Hacker News Reader

Comment by londons_explore | Hacker News Reader

Any skill not used for ~100 years will probably be forgotten - it's not like these people had libraries and books.

In cold climates, I wouldn't expect forest fires to happen in any given location more than once per hundred years.

Hence, I can totally believe that once forest fires get below a certain frequency, people lose the skill to contain it.

Wildfires happen all the time in cold climates. It's part of the natural forest cycle. For example, here are the fires that occurred this year in the Yukon territory: https://yukon.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appi...

Aren't those mostly human-related fires? Maybe I'm not seeing everything on mobile but it looks like they're clustered around population centers (such as they are in the Yukon)...?

I know nothing about forest fires or the Yukon but could that just be that other fires aren't noticed because they aren't near population centers?

That's the likely explanation. The Yukon has ~40k people. 30k of them live in Whitehorse. It's _very_ empty.

The remainder of the people generally live near the ~2 roads or on a river

Shouldn't the fires be registered by weather satellites?

Wildfires, caused by lightning are not uniformly distributed across the same latitude or the Earth for that matter. Yukon, or North America in general, have a much higher rate of lightning strikes compared to Europe (1).

https://geology.com/articles/lightning-map.shtml

That is categorically untrue. Verbal cultures in Australia have kept an accurate account of a coastline that existed over 10,000 years ago.

Meanwhile, the supposed collective knowledge in books is constantly second guessed and taken with grains of salt ("bronze age army sizes couldn't possibly be the size they write that they are", "the winner writes the history", etc).

Nitpick: "the winner writes the history" is an important part of studying history whether written or oral. People who write books or repeat old stories have biases, opions on how world works and open agendas. They leave out stuff they think dont matter or crosses taboos or does not make people look like as they are supposed to. Just as contemporary people lie, especially politicians and leadership, ancient civilizations discovered advantages of bending the truth or lying too.

Being aware of that and being aware of point of view is important part of historical work.

What are a few examples of when we've caught, instead of merely suspected, a lying ancient historian?

According to Plato, Socrates himself defended "noble lie" as in lie that "to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda".

Besides, "ancient historians" were not historians in our sense of the word at all, so I don't understand why are you asking for historian specifically. They wrote a lot of obvious myths (falus appearing out of fire) and there is no expectation for those texts to be accurate.

Ancient texts were written for purpose and with limited knowledge (just like any contemporary text) and it would be oddly naive to think anything else.

I'm asking if there are any instances where an ancient author is known to have lied about something that could be believed by a modern historian if they didn't know any better. For example maybe some Sumerian committed tax fraud on clay tablets, but we caught them thousands of years later. I'm wondering if any specific examples of that are out there.

Edit: to be clear, I'm asking for a specific example, not an argument that an example probably exists out there somewhere.

Have you ever read in popular media about a topic that you understand well? (it is hard to get an unskewed picture even if the author has no agenda)

What do you think happens with truth tellers and their work if it is not aligned with the current elites version of the truth?

For example, who do you think has been worse for whistleblowers , Bush or Obama?

Can you point to more information regarding the first bit?

There's been studies and research into this quite a few times. I'm sure there's lots more out on the web.

Here's a story I remember reading recently: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-16/research-gives-merit-...

The key takeaway from all I've seen is it's not just telling stories, but like some of the more recent pre-literacy Western oral traditions, is more like a formal passing on, testing, repeating to ensure the message is passed on accurately.

I was just reading about a culture that passed on knowledge orally by listening to important people on their deathbed. This was unfortunate in the context of the 1918 flu epidemic.

I believe there was at least one plains indian tribe that banned any discussion of their historic stories unless there were at least a dozen members present.

100 years might be the limit of how long knowledge can last and still be useful enough though. 100 years is probably 6 generations.

Imagine explaining a complex process, like how to change the ink cartridge on a printer, via a chain of chinese whispers. Now put 20 years between each step of the chain, and remember all the intermediate people can't practice or try the skill they are described - they simply have to imagine it, since they have no fire to play with.

If the knowledge lasts that long, when a forest fire does happen, people only have one chance to figure out how to keep it alive. Accidentally put wet wood on it just once, and it's dead again for another 100 years.

People passed down complex oral culture with no "practical use" – myths and stories – very reliably over dozens, maybe hundreds of generations. We became very good at using rhythm and rhyme as error correction mechanisms to ensure a low frequency of replication errors. But anyway, forest fires simply wouldn't have been that rare in the first place.

"People passed down complex oral culture with no "practical use"

You're not arguing with what you're responding to, are you? Knowledge with no practical use can accommodate a lot more imprecision. Reliability in a context where details aren't tested is a fuzzy concept.

It was often not Chinese whispers though -- that's dismissive. Our being "modern" there's a tendency to think because they didn't have ink cartridges and internets they were stupid and all knowledge ephemeral. How about an alternative that fits with aboriginal, and African oral culture:

Imagine explaining a complex process, using language carefully structured to be memorable, to the next generation. Then spending hours repeating, testing and checking their recollection over the coming days and years to ensure their memory is as yours. Rather like rote learning of tables and other "modern" learning. 2x2=4 doesn't become something else that way.

Each generation gets a complex story they may not see the applicability of, but if it's evolved to be important in the culture to remember, maybe they figured ways to remember until it is useful again. Africans did, pre-Medieval Europeans did, and for the longest period known, aborigines did. Why not these?

Agree that oral transmission was an important & practiced skill. But I do wonder about how well it let you transmit "technological" knowledge, in a manner that could be turned back into practice. Do we have any examples of people doing this?

My counter-example is various failures to reproduce early industrial-revolution processes... from memory, wasn't there a stage when the French were pushing to catch up in iron-making, and sent spies to England, from whose accounts they could not make the process work? Despite having not just words, but materials and examples of the result. (The solution, eventually, was to pay people who had the knack to move there.)

I think you underestimate how much better a pre-literate culture is at memorization, compared to a culture with the luxury of writing. It would be more useful to find an example of a similar pre-literate culture to make your point.

No, the point I was trying to make is that even with absolutely perfect transmission (which is the best they could hope for) it can be very difficult to translate words back into actions. It's also hard to learn golf or dancing from a book (again, perfect error-free memorisation) because there's a lot of knowledge which doesn't fit well into words. Muscle memory, once you've got it.

I presume this was also true of the making of stone tools, or pottery. And of the recognition of edible plants & mushrooms. All of these are skills which I'd be surprised to see transmitted over a long time-lapse. (Without being at all surprised by the memorisation of stories, at a level I could never match.)

The most recent example might be the Australian aborigines fire rituals. After this year's bush fires there have been many calls to use their fire ritual burnings once again. I gather this has been done in the Northern Territories for a few years, and is far more successful than advanced, technological and knowledge filled approaches (Western arrogance that our way must be better) that pushed the traditional out for decades. They seem to have kept more than enough to be far better at it than those meant to know. How well they work in a significantly changed climate is another question, but it appears to work better.

Speculating wildly here, we don't know the Neanderthals didn't ritualise the activity into a dance or an act to retain some of the process as well as the words. As we do with dancing, martial arts, even theatre or early stages of ancient apprenticeships. That might transmit the muscle memory of golf or stone tool making -- without the practised skill. How far that remains applicable using a stick in place of a golf club, or pine cone in place of a lump of flint is impossible to guess, but puts you closer than mere words.

I have to assume they wouldn't suffer the Wikipedia tendency to explain the technical so technically perfect (including all obscure jargon) that it's often bordering on impossible for an intelligent outsider, deeply skilled in other technical fields, to follow. :)

What's the time-period for the firebreaks? I mean when these skills last used, even if on a smallish scale?

OK, ritualising a "how to ride a bicycle dance" seems like it could be a way to pass more information than a perfectly repeated poem / book. (Perhaps thinking of oral tradition as meaning Homer not how to chip flint is a blind spot in how we think about such things?) Would still be extremely curious to know of any examples where this actually happened.

>Verbal cultures in Australia have kept an accurate account of a coastline that existed over 10,000 years ago.

I've heard this as well, but I never heard any convincing evidence that the native's myth didn't happen to align with reality. Further, this sort of 10,000 year old knowledge seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

Information would pass between neighboring tribes over time. Even if a small region had gone centuries without fire, the knowledge could return. Indeed, fire itself could be transported between tribes if one lost theirs. For a continent-scale loss of knowledge, you'd need a continent-scale loss of fire lasting generations. Any event that could cause this would certainly have left clear traces.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com