Is oral history more durable than written history?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/06/indigenous-oral-history/

by bookofjoe • 2 years ago

13 34 2 years ago

washingtonpost.com

bookofjoe• 2 years ago

https://wapo.st/4dBN4tf

axiologist• 2 years ago

For some unknown reason that wapo shortcut doesn't allow for scrolling down to actually read that article.

So back to more reliable external means:

https://archive.is/TNFck

codeflo• 2 years ago

It's certainly more durable than digital history in the archives of private companies who will stop maintaining it at the slightest slowdown of profit growth.

freddie_mercury• 2 years ago

Leaving the stupid clickbait headline that has nothing to do with the actual article...

It is pretty cool to see aboriginal oral traditions (of up to 14,000 years old according to the article) being used to map the rising sea levels over thousands of years.

ramon156• 2 years ago

I think I'm ready to blacklist this site. They provide nothing but clickbait slop

kuschkufan• 2 years ago

"click here to redeem you free article!"

jbaber• 2 years ago

I get the physical edition and it's nothing like that. They're giving the internet what it wants. Physical paper has Opinion section at the back where I don't often read it. Online, Opinion pieces are right on top.

drhagen• 2 years ago

Using 12000-year-old stories to support the thesis that oral history is more durable than written history is only logical if we have reason to believe that written history also existed then. I believe the consensus is that writing was invented about 5000-6000 years ago.

Still, finding that a non-zero fraction of oral history survives on the order of tens of millennia is very cool.

drewcoo2• 2 years ago

Cave paintings from 35-ish millennia ago probably count as writing.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/journey-oldest-cave-p...

defrost4• 2 years ago

A bit further not quite due south is the Burrup Peninsula rock art,

    “The art also has a longer sequence than any of these other sites, extending from recent times back at least 40,000 years, probably 50,000 years.”

~ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/the-worlds...

~ https://therangeskarratha.com.au/explore/rock-art

Naturally threatened by Oil&Gas hub expansion.

LordN00b• 2 years ago

I think it's we've only found writing from 5000-6000 because the storage medium is not as durable.

card_zero4• 2 years ago

Rocks?

tialaramex3• 2 years ago

Is your thesis that writing was invented much earlier than presently believed but also it was only used to make marks that were easily destroyed and never incrementally improved so it would seem like they had no prior experience ?

jajko• 2 years ago

We only know about oral story/stories that survived, no idea how many got lost forever since last knowing person died very long time ago. With writing/stone tablets, there is still some hope for the future to find more.

Also, all history since evolution of man before stone tablets and similar was oral, and we have very very little that persisted till now with 0 chance of new discoveries. Much more persisted in written form, and its coming from much shorter timespan. Also, massive room for accidental or intentional distortion and even eventual complete loss of original content in oral history.

I'd say most modern religions fall into this, they literally copy&pasted each other with rather small changes (which were then thrown out of proportions by fanatical followers), typical most famous one is zoroastroanism -> judaism -> christianity -> islam -> bahai and of course each node has tons of sects which mix with the others also on other levels in various ways. And each claims they are the only valid eternal truth and word of God... with at best mild tolerance towards every other offshoot.

Its funny in worst way possible to meet religious fanatics from any of those, rational debate is simply impossible and they only look for quick mental exits from any sort of critical thinking and introspection. I am firmly convinced that reading properly original stuff that that ended up as the book we call Bible would make quite a few people these days leave the religion.

For me its not even comparable.

lelanthran• 2 years ago

Using 12000-year-old stories to support the thesis that oral history is more durable than written history is only logical if we have reason to believe that written history also existed then.

It becomes even less logical when you consider that the oral "history" has probably changed multiple times in that 12000 years.

How on earth do you verify that a 12000 year old story that you hear today is the same story that was initially told 12000 years ago?

iandanforth• 2 years ago

Answer: No.

You have to be very stingy with your definition of history and writing to ignore the fossil record as a recording of historical events. We'll revisit the question in several hundred million years and see how oral traditions are doing.

drewcoo2• 2 years ago

The fossil record is prehistory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_history

jmclnx• 2 years ago

I wonder if in many cases, as time goes on with Oral History, some embellishment creep in, like the sirens of Odysseus. I tend to think yes.

I one difference is written history probably does not change much over the years. Also, how many oral stories/histories have been completely lost throughout time ? Where if written down, it is possible something could eventually be found.

I think I read somewhere, lots of books are being coded into a media that will last for millions of years. Hopefully that is happening :)

FrustratedMonky• 2 years ago

Written or Oral. We can't all agree on what happened 2 years ago. So multiply how we all view the last 2 years, then extrapolate that to what you tell your kids, and they tell their kids, and add a 100 years.

The last few years has caused me to doubt all history. All written or oral records are all

Ekaros• 2 years ago

Just look how messaging or what is documented on various media pages changes in months, weeks or days...

Yep, I have no doubt oral history also changed... Great king, great king. Oh new king good, old one bad...

rqtwteye• 2 years ago

Totally agree. You don’t even need two years. A few weeks is enough. I remember the Biden situation as him holding on for as long as he could and then basically being pushed out. But when you read a lot of NYT commenters you start to believe that he sacrificed himself out of patriotism and planned his exit with exquisite timing.

So yes, don’t always believe history. Events that happened hundreds of years ago have gone through many spin cycles.

teleforce• 2 years ago

Fun facts, there is an important Islamic tradition where group of people (tens or hundreds thousands of them) called Hafiz who can memorize and recite the entire Quran. If for example, God forbid, that the entire written copies either physicallly or digitally of the Quran are entirely destroyed, it can be recreated completely in no time. This practice is considered a living miracle since no other holy book has this special feature and it is also well known fact that even the Pope does not memorize the New Testament Bible let alone the complete Bible.

tialaramex3• 2 years ago

It seems like the properties attributed in this opinion piece to oral history are actually properties of copying. If there are a lot of copies then a disaster is unlikely to destroy them all.

But, printing, especially Movable Type, makes it practical to produce copies of written history. And then digital computers make it not just practical but essentially free.

My understanding is that historians wouldn't call this "Oral history" but instead "Oral tradition". Because we now have technology to make and copy records, to them "Oral history" is the records of what people recall about something, typically first hand recollections. When you do this, mutation stops, which is valuable to historians.

Example #1: Ronald Reagan gets elected US President. Written history, that this happened is directly recorded when it happened. Written History. Many copies. No mutations.

Example #2: Someone from Reagan's campaign recounts to a historian the events of the election night as they realised he was going to win and this is recorded on tape. Oral History. Many copies. Mutations fixed at moment of recording shortly after election.

Example #3: I recall hearing that Reagan was elected President and mention this to a historian in 2023 during a recorded conversation. It is PCM data and it's also auto-transcribed with transcription checked and corrected by the historian. Oral History. Fewer but still N copies. Mutations fixed only decades after event that was recalled.

Example #4: Our intern re-tells the story she heard from me about Reagan being elected, on a podcast. She wasn't born until this century, so she wasn't a witness to the event, but she did hear me tell the story. Now arguably Oral tradition. Many Copies. Considerable mutation.

Example #5: The podcast for some crazy reason goes viral. Mutated versions of the Reagan story, now sometimes naming Clint Eastwood for some reason, circulate. A popular "re-staging" of the text has an unnamed British woman hearing that Clint Eastwood has been elected on the radio, after Rick Astley's famous "Never Gonna Give You Up" is played, which means now it's the wrong man, the wrong year and little of the story has survived. This is definitely Oral Tradition. Huge numbers of copies. Mutations never cease.

amriksohata• 2 years ago

This is why Hindu traditions in India have a "parampara" which means disciplic succession or tradition of teaching from guru (teacher) down to disciple. Writing only started with palm leaf manuscripts, before that everything was passed by word of mouth which is why Indic scholars say its hard to date things by written word as things were not written, just spoken and handed down. This is not the same as Chinese whispers, the oral tradition was very important and had to be word for word.

kkfx• 2 years ago

Durable probably, but there are no guarantee it doesn't change a step at a time...

WJW• 2 years ago

Clearly some types of history lend themselves very well to oral preservation. Religious texts and certain types of history come to mind.

I very much doubt though that ALL types of history would be good for that, let alone other types of information. Not a lot of dry econometrics textbooks lend themselves to rote memorization for example.

Is oral history more durable than written history?

Related Stories