a better way of learning about the past....except people rarely agree on what they are seeing and the spin comes in later as part of the interpretation.

[Beagle]

are timelines which discuss formation of the universe, dinosaurs, the emergence of man, migration theories, etc. history?

I was always taught that those things are pre-history, or prehistorical.
Also that history begins with human documentation, whether it's in writing or oral history that is later written down.

[Forum Monk]

So it seems tthere is some leaning to the idea that history requires interpretation by a human before it becomes, well... meaningful?

And I think Min very quickly cut to the heart of the matter. How can any history really be trusted? And expanding somewhat on John's post; who is the caretaker for its accuracy?

And yet I don't think archaeological artifacts can be properly 'interpreted' without recourse to history. Can they?