First of all, I apologize for any confusion or bad feelings during class.
I argued, or at least meant only to argue, that textual communication has advantages over oral communication. My tentative hypothesis was that texts were originally created to prolong the longevity of communications and also perhaps to improve the ability of communications to be disseminated. Now, if anyone would like to take issue with these claims, I would be more than happy to discuss them here, where I can take the time to more intelligently formulate my responses.
In anticipation of objections which I think may be voiced based on the discussion in class, let me offer an explanation for how I arrived at my position.
The first form of human communication that we can be sure of was oral OR physical communication (think sign language). We know that people were communicating orally at least as early as 67,000 B.C. - very probably earlier. We know this because the genetic and skeletal adaptations necessary for natural human language were all in place by this time. More convincingly, the number of individuals in groups - previously limited to around 25 to 30 - began increasing, which anthropologists think indicates people were beginning to use language to keep larger groups cohesive than could be accomplished via the physical method practiced by apes - social grooming.
Culture exploded. From the meager stone toolkits of Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis, early Homo sapiens expanded dramatically. Complex knife blades, hafted spears, but most importantly, art (cave paintings, stone carvings, etc) were all products of this particularly language-enabled species. This was the benefit of a strong oral tradition, which allowed larger groups and the dissemination of learned knowledge throughout the individuals of the tribe. For a long time, this sufficed.
But around 8,000 B.C., written language emerged. The question in class essentially boils down to "why?" Why do some of the ancient cultures create a written language? What advantage does it have over the oral tradition which everyone is already using? Why spend time and effort to learn a new way of communicating when the old way seems perfectly fine?
The answer may be found (I think so anyway) in what the first writers wrote about. The oldest written documents we know of come from Mesopotamia and are written in an ancient Sumerian script called cuneiform. The Sumerians wrote quite a bit, as is attested to by the thousands of clay writing tablet fragments found strewn amongst the ruins of their cities, but the chief topic appears to be clerical in nature. That is, Sumerians used writing to record information about their purchases and sales, their legal proceedings, and the like. Why would the ancient Sumerians feel the need to record such things in writing?
My guess would be that they couldn't remember it all in their heads and so needed to preserve the information in some other way. Therefore, the apparent reason for the invention of writing is to offer a better means of storage than the person who has recieved the same information orally. Thus one of the advantages of textual communication would appear to be an increased fidelity of message over time.
I welcome any refutations of this hypothesis, because I find the subject fascinating.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
But why would they (or anyone in general) want to keep clerical records? I understand what you're saying, but I think there's still a question of "why."
In other words, what was it about clerical events that made them worth remembering? I'd think that people would remember them if they were so important. Is it because there would be discrepancies so they wrote them down? Because there could still be disputes even if there was a record.
Let me put it to you this way:
You are a merchant in the ancient Sumerian city of Ur. In this city, say, the king demands that 10% of all your sales with merchants from the city of Uruk must be given to the king as a tax. But throughout the day you are dealing with literally hundreds of different buyers and sellers. That means you have no way of memorizing all of the transactions you enacted over the course of the day, not to mention which transactions took place with people from Uruk. So you write it down. This way, you don't have to commit it all to memory. You can just look at what you wrote earlier and know.
So there - an advantage over oral tradition.
Ok, but I can't help but wonder about when only the upperclass (and by upperclass, I really mean royalty) could write. What did they do then? Would you argue that it's then that they learned to write and moved away from being strictly oral? I mean I see your point about there being advantages between both, so I'm not trying to argue, but I'm just wondering...
Well, if you're no longer arguing the point, I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the class stratification of writing.
As it is, we have no idea what class first began writing, or even if there were "classes" as we know or understand them in these ancient societies. I would imagine that the first writers would become the job/class known as scribes, but those people weren't necessarily "royalty." More like skilled laborers.
But this brings up another point in my favor: you can't argue that it's wrong for royalty to have writing and reading while the poor are illiterate if you see no inherent value in writing.
I wasn't really ever arguing the point...I think I was more inquiring into the history a bit. Trying to figure out when the values of writing and oral were changed, if they were at all.
Ah, ok. Well, the truth is I actually don't know that.
I would suggest a few things with regard to these inquiries. First, it would be important to deal with Derrida's critique of this progressivist narration of the history of writing as a movement FROM oral TO writing. A careful rereading of Brotherston's piece is in order, but also a very careful reading of Derrida.
Second, one point that I made in class was that, while written (visual/concrete) communication has advantages over oral (auditory/ephemeral) communication, oral communication also has many advantages over phonetically-based writing and that they may not be as far apart as you think when it comes to preserving things accurately. Think not only about things like typos in Excel spreadsheets that go unnoticed but influence budgets, but also about the interests of the Sumerian merchant who might be trying to minimize how much of his income goes to the King of Sumeria and maximize his fiscal power in relationship to his customers. Thus, as Allyse nicely points out, "there could still be (rather major, even murderous) disputes even if there was a "record."
A New Historical approach to what has been found archaeologically would also be nice. You start on that road, but emphasize it more. If we found clay tablets with clerical stuff on them, do we know for sure that that was the main purpose for writing in that city? What if tons of stuff was written on papyrus that decayed or was burned in the sacking of a city? How many sites are we talking? How much can we string these sites together as representative of the time as a whole.
Finally, it is VERY important to note that the most conservative estimates for populating of the western hemisphere range from about 20,000 to 25,000. So, given that your cited date is 8000 B.C. as "when writing begins," we must necessarily qualify that date as "when writing begins" in the eastern hemisphere. Or even more narrowly, in the current Middle East. Given Brotherston's observations, we need to very very seriously reconsider whether we really know how long writing has been around, who invented it, how many different kinds there are, etc. In other words, there is no narrating a unitary history of writing as the one we have here anymore. It must be more complex, given that there was writing in the western hemisphere upon Spanish occupation and that writing probably could not have descended from the 8000 BC date in Sumeria.
I grant you your points - but I wish to point out several key areas where I think your argumentation is flawed:
1. You state that my narrative is "progressivist." As I understand this word, it would mean that I am attempting to show how history is a story of uncomplicated improvement over prior periods. I in no way view history in this sense. I do grant that my narrative may seem to support this "progressive" approach, but that is only because I was emphasizing the advantages of writing over oral tradition in order to make my point. If I were to explore the topic more fully, I would certainly grant that the real relationship between these modes of communication is just as complex and complicated as Allyse and you want it to be.
2. You seem to believe that the writing systems found in the western hemisphere must have been created at the same point as those found in the eastern hemisphere. So far as I know, there is no reason to believe this (although you undoubtedly have a greater grasp of the information available on this topic). I would go so far as to suggest, given what I know, that the writing systems found in the Western Hemisphere are entirely the later products of the civilizations found there and in no way inherit the written systems found in the Eastern Hemisphere, especially those of the Middle-East/Africa/Europe. Indeed, we may later find that writing went back further, even tens of thousands of years. But I do not really see how this fact alone would affect the points I am trying to make.
3. Both you and Allyse have done a wonderful job of complicating the matter - which I agree is commendable, because we cannot afford to ignore the nuances of the situation we are discussing/a part of. But if you wish to complicate matters such that writing systems have no advantage over oral communication whatsoever when all of the complexities are taken into consideration, I believe the onus passes to you to describe the reasons and manners in which writing developed in human culture.
The strongest refutation of my position that I can foresee, therefore, would be a convincing argument to the effect that, for some reason or another, human civilization came up with written language as a sort of unintended accident which only later came to be (falsely) seen as beneficial.
This is because my powers of imagination are far too weak to foresee a human culture that would embark on a venture that they know will not benefit them in any way.
You are asking great questions here that will come up again when we read Benedict Anderson's piece. However, you are not reiterating my points with accuracy.
In general, I prefer not to discuss these issues in a refutation mode, because it feels too much like a football game where people keep spiking the ball at the 30 yard line before making a touchdown. We aren't on opposite teams.
I'm sorry that I'm failing to represent your argument. Hopefully, the points I have been making are still somewhat relevant, despite my failure to completely engage with your contentions.
I realize we're not on opposite teams. We do have differing viewpoints, and you have been telling me that my viewpoint doesn't seem to properly explain the reality of the subject it claims to explain.
What I am really looking for is not so much a refutation of my viewpoint, then, but another viewpoint that offers a similar level explanatory detail on the same subject.
In other words, I don't want to "fight it out" so much as I don't want to give up on what I see as the best explanation so far.
If someone can present a more plausible reason for the emergence and practice of written language across many cultures while eschewing the proposition that writing offers some unique advantages/disadvantages to those who use it, I will readily formulate the refutation of my own viewpoint without anyone else's help.
Post a Comment