- This topic has 6 voices and 16 replies.
-
Posts
-
My wife and I had this discussion this morning because she is taking a Western Civ class and they are covering pre-history in the first week. I claimed that it is not really history because we do not know the human story, just some of the mechanics. She says it is still history, to which I replied that if we do not know the people it is not history. We cannot say that ugh was the king of Gruntsville because we do not even know if there was an Ugh or a Gruntsville. All we have are flint knives, bones, and burnt stones from cooking fires. That is not history, it is anthropology.The discussion ended when I made my wife angry by aping the cavemen from Quest for Fire.
Good question. Just wondering, if there is a record of migration or movement, is that history of the human kind?
All we have are flint knives, bones, and burnt stones from cooking fires. That is not history, it is anthropology.
Do you mean Archaeology ? Scientific study of material remains of past human life and activities. These include human artifacts from the very earliest stone tools to the man-made objects that are buried or thrown away in the present day.
Also, what if they can determine where certain people ended up? Isn't that history?If your wife is using the same book I used in Western Civ (Spielvogel?), then that's where it is going to go.
Going by the fact that the word history is supposed to be derived from the Greek (historia) and mean learning by inquiry… I'd say yes. When we study pre-history (that time w/o written records) we are still inquiring and we can form an historical hypothesis based on the archaeological evidence.
Prehistory vs History ??Both are related to the study of the past, especially the human past. The fact that writing would be a kind of border between them, seems a bit old-aged. Writing is a tremendous change within a society however it doesn't affect much the people' way of life. If a separation must be made, I believe that Neolithic Age is a much greater step regarding the way people used to live: nomad or sedentary. Even though it is not fully satisfying : why such classifications ? Why oral tradition should be lower than writing ones ? This is about how our ancestors had to deal with their environment, their abilities (a Darwin view)History is about our past, the human past. Writing or not, nomad or sedentary, what's the point ? It's still about our ancestors, about us, bad or good, just like today: what to leave to your descendants ?
Pre-history is History, but historians aren't equipped to research it. Anthropologists and Archaeologists are trained to uncover and study artifacts that remain as the unwritten legacy of pre-historical civilizations. After they make the discoveries and classify what they have discovered, historians take up the case integrating their findings into the known historical record. Let me be perfectly clear to those who know my prejudices here, historians need to stay out of the way of the “scientists” while they do their work, and once they've completed their end, they should return the favor to the historian afterward. Bashing the prejudicial historian in 3 2 1…..:)
By definition, pre-history isn't history.
True, but the written record of, say, the origin of Attic Greeks is that they sprouted out of the ground. So does that mean it's the actual history?
All we have are flint knives, bones, and burnt stones from cooking fires. That is not history, it is anthropology.
Do you mean Archaeology ? Scientific study of material remains of past human life and activities. These include human artifacts from the very earliest stone tools to the man-made objects that are buried or thrown away in the present day.
Ok, maybe I should have said archaeology. My main point is that to me History is about the people. I want to be able to put names to faces and not have to make a bunch of educated guesses about maybe this or that happened. There is a place for guessing but if the majority of supposed history is these guesses then it is not history. If we cannot establish a factual time-line based on the written or archaeological record we are writing speculative history at best.I am currently reading A Short History of the World by J.M. Roberts (a good book too by the way, and I will review it once I finish it) and while it is well written the period concerning up to about 700 B.C. is so full of maybes and hedging on dates that it is not history at all it is more of a list of possibilities. That is not to say we should not learn and study, indeed the uncertainty means this period is even more deserving of study, but historians should not make definite claims that the written or archaeological record does not back up. I just think there is too much speculation in pre-historical times to even pretend to call it real history.I am now ready to get beaten up. ;D
but historians should not make definite claims that the written or archaeological record does not back up.
Would you go even further and say it is not definite unless the archaeological record backs up the written record?
I am now ready to get beaten up. ;D
Funny, Tony Romo is probably saying the same thing.
I don't think the archaeological record is a requirement. When we are talking about the era of written history archaeological evidence is gravy and should not be sniffed at. History is about facts yes, but it also about what the people that were there thought.
By definition, pre-history isn't history.
No it's pre-history… taken to mean that which happened before historical records were kept or have been found). But we do have an idea what happened, by way of archaeology.
