It was a little enthralling to interpret some scholar’s philosophy on where writing originated from and how it came about. I read Alexander Marshack’s “The Art and Symbols of Ice Age Man.” Firstly, I thought the first sentence, “Prehistory is mute,” to be unquestionably true and a great beginning for this ongoing study of the origin of writing. Having taken history classes, I remember being taught that in early prehistoric times Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons were the first beings on Earth, and that they communicated by using objects and carvings. Theoretically, their way of communicating inaugurated the onset of language. However, what I gathered from Marshack’s analysis is that there really isn’t any hard evidence confirming this declaration. While archeologists continue to stumble upon artifacts and strenuously study them, the only thing deciphered is theories. Nevertheless, Marshack makes a good argument in regards to the Neanderthal’s carvings. As a contest to them being deemed as a product of “doodling,” quoting directly from the second page of the read, “A baby can babble, but babbling does not lead to speech unless it develops in a culture that uses speech. Similarly, without a cultural context, doodling does not lead to art.” In my opinion, this is a very legitimate statement. Habits, behavior, one’s lifestyle, however you describe it, are all developed by way of cultural traditions. Thus, the supposition of Neanderthals doodling seems as if the way these seemingly natural tendencies are developed is being overlooked. Taking language for example, since we’re on the subject, the use of “ebonics” or “slang” isn’t something that is necessarily taught. Regardless of it being possible, I doubt it if someone deliberately teaches their child to say “ain’t” as a word that should be integrated into their regular vocabulary. Wouldn’t you agree??
Moving on…
So, who began writing, or more importantly, why was it developed?? The title says it all, “Many Theories, Few Answers.” After reading this article I’m curious to know why it was developed too, but to my disappointment, the answers to those questions remain unknown. Suffice it to say the answers can’t be determined?? As amusing as it is to heed scholar’s interpretations and analysis of archeologist’s finds, based on this article, the answers are just simply unobtainable. Nonetheless, the article ended with a quote by Dr. Michalowski, “… I say coercion and control were early writing's first important purpose, a new way to control how people live." I couldn’t help but think hmmmm, doesn’t that sound familiar? This new form of communication, you know, cellular phones, just out of curiosity, wouldn’t you say this is a new way to control how people live??
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One thing I have always found curious about cave art is the time required to develop the necessary skill. (The conjectures I am going to make related to this are subject to a lack of knowledge on my part that would make them moot.) Why is it we never see "bad" cave art? All the specimens I've ever seen belie a decent amount of skill. Would these artists practice in sand or some other ephemeral medium until they developed a good technique? Where did they find the time to learn? Everything I've ever learned about the progress of humankind has fixated on the increasing amount of leisure time that technology has afforded us. More leisure time leads to people who can concentrate on art or science or creating more efficient ways of doing everyday things. These advances then lead to more leisure time and so the cycle continues. Cave art appears at the beginning of this cycle, some as old as 32,000 years. This is long before domestication of livestock or the emergence of agriculture, things that are considered to have created significant amounts of leisure time. Where did they find the time to develop artistic skill and display it? Seems curious to me.
ReplyDeleteI think that cell phones, the internet, sites like facebook, all contribute to an ever growing community of people that make up the majority of the population. I don't know if there was one person or a group of people who set out with a purpose of controlling others, but if they had, I think they are succeeding. It has now become the norm for people to communicate in these ways, and if you don't, you may be viewed as an "outsider". So that is a form of social control. People always want to be included in the group, no matter how detrimental that may be, but the desire to belong is ever-present. Technologies do control the way people communicate, to a degree, because if there is a new technology that you haven't acquired yet (like a cell phone) you may lose the ability to communicate with others.
ReplyDeleteI found the last quote in the article quite interesting because it is something with which I wholeheartedly agree, yet not something which I had ever consciously thought of.
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt that the written word was delivered as some measure of control over people and a way to organize what would otherwise would remain undocumented - therefore unprovable- claims.
Ironically, this immediately made me think of all of the devices by which people are able to control one another nowadays. Personally, when choosing a cell phone a few months ago, I made sure to avoid the blackberries and iphones. Why? Because I did not want my friends and family to have that one last measure of access to me, whenever or wherever I may be. I find it bad enough that people have access to me all hours of the day regardless of where I may be, whether through a phone call or text- but to have a friend be able to claim "oh, well I emailed something to you and I know your phone has internet and therefore I know you must have gotten it" drives me crazy.
Just a few decades ago, if you wanted to get in touch with someone, you had to see them face to face. Then came the phone. Then the answering machine followed shortly be cell phones, voicemails, emails, tweets, facebook notifications and the countless other ways that people can now reach you, whether you wish it or not.
After reading Dr. Michalowski's quote, I have no doubt that the written word had to have been created for the purpose of control, and although that may have had an entirely different and archaic venue for such a purpose back then, the idea still holds true today.
Dr. Michalowski wasn't saying that writing was an attempt to control our lives through inclusion or exclusion. Making everybody learn to read and write wasn't the goal of the controllers, maybe just the means. Today getting people to buy cell phones, make facebooks, and not feel like an outsider isn't the controlling factor. The technology itself is actually neutral in the ways of mind control. Technology just does it's job and makes things faster. Writing was just an agent of mind control. The actual device is rhetoric itself. Why do we communicate at all? Who cares who knows how we feel or what we think should be done? Isn't every sentence an attempt to control someones mind, by making them see what you are seeing? Sometimes it is a lot more obvious, and therefore easier to do. Writing just made this faster.
ReplyDelete