Writing and civilization

A dialog from ANE list, November 1997

Publisher's note: This dialog spawned a set of intertwined threads. I did my best to order them, but there are inevitable jumps and omissions.

This is a reply to a question by Peter Daniel re: the use of writing as a diagnostic criterion for the definition of state-level societies. The criterion of writing has been used to provide a more rigorous definition of "civilization." The problem, from an anthropological perspective, would be that ancient Rome would fit the definition, but a large-scale, state-level society, such as ancient Peru, which had no system of writing, would not.

Sincerely,

H. Sidky
Dept. Soc/Anthro
Miami University

[. . .]

This is very interesting. It is usually assumed that the pressures of a state bureaucracy created a need for written records. Could a large-scale, state level society function without these written records?

Lisbeth S. Fried
Dept. of Hebrew and Judaic Studies
New York University
lizfried@umich.edu
lqf9256@is3.nyu.edu

In a message dated 97-11-17 11:22:11 EST, Sidkyh@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes:

The problem, from an anthropological perspective, would be that ancient Rome would fit the definition, but a large-scale, state-level society, such as ancient Peru, which had no system of writing, would not.

That's perfect for people who want to call Romans civilized and Peruvians not.

Maybe that's the whole idea behind it.

Another attempt would be to create some kind of a number from various factors that go into creating a "civilization." It is pretty amazing to me that jocks can handle concepts which still have not made it into the halls of certain branches of the academe. In gymnastics, each routine is given a "degree of difficulty." In addition the judges give points on how well the routine was performed. The total points awarded is the product of the degree of difficulty and the performance of that routine. This is a specialized form of weighted averaging or what can be seen often in the physical sciences as a product of an "extensive" and an "intensive" variable.

In boxing, each round is scored on a 10 point system. Every round someone gets 10 points. The reason for this is what is called in physical sciences and mathematics as "normalization". That is done to avoid having some referree give 3 points in one round to X and then 9 points in the next round to Y.

It amazes me sometimes to see how backwards people really are. It often happens because they have a tendency to ape what was done before them, to memorize what others said before them, to worship "great historians" (argument from authority) and then finally to go into "rebellion" by disagreeing with "point 2" of some great historian while agreeing with the other 99999 points. If this be rebellion! Pretty soon high school jocks will be using concepts which still have not been understood by PhDs in the humanities. Sokal and Bricmont seem to have fired off the opening salvo of the big battle for the future.

Didn't the Peruvians have a system of record-keeping based on intricately-knotted cords, called (if memory serves) something like "quipu"?

While perhaps not a "writing system" per se, this might have served for some of the pressures to which you refer.

Jim Thorn
Chicago, IL

Is there any society besides ancient Peru (Inca civ.) that we would want to call a civilization that doesn't have writing? The Incas had the quipu, which recorded quantitative data and probably commodities in ways that are not (yet?) understood. Some call it writing; others, such as myself, don't. Does an urban economy require the recording of data other than economic, e.g. ritual or other numinous matters, as in the Chinese oracle bones? Could Sumer have made it if they hadn't started taking names?

Peter T. Daniels
grammatim@worldnet.att.net

I have not been following too closely, so please forgive me if I missed something, BUT

(1) We have no evidence that I know that Panini, the great Indian grammarian, knew of writing, but I doubt that anybody who uses the term civilization seriously would want to deny his culture that status.

(2) I do not see that arguing about how to define “civilization” serves a useful purpose. Rather, whoever uses a term should define as best they can and the real question then becomes whether the concept so defined corresponds to anything significant in the world. In the case under discussion, the question would be whether there are any systematic nontautological nontrivial differences between civilizations (as defined in whatever way you want) and other cultures.

Alexis Manaster Ramer

"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
Is there any society besides ancient Peru (Inca civ.) that we would want to call a civilization that doesn't have writing? The Incas had the quipu, which recorded quantitative data and probably commodities in ways that are not (yet?) understood.

I read somewhere that it was using the binary system. Was that a premature judgement?

Ruslan

"H. Sidky" wrote: Reply to Aziljian on "civilization" I suggest that collegues find out the topic at hand before jumping in with a response.

I suggest to Mr/Ms Sidky that he/she should learn to first distinguish friend from foe. Secondly Mr./Ms Sidky should learn to read only what was written and nothing more.

Nowhere in my post is there any indication that you intended in any way to make Romans civilized and Peruvians not. In order for that to happen, you would have had to make up this definition instead of reading it someplace and furthermore I would have had to prove that you intentionally left out the Peruvians.

And it is also irrational to assume or accuse that there are people who cannot understand what you can understand unless you have more conclusive evidence that it is so. The ideas being discussed are of a general nature and transcend the humans who repeat them on mailing lists.

A person is no more equivalent to a single idea that he has than is he equivalent to the size of his nose. His nose is an identifying characteristic as much as one of his ideas which he might have posted to ANE.

Furthermore this idea might not even be his but might be still an indigested piece of a larger idea which he/she read someplace.

The original discussion was re: the use of the term "civilization" by anthropologists/archaeologists. I said that anthropologists use the term "state" rather than "civilization," as the latter term is imprecise and subject to ethnocentric bias. From about the 1500s to the 19th century, for example, the term was used by European anthropologists, etc., to set apart their own societies, which were deemed to represent the highest level of development possible, or pinnacle of "progress"(i.e., were "civilized"), from other societies, which were characterized as "primitive" crude, violent, "arrested cultures," lacking morals, law, literature, and other "refinements" of "civilized" societies. Using single traits, liking the presence or absence of writing does not apply cross-culturally and leaves out many societies that should otherwise be defined as state-level social formations.

I guess this means that you assume that nobody else but you knows this or has read any books on the topic and has never thought abou it.

Aziljian's reply illustrates the problematic nature of the term, leading him/her to make such astonishing remarks about the Romans being more civilized than the Inca?

There is nothing astonishing about deriving obvious conclusions from definitions. If the said definition means that Peruvians had no civilization it is a conclusion that can be derived anyone with common sense and knows how to read dictionaries.

And if the inchoherent remarks about " Jocks" ?

and Academics is a reference to "scale analysis" I suggest he/ she make use of the references I cited earlier.

Sorry. The remarks about jocks were not directed at you, but at people who might not yet be aware that those conclusions follow directly from some of the things posted here. It is not a great talent to be able to read only what is written or to be able to draw conclusions from them, but becoming paranoid probably takes a little effort.

Armand Ziljian

GRFoote@aol.com wrote:

For a Civilization to continue, it must evolve and expand, if only to protect its accumulated wealth from outer forces that have learned its technics.

Technology stretches back to making use of stone cutters, and even using sticks as weapons. Where should we draw the line?

Cultural stasis is generally a sign of decay in a Civilization, or of a culture that is not-yet or no-longer a Civilization.

IT is not so clear that there must be endless progress. Is knowledge endless? On the other hand some of our esteemed colleagues seem to think that pre-scientific fields such as linguistics, history, or archaeology have apparently reached a state of bliss from which no further progress is possible. If it were not so, why would they be so hostile to any change or introduction of the only tool that humans have ever developed over the last 100,000 years to discover truth in a systematic way? This way is nothing but the way of science. And it is already accepted that mathematics is its language. That is as true in physics as it is in economics, and as true in analytical chemistry as it is in sociology.

This now looks like a gigantic step in the direction of civilization just like writing originally was. Would our esteemed and distinguished colleagues agree that math is a special language of science the same way writing was the mark of civilization?

Also, someone said that Civilization should include writing, which would separate out Peru. I would strongly disagree with that. Writing is a technology, not an essential characteristic. A Civilization would, however, include a non-laboring "elite" that embodies and transmits the Idea of the culture, as well as the means to support that stratum.

This sounds a little like saying that professors don't do work :-)

Perhaps by labor, you mean physical labor and also management labor. After all even nomadic societies have chiefs and shamans. Are they a laboring segment of society?

Sincerely,
Ruslan

Re the discussion about writing as a criterion for defining civilization:

For almost a millenium before Christ, the Celts dominated much of Europe, from Ireland up to parts of the Middle East. They produced sophisticated art and artifacts, used musical instruments, had what appears to be magnificent poetic literature that rivals any ancient society and a mythology frequently as interesting as that of the Greeks. I believe Caesar said that Celtic bards trained in academies for 20 years to learn their craft. (Shakespeare's King Lear derives from an ancient Celtic deity named Llyr.) They just didn't have a written language and didn't leave written materials from that era. Although there was no central Celtic authority that dominated the Celtic empire, the large number of independent Celtic entities shared similar cultural attributes all across Europe. The Celts of that time seem as much (perhaps far more so) of an advanced civilization as many of those societies that had writing. A similar situation existed with the Germans and Scandinavians.

Gary Greenberg

The standard treatment is Ascher and Ascher, Code of the Quipu (Ann Arbor, 1981).

Peter T. Daniels
grammatim@worldnet.att.net

<ruslan> wrote:
---"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
The Incas had the quipu, which recorded quantitative data and probably commodities in ways that are not (yet?) understood.
I read somewhere that it was using the binary system. Was that a premature judgement?

Would this constraint still exclude pre-Ashokan India? Is there any evidence for numeracy there before the evidence for writing suddenly appears? (Continuity between Indus civilization and Aryan civilization seems excluded by the archeological record.)

Peter T. Daniels
grammatim@worldnet.att.net

Judith Weingarten wrote:

Would it be helpful to consider the development of abstract numbers (rather than writing *per se*) as a prerequisite for state formation and the ability to record this information as part of the definition of a State? After all, it is the ability to count "one, two, three sheep/units of wheat/whatever" that opens the door for administrative systems of commodity control. I don't think that a State can exist if there is no way of recording such information (though I rely upon ANE-ers to tell me of inevitable exceptions). This has the advantage of including Peruvian quipu as well as systems based on seals and sealings -- documents in the larger sense -- and not just written texts.
Judith Weingarten

In a message dated 97-11-18 04:59:21 EST, GGreenberg@classic.msn.com writes:

For almost a millenium before Christ, the Celts dominated much of Europe, from Ireland up to parts of the Middle East. They produced sophisticated art and artifacts, used musical instruments, had what appears to be magnificent poetic literature that rivals any ancient society and a mythology frequently as interesting as that of the Greeks.

Are there any cultures which had writing but did not have sophisticated art, and artifacts, musical instruments, poetic literature and mythology?

all across Europe. The Celts of that time seem as much (perhaps far more so) of an advanced civilization as many of those societies that had writing. A similar situation existed with the Germans and Scandinavians.
Gary Greenberg

If there were societies which had writing but did not have any of the other things you listed, you could be considered right.

However, if they had writing and they also had everything Celts had (that you mentioned) then how do Celts come to have as much an advanced civilization as those that had writing.

Armand

In a message dated 97-11-19 01:06:12 EST, grammatim@worldnet.att.net writes:

Would this constraint still exclude pre-Ashokan India? Is there any evidence for numeracy there before the evidence for writing suddenly appears? (Continuity between Indus civilization and Aryan civilization seems excluded by the archeological record.)

In "Before Writing" Schmondt-Besserat (1992) makes a good case, and re-discovers what we all have known all along. Math is harder than making up stories. Science is harder to do than making up myths.

The Roman scientists had a difficult time doing what we can now teach every 4th grader --- multiplication. Even addition was difficult. Many "underdeveloped" cultures seem to have problems even making up number-words (i.e. numerals). They especially seem to get stuck at 2, and have problems creating 3. They wind up saying things like 2-passed-1 (i.e. one more than 2). Schmondt-Besserat "sees" numerals developing during the Sumerian era. She is apparently not alone (Diakanoff is another).

Perhaps we should include mathematics as the ultimate in discussing who is civilized and who not :-)

Incidentally, birds can count up to 4-5 as has been discovered in experiments.

Friends,

A minor point in response to Armand's post about Celts:

snip

"If there were societies which had writing but did not have any of the other things you listed, you could be considered right. However, if they had writing and they also had everything Celts had (that you mentioned) then how do Celts come to have as much an advanced civilization as those that had writing. Armand"

The Celts had a writing system, called "Ogham," which was most ancient, and derived from carved lines at angle to a straight line on a log or on the edge of a stone block.

The oral traditions of their Bardic systems were also far more elaborately maintained than many other such systems of the time.

Ramona Wheeler
http://members.aol.com/tokapu/walkle01.htm

Friends,

Judith Weingarten has made what may be a big step forward in this effort:

snip
"Would it be helpful to consider the development of abstract numbers (rather than writing *per se*) as a prerequisite for state formation and the ability to record this information as part of the definition of a State?

After all, it is the ability to count "one, two, three sheep/units of wheat/whatever" that opens the door for administrative systems of commodity control. I don't think that a State can exist if there is no way of recording such information."

Perhaps it is more than just counting sheep. The concepts of order to the physical universe which were learned along with mathematics are considered the foundations of the first big civilizations, Egypt, Sumer, etc. Perhaps the turn to civilization is in *this* realization of controlling the human environment rather than being controlled by it. Language is, in some ways, the "mathematics" of human interaction. Perhaps the acquisition of mathematics represents a similar "dialogue" with the environment instead of just taking orders from it, and this "dialogue" between man and his environment is the foundation of the more enduring structures that maintain a civilized stance.

Ramona Wheeler
http://members.aol.com/tokapu/walkle01.htm

In response to my note (actually to someone else's response to my note) about the advanced state of Celtic civilization despite their lack of writing, Ramona Wheeler makes reference to the Ogham script. Ogham, although old, is not that ancient. It's my understanding that the script was localized mostly in Ireland and didn't appear much before the first century BC. It was not used during the period in which the vast Celtic civilization dominated Europe during much of the mid to early first millenium BC.

Another response, by Armand, raised an interesting question, but I think it misses the point. He wrote,

"If there were societies which had writing but did not have any of the other things you listed, you could be considered right. However, if they had writing and they also had everything Celts had (that you mentioned) then how do Celts come to have as much an advanced civilization as those that had writing.

My response is that the evaluation of how advanced a society was (is) is somewhat subjective, based on what you think the important indicia are. If the quality of art is considered an indicator, then one looks at the nature of the art of one society and compares it to another. One can make a subjective evaluation as to which exhibits more sophistication. For example is a Hellenistic Greek statue more sophisticated than the much older Cycladic idols or early "venus" figures. People might disagree, and perhaps offer good arguments on both sides, but I think in general the Greek statue would be considered the more sophisticated sculpture by the vast majority of art critics. The debate gets more complicated as you compare advanced works in two cultures. For example, comparing the Hellenistic Greek statues with say earlier Egyptian sculptures that lack some of the detail and fluidity of the Greek, but contain other features that might be lacking in the Greek, say the integration of symbolic elements of a cosmological nature. Similarly, with Celtic civilization versus other civilizations that had writing, one compares specimens of the two societies. How good was the artistic craftsmanship or metalworkings or poetry of the Celts in the eighth century BC versus some civilizations in the eighth century BC that had writing, say Israel, for example. Since we have no such material from Israel dating to that time, we can't make a comparison, so we can't say Israel with writing was more sophisticated, less sophisticated or about as sophisticated as the Celts.

There are other civilizations in the mideast, however, nomadic and farming cultures, that seem to have had access to writing, but produced little or nothing of value on a philosophical, artistic, or literary level.

Gary Greenberg

The criterion of writing has been used to provide a more rigorous definition of "civilization." The problem, from an anthropological perspective, would be that ancient Rome would fit the definition, but a large-scale, state-level society, such as ancient Peru, which had no system of writing, would not.

Thanks to H. Sidky, Dept. Soc/Anthro, Miami University, for this phrasing.

Peru would fit the definition if "writing" is replaced by "detailed record-keeping and reliable record-transmission over distances". The Quipus did satisfy those functional needs.

And Peru might NOT fit the definition if it is on other grounds (social, feudal family-centered, or whatever) regarded as not an ideal example of a state-level society.

I am NOT arguing EITHER conclusion to EITHER question, in the above, but rather pointing out that on either criterion when used independently of the other, Peru may be a nearly-state-level society and may have what is nearly-writing.

The facts (whatever they are) should give pause to those who want a sharp dividing line in either dimension. Definitions serve often to distort when the facts reveal that phenomena are matters of degree, not of sharp distinctions.

Lloyd Anderson

On Mon, 17 Nov 1997, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

Is there any society besides ancient Peru (Inca civ.) that we would want to call a civilization that doesn't have writing? The Incas had the quipu, which recorded quantitative data and probably commodities in ways that are not (yet?) understood. Some call it writing; others, such as myself, don't. Does an urban economy require the recording of data other than economic, e.g. ritual or other numinous matters, as in the Chinese oracle bones? Could Sumer have made it if they hadn't started taking names?

Hmmm... the point of the quipu is that it makes sense to someone who understands in advance what the message is about. In a sense, it's a memory aid. The earliest texts from Uruk at 3400 BC seem to be the same sort of thing, which suggests that given enough time the quipu _might_ have led to writing. (What would have happened if the Incas had started sending messages via drawings of quipus?)

Mike Shupp
California State University, Northridge
Graduate Student, Dept. of Anthropology
http://www.csun.edu/~ms44278/index.htm

On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

Would this constraint still exclude pre-Ashokan India? Is there any evidence for numeracy there before the evidence for writing suddenly appears? (Continuity between Indus civilization and Aryan civilization seems excluded by the archeological record.)

Standardized weights, in multiples of a common unit, were found at Harappan sites.

ms44278@huey.csun.edu
Mike Shupp
California State University, Northridge
Graduate Student, Dept. of Anthropology
http://www.csun.edu/~ms44278/index.htm