Date:         Mon, 25 Sep 1995
Subject:      teaching pre-1500 world history
From:   David Fahey
        Miami University
        FAHEYDM@CASMAIL.MUOHIO.edu

After teaching an introductory course in post-1500 world history for nearly ten years, I am considering trying an introductory course for the pre-1500 period. If I do so, I probably will experiment during the summer of 1996. In part I am motivated by curiosity, in part by my Department's need for additional people to teach the earlier course. I should add that class size, other than during summer, varies between 50 students taught by a faculty member without assistance and a 200-plus lecture course supplemented by graduate student-led discussion sections. A faculty member responsible for a class can decide how to teach it, whether broad coverage or very selective coverage.

I should appreciate suggestions about what core textbooks, anthologies, and other supplemental reading work and what organizational and teaching strategies work for the pre-1500 introductory world survey. I think that I am familiar with a good many of the books and strategies but not how effective they are in practice. So, I should appreciate advice from people effective they are in practice. So, I should appreciate advice from people who have practical experience.

David M. Fahey
History Department
Miami University
Oxford, OH 45056-1618, USA
tel. 513-529-5134
FAX 513-529-3841
e-mail: <dfahey@miamiu.muohio.edu>

Date:         Tue, 26 Sep 1995 08:30:12 -0500
Subject:      teaching pre-1500 world history
From:   Annette Laing
        University of Redlands
        laing@ultrix.uor.edu

David Fahey asked about texts for the pre-1500 world history survey. Nay, verily, I am no expert, but I am an expert tyro, if that is not too much of an oxymoron, having taught this class for the first time last term on little more than a wing and a prayer. I cannot speak too highly of Andrea and Overfield's "The Human Record", a splendid collection of primary sources. Each source is accompanied by intelligent and useful questions, which is not always the case with texts of this sort.

I was attracted to the idea of using primary sources in this particular class in part because it seemed somewhat fraudulent of me to masquerade constantly as an ancient and medieval historian (not to mention as an Asianist, Europeanist and Africanist), when in fact I am a colonial Americanist. In practice, discussions based on A&O did far more than distract students from my somewhat hesitant lectures. They involved the vast majority of my 40+ students in what was often spirited and insightful debate.

(By the way, it's super to be back on line, chaps!) Cheers,Cheers,
Annette Laing
Visiting Assistant Professor,
University of Redlands

        Central Connecticut State University
        BROWNH@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.edu

David,

I've taught pre-modern world history for quite a few years, and yet still feel like a raw amateur stumbling about. So what I could saystill feel like a raw amateur stumbling about. So what I could say is really more in the way of a stimulus to your thinking than sound advice.

Since the course is pre-modern, I start with the assumption that the cultural or economic interaction of regions is marginal, and that I can say little about Europe, and treat the ancient Mediterranean civ. as well from an African perspective as southern European. I also give pastoral vs. cultivating peoples a lot more positive attention than is usual. Since I do my best to present an integrated WORLD history (vs. a collection of themes or mere collection of regional histories), it should be evident that NO textbook suffices. In fact, I don't use one. I require students to obtain the Anchor World History atlas vol. I for its great maps, and tell students that crave a text to look at the text that accompanies the maps.

If you like, you can see my syllabus online at: http://neal.ctstateu.edu/history/syllabi/br121.html

To present an integrated world history that a) does not rely on a presumed common human nature, or b) does not rely on tenuous culturual
presumed common human nature, or b) does not rely on tenuous culturual
or economic interaction, requires a rather heavy appeal to thermodynamics. VERY briefly, I start by arguing that any emergent process, such as represented by human history, depends on a relation with a dissipating environment mediated by a structure that constrains that dissipation so that improbably outcomes emerge. While I argue that human history relies on two such relations, ultimatly it is the dissipation of the natural environment that offers the thermodynamic engine making human history possible. Therefore, by making human history simply a part of a larger system, a part of which is our natural environment, there results a unity of world history. This, obviously, could offer an interesting ecological focus for a course, but I prefer to emphasize the mediation between an emergent producing class and the natural environment, which is labor.

You can find a little more elaborated discussion of this theme at: http://neal.ctstateu.edu/history/world_history/archives/archive1.html

Haines Brown
brownh@ccsua.ctstateu.edu
Warping with ZOC (V2.11)

Date September 9, 1995
Subject: teaching pre-1500 world history From: John Wickstrom

        Kalamazoo College
        wickstro@hobbes.kzoo.edu

I agree that "The Human Record" is a superior resource for teaching World Civ. before 1500; I have looked at several other and taught a couple. This one is still the best I've found.

Date: Septemeber 9, 1995
Subject: teaching pre-1500 world history From: Andre Gunder Frank

        University of Toronto
        agfrank@epas.utoronto.ca

Gunder Frank's peanut gallery coment on Haines Brown: I find it curioous that Haines, who started a world-l list himself, regards pre-modern econo0mic and cultrual connections as "marginal" and "tenuous" in the WORLD history he sees and does. While the ecological social-within-the-natural world that Haines uses is surely saluatory, I see no reason for him or any of us to "assume" that there werce scarce economic and cultural connections - when ALL the evidence is that they were very close and much greater and more important than Haines - and some others - assume/s. I am prepared to citeimportant than Haines - and some others - assume/s. I am prepared to cite chapter and verse of some of the evidence -- if anybody wants to pursue this esoteric matter.

regards, especially to Haines
gunder frank

Date: September 9, 1995
Subject: teaching pre-1500 world history From: Steve Mulhberger

        Nipissing University
        STEVEM@EINSTEIN.UNIPISSING.ca

Haines Brown's contribution emboldened me to discuss an organizing principle I have used in teaching ancient history. It came to me after reading parts of Ibn Khaldun and owes something to his famous discussion of solidarityof Ibn Khaldun and owes something to his famous discussion of solidarity among nomadic peoples. I have particularly used it to discuss the evolution of the Roman Empire and its "fall," but I think it has a more general application.

Every organized society has an ideological and legal definition of membership. Those who are full members enjoy certain privileges that others do not. Most societies are quite open about restricting those privileges to a fairly small number (and there are practical reasons for doing so).

We can learn a lot about a given society by paying close attention to 1) these definitions and 2) the situations and resources that give one group's definition of their privileged position real force.

When a society becomes successful, everybody wants to join the winning team, by qualifying for membership in one way or another. The existing body of members must admit at least some of them, the more useful candidates, or those candidates will rebel, form their own privileged body, etc. There is always the danger, however, that too many people will be admitted, and the privileged group will no longer be the effective dominant community it used to be, but a bloated group with no clear sense of community and very diverseto be, but a bloated group with no clear sense of community and very diverse interests. Then internal conflict is likely. New definitions of the rightfully dominant group will be formulated, which exclude large numbers of the older dominant group. The new groups (which may use the same names as before) will fight it out, one way or another, in hopes that they can establish their dominance in an efficient way: in other words, by establishing a real community of interest among a group with sufficient numbers and organizational and material resources to dominate all others.

Thus societies based on privilege must constantly fight about the basis of privilege, and reformulate the definition of privilege.

The Roman example is clear enough. The early Roman community in Italy was very careful to admit the most useful of its members and slaves into full partnership, and thus assembled a military and political community of considerable power. Citizens were soldiers and taxpayers, and so the definition of privilege made practical sense. The famous civil wars of the 1st c. B.C. show that the common interests of the citizen body were being outweighed by differences in access to the fruits of success. Augustus's settlement made possible a new definition of Roman (=, mostly, free Italians) and gave many Roman citizens a more equitable access, under imperial rule, toand gave many Roman citizens a more equitable access, under imperial rule, to the tribute of the Mediterranean basin. But non-Italians had to be admitted to the citizen ranks, too, or Roman dominance was impossible. By the 2nd c. A.D., there were so many Roman citizens that a legal distinction between *honestiores* and *humiliores* evolved: only the former really had access to the privileges of citizenship, while the latter could be kicked around by the authorities at their whim -- just like slaves and non-citizens.

Etc. etc. etc.

Using an analysis of this sort might provide a "neutral" way, of explaining the similarities and differences of various world cultures and the dynamics of cultural change.

Steve Muhlberger
Nipissing University
North Bay, Ontario

Date: September 25, 1995
Subject: teaching pre-1500 world history

From: Haines Brown

        Central Connecticut State University
        BROWNH@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.edu

Frank Gunder's kind and gentle reply to my provocative downplaying of the importance of pre-modern interactions is much appreciated. I take the liberty of replying only because I think there are some interesting issues lurking here.

I take it as given that the number and extent of cultural and economic mutual influence is a function of how hard we look for evidence for it. Undoubtedly mutual influence, especially if we allow influences mediated by intermediaries, is far older and more extensive than once supposed.

I believe the issue is not whether such connections existed, but howI believe the issue is not whether such connections existed, but how to assess their significance. This strikes me as an enormously difficult issue, but until we arrive at some criterion of historical significance, I don't see how we can estimate whether a given outside influence is important.

Although it would not venture a solution here to this fundamental problem, I would like to suggest a couple common sense rules of thumb.

First, it strikes me as common sense that the further we go back in time (ie, the less developed the forces of production), the more social systems are constrained by natural circumstance. That is, the further back in history we go, the less any outside influence will count.

Second, any mode of explanation that relies primarily on external causality is doomed to infinite regress, begs the question, defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Undoubtedly outside influences are
important, but how can we estimate their significance without a clear sense of internal dynamics? This reminds me of Mokyr's book on technological history: it is not simply the diffusion of new ideas, butnological history: it is not simply the diffusion of new ideas, but also the social climate in which new ideas germinate and which favors the generation of new ideas.

Haines Brown

brownh@ccsua.ctstateu.edu
Warping with ZOC (V2.11)

Date: September 29, 1995
Subject: teaching pre-1500 world history From: Caron Ellis

        Community College of Denver
        caron@usa.net        caron@usa.net

I too like to use primary source material and have been more or less satisfied with Beatty & Johnson's _Heritage of Western Civilization_. Who publishes _The Human Record_? I'd like to take a look at it.

Caron Schwartz Ellis                                voice 303/443-2056
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."       fax 303/443-3206
         -- Einstein                               email caron@usa.net

Date: September 30, 1995
Subject: teaching pre-1500 world history

From: Andre Gunder Frank

        University of Toronto        University of Toronto
        agfrank@epas.utoronto.ca

from Gunder Frank
in re Haines Brown's kind reply
without copying it, so as not to overburden others, escpecially those who may not be interested.

1. evidence of connections is a function of how hard we look for it. Yes but ...I do look for it and find a lot Haines' "assumption" of nonexistence precludes even looking for it! In addition, the old archaeologists adage also applies: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!
2. the issue is the SIGNIFICANCE, not [just?] the existence of connections. We need a "criterion" of significance. Yes again, but... Charles Tilly and I had an exchange on this. He proposed a minimum of 10 percent of people/things/events/etc affected in the "other" place/ society/region/state. I reject/ed that as not onl society/region/state. I reject/ed that as not only arbitrary but misguided. Example: In the postwar period into the l970s, US exports or imports were never more than 7 percent of GNP. By Tilly's [Haines'?] "criterion" the US-world economic/trade/ etc. "connection" would have to be regarded as NOT significant. An absurdity!

My "criterion" is more qualitative: If B would not be the same as it is or was in the absence of the connections with/effects from A, and/or vice versa, the connection is "significant." Example: Frederick Teggart argues in 1939 that the wars in China significantly affected the economic,political, social affairs of Rome. The connection was significant. Also Pliny and others lamented the Roman balanc e of trade and payments deficit with the East- ultimately China- because of the silk dresses of Roman ladies. Moroever, to maintain this balanc e of trade deficit, Rome had to maintain its colonies and pursue endless colonial wars to get means of payment, the cost of which ultimately also bankrupted it.

That was a significant connecton.
Moreover, if A is so connected to B and B is to C, then A and C are also sigifiicantly connected. Eg. China-Central Asia-Kushan-Parthia & Axum - Rome.

Furthermore, Han China, Kushan India, Parthian Persia, Axum East Africa, and Imperial Rome all ROSE about the same time 100BC- 200AD, and then they also DECLINED again about the same time 200- 500AD. Happenstance - or connection? I suppose the latter. Indeed, Im argue it was a World SYSTEMIC connection. Moroever, I argue [1700 BC to 1700 AD in WORLD SYSTEM book, and back to 3000 BC in CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Aug-Oct 1993 article] that these same long up and down phases of a cycle can be identified and traced to at least 3,000 BC, AND that they are near-simultaneous not only in Mediterranean/Egypt/Levant/Anatolia/ Mesopotamia/Indus Valley/parts of Central Asia SOUTH of the cross-Asian mountain range, but also NORTH of the same from all the way from the Balkans across Russia and Siberia to the Pacific. China becomes visibly integrated about mid first millenium BC and South East Asia probably before. Thus an OPERATIONAL CRITERION of SIGINFICANT CONNECTION - to use Haines' terminology - can also be the discovery [ i grant you thatlooking for the evidence helps discover it] of SIMULTANEOUS economic/political/social/ cultural growth and decline in various "regions"/ "scieties" political "units" is/can be prima facie evidence also of connections and active/ de facto membership in the same "system".

Note that Haines assumed no connections before "modern" times, which in context of the previous discussion i suppose was mant to mean a +/- 1500 AD cut off date. Note that all of my discussion above is about periods from 1000 to 2500 years earlier! A forteriori can/must? we find = look for? connections and sistematic ones at that in the 1000 years before 1500. My recent work is on the post-1500 period, and its re/reading is vitally affected by whether or not we see the "connections" before 1500 or not. That is the interpretation of the "modern" connections if a function also of the connections we see or fail to see before. In palin English, "no connections" is a figleaf for the Eurocentric conception that all stated/change in europe because of European uniqueness [read superiority] which is adduced to "explain" the "European Miracle" - of Jones [see Terry Burke's recommend to confront Jones with Blaut], but which was ahared by Marx, Weber, Tawney, Sombart, Tonynbee, Spengler -- the WHOLE lost of European

• oops "world" - historians and social scientists.

If the Asian conenction was there long before 1500, then europe only climbed onto the [Eur]Asian train after 1500, indeed into the locomotive really not until after 1800!, and it used not its uniqueness, but its rape of the New World and its gold and silver to buy itself a seat on the Asian train, as James Blaut also argues [Even the Eurropeaniston the Asian train, as James Blaut also argues [Even the Eurropeanist Braudel recognized that!]

3. external causality is doomed to infinite regress. No, no more than any other proposal of "causality". What is "internal" causality? Internal to what? Mao TSe Dong used to argue that external warming of a stone changes nothing, while external warming of an egg produces a chicken. So the "significant contradiction" was supposely "internal" - to the egg. Qute, but totally misleading, just like Haines!

Internal to what? the "culture"? "the civilization"? the "society"? she state, let alone the "nation-state"? the "economy"? she=the WHO is to say where one ends and the other begins, if any of these exist at all? Haines and those who assuime that there are "no" connections? Ot that connecti9ons are a function of looking for them, but that we need/should not look? --- infinate regress into nothingness! Ot=or Aha, it is also the social climate in which new ideas germinate, rightly says Haines. Well how local or regional or world-wide is /was that climate?

And speaking of climate, I agree - again- with Haines that physical other natural conditions deserve more study than they have received, and that they are important, perhaps more important in the distant than in the recent past - though that does NOT guarantee that they will not become MORE imporrant again in the near or distant future =the ecology! But the nature/nurture, physical/social influences [connections?] are mutual and run in BOTH directions! not only today, but also thousands of years ago, vide the Mayas, the Harrappans, etc.

AND, Haines argument that the more docial systems are constrained by natural circumstances the further back in histiry we go -- "the less ouside influence will count" is a complete non-sequitur sorry docial=social histity = history outside to what, and what outside influences? "outside" climatic ones? what if all dance to the same climatic tune, albeit with regionally [and culturally?] different dance variations?

Sorry, I was far far more longwinded than I had originally anticipated. If I had know, i would have written off-line and made typ corrections, which my machine does not permit me to make on-line , typ=typo - seewhich my machine does not permit me to make on-line , typ=typo - see what i mean?

best regards to Haines, and apologies to all to whom tghey are due. gunder frank

Date: October 1, 1995
Subject: teaching pre-1500 world history

From: Annette Laing

        University of Redlands
        laing@ultrix.uor.edu

> From: Caron Ellis

>         Community College of Denver
>         caron@usa.net>         caron@usa.net

>
> I too like to use primary source material and have been more or less > satisfied with Beatty & Johnson's _Heritage of Western Civilization_. Who
> publishes _The Human Record_? I'd like to take a look at it.

That's Alfred J. Andrea and James H. Overfield, _The Human Record: Sources of Global History_(2nd ed), published by Houghton Mifflin. I worked with Beatty and Johnson when I was a teaching assistant, and I find A&O much more in tune with current concerns, addressing social and
cultural as well as intellectual and political history. Please note that I have worked only with volume I (to1700). Perhaps someone else might speak to the usefulness of vol. II?

Annette Laing
Visiting Assistant Professor
Dept. of History
University of Redlands

Date: October 1, 1995
Subject: teaching pre-1500 world history From: Hubert van Tyll

        Augusta College
        hvantuyl@admin.ac.edu

Not having taught pre-1500 world history in a couple of years I don't want to take up to much scarce screenspace with my comments on this discussion, but

1. The proposition that connections were not significant before 1500 is more defensible if the date is backed up earlier, to precede the turkic/mongol migrations/empires. Also, some people making this argument are perhaps thinking of trans-oceanic connections.
2. The viewpoint that there is a "eurocentric" view that rejects outside
3. The viewpoint that there is a "eurocentric" view that rejects outside impact on European/Western history is close to being a strawman (strawperson?). Few if any serious histories of the West ignore the impact of arabic culture on medieval europe (both in terms of philosophy and ship technology); the complex relationships between the many cultures of the middle east; the existence of the silk trade and its ramifications; the countless migrations; linguistical connections; etc. Even the idea that Egypt was heavily influenced by Africa can be found in, for example, a world history published in the west in 1914.............
4. The European world role as a function of its wealth by 1800 causes me some problems; the Iberian empires not only came into being earlier, but certainly Portugal was not one of the wealthiest spots in Europe. For that matter - no revelation here - most of the conquistadors came from poor parts of Spain & it was a desire for wealth, rather than its desire, that stimulated the creation of the first transoceanic empire.

Hubert van Tuyll, Augusta College, hvantuyl@admin.ac.edu

[an error occurred while processing this directive]