|
|
|
|
|
|
by lelanthran
674 days 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? |
|
|