[drhagen]

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.

[jajko]

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.

[LordN00b]

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

[tialaramex]

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 ?

[card_zero]

Rocks?

[defrost]

Clay.

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

[tialaramex]

But like the article says even if you never deliberately bake the clay tablets, accidents will do so anyway.

It's easy to imagine we don't have the first year of writing, maybe the first human lifetime of writing, but it stretches imagination to invoke a situation where somehow a civilisation is writing clay tablets for hundreds of years, decides they are not to be made into permanent records and somehow they're so lucky that there's never a house fire, a goof at the bakery, somebody's kid spills hot stuff on the tablet, nothing like that and so over that period every single tablet is destroyed/ erased as expected and leaves no trace.

[throwthrowuknow]

If they ever used clay to begin with. Did all civilizations that independently developed writing start with clay? I don’t think the mezoamericans used clay tablets and it seems that vegetable fibre was the preferred medium for all others that had access to it.

[lelanthran]

> 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?

[drewcoo]

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

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

[defrost]

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.

[card_zero]

But what do they say? I'm picking up "I saw a kangaroo", and maybe also "I saw a thylacine" - or is it a numbat? - and then something about a spotty ovoid Pac-Man with spindly limbs, that one's a scary story.

[defrost]

It's pico-oral mnemonic's that go hand in hand with stories passed down according to the people that had generational custodianship, these, and numerous other rock art sites throughout the Pilbarra and Kimberley (eg: Bradshaw's et al https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwion_Gwion_rock_paintings )

[card_zero]

"Long ago Kujon a black bird, painted on the rocks. He struck his bill against the stones so that it Bleed, and with the blood he painted. He painted no animals, only human-shaped figures which probably represent spirits."

I like the way that ended. More traditional stories should contain vague words like "probably". It reminds me of the part in the book of Revelation where "there was silence in heaven for about half an hour".

[defrost]

    When pressed, the expedition's Aboriginal guide explained their creation

As quoted third hand by Agnes Schultz in 1956.

It's far removed from the manner in which, say, Kumantjayi Mowaljarlai spoke directly first hand about the works he maintained.

https://magabala.com.au/products/yorro-yorro

There's much lost in translation.