It's pretty interesting isn't it? And it so relates to disappearing history, storytelling and oral narratives.

Hey Gail, what Whitaker is saying ties in closely to what Andy was saying...and the idea that it's difficult to have one concrete sense of history is because we learn once we look back. The idea of "they" has been ouutdated in narratives about history. History studies have tried, if they fail, so be it , but they try...to be inclusive. By a more empathetic, interdisciplinary approach history studies have (hopefully) bannished the idea of "they".

Meanwhile, Gail, or if there is anyone else interested...I have posted some behind the scenes pics of working on set on the Latvia massacre documentary I mentioned earlier in this thread. The experience of working on this film has been closely associated with discussion, for me, in this very thread. That the preservation of traumatic narratives, like genocide survivors, rape victims, survivors of violet urban attacks has become part of a anew "faith" in the oral tradition.

As the Shoah Foundation Institute so clearly inspires whose mandate is To overcome prejudice, intolerance, and bigotry—and the suffering they cause—
through the educational use of the Institute’s visual history testimonies

Their mandate is an interesting example of how we have changed our approach to historical narratives.

Anyways...Sia, our first interview for the feature length documentary I've been working on has also had her story recorded with the Shoah Foundation. And...here are my photos from the interview of a Survivor of the Latvia massacre of 28,000 Jews...I am so proud to have met Sia and she is a real life Superhero...

http://gnosticminx.blogspot.com/2009/08/...

Whitaker...exactly!

Dottie, I so agree with you.

I do think that we need to acknowledge that there are inherent limits to a factual, truthful history. This is partly because later recountings of the episode are written to favour the views of one side. One example that shouldn't raise hackles is that of the English War of the Roses, and the subsequent deliberate portrayal of the losing side in a bad light by the winning side, the Tudors. That's why historians will from time to time revise their views of a particular historical personnage.

This is also partly because some things will, inevitably, be lost in the mists of time. So, I don't think anyone will ever provide a factual, truthful history of what happened to the princes in the Tower of London.

The flip side is that there are, of course, inherent limits to "anything goes". No one can say that Richard II did not exist, or that Richard II was really Emily Waterstone from Whiteacre, or that Richard II was really a black African man.

In between these two limits are what we get as historical accounts, and sometimes, fiercely contested historical accounts.

It surprises me actually that this should be such a controversial idea. A simple test is to go ask your childhood friends or your siblings to write a mutual history. There will be some things that no one is going to challenge: your gender, when you were born, who were your teachers in school. There will be some things where you will, perhaps to your surprise, differ.

Reviewing the historical documents will add some certainty to some parts, but those won't cover everything. Some of those documents will contain inherent biases: your elder sister's diary calling you a snot-nosed pig for example. And, perhaps surprising to all, documents that contradict what people remember of a particular event. Not too surprising really since memories do change and get confused with time.

As with the personal so too goes the larger historical picture, but complicated a thousand times over.

Russ2 wrote: "And therefore anything goes. Feh!
Not my cuppa tea, Dottie."

No, that was not my intention to imply that anything goes -- either by the Orwell quote or anything I said -- I meant that the thought Orwell expressed on our time being one in which we seem to have abandoned the idea that there can be truth, fact and concrete reality in historical circumstances seemed to me to tie into this idea of no right/wrong, truth/untruth which as I've said, I've encountered elsewhere. I don't believe we can't have factual, truthful history written and learned and taught. That also doesn't mean that another culture won't have their own take on that same history if they played a part in those events addressed.

Andy...some of the issues of this film right now...are limited budget for travel but need for PAs of course. Then so you've got a crew of 6 people...which is sparse even in independent film scenarios...but interviewing survivors has it's own challenges. Instead of bringing the interviewees to a central, easy to photograph set or location...surivors are often more comfortable talking and sharing their memories in their own homes. And a smaller amount of people...a more intimate group of people is also a sensitive issue. The personalities of the people who are crew may be a factor. Being sensitive, an empathetic kind person is basically every bit as important as being a hard core experienced professional.

These kinds of factors are something that is part of the dialoque about historical narratives...on all kinds of situations and research.

I am almost never as fullfilled by any activity as I am when I'm involved in the hands on stuff of making films...but this project has really been incredible so far. I feel really lucky to have met this director. We met at a meet up at chicago Filmmakers...and it's really amazing. I usually write my own comedies...and film interviews on much more well light hearted topics. So this is pretty substantial change for me. A major learning opportunity. I don't have a lot of time to write more...I'm on my way back to the office looking for interns. (film students, Jewish history students, history departments at local universities, translators)


Later!

I hope you, and others, maybe had a chance to check out the link I posted earlier...

Andy, There will be two views of history tomorrow, whether or not we agree today. And especially whether or not we two agree. I don't sweat the question anymore.

I love it Whitaker and I think we had a link to at least one of those articles here last year at Cr...because it's ringing a bell.

Andy, more details to follow...

Whitaker: love it!

Mary Ellen

Ahhh...the eternal debate and one of the greatest of all time. Whether we are noble savages or just savages? Whether mankind is inherently "bad" or "good". Greater minds than mine have been humbled by this question. Philosophers couldn't agree (Rousseau and Hume?) and neither can scientists (selfish gene vs cooperation). Don't think anyone is ever going to agree or solve that one in this millennium, and perhaps what we believe says more about ourselves than about the actual state of things.

Here's an interesting theory though: read a couple of articles last year (?) that posited the delicious theory that the novel has been responsible for engendering a more inclusive view of who we regard as people. By immersing readers in others' lives, it created the cultural receptivity to accepting other people's humanity. So we no longer debate whether South American natives are animals or whether they have souls as the Spanish and the Catholic church once did. And likewise we no longer ask whether women are capable of rational thought. I make no call as to whether it's right or wrong but as a member of Constant Reader the idea tickles me pink.

Russ: Agreed. But won't disagreement today lead to two views of history tomorrow?


Candy: Looks like an amazing project! Can't wait to hear more about it!

Andy,
As I said, yours is a popular view.
I'll add: we disagree.

Great stuff here.

I happen to be in the very middle of working on how to tell history.

Andy, you will find this interesting. I'm working on a film about a massacre in Latvia in WW2. I'll add the website at the end of this post. It's absolutely fascinating because there are so many facets to how holocaust researchers and narratives are told. For example, the film has archival photos of people without clothes, moments before they are murdered. Do we show those images? Does the documentation of the abuse, of showing women as objects by the Nazi's a part of the narrative, of this story, immediately mean it should be included? Are film makers perpetuating the sense of abuse? If we block them or crop the images...are we sanitizing the holocaust?

It is endless. The discussions and dialogue around preserving this history...the dialogues surrounding genocide narratives are very good examples of how history and it's approaches have changed...even in 50 years.

The future of holocaust stories is often times going to be the responsibility of family oral narratives. What used to be considered the responsibility of trained academics and historians might now be the expertise and domain of family/community oral narratives and films such as this one.

And then on top of this...I've spent a fair bit of the last two days investigating the insurance coverage. So...on one hand you have the tragedy...contrasted on another the practical aspects of building the narrative, insuring film equipment in international locales and protecting the crew.

It's weird...because while I'm working this very discussion has surfaced in some of opur production meetings. It's been informing me all yesterday and today.

Here is the web site...I'm working with Mitch Lieber:

http://www.rumbulasecho.org/

Gail wrote: "Good grief, Andy, your view is a dark one."
Gail wrote: While perhaps human nature remains much the same, would you say that we have covered it with at least a veneer of civilization, so that we have perhaps more control of our impulses than they had...

Depending on who you mean by they, I'd say you have a fairly dark view yourself, Gail. Who do you mean by they? At what point in history did they suddenly begin to control their impulses? How did the control come about? Was it like the will power necessary to quit other bad habits, like smoking? What are the impulses you are talking about?

Russ wrote: Andy, I think you are just a tad too inclusive in your indictment of we who are now alive. Yours is a popular view no doubt, but please don't include me in too readily. It has been a long time since I raped or killed anyone, and I assume the same for you too.

Where were the clothes you are wearing made? I bet a sweatshop. Do you view sweatshops as barbaric or generous?

And how does your portfolio look these days? What are those companies up to that you are supporting? Surely they are not polluting the world. Surely they are not laying people off and replacing them with cheap labor in other countries. Surely they are not cheating on their taxes. Surely they are more worried about human dignity than they are about profit, right?

And you live in New York City, Russ? How many murders were there in NYC in the month of July? I know YOU didn't commit murder, but you were physically close to hundreds of murders in the last few of months. Why weren't those murderers able to "control their impulses?"

Is the veneer of civilization not strong enough? Perhaps we should become even more civilized and require our citizens to cover their skin and curb their language so no unwanted impulses come up.

edited: 10:18 central

Andy, I think you are just a tad too inclusive in your indictment of we who are now alive. Yours is a popular view no doubt, but please don't include me in too readily. It has been a long time since I raped or killed anyone, and I assume the same for you too.

Gail wrote: "While perhaps human nature remains much the same, would you say that we have covered it with at least a veneer of civilization, so that we have perhaps more control of our impulses than they had, or than they thought was necessary or wise"

I'm with Michael on this one: "When we think about that, is the case for human progress that clear?"

Progress in terms of change? Yes. In terms of "improvement"? That argument can be made. In terms of failure? That argument can be made, too.

Control our impulses. There are plenty of rapes and murders right here in the good old civilized U.S.A. And we're still bombing the shit out of innocent women and children in Afghanistan, with no plan to stop as far as I know.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/0...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/07...

And the impulse to screw over our neighbor for a buck will live on forever, no matter how civilized we get, it seems.

Hi Candy,
I've been wondering about oral traditions and story-telling skills. It would seem to me that skills can be polished through repetition and practice and that skills such as say singing, or writing music, or even writing stories, have evolved and changed to more complex forms through the ages (or at least changed). With training, sopranos reach impossibly high notes; (some) poets write with beautifully complex but clearly articulated syntax; some (most?) novelists write in their own distinctive styles, and some with very large vocabularies that are not so easy to read, and so forth. I've been wondering if the Haida stories you refer to might not have been subject to the same sorts of embellishment, alteration and "improvement" through the ages, within their own stream of development, as successive generations of story-tellers have brought their own skills to the task and worked in their own burnishments and improvements. I would not imagine them lacking the imagination to do that. In short, perhaps the Haida stories that impress us so much nowadays are not faithful replicas of the seminal plots they once started out to be so many years ago in original hunter-gatherer times. Perhaps, like much else, they have evolved and our desire to imagine them frozen in amber is misplaced. Or maybe I only imagine there is such a desire.

I understand that people much smarter than I regard them, for a variety of reasons, as links to the past that are as undisturbed as we can find them nowadays, but the thought still arises.
Just wondering.

Russ, love Gilgamesh. It's one of the stories my sister and I will talk on the phone for hours about...having grown up sharing a mutual love of it. I've often hoped to have a discussion about it online. I adore Hessiod, Homer and Aristophanes and Meander. Poetry of Sappho Alcman. Hey, anytime if you want to open up a Classics of Roman and Greek topic thread...lit I am in! I wish we had some discussion on such. I prefer them to contemporary lit, except for a few jewels.

Mary Ellen said..."literacy itself changes our capacity for thought. If nothing else, literacy allows us to be less reliant on memory, " This is a lovely observation. Memory skills have probably changed and might be one of the biggest differences between written traditions and cultures that practice with texts and oral traditions and cultures that practice without texts. Something is in this Mary Ellen...you're on to something with this...

If we are talking about philosophy or social norms, I'm not sure that progress has a real meaning if the comparison is h/g vs. current society. I'm not one that buys into the "prehistoric matriarchal paradise" theory, but it seems to me that much of modern social progress is really a correction of missteps in social organization in industrialized societies.

Theresa

Gail wrote: "Sad if true, Michael. One would like to think that we've made some progress, at least in our dealings with others, in that amount of time. While perhaps human nature remains much the same, would you say that we have covered it with at least a veneer of civilization, so that we have perhaps more control of our impulses than they had, or than they thought was necessary or wise? yo..."

I don't find it sad, Gail. I think it's important that we examine our assumptions about ourselves and any presumed superiority to prehistoric peoples. Ten thousand years ago is not a really long time, after all -- why would we assume the species is different now? Were we that different, in nature, 2,000 years ago? The evidence strongly says no, IMO. So 10,000 is not a whole different order of magnitude.

I think society's organic development requires rules, and humans adapted to the rules necessary then, just as we adapt to the rules necessary now. The rules keep getting more complex, I suppose that is true. And some individuals cannot make the adjustment -- now or then. Some tribes..... some nations.

Just to get back to the little case of Emerson -- I believe the intelligence level was the same then as now. So there were individuals capable of wisdom then, superior wisdom to the average in the circumstances that existed at that time, in the same way that Emerson took the greater range of inputs that life afforded him and applied his intelligence to them.

So is civilization merely a veneer? Well, yes and no... LOL. We try to evolve rules for our survival and prosperity. Our natures both create those rules, and also sabotage them, sometimes. I have found this particular book I've referenced a very encouraging packet of information, intelligent conjecture, and careful analysis. It cannot but leave you impressed by your brothers and sisters of 400-500 generations ago. They did exceptional things, and they exercised sense and intelligence as they adapted, experimented, developed, and grew. The evidence is fantastic. Of course, the failures get little notice. Warfare was common at different stages, but how different could it have been from what we just lived through in the 20th century, probably the bloodiest century on earth? When we think about that, is the case for human progress that clear? This discussion involves a very long-term perspective. As Cunliffe says somewhere, by this viewpoint, the Roman Empire is a brief episode notable primarily for solidifying the already-existing roads and connections throughout Europe. That's so broad a viewpoint that it may not be a comfortable, or emotionally meaningful, perspective for many of us.

Michael, I was responding to the claim that all people at all times, hunter-gatherers or otherwise, came up with the same questions that Emerson did. I don't disagree with that because I think people of earlier ages were less intelligent than we. I disagree because I think that the thought of one age often responds/reacts to, builds upon, that of prior ages. And (this is pure prejudice, I admit) that literacy itself changes our capacity for thought. If nothing else, literacy allows us to be less reliant on memory, (and probably leads us to be much less good at remembering) and this perhaps allows us to develop some other mental capacities further. (Difference doesn't mean better or worse, just difference.) But under your broad definition of philosophy (articulable thought?) I agree with the surmise that all people through the ages have philosophized, do philosophize and will philosophize.

Or, briefly: what Russ2 wrote in his penultimate post.


Mary Ellen

:) G.

I don't necessarily think we are much different either, except in the ways that we are.

And that seems to be the issue, doesn't it?

A discussion over half-full or half-empty?

Mary Ellen wrote: "nI will assert that we have no proof at all that prehistoric peoples were "as wise as Emerson' (by what measure of wisdom, I suppose is the question) and pondered the same questions as Emerson did. (Michael, I'll admit to not having read the book to which you cite. But I gather from your post that it did not include any such "proof" either.).."

I'm not entirely sure how you could gather that, Mary Ellen. But in any case -- Do you think human nature has changed? Do you think our intelligences are different? Personally, I doubt it. Our tools have improved -- by tools, I include all methods of recording. So we are far more able to build on our inherited knowledge base. But I doubt we are really much different, fundamentally, from our ancestors of 10,000 years ago.

Theresa wrote: "... prehistoric peoples studied the stars and had an excellent understanding of astronomy, as evidenced by Stonehenge and numerous other prehistoric edifices - they tied these observations into burial and other practices, so it was not simply a utilitarian practice..."

According to Cunliffe, who is quite eminent in archeology, the evidence of wide-ranging trading and travel (just throughout Europe) is impressive. Tracing the findings of amber and obsidian, which had limited sources, tell those who understand these details that an aggressive pioneering ethic was present throughout. That each new generation might have had to move on to new settlements as they spread from SW Asia throughout Europe is one of the more easily argued viewpoints, he writes, from the extensive physical evidence. Reading Cunliffe, I can say this much -- our ancestors seem a helluva lot less risk-averse, and that much more adventurous, than we are!

Theresa wrote: "By the same token, what is your hard evidence for stating that "they sure were a lot busier, with little time to think?" That's an assumption that one often hears, but I think it is more logically based on what we know about peasant culture, not hunter/gatherer culture. ..."

And that point of view is probably a case of projection from our own condition now. WE cannot imagine having the time to ponder, make musical instruments, or philosophize if we had to BE hunter-gatherers or early farmers. But we ain't them and most of us, outside of archeology, have no idea how they did it, so it seems that much more challenging a thought to us softies. Great posts, Theresa.

Gail wrote: "How can we know what they pondered?..."

Gail, if our ancestors hadn't pondered, how could human society be where it is now?

Candy, I didn't say I thought much, or little, of ancient people, Haida or otherwise. I used a word (which I'll not repeat) that was apparently insensitive in the ears of modern anthropoligists, as well as personally offensive to you, and you supposed I was not very well educated 20-40 years ago regarding current anthropological thinking about aboriginal peoples. In fact I have not read Campbell. Have you read the Gilgamesh Epic? I recommend it. In addition to reading the classics of Greek and Roman antiquity of course. And also the Bible as literature while you are at it. Mankind did not get smart just yesterday, Haida or others. There have been insightful people around for quite a while. But I didn't think that was what the discussion was about. I was more reacting to what seemed to be the implied claim that he was born smart at the beginning of time. And the Haida especially. That is what I tend to doubt, even though all people are the same and always have been, yadda, yadda, yadda. I know the egalitarian rote as well as anyone.

As for "ancient oral traditions" which you allude to, I think there is probably ancient, and then there is ancient, which is why I suggested it might be useful to have a timeline for just how many eons we are talking about with our handwaving.

Ha Andy! Let me think on that for a bit...interesting...

No Russ, forget it. If you've read any books on the oral traditions and especially of the variety of philosophy and you have not felt it was on par with European or contemporary or Emerson...I wish you had just given me some examples and said so.

I must have mistakenly thought you said you hadn't had any reading of such titles.

If you feel that Joseph Campbell hadn't been able to convince you of the value and wisdom to be found in ancient oral traditions on a similar level of stature to modern philosophers...well...then I surely won't be able to add to Campbell.

:)

Neither will the Haida classical myths.

I am sorry to hear that Campbell did not convince you that the stature of ancient oral traditions and stories was on a par to someone like Emerson.

Candy, You are imbued with the wonders of Haida story-telling. There are other books in western literature that plumb the sources of western myths, with pretty much the same insights to be gleaned, I suspect.
The famous The Hero With a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell perhaps?

Must I read the Haida stories? Why?

Candy, your earlier post made me reflect on my own experiences hunting and fishing. There is something very strong in our culture that resists the notion that we are indeed hunting and gathering. Some sort of fear of wildness? Fear of being uncivilized? I think culturally it is easy to find security in "civilization" but sometimes don't you ever get freaked out when people bare their teeth in a smile or make weird laughing sounds. In an earlier post, somebody disparaged grunts and early utterances. Some days I feel like we're still making some elemental grunts and calling it language. And let's not even get started on humping... :)

Well, Russ, I have the same questions! Because I feel I have some clues...some places to look regarding the questions...is not to ay my "answers" or responses...or recommendations make me "correct".

They make me a person who is seeking out to find resources that aid in asking questions ha ha!

And my feelings earlier were that I saw you as a person who was open-minded to discussing these questions and resources!

I feel...we need to go beyond the resources we were taught in school, or by the social constructs of our mutual cultures or differing cultures. Does that mean I am to be assumed I am negating past approaches? no...but they are not as varied as including what we have added to the resources in last twenty years or so.

Should we quit with Levi-Strauss or Foucault? No...go and read Robert Bringhurst's translations of Classical Haida Myths in A Story Sharp A A Knife.

The linguist and ethnographer John Swanton took dictation from the last great Haida-speaking storytellers, poets and historians in 1900–1901. Together they consciously created a great treasury of Haida oral literature in written form. In this first volume of his trilogy, Bringhurst brings these works to life in the English language and sets them in a context just as rich as the stories themselves one that reaches out to dozens of Native American oral literatures, and to mythtelling traditions around the world. This is the first volume in the triology of Masterworks of the Classical Haida Mythtellers. This magnificent trilogy represents a decade of work from Robert Bringhurst, one of North America's most respected poets, linguists and cultural historians.

I understand if one doesn't want to go and buy yet another book...

but we could find out if I am at all on to something by at least looking at this reference...

Here you can find some of the stuff online:


http://books.google.com/books?id=H1Amv57...

Guess what?

It might be possible...that all the wise philosophy we admire and raise on a stature pedastal...may have been actually part of an oral tradition of "pre-historic" peoples!!!!

It's possible we have had these wisdoms circling for millenia...

No one has to agree with me that A Story Sharp As A Knife is "correct" but surely taking a few minutes, or half an hour, to check out where I cite my sources is more thoughtful than dismissing my argument without a second thought or effort? Hmmm?

But first, I see a cross-post.

Candy, and Andy, suppose I say that I think the Gilgamesh Epic is a wonderful piece of existentialist literature, dating from the very beginning of the written word 5000 years ago or so, and antedating even the oldest sections of the Bible by about 1000 years. And suppose I further agree that they both revolve about elemental life and moral understanding, with the authors of the Bible in fact (I assert) showing an evolution of such understanding and behavior from its older to its newer sections.

Where does that leave us?

Questions, questions. All I have are questions. :)

Russ2 said: The solution was that, in fact that was correct; but that nevertheless all pieces were the same, in that each piece had the same property of being different from every other piece.

:)
That sounds like an old expression my mother used all the time....
"It's the same difference."
At least now I have a good definition of that! :)

Well, Andy, it's not my field anyway, so I won't persist, but it seems to me there are more questions than answers, and at least some some differences, whether or not there are similarities.

It reminds me of a puzzle I saw sometime ago, where one had to identify the pieces that were the same, in among an assortment of pieces of various shapes and colors. Try as I might I could not find even two that were the same.

The solution was that, in fact that was correct; but that nevertheless all pieces were the same, in that each piece had the same property of being different from every other piece. I don't know whether that is sophistry or philosophy, but I think it is indicative of the flexibility, and ambiguity, which our verbal facility with language permits us.

Having offered that, I think I have run out of questions, without having even reached the point of yet contributing anything.

And now back to listening.
Cheers!

One thing that has struck me as humorous is that we are rarely ever to agree on stature in contemporary storytelling...how will we be able to agree on stature comparing a different age or economy of people compared to us today?

We won't be likely to find anyone who we feel is of stature to Emerson...nevermind imagine someone who lives in an ancient time to compare the stature of their philsoophy or storytelling.

In this way I totally agree with Andy that (paraphrase) literature or storytelling Andy says "I will stick with my idea that story is philosophy". I agree wholeheartedly. This is my evidence that I present. The book Story As Sharp As A Knife is a collection of Haida classical myths. The stories are from a pacific northwest oral tradition. Many of the stories are as complex and entertaining as Homer or Grimms' fairytales...in my opinion. I would love to hear Russ's or Andy's reaction to these stories. In this way we might be better equiped to discuss the comparisons between a different ancient cultures storytelling and contemporary.

Of course...our so-called contemporary stories...are built upon ancient oral traditions as well...or at least according to some people...

http://us.penguingroup.com/static/html/b...

I agree Russ, we probably are working with a sliding scale as far as the timeline is concerned. I guess I took it way back to the beginning of language. Though, to be fair, the point I'm trying to make--language is philosophy--necessitates my going back that far. And that point does speak to language use from that time forward. I have no idea how many years ago language developed.

You've mentioned the issue with "the same" before. I'm not sure if I used the word "same" but I suppose I was getting there. I do think there are similarities in how language is used from today to those very early times. I did some training in conversation skills once--researchers suggest when people talk, they generally talk about one of three things: Themselves, the person they are talking to, or their shared circumstance. I don't think much has changed about what we talk about. The circumstances themselves have changed greatly, but the fact that we talk about our circumstances probably remains "the same".

I hope that clears up how I was using "the same". Like I said, I believe as long as people have language, they have done philosophy, because there just isn't that much else to talk about.

I suppose it depends on how we are defining philosophy. Surprise surprise, I have a wide definition of philosophy :) I don't believe people have to do what Emerson was doing to be considered philosophers. I will stick with my idea that story is philosophy, so nearly everybody is a philosopher and people, as long as there has been language, have always been doing philosophy.

It seems to me that, once the notions of evolution and change enter the discussion, it wouldn't be a bad idea to have some idea of the time scale we are talking about for the framework in which we are asserting that all humans are the same. How far back are we "the same?" And, once again, in what sense "the same?" Are we all the "same" as the immediate evolutionary predecessor to the earliest pre-hominid, for example? Sorry if it sounds like nit-picking, but my original comment was that "same" is a word being used in a very fluid sense. If you wish me to accept that any utterance or vocalization is "language," and therefore we all "philosophize" (note the very egalitarian and inclusive "we"), then I can go along with the discussion for the sake of being pleasant, but I think it runs the risk of having not much content.

We're probably using a fairly modern definition of philosophizing. It's hard to believe any people existed who didn't have some form of ritual or spirituality. It may not have resembled ours in any way. I suppose several thousand years ago, people did not have pointy headed people writing incomprehensible books in ivory towers.

To me, to say a person doesn't have the capacity to philosophize is basically a way of dehumanizing the person. Making meaning is one of the functions of our species that makes us human. It seems to me that once our humans had language, part of having language was related to meaning making. I mean, what else is there to talk about really? Even if you are discussing the plan for the next day's hunt, you might consider that a form of spirituality, or you might be talking about where the berries were last year, there again, you're making meaning out of your experience, maybe you develop a way of recording where the berries are, maybe you use stories as mnemonic devices as a way to remember. Yes Theresa, good point about death. Does anybody really think that people with language saw somebody die and didn't have some sort of explanation for what death was? The same goes for birth. If you are a group of people with language, you are going to develop some explanation of birth. (I've never given birth, but I hear it's a rather powerful experience.) And reproductive cycles, and changes in the human life cycle. And changes in season. And changes from night to day etc. I'm no expert on the history of language, but it seems that if language developed as a product of evolution, it was because language gave people who could speak some sort of survival advantage. The advantage must have been the ability to make some guesses about what was happening around them. Those guesses would be meaning and that meaning would be philosophy.

My thanks as well, Theresa. I was particularly struck by the evidence of items left in a grave. Of course, the reasons for that are unknowable, but it certainly points to some thinking about an existence after death, or at least the desire to give a kind of tribute to the deceased. (Or maybe they thought that you CAN take it with you! Sorry; just couldn't resist!)

Now, unless someone else comes up with something stronger, I will assert that we have no proof at all that prehistoric peoples were "as wise as Emerson' (by what measure of wisdom, I suppose is the question) and pondered the same questions as Emerson did. (Michael, I'll admit to not having read the book to which you cite. But I gather from your post that it did not include any such "proof" either.) There's not much proof that most people today, myself included, do as much and the same kind of thinking as Emerson either, of course!

Mary Ellen

Mary Ellen, I will take a stab at your question, although I am by no means an expert.

First, archaeology can give us insight into both practices and thoughts of prehistoric people - although in both cases it is always a matter of "educated interpretation" (or guess . . .) and this is especially true as to thoughts/emotions. There is a big danger of the interpreter interpolating his/her own thoughts and emotions onto the situation. But, by way of examples:

* prehistoric peoples frequently placed flowers and ochre (red or yellow pigmented earth), as well as ornaments and useful objects in graves - evidence of philosophical pondering about the afterlife? And why bury the dead in the first place?

* prehistoric peoples made and wore jewelry and other ornaments - ornamentation is a philosophy of sorts in its own right

* prehistoric peoples made (and evidently played) musical instruments - music is also a form of philosophy (I use that term in the very broadest sense)

* prehistoric peoples studied the stars and had an excellent understanding of astronomy, as evidenced by Stonehenge and numerous other prehistoric edifices - they tied these observations into burial and other practices, so it was not simply a utilitarian practice

I am not as eager as Candy to make a direct analogy between present-day hunter/gatherers and prehistoric peoples. I think that conflates function and practice (how food is obtained) with persons. As Mary Ellen rightly points out, no one has lived an untouched primordial life these days - the Tasaday were a hoax, after all. There were reports in the last year or so of an "untouched" group in the Amazon area. I have not heard further, but I kinda doubt they have had no contact whatsoever, "isolated group" might be more accurate. And even a truly uncontacted group would still be present day and not prehistoric.

Candy, I'm still pondering your statement that you are a hunter/gatherer. I'm pretty darn sure you buy your food from a grocery store, so I don't see how you could be a hunter/gatherer, since that term refers to a means of obtaining food. It seems the equivalent of me stating that I am a prima ballerina - saying doesn't make it so!

Theresa

Intrigued by the prehistoric philosopher discussion -- an area about which I know absolutely nothing, I admit -- I have a couple of questions & thoughts.

The questions: first, how can archeology give us insight into the thoughts of prehistoric people? I understand that it might give us ideas about the comparative amount of leisure people had then, and that leisure is a prerequisite for philosophical thinking, but... my ignorance/lack of imagination doesn't see how we can get further. Second, aren't there limits to how useful studies of present-day hunter-gatherers can be in teaching us about the thinking of prehistoric people? For one, folks like the Inuits have had contact with modern inventions, "modern" persons, such as anthropologists -- surely the introduction of these foreign elements have had some effects on their culture. And speaking of Inuits, and speaking of speaking: what has study of their language revealed about their philosophical thought or lack thereof? (All I know is the probably-false canard about their extensive vocabulary concerning SNOW; how about their vocabulary for "truth," "justice," "being," etc.)

Finally, it occurred to me that "Three Day Road," our current Reading List selection, focuses on some hunter-gatherers, Cree living in the bush. (Of course, all have had extensive contact with 20th century Western society at its almost worst... but, still.) Have any of you with an archeology/anthropology background read it? What did you think?

Mary Ellen

If I may bring the discussion forward from pre-history a little, I´ve gotten some small shocks from my recent reading - the shock being IT´S THE SAME DAMNED THING ALL OVER AGAIN! The books were Jacquelin Winspear´s AMONG THE MAD and Barbara Cleverly´s BRIGHT HAIR ABOUT THE BONE. AMONG THE MAD features the chemical warfare testing being done hush-hush by the British government on veterans with PTSD. One of the characters in BRIGHT HAIR ABOUT THE BONE (set in 1926) reels off a list of American and international interests inclined to support the Nazis.
I hadn´t known about the weaponized chemicals testing on WWI vets, but I certainly know it´s happened since then and that it´s extremely hard to stop it from happening. As for the American interests supporting the Nazis, some of that is now belatedly trickling into the news. And it´s all the same. Monied interests pursue their own interests on the blood of everybody else.

Thanks for the link to the Cunliffe book, Michael, I have been interested in this period of European history for a long time. It seems to me there is much interest in Native American cultures, but less so about "Native European Cultures". People don't even really talk about Native Europeans, I don't understand why. I'll have to look at that book.

I tend to agree with Theresa and Candy on the question of time spent philosophizing. The little I've read on the topic has always suggested to me that subsistence cultures actually "work (ed)" less than we do. 40 hours per week (not including commute) at a hum drum job, week in and week out for 30-40 years is a strange behavior, imo, and not necessarily designed to support the creation of a meaningful life. 100 years ago, I'd probably be working 80 hours per week, which would leave even less time for "fun". And I think right now there are plenty of populations that work 80 hours per week in fairly lousy conditions.

Which leads to the notion of better and worse. Ordering things in terms of "better and worse" can be a fun and useful exercise, but it's certainly one of the more subjective approaches to meaning making. It's very clearly a way of considering the past through the lens of right now. While I think it is the way history is discussed, I have some problem with considering history in terms of better and worse.

So, IMO, history should not be taught as a set of facts separate from the politics of knowledge, concept, narration, and meaning making. Subsistence cultures "work" less than we do. And it is not entirely useful to consider history in terms of better and worse.

Also, I would like to posit that, one thousand years from now, the history we are creating today will be every bit as confused and jumbled as the history of one thousand years ago. Even very broad facts and dates will be understood differently and "incorrectly". Humanity is capable of a lot of change and error in the course of one thousand years.

Candy, re your #141,
I am suddenly overwhelmed by the feeling that you and I have no common basis for communication and words fail me.
So, I'm out.

Gail and Pontalba...the idea that we can know what hunters and gatherers lives were like 10,000 or 20,000 years ago is based on the fact that we can visit and interview and observe hunter gatherers today. Many of the economic structures, ways of making a living, philosophies and oral narratives and cultural artifacts exist the same with hunter gathers today...as they did. Many of the societal structures have not changed in thousands of years. We can observe /visit Inuuit, South American societies aboriginal cultures all over the world. Those cultures of pre-agriculture are still alive and existing. It is a fairly general concensus...among nthropologists that the life-style ofhunter gatherers left more time for art, storytelling...and was healthier than totalitarian agricultural societies.

Mark Nathan Cohen Health and The Rise of Civilization


http://www.primitivism.com/health-civili...

Marshall Sahlins ...his original article in whole (I think...)

http://zinelibrary.info/files/the%20orig...


And the ever fun..."Worst Mistake In The History of The Human Race"

http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/cl...

Hi Russ, nope what I said to you was nothing to do with age or your personal background. It was about what time period conceptions about history and approaches were rooted in...and how history approaches have changed in last 20-30 years etc. It's not like you to take things so personally...I have great affection for you and sorry if you misunderstood what I was saying about approach. I wasn't affronted by your choice of words. I was suggesting a more appropriate and sensitive wording for my brothers and sisters. It is a credit to how much I care for you that I was so comfortable in suggesting such a sensitivity.

Don't worry...you haven't hurt my feelings by making jokes about thinking I am merely claiming to know about the subject. I don't have any interest in any claims..I just happen to be a hunter gatherer. You can respect that as a precedence or not. I was not dividing you and I into "levels" I was saying that history has become more interdiciplinary. I sincerely thought you would enjoy the Wikpedia page about LLL. Sorry you felt like taking my joyful feelings about you and this topic n a negative manner. I hope you feel better and reconsider.

As the article states, Sahlins' theory was based on studies of modern hunter/gatherers. By the same token, what is your hard evidence for stating that "they sure were a lot busier, with little time to think?" That's an assumption that one often hears, but I think it is more logically based on what we know about peasant culture, not hunter/gatherer culture.

I should add here that I have an anthro degree and worked as an archaeologist for a few years before going to law school. So I have a bit of a bias, but I'd have to disagree that there is no "hard evidence" or artifacts that would tell us anything about prehistoric life. The hard evidence we have is open to different interpretations (some of it driven by the need for modern academics to further their own careers - i.e., intellectual thought as a subsistence activity in itself) but written documents, which you point to as evidence, are just as open to different interpretation. Not to mention the need to interpret the bias and motivations of the writer in the first place.

I'm also not sure what specific practice(s) you are referring to re child sacrifice? There is no evidence that I know of for child sacrifice as a common practice of prehistoric societies. I have dug out Neolithic longhouses in northern France (early agriculturalists) where we found quite a few infants buried in post holes - some have interpreted this as intentional sacrifice, some as just where they buried newborns who died. We have hard evidence of the burials, we have only interpretation for the rest. And we may not have overt child sacrifice any longer but we sure have plenty of throwaway children.

Theresa

Some anthropologists have argued that hunter/gatherers were/are the original affluent society and spend less time on subsistence activities than us industrialized folks. This theory was first put forward by Sahlins, a prominent University of Chicago anthropologist back in the 60s. It has met with some debate, of course, but it is not necessarily true that agriculture brought leisure - and to the extent agriculture did bring leisure, it brought it only for the privileged few. See Jared Diamond for a populist approach to the function of agriculture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_af...

Theresa

Gail wrote: ...we may make surmises about them, but we can't honestly say we have evidence of their thought processes. How can we know what they pondered?

The only real evidence I can think of only tells partially what would have been on their minds, the essentials of hunting and preparing the carcass of whatever they found. Paintings of these types of activities have been found in some caves, and to me not only expresses what they thought about, but also the compulsion/need to record said activities. The latter in itself says much about their thinking abilities.

I definitely agree, they didn't have the time to philosophize or over analyze, but don't you think the existence of those paintings show the seeds of capability?