Braindroppings

"On the other hand, two chapters were devoted to Greeks and Romans, each! Well, these are the self-proclaimed ancestors of the "Western" civilisation, whatever that is!"

Question: did they, the Greeks and or the Romans ever proclaim themselves ancestors of "western civilization?" If this is not just an unfortunate turn of phrase, I would be really interested to know where and when they did or do do that. But I think you mean those who called themselves "western" took Greece and Rome over as their ancestors, which is more self-evidently understandable for me. But somehow I am not sure what you mean exactly.

Another question is, - if you're just saying this, - if you really mean that 1751 is "contemporary" history? Again, if this is meant to be more than humorous or sarcastic, I wonder what con-temporary means in historiographical context? Because I remember for instance when I read your Iranology, you said that the Pahlavi-era (mid-20th century) falls outside the jurisdiction of history and is more like political science. So, I wonder if you are applying two different standards of measurement here, or perhaps, is it because of time-constrains? And if the latter is the case, then how far does history go back the other way; I mean, you talk about the African origins of "human life" which sounds to me either to be something to be discussed in biology, or perhaps anthropology or something. So, I guess the question is: what do you mean by history, and how do you set the limits or don't between it and political science, or biology, or anthropology or something.

I understand "where you're coming from" in your criticism of world history and western history. But I guess, if this is really an introductory course in a college, then you must also take into account "where you are;" that you will be dealing with people whose interest in history might be to a large extent informed by the basic requirements of the college, and not love of it for its own sake; and that one cannot give an introduction as the latest criticism of what has been the case up to now. This needs first to be established.

My suggestion - not that you asked for it, - would be to pace and measure your criticism of the state of affairs, after going through what it is to be criticized. That is, I think if you start off people by criticizing the faculty, they will neither understand the tradition, nor really what there is to be criticized in it, and how to best do it; what's at stake, and why can be first discussed after the "introductory" assumptions are presented.

What I do is teach the book with all its shortcomings, but then always come to class with extra material, photocopied papers, hand-outs, suggestions and footnotes, to what is missing.

Best,
Amir

Amir, I am not criticising the faculty. I am criticising the prevailing attitude towards teaching World History and how the "world" is looked at. I obviously do what you suggested: take extra material to the class. I understand that mentioning what is wrong in a class of students who have no idea about the basics is useless and further confuses them. However, I never said that I expressed these concerns in the clas.

As for your questions: yes, I meant that the creators of the idea of "Western Civilisation" have claimed Greece and Rome as their ancestors. Obviously, the other way round would have been impossible and rather anachronistic.

As for contemporary. In a sense, I was exeggerating, but in another sense, not that much. Post-1750 you have the industrian revolution and beginning of the "Modern" era, and that is in a way contemporary. But that is mostly my view of it. In historiography of Europe and the West, post WWI is generally considered Modern/Contemporary history.

I am on the other hand a firm believer that 100 years is the necessary time for things to come under the jurisdiction of "history". I consider Iran after the Qajars to be a matter of current events/contemporary history.

Khodadad, I sympathize with you! I have been something of a Euro-Decentrist for years. When I studied the civilizations of Central and South America in college, it seemed obvious to me that those people were quite capable of reaching the same level of technological sophistication as Europe, had they been given more time to develop their cultures. Unfortunately, they were rather rudely interrupted!

Certainly, the case of Persian civilization is different. The Persians were building cities centuries before the Roman ancestors moved out of their wooden huts on the banks of the Tiber River. I think that there can be no doubt that Persian technology was disseminated to the West, but the West seems to have forgotten that their civilizations were founded upon borrowed ideas.

I think that someone needs to write a version of world history from the Persian perspective. Khodadad, perhaps it could be you!

Nice suggestion David, but to be quite honest, I hate Perso-centrism just as much as I dislike Eurocentrism. My point is that there is a common civilisation, and all components of it should be taught equally.

Actually, the Roman and Persian civil-isation (in the sense of Civitas: cities) started at almost the same time. Romans started building their city ca. 500 BCE, and that is roughly (give and take 100 years) is the same time that Persians created their Empire. It was really the Elamites who predated other people in the Iranian Plateu.

Khodadad, thanks for correcting me. My knowledge of the historical eras of Iran is not very extensive. Earlier this year, I read an article about an ancient city in Iran. It is refered to as the Burnt City and dates to about 3200 BCE. It is located near present day Zabol. Here is a link to an article about the city if you are interested. Probably you are already familiar with it.

I would agree that Europe and Asia share a common civilization, but I think that the evidence so far suggests that New World civilizations arose independantly. However, I think that you mentioned Thor Heyerdahl in a previous discussion that we had. If he is right, then there was contact, and perhaps an exchange of knowledge between the Old and New World. It certainly would have been easier to cross the Atlantic, say 8000 years ago, when the sea level was hundreds of feet lower and the ocean was hundreds of miles less wide. There is evidence of a high culture that spread across a large area of what is now the Amazon rain forest that dates to about 8000 years ago. Someone has proposed that those people could have sailed across the Atlantic on balsa rafts. It is an intriguing idea. I look forward to further investigations of those ruins.

Sorry, my html link didn't go through. Here is the link to the article about the Burnt city:

http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=144360

Sometimes I write before I think! I have done some further investigating regarding the supposedly 8000 year old high culture in the Amazon. I read about this some years ago and the number 8000 stuck in my mind for some reason, but that is apparently incorrect. I am indeed fallable! The earthworks of the Baures region of the Bolivian Amazon do indeed cover a vast area, but their construction is thought by a leading researcher to have begun more like 3000 to 5000 years ago, continuing up to the time of the Spanish arrival, after which this culture rapidly declined through a combination of introduced diseases and harsh treatment by the Spanish conquers. Here is a link to a very interesting article that appeared in the journal Science if you would like to learn more:

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cerickso/baures/Mann2.html

As to "those" people sailing the Atlantic in balsa rafts, they would have to get from Bolivia to the Altantic first, no small undertaking in itself! I will try to think more before typing next time. :)