Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The birth of history


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 anglepose

anglepose

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 222 posts

Posted 11 June 2006 - 01:59 PM

the birth off history would be the when man learnt to write to comunicate but when was this i think it is around 20,000bc

#2 Chacmool

Chacmool

    Making mud

  • Members
  • 950 posts

Posted 11 June 2006 - 02:39 PM

That would only be recorded history. History itself is made all the time, whether or not anyone is there to record or even observe it.

#3 Freddy

Freddy

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 464 posts

Posted 11 June 2006 - 07:32 PM

That would only be recorded history. History itself is made all the time, whether or not anyone is there to record or even observe it.


Actually history began when humans began to write and record. That occurred circa 3,500 BCE in Mesopotamia and a little later in Egypt. Recorded history began less than 6,000 years ago.

Pre-history is the time before writing developed where anthropologists and archeologists study pre-historic human remains and their cultures.

#4 Edella

Edella

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 315 posts

Posted 11 June 2006 - 08:05 PM

In its broadest sense history simply refers to all that has come before.In the context of this forum I think history means the branch of knowledge that records and analyzes past events.

#5 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • 6241 posts

Posted 12 June 2006 - 03:09 AM

The accepted definition of the term is what Freddy says, written records.

#6 DarkColoredLight

DarkColoredLight

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 227 posts

Posted 16 June 2006 - 03:42 PM

Why does it have to start with writen records. If you know someone lived in a cave at one point. It's that proof enough?

Saying this is were we lived, not how. If you can link the two, this is were we lived, and this is were we wrote about how we lived. More power to you.

#7 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 16 June 2006 - 03:51 PM

Why does it have to start with writen records. If you know someone lived in a cave at one point. It's that proof enough?

Because by definition historians study written records and archaeologists study the remains that are found in the cave. It is a convenient division. As long as we recognise it is an artificial division, and do not allow it to inhibit cross disciplinary investigations, then it is a fruitful division.

#8 DarkColoredLight

DarkColoredLight

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 227 posts

Posted 16 June 2006 - 03:55 PM

Because by definition historians study written records and archaeologists study the remains that are found in the cave. It is a convenient division. As long as we recognise it is an artificial division, and do not allow it to inhibit cross disciplinary investigations, then it is a fruitful division.


Makes sense.

History - How, or atleast writin
Archeology - Where

#9 Freddy

Freddy

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 464 posts

Posted 16 June 2006 - 08:28 PM

Some past groups had very scant written records also. That is why archeologists dig up those sites to gain information because some people could not write or did not record much information for us to gain knowledge.

#10 Michaelangelica

Michaelangelica

    Creating

  • Members
  • 7797 posts

Posted 16 June 2006 - 11:46 PM

Some past groups had very scant written records also. That is why archeologists dig up those sites to gain information because some people could not write or did not record much information for us to gain knowledge.


Historians get information from all sorts of sources.
(Have you seen the series "Battlefield Detectives"?)
from art, Architecture, archeology, genes, artifacts, geology, ice-cores,tools etc
It seems pedantic to make a distinction between archeology and history based on writing
For us, History began about 5 billion years ago when something went "BANG"
For others . . ?

#11 tarak

tarak

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 189 posts

Posted 27 September 2006 - 10:10 AM

History refers to the history of mankind.It is born out of human expression.Other living forms may have their own unique ways of transmitting thier past into future.Anybody has some inputs on this Please enlighten.
History should consist of documenting experiences in some tangible form or passing it on to future generations orally.Therefore I believe all past is not history,but only the information passed on orally or in written form constitutes the subject matter of history.

#12 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

    Suspended

  • Members
  • 9148 posts

Posted 27 September 2006 - 10:20 AM

History refers to the history of mankind.It is born out of human expression.

I think your definition is too limited. It seems to imply that any events occurring prior to homosapien communication don't exist.

The concept which we describe as history is born out of our expression, yes, but the history itself is not.

#13 tarak

tarak

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 189 posts

Posted 27 September 2006 - 10:38 AM

I donot know how to scientifically define history,but history as a discipline of study is something that is observed and communicated...If some great event happens in the past without the knowledge of anyone..it goes unreported and enters the untold history of mankind.
I am posting after a long time and nice to find a new history forum.
:)




I think your definition is too limited. It seems to imply that any events occurring prior to homosapien communication don't exist.

The concept which we describe as history is born out of our expression, yes, but the history itself is not.



#14 alexander

alexander

    Dedicated Smart-ass

  • Members
  • 5722 posts

Posted 29 September 2006 - 10:14 AM

history is the study of human behavior through time. history