When did history begin?

[Obbe]

I guess it would be around when man first created the concept of time/cause and effect, meaning we were probably in the early stages of some sort of proto-consciousness.

What was life like back then? What was man like? We may not know, but we have reason to believe certain things. What do you believe about the beginnings of mankind? What caused civilization to start up?

There are many theories. What is yours?

[Dionysus]

Probably when someone decided to write it down. Before that it was simply myth and legend told around the campfire.

[bornkiller]

At the start.

[docus]

Probably when someone decided to write it down. Before that it was simply myth and legend told around the campfire.

This

It all started when some Sumerian invented cuneiform script and started writing down governmental decisions onto clay tablets.

[chuckNrambo]

Today at 3:42 p.m. Central Time (U.S. & Canada)
Monday, May 17, 2010

[Former_Member]

The academic consensus is sometime in mid-june 1936.

In seriousness though, that's as good an answer as any (in a way); 'cause you can't really give it a date. It really depends on what you mean by history too, when did humans gain a concept of history, or when did what we term 'history' start; the first is unknowable, and the second is unknowable 'cause I guess it would be the foundation of the universe (unless we're breaking it down to things like 'human' history; but that's still unknowable).

I guess history is (somewhat ironically) just a timeless concept, always here.

[Mantikore]

Herodotus was the first guy to "write history" for the sake of history, if i recall

[TheDarkRodent]

This

It all started when some Sumerian invented cuneiform script and started writing down governmental decisions onto clay tablets.

From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuneiform)

Cuneiform script (pronounced /kjuːˈniː.ɨfɔrm/ kew-NEE-i-form or /ˈkjuːnɨfɔrm/ KEW-ni-form) is one of the earliest known forms of written expression. Emerging in Sumer around the 30th century BC, with predecessors reaching into the late 4th millennium (the Uruk IV period), cuneiform writing began as a system of pictographs. In the course of the 3rd millennium BC the pictorial representations became simplified and more abstract. The number of characters in use also grew gradually smaller, from about 1,000 unique characters in the Early Bronze Age to about 400 unique characters in Late Bronze Age (Hittite cuneiform). Cuneiform writing was gradually replaced by alphabetic writing in the Iron Age Neo-Assyrian Empire and was practically extinct by the beginning of the Common Era. It was deciphered from scratch in 19th century scholarship.

[ComradeAsh]

Last Thursday.

[Beam_Me_Up_Scotty]

This

It all started when some Sumerian invented cuneiform script and started writing down governmental decisions onto clay tablets.

So nothing ever occurred before then?

[TheDarkRodent]

So nothing ever occurred before then?

Yes events occurred before then but that period is commonly referred to as the prehistoric period. History is not what happened so much as it is civilization record of what happened. But you know that...

[Rainycity]

history is a constant and we just began to take notes.

[Ebola]

History began when the oldest source, that can be interpreted, was created. That means that the object must have a message. A tool does not imply "history", but a letter (eg. carved on a bone or stick) does.
Digging it out is the job of an archeologist. Therefore the "Dawn of History" will move back as more sources are discovered.
Anything written with letters (in what alphabet they might be) is part of history.
Everything older than a scientific source with a message up for interpretation is pre-history.

EDIT: As to the actual time, I would say it should be somewhere around 3000BC based on findings of early Middle Eastern alphabets and hieroglyphs. That the incriptions are not yet understandable/translated is a problem for linguists, translaters and decrypters and not an actual issue in defining history (besides slowing down the research of the "early days")

[Agathokakological]

History started when people starting speaking of their forefathers and passed the knowledge down through the family tree.

[Beam_Me_Up_Scotty]

Yes events occurred before then but that period is commonly referred to as the prehistoric period. History is not what happened so much as it is civilization record of what happened. But you know that...

I wasn't talking to you. :mad:

[TheDarkRodent]

I wasn't talking to you. :mad:

:p:D

[mrparks]

Right after we started lying, but before we started writing.

[Ambient]

So nothing ever occurred before then?

Some people espouse that intelligent life existed/exists within the universe, and even our planet before this 5,000 year old date. Supposedly, an event occured which wiped off most if not all traces of civilizations existing before this date, and the Annuki descended from the planet Nibiru and enslaved humanity :p A fairly whacky speculation. Never the less, I tend to think people who give history the date of 5,000 years, fully well knowing the cosmological age of the universe to be around 15 billion years, and our planet 5 billion years, to be anthropocentric and narcissistic.

[TheDarkRodent]

^This Forum and this discussion are not concerned with events that happened in other galaxies or even other possible civilizations before the known origins of our current one. We are concerned with recorded history as we know it. Not some prehistoric L. Ron Hubbard style "speculation".

[Ebola]

Some people espouse that intelligent life existed/exists within the universe, and even our planet before this 5,000 year old date. Supposedly, an event occured which wiped off most if not all traces of civilizations existing before this date, and the Annuki descended from the planet Nibiru and enslaved humanity :p A fairly whacky speculation. Never the less, I tend to think people who give history the date of 5,000 years, fully well knowing the cosmological age of the universe to be around 15 billion years, and our planet 5 billion years, to be anthropocentric and narcissistic.

History can´t be older than the sources. What you are talking about (besides extra-terrestials) is pre-history. That Earth, humans or the Universe is older than 5.000 years is logical and I guess undisputed here, but that doesn´t make it history. It is still archeology, anthropology, palentology etc. if there are no writen sources.

[Ebola]

I think humanity started writing history down around the bronze age.

But we started re-writing it much more recently ;)

I totally agree. Thats exactly what I have been saying. Bronze Age started about 3000BC (depending on region) and from that time we have found the oldest written sources (in form of Phoenecian wedge writing and simple hieroglyphs).

[Former_Member]

All your attempts define the beginning of history as the beginning of history as a pursuit.

We study pre-bronze age civilisations, is that not history?

[Ebola]

All your attempts define the beginning of history as the beginning of history as a pursuit.

We study pre-bronze age civilisations, is that not history?

Only if they have produced items (and we have found them) carrying a message, for our later historical interpretation. In this case I would regard it as archeology.

But I guess that is a matter of deffinition. It turns even harder in Danish, as the word "historie" also includes "story" and in German "geschichte" literally means "what has happened". In this topic I have been refering to history in terms of history as a science. Scientific history requires sources up for interpretation (and preferably comparison to other sources regardnig the same topic).

[Former_Member]

It's not being a 'hair splitting cunt', stop trying to cause an argument.

It all comes down to definition, as I said in post #6. I don't think we can define a beginning of history unless we rigidly define what we mean by the beginning of history; 'cause my initial idea was the first signs of what any human culture was like, which is well after your ideas.

As for the civilisation thing, I have to disagree. They were still socially organised in the pre-bronze age; doesn't that count as a civilisation? I might be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't all nomadic pre-bronze age too.

[Firemind]

Some etching on some caves in Africa. Carbon-14'd and are very old.

[Obbe]

Let's keep it personal in this thread; tell us what civilization means to you, and how you think it all started, don't just repeat whatever is written down in some book somewhere.

I think civilization is really just another word for too many fucking humans. At some point, I think probably before the development of consciousness, humans figured out agriculture and the domestication of livestock, and started having this population explosion leading us to the development of massive cities.

Consciousness (as explained by Julian Jaynes theory) developed out of the stress of clashing cultures, and cultures which got so complicated that our previous bicameral mentality was not equipped to deal with. This "bicameral mentality" is what originally enabled us to plow the fields and build large communities under the command of a leader in the first stages of 'civilization'. But what of before that?

Well I think it was more like paradise. Small population, niche environment, perfect diet. No consciousness to mess up the experience of life.

[Ambient]

^This Forum and this discussion are not concerned with events that happened in other galaxies or even other possible civilizations before the known origins of our current one. We are concerned with recorded history as we know it. Not some prehistoric L. Ron Hubbard style "speculation".

Even if that is the one and only true definition of history, do you really trust the Zoklet members to stick to this? Surely some of the folk from other sections of the "society" section will migrate here, and you can bet the likes of paranormal, conspiracy, inhumane, spirituality & so on folks, are not going to adopt that definition fo history simply because you decry it to be so.

The notion of "pre-history" rests on the assumption of written language as a mandatory pre-requisite for civilization, which is generally defined in conchordance with technological capacity (which has slim to do with being civil/civilized). If history only regards the existence of humanity in regards to time, then it needs to be part and parcel of an umbrella term/concept which is more houlistic, maybe that is cosmology/cosmogony. In my oppinion, if history is the study of significant time, then that is something extending beyond humanity. To argue against this is to be anthropocentric.

Forgive me for not operating according to convention.

History can´t be older than the sources. What you are talking about (besides extra-terrestials) is pre-history. That Earth, humans or the Universe is older than 5.000 years is logical and I guess undisputed here, but that doesn´t make it history. It is still archeology, anthropology, palentology etc. if there are no writen sources.

Read what I have written above. The general consensus seems to be yes, time extends beyond humanities presence, however, significant time does not. My definition of history is knowledge of significant time.

Yep, you're wrong.

It all comes down to definition, like you said, and here's what it says under "civilization":

"A civilized society is characterized by advanced agriculture, long-distance trade, occupational specialization, and urbanism. Aside from these core elements, civilization is often marked by any combination of a number of secondary elements, including a developed transportation system, writing, standards of measurement (currency, etc.), contract and tort-based legal systems, great art style, monumental architecture, mathematics, sophisticated metallurgy, and astronomy."

This is why the Indus Valley Civilization is cited as the first human civilization (Bronze Age, 3300 BCE).

Ahh, but language existed in a purely oral format 100,000 years before this on the indian subcontinent. Likewise, Vedic civilization predates the Indus Valley establishment. Much of the written sacred texts for instance can trace their human oral lineage/succession to a time which predates their written establishment. Furthermore than this, the Bhagavad Gita purports that it was spoken many millions of years ago (specifically to the sun Demi-God).

Also, all of things you listed are indicators and symptoms of technological advancement, not civility.

[Ebola]

The notion of "pre-history" rests on the assumption of written language as a mandatory pre-requisite for civilization, which is generally defined in conchordance with technological capacity (which has slim to do with being civil/civilized).

As I already wrote, there are many definitions of "history" but the one that is relevant to me is scientific history. As all branches of science they must follow a method, where the historical method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method)requires written sources for interpretation and analisys (and comparison). I am not refering to "civilization" or how long humans have grouped together, but merely with written/recorded historical evidence in relation to science.

In theory there could be detailed recorded history, yet to be discovered, dating back 10.000 years for all I know. But that doesn´t move the "dawn of history" until they are actually found (by archeologists) and made available for historians as sources.

[a giant pterodactyl]

This

It all started when some Sumerian invented cuneiform script and started writing down governmental decisions onto clay tablets.

and legend has it, from college professor, that 'the gods' told them to take reeds and make impression into clay tablets. 'the gods' goave them characters and thusly writing began.

i believe it existed long before the Sumerian though.

[Obbe]

and legend has it, from college professor, that 'the gods' told them to take reeds and make impression into clay tablets. 'the gods' goave them characters and thusly writing began.

See: The Bicameral Mind

[Resign the King]

History began when the oldest source, that can be interpreted, was created. That means that the object must have a message. A tool does not imply "history", but a letter (eg. carved on a bone or stick) does.
Digging it out is the job of an archeologist. Therefore the "Dawn of History" will move back as more sources are discovered.
Anything written with letters (in what alphabet they might be) is part of history.
Everything older than a scientific source with a message up for interpretation is pre-history.


Yeah, some tribes in areas colonized by Europeans have a written records going back only around two or three hundred years, since before contact they didn't have written records their history begins relatively recently.

[Ambient]

As I already wrote, there are many definitions of "history" but the one that is relevant to me is scientific history. As all branches of science they must follow a method, where the historical method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method)requires written sources for interpretation and analisys (and comparison). I am not refering to "civilization" or how long humans have grouped together, but merely with written/recorded historical evidence in relation to science.

In theory there could be detailed recorded history, yet to be discovered, dating back 10.000 years for all I know. But that doesn´t move the "dawn of history" until they are actually found (by archeologists) and made available for historians as sources.

Anglocentric society/civilization, english speaking culture, relies heavily on written language, and places alot of significance on it. Do you think that influences our perspective on civilizations whom lack written systematic language? Do you think civility mandates written language? Perhaps even, written language may diminish true civility! It is important we understand that history is a social science, but also that in my society, and probably yours, a social science that is heavily influenced by anglocentrocity (eurocentrism/ethnocentrism/racism).

What is the scientific discourse on this, is it actually true that to be an auspicious society we need written language? You give the citation "scientific history" and give credence to it, but I think you have overlooked my citation "cultural history".

[Ebola]

Anglocentric society/civilization, english speaking culture, relies heavily on written language, and places alot of significance on it. Do you think that influences our perspective on civilizations whom lack written systematic language?
It surely was the case among the scientists in the 19th and beginning of the 20th century but I hope that any scientist who considers her/himself serious, to have gone past and above that.

EDIT: Not sure what you mean by civilization. The above refers to socities and cultures in general.
Civilization is a term used to describe a certain kind of development of a human society.[1] A civilized society is often characterized by advanced agriculture, long-distance trade, occupational specialization, and urbanism. Aside from these core elements, civilization is often marked by any combination of a number of secondary elements, including a developed transportation system, writing, standards of measurement (currency, etc.), contract and tort-based legal systems, great art style, monumental architecture, mathematics, sophisticated metallurgy, and astronomy.
So in that case it would greatly affect my view on them, just like if they had no roads, art, legal system etc.

Do you think civility mandates written language?
No, I don´t. But civility isn´t equal history. For us to do historical analysis of someone/something, some written sources are required. This is where e.g. ethnographers and anthropologists can come into play and help historians. They study peoples e.g. with no written language. Though they are their own accepted branches of (social) science, historians can benefit greatly from this by using the notes/studies of others as sources, but here being very aware of their potential bias (missionary, explorer for the king etc.).
This is just like archeology or sociology being used as assisting branches of science.

Perhaps even, written language may diminish true civility!
That might very well be :) There are many examples of peoples living in relative "peace and harmony" until "we" showed up with writing (and guns). Some of the least known, but with the longest oral tradition are the indigenous people of northern Japan, the Ainu. But there are many other factors that might have been affecting besides writing, like guns or the "anglocentric" supremacist attitide of the settlers and colonials. The "natives" might have adopted writing and still lived in peace if "we" didn´t screw them over.

It is important we understand that history is a social science, but also that in my society, and probably yours, a social science that is heavily influenced by anglocentrocity (eurocentrism/ethnocentrism/racism).
This seems obvious to me. I consider source criticism one of the primary parts of history as a science. The historical method is sound; some might use it badly with hidden agendas or bias, but that´s the individuals and not the method.

What is the scientific discourse on this, is it actually true that to be an auspicious society we need written language?
I don´t personally think so, but it helps productivity and learning/training processes alot. With only oral tradition and teaching from person to person, many things are much slower. Imagine what drawing a scetch or writing down instructions can do to speed up work. And the whole concept of keeping accurate track of history is in it self impossible without some system of writing.

You give the citation "scientific history" and give credence to it, but I think you have overlooked my citation "cultural history".
Could you please tell what post you are refering to? I did a search of "cultural history" and your latest was the only hit.

[Ambient]

...

Cheers for the articulate reply, I will have to let alot of that marinade, particularly history as a study requiring written language.

To clear up the terminology I used, which you identified at the end "cultural history". What is meant by this is, what is history as an injunction or a verdict? Is it a scientific verdict, or, conversely, a cultural verdict? The verdict of science or the verdict of culture. My conclusion, is that scientific inquiry is a cultural endevour. We can't escape culture, even though you may be cloaked in a labcoat; that will not shield you.