Can we truely say this?

[Anonymous]

I was working on my astronomy packet in physics. I had to take notes from websites that talked about different facts about the planets, Sun, and Moon. In several places it said "(Such-and-such planet) has been known since prehistoric times."

My question is: how can we truely say that a planet, or anything for that matter, has truely been known since prehistoric times. To me, prehistorc means pre-written history. Some of you may be thinking that there may be cave paintings that depicted Mars or Venus, but a cave painting could be considered a form of written (and pre-oral) history.

What do you think of this? Does this make any sense to you? I'd be interested to hear your imput on this.

[cutesaru18]

the above post was me. I didn't realize that I had gotten logged off.

[Afrobean]

I think it's total bull.

They probably meant that the planet had EXISTED (in orbit that is) since prehistoric times.

[DracIV]

1. Recently, when Mars was closest, you could not ignore it. It was a point of light brighter than anything else and shaded a very obvious red, making it so that many would notice it, meaning that the prehistoric people now know about a planet.

2. Many ancient cultures used the positions of various planets and stars to plot out a calendar for everything from planting and harvesting to religion. The near planets are quite bright and might pop up in the earliest records when "ancient" traditions or oral stories were written down.

[Afrobean]

Hey DracIV, Prehistoric comes from a prefix of pre- being placed before history. Pre- means before, and therefore prehistoric means before history. History is defined as a chronological record of significant events. So, If we (the people of the present) have any knowledge of the past, it's historic. Something can only be prehistoric if we have no evidence of what happened back then.

I hope this come off as ranting; I was just really trying to define prehistoric in a definite manner. I don't mean any offense if I come off sounding like an ass.

[DracIV]

That's untrue.

\Pre`his*tor"ic\, a. Of or pertaining to a period before written history begins; as, the prehistoric ages; prehistoric man.

History does not need to be written for it to exist. As soon as writing was developed we consider that the end of prehistory. Even if someone wrote about things that occured before that, those events are still in prehistory. Using forensics scientists have traced major events as far back as the Ice Age with humans. If I wrote the totally true story of how a cave man died in a fierce hunt against mammoths 60,000 years ago, is that story still part of the era of prehistory?

[Afrobean]

I didn't say anywhere in my post that the record had to be written. Much of history has been passed down orally. I've heard in a history channel documentary that much of the bible involving Jesus was written like 300 years after he died. It's history even though it wasn't written (until much later that is).

By the way I'm not religious; I am, in fact, an atheist. I just felt the bible was relevent to my point.

By the way, did you go to dictionary.com or something for that definition?

[DracIV]

Yep, go dictionary.com! And may I point out a specific point in your definition?

History is defined as a chronological record of significant events

n. rec·ord (rkrd)
1. An account, as of information or facts, set down especially in writing as a means of preserving knowledge.
2. To set down for preservation in writing or other permanent form.

Sorry, I just wanted to use it again

Anyway, forensic evidence tells us much more than records ever could have. Different structures were used for calendar dates long before history, like a dry well they discovered in the middle of a semi-desert away from any people. It turns out the well wasn't a well, but instead placed to have no shadow at all at the equinox on the Tropic of Cancer. Many other ancient buildings have been found that do things similar to that. We don't need written records to be sure of stuff in prehistory, especially when it is more obvious than that well.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by DracIV

2. To set down for preservation in writing or other permanent form.

Italicize the wrong word? I'm thinking you'd want to point out writing, because I'd consider oral passings as a permanent form.

[DracIV]

Oral passings are not considered permanent.

Anyway, yes, we can truly say those things.

[Afrobean]

Why'd you get back on topic? I'd still rather debate technicalities of definitions...

In other words I still consider stories passed down to be historical (not in the literal sense I guess but enough to make it not count as prehistory) Do you know what I mean?

So, no, we cannot truly say those things.

[Anonymous]

How about we just say afrobean AND DracIv are BOTH right. If oyu really think about it, you both have a point...


Who are we to say when we begin to judge things are prehistory??

[DracIV]

Afrobean, even if you count oral history as not part of prehistory, we know that the ancient tribes and groups still had astronomical knowledge (quite a bit), and I would bet that atleast one star/sun charting construction among the many that we have found tracks a planet.

[Afrobean]

You know, now that I've been thinking about it more, I've realized something. To me, prehistory means the same thing as the time before language. The reason for this is that as people began to talk, and eventually write, they made records of important events (aka history).

[DracIV]

Oh. The only problem is that a primitive form of language existed all the back to the australopithicines. :/

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by DracIV

Oh. The only problem is that a primitive form of language existed all the back to the australopithicines. :/

That's exactly what I've been saying all along. Except that I have very little idea what autralopithicines are (early homosapians right?)

[DracIV]

The earliest set of humanoid species (direct ancestors)