How Old is Recorded History?

[Punchy]

According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.31
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

It is a common creationist argument that written records are too recent for the human race to be more than 10,000 years old. But is this assertion based on actual fact? Or are there written records much older than what creationists would claim?

Peace.

 

[Mallon]

It wouldn't really matter when textual records first appear, since:
(a) the earth isn't dated based on the age of textual records
(b) artistic/religious records (like cave paintings) date back many thousands of years before the first written accounts.

 

[Punchy]

That still doesn't answer the question of how old is recorded history.

 

[Mallon]

That still doesn't answer the question of how old is recorded history.

This does:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing

Google is your friend.

 

[Punchy]

This does:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing

Google is your friend.

The invention of the first writing systems is roughly contemporary with the beginning of the Bronze Age in the late Neolithic of the late 4th millennium BC. The first writing system is generally believed to have been invented in Sumer, by the late 3rd millennium developing into the archaic cuneiform of the Ur III stage. Contemporaneously, the Proto-Elamite script developed into Linear Elamite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing#Invention_of_writing

This figure corresponds quite nicely to the creationist position that history began approximately 6000 years ago. History that precedes written records is, by definition, prehistory. The difficulties and limitations in establishing what occured before the historical record should be recognized.

 

[Deamiter]

This figure corresponds quite nicely to the creationist position that history began approximately 6000 years ago. History that precedes written records is, by definition, prehistory. The difficulties and limitations in establishing what occured before the historical record should be recognized.

Of course they're recognized, but the evolution of these writing systems is well documented and dates back at least another 3-4 thousand years. The evolution of Latin into the many romance languages along with the combination of many of these languages to make up English is similarly well-documented (obviously even more so). By language and usage alone texts can be roughly dated and often are to verify other tests like examining architecture or radiometric dating.

Similarly, you seem to have simply waved away the clear evolution of early pictographical symbolic representations into more formal writing systems like the Egyptian hieroglyphics by saying "there are difficulties in establishing exactly what happened." That there are difficulties does not in the least suggest that nothing can be established and timelines cannot be proposed and tested!

Here's the first couple paragraphs of the wiki that you seem to have skipped over in favor of the bit that corresponds with your preferred (and historically unsupported) timeline.

The early writing systems of the late 4th millennium BCE were not a sudden invention. They were rather based on ancient traditions of symbol systems that cannot be classified as writing proper, but have many characteristics strikingly reminiscent of writing, so that they may be described as proto-writing. They may have been systems of ideographic and/or early mnemonic symbols that allowed to convey certain information, but they are probably devoid of linguistic information. These systems emerge from the early Neolithic, as early as the 7th millennium BC. Notably the Vinca script shows an evolution of simple symbols beginning in the 7th millennium, gradually increasing in complexity throughout the 6th millennium and culminating in the Tărtăria tablets of the 5th millennium with their rows of symbols carefully aligned, evoking the impression of a "text". The hieroglyphic scripts of the Ancient Near East (Egyptian, Sumerian proto-Cuneiform and Cretan) seamlessly emerge from such symbol systems, so that it is difficult to say, already because very little is known about the symbols' meanings, at what point precisely writing emerges from proto-writing.

In 2003, 7th millennium BC radiocarbon dated symbols Jiahu Script carved into tortoise shells were discovered in China. The shells were found buried with human remains in 24 Neolithic graves unearthed at Jiahu, Henan province, northern China. According to some archaeologists, the writing on the shells had similarities to the 2nd millennium BC Oracle bone script.[1]; others[citation needed], however, have dismissed this claim 'as nonsense', claiming that simple geometric designs such as those found on the Jiahu Shells, cannot be linked to early writing. The 4th millennium BC Indus script may similarly constitute proto-writing, possibly already influenced by the emergence of writing in Mesopotamia.

Oh, I should also point out that there is no linguistical bottleneck that would signify a global flood. If utterly different writing styles developed across the world, and then were wiped out you'd expect to see only one used after the flood. Similarly, if the Tower of Babel explained the reintroduction of many languages, you'd expect to see all of the languages introduced in the same geological location and only later spread across the world. Neither of these predictions of a 6000 year-old ex nihilo creation are evidenced in any way in linguistical records.

 

[Punchy]

Here's the first couple paragraphs of the wiki that you seem to have skipped over in favor of the bit that corresponds with your preferred (and historically unsupported) timeline.

The Scriptures strongly suggest that the first humans were endowed with the ability to write.

 

[Deamiter]

The Scriptures strongly suggest that the first humans were endowed with the ability to write.

Yes Punchy. Since I edited my post apparently before you responded to a single sentence in my post, I'll repost the bit I added so you don't miss it:

Oh, I should also point out that there is no linguistical bottleneck that would signify a global flood. If utterly different writing styles developed across the world, and then were wiped out you'd expect to see only one used after the flood. Similarly, if the Tower of Babel explained the reintroduction of many languages, you'd expect to see all of the languages introduced in the same geological location and only later spread across the world. Neither of these predictions of a 6000 year-old ex nihilo creation are evidenced in any way in linguistical records.

 

[Punchy]

Similarly, if the Tower of Babel explained the reintroduction of many languages, you'd expect to see all of the languages introduced in the same geological location and only later spread across the world.

According to Genesis, there was one language for all people before the Babel dispersion. Furthermore, if these peoples did subsequently disperse relatively quickly, we wouldn't expect there to be a record of their respective languages being utilized in the same location.

As for whether the first humans were capable of writing, please consider the following...

During his tour of duty in Mesopotamia, where much of the earliest Bible activity took place, Air Commodore P.J. Wiseman became interested in the archaeology of that area, and especially in the many ancient clay tablets that had been dated to long before the time of Abraham. He recognized that they held the key to the original writings of the early Bible, and especially to the Book of Genesis. He published his book in 1936. More recently his son, Professor of Assyriology D.J. Wiseman, updated and revised his father’s book: P.J. Wiseman, “Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis” (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1985)

He found that most of the old clay tablets had “colophon phrases” at the end; these named the writer or owner of the tablet; they had words to identify the subject, and often some sort of dating phrase. If multiple tablets were involved, there were also “catch-lines” to connect a tablet to its next in sequence. Many of these old records related to family histories and origins, which were evidently highly important to those ancient people. Wiseman noticed the similarity of many of these to the sections of the book of Genesis.

Many scholars have noticed that Genesis is divided into sections, separated by phrases that are translated “These are the generations of ... ” The Hebrew word used for “generation” is toledoth, which means “history, especially family history ... the story of their origin.” Wiseman, op.cit., pg.62. Wiseman took this quotation from the pioneer Hebrew lexicographer Gesenius. Most scholars have recognized that these “toledoth phrases” must be important, but they have been misled by assuming incorrectly that these are the introduction to the text that follows. (Several modern translations have even garbled these phrases.) This has led to serious questions, because in several cases they don’t seem to fit. For example, Genesis 37:2 begins, “These are the generations of Jacob. ...” But from that spot on, the text describes Joseph and his brothers, and almost nothing about Jacob, who was the central character in the previous section...
http://www.trueorigin.org/tablet.asp

Peace.

 

[jeffweeder]

It is a common creationist argument that written records are too recent for the human race to be more than 10,000 years old. But is this assertion based on actual fact? .

yes i believe so (no secret there)

God did streamline his communications to man through these people after all..

Or are there written records much older than what creationists would claim?

no

Adam had the outstounding ability to name all the animals, and Genesis clearly suggests that records were handed down for moses to put it (Gen) all together----how else would he know who begat who?
Oral communication wasnt out of the qu also, as Adam was a contempery of Methusalah and Methusalah Noah.

 

[Deamiter]

According to Genesis, there was one language for all people before the Babel dispersion. Furthermore, if these peoples did subsequently disperse relatively quickly, we wouldn't expect there to be a record of their respective languages being utilized in the same location.

Yet what we DO find is multiple proto-languages slowly changing into utterly unique languages like Egyptian hieroglyphics and Chinese pictographs. There is no sudden emergence of a number of languages at approximately the same time across the world but precursers are found dating to thousands of years before the 4k BCE you claim as the beginning of time.

The dating and structure of ancient Hebrew texts is very interesting, but is of minimal value when you consider that Hebrew is only ever found many thousands of years after the other initial written languages were widely utilized.

The bottom line is that you're simply constructing a timeline that's based on no archaeological evidence whatsoever. There is no evidence of the sudden emergence of multiple languages, and you've even admitted that there is no evidence that multiple languages began in the same place at the same time. There IS evidence that geologically distinct languages developed over thousands of years from early symbolic iconographs, but you have to ignore that too to fit with your interpretation of Genesis.

That's totally fine -- if you believe your interpretation of Genesis is above question and are willing to twist and ignore all evidence to the contrary, then more power to you! Just don't try to pretend that your interpretation is based on evidence when you're just invoking Morton's Demon.

 

[Punchy]

There is no evidence of the sudden emergence of multiple languages, and you've even admitted that there is no evidence that multiple languages began in the same place at the same time.

First of all, I don't know enough about the subject to arrive at such a conclusion and secondly, I gave you an explanation as to why such evidence would not be found.

To continue this discussion, let's do so in the crevo forum:
http://www.christianforums.com/t5227031-how-old-is-recorded-history.html

Peace.

 

[jeffweeder]

The bottom line is that you're simply constructing a timeline that's based on no archaeological evidence whatsoever. There is no evidence of the sudden emergence of multiple languages,

Sir Henry Rawlinson found in a foundation at borshippa, a cylinder, inscribed;
The tower of Borshippa, which a former king erected to a height of 42 cubits-which he did not finish.---sounds like the tradition of Babel.

G Smith found an ancient tablet reading " The tower offended the Gods-They scattered them abroad and made strange their speech- sounds like Babel again hey.

This is associated with Marduk temple .

 

[gluadys]

AiG asks:

Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history?​

Silly question. One might just as well ask why many peoples did not invent writing systems at all until European anthropologists wanted to record their languages in the 19th and 20th centuries. Why did they wait so long to write their own language?


One might also ask why Jesus never put his teachings into writing himself.

 

[gluadys]

Adam had the outstounding ability to name all the animals, and Genesis clearly suggests that records were handed down for moses to put it (Gen) all together----how else would he know who begat who?

Oral history.

Because we are text-dependent, we often underestimate the capacities of human memory and oral history. But many peoples kept lengthy genealogies in their oral traditions. The Hawaiians and the West Africans are only two of many examples. If you have ever read Roots you will remember the emotional scene when the griot recounted the disappearance of Kunte Kinte whose family in America had also kept alive the history of his capture.

There is no need to posit written records of the Genesis genealogies prior to the existence of the biblical text.

 

[Mallon]

This figure corresponds quite nicely to the creationist position that history began approximately 6000 years ago.

This misconception is exactly why I went through the trouble of my first reply to your OP, Punchy. But it seems you've already forgotten about it once you were told what you wanted to hear.
The human invention of writing has no bearing on the age of humanity, or on the age of the earth!

 

[busterdog]

Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history?

I think Punchy makes a good point. Why would it take so long for language to develop? We can postulate that homo sapiens is just not that sapiens. This is speculation, however.

That this corresponds to the flood remains an interesting point. The precision dating by those who challenge this view is just hard to accept as Gospel. We just don't know that much about what was going on several thousand years ago.

The sophistication of the Great Pyramid and other architecture does raise a problem regarding our ability to project into the past our suppositions about human ability.

Silly question. One might just as well ask why many peoples did not invent writing systems at all until European anthropologists wanted to record their languages in the 19th and 20th centuries. Why did they wait so long to write their own language?

Not silly. Just hard to answer. I guess the argument is that it takes many years for this sophisticated practice to develop. Why so?

Granted, the American Indian seemed to have survived quite a long time with modest attempts at lnaguage. There are places where people seem to have little ambition in this direction. That makes the problem all the more curious.

 

[Deamiter]

I think Punchy makes a good point. Why would it take so long for language to develop? We can postulate that homo sapiens is just not that sapiens. This is speculation, however.

Ah, but it didn't take NEARLY that long for language to develop. It only took that long for people to develop widespread writing standards. Considering that a large portion of native tribes in Africa and South America still had no written language until they were taught an outside language shows how little importance a written language holds for basic human communities. It's only what we might call "civilization" with huge cities and populations that really needs accurate records to function.

Not silly. Just hard to answer. I guess the argument is that it takes many years for this sophisticated practice to develop. Why so?

Granted, the American Indian seemed to have survived quite a long time with modest attempts at lnaguage. There are places where people seem to have little ambition in this direction. That makes the problem all the more curious.

You've hit it exactly. It's not that the American Indians were slow learners or that their culture was somehow less advanced than in Europe. They simply had no use for the type of highly-developed written form of their communication. If there's no use for writing things down as the whole tribe knows what belongs to whom and orally passes on were to travel or plant at what times, one can hardly claim it took them longer to develop writing. They simply didn't need it so they didn't bother about it!

Of course that's not to say that Native Americans and other cultures don't have written forms of their language at all! As was pointed out in the wikipedia article, proto-languages (essentially pictograms) can be traced back thousands of years before the alledged beginning of creation. That's actually one reason many creationists push back creation to 10,000 years or more -- a vague claim of less than 20,000 years is much easier to defend historically than a specific claim of around 6000 years.

 

[Jadis40]

I think it would also be helpful to point out that there are many language families.

English and Hebrew are in two different language families that arose in different areas. The Proto-Indo-European (the family that includes English) arose in the Anatolia region of what is now Turkey.

I reference this site, which states that the roots of this language family dates back to 6000 BC.

http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/6507/chronicle120.html

I also quote this from the krysstal.com website:

http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_indoeuro.html

The Indo-European Family is thought to have originated in the forests north of the Black Sea (in what is now Ukraine) during the Neoloithic period (about 7000BC). These people bagan to migrate between 3500BC and 2500BC, spreading west to Europe, south to the Mediterranian, north to Scandinavia, and east to India.

I would also reference this site which discusses the Semitic languages:

http://phoenicia.org/semlang.html

Hebrew is a Semitic language, but it's also part of the Afro-Asiatic language family, which has roots in Northern Africa.

The following quote is also from krysstal.com:

This language family originated in the Sahara area before it became a desert and spread to the Horn of Africa, North Africa and the Middle East. During the 7th Century AD, Arabic spread from the Arabian Peninsula with Islam to cover most of North Africa and the Middle East.

So, from this, it's apparent that languages were already well diversified by 4000 BC.

The fact that these language families still exist is proof that the Tower of Babel isn't a historical event, and it also shows that the flood indeed was only local. Assuming a 6000 year old earth and working with a flood date of 2348 BC going by Ussher's flawed chronology, there's ample evidence from linguistics that there was no sudden bottleneck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadian_language

Akkadian is divided into several varieties based on geography and historical period: [1]

• Old Akkadian — 2500 – 1950 BCE
• Old Babylonian/Old Assyrian — 1950 – 1530 BCE
• Middle Babylonian/Middle Assyrian — 1530 – 1000 BCE
• Neo-Babylonian/Neo-Assyrian — 1000 – 600 BCE
• Late Babylonian — 600 BCE – 100 CE

I'll also point out the timeline for Sumerian: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_language

The chronology of written Sumerian can be divided into several periods.

• Archaic Sumerian — 3100–2600/2500 BCE
• Old or Classical Sumerian — 2600/2500–2300/2200 BCE
• Neo-Sumerian — 2300/2200 – 2000 BCE
• Late Sumerian — 2000 – 1800/1700 BCE
• Post-Sumerian - 1800/1700 - 100 BCE

And, from the Indo-European language family, I'd refer you to Greek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language

Greek (ελληνική γλώσσα IPA: [eliniˈci ˈɣlosa] or ελληνικά IPA: [eliniˈka] — "Hellenic") is an Indo-European language with a documented history of 3,500 years, the longest of any single language in that language family.

So is there proof in linguistics that languages evolve? Our own language, English, is clear evidence, as anyone can attest to who has read the Canterbury Tales in its original Middle English.

Something else too...there are many language families...I'd refer you again to the following website:

http://www.krysstal.com/langfams.html and http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_other.html

 

[busterdog]

You've hit it exactly. It's not that the American Indians were slow learners or that their culture was somehow less advanced than in Europe.

Oddly enough, they didn't have the wheel either. Not that this proves anything. Having messed with some of those primitive technologies, it is clear that this is not a lack of sophistication.

However, I did visit some white people who were having a go at living off the land in wikiups, mandans, teepees and other such shelters. At times they would make money digging graves or some such thing to buy sundries. This entailed getting to town. So there would be an old heap ofa car or a couple of bikes around. Unfortunately the bikes would make the foot paths muddy and the cars were just money pits. One of their leaders observed that everything kind of went downhill after man created the wheel!