The Start of History and the First Man

[frisson_think]

I just listened to a fascinating lecture by Professor Daniel L. Smail where he posed the question, "so when does history begin?"

I am torn between defining history as starting at around the Sumerian civilization, or 4,000BC, or the start of modern man, about 40,000 BC according to the latest estimates.

So please, answer the question. I'd like to know

Comments

[frisson_think]

Thanks, Jimbo. Hope you're doing OK.

[desk_jockey]

May 2nd 1985 3:45 Pm

Count it.

[frisson_think]

*shakes head* a simple, honest answer would've done just fine, thanks.

[tichon]

lmao...that was pretty funny tho.

[anonymous]

Unless I'm missing a contextual clue, I think it's silly to think history began with man.

-Bruno

[frisson_think]

So, when did history begin? The professor agrees with you.

Personally, I think it should be called ITstory if it wasn't about man.

[anonymous]

I don't think the name bears relevance (as I just noticed "his story"). History, to me, is an account of the past.

We don't know when history began. We're still putting it together.

-B

[desk_jockey]

History itself has for me always meant what is written, what we can learn from.
Obviously theories on how it all started (big bang, god, etc.) and everything that follows up until the written word are part of the journey that is the world and everything else. But history in itself is the documentation of what was and acts as a lesson for not repeating its mistakes. "History" starts at documentation in my opinion.

[anonymous]

Asking for a quantitative date turns the question into a subjective pissing contest. Now you need the right contexts and definitions.

So if I want to write a modern history textbook, I'll start with Homo Sapiens. But I'm screwed because Homo Sapiens are a product of constant evolution. They don't have a birthday. How they came to be was caused by an infinitely long chain of events, and to fairly describe our origin, I can't draw the line anywhere. I cut my losses short and announce "History began about 40,000 BC." But I might as well say "Pi is exactly 3."

But is this vague answer correct? No. And it won't have any relevance at all 50,000 years when a new species writes their history textbooks. Screwed again.

If you want an exact answer, you'll never have a full account of the past. The correct definition of history covers all its bases. We don't know when this history began, because we're still piecing it together.

Asking "when does history begin?" and ignoring these philosophical aspects is dancing in a full-body cast.

-Bruno

[el_petey]

Yay Bruno!

[frisson_think]

You know, Bruno, I would argue with that, but that wasn't the point of the my question. I will say, though, that subject areas like archaeology, anthropology and history are interested in FACT - artifacts and documents, i.e. things that prove the past exists. You are interested in TRUTH. You should take your writings to the philosophy department some day.

[anonymous]

Disclaimer: These thoughts are influenced by the school of postbeerpongism.

So what's your point to all this? What good comes out of picking an arbitrary date that satisfies one person, but not another? It only makes sense to me if you're curious as to what the majority thinks - which bears little (if any) relevance in correctly answering "When does history begin?"

PS: Why do you need a factual answer? Why not just answer with the earliest scientific account of anything existing?

PPS: DANCING IN A FULL BODY CAST.

Your beer pong neophyte,
-Bruno