Human history precedes writing

Smail contends that ‘deep history’ of human beings begins when human beings begin

By Amy Lavoie

FAS Communications

To consider the question of the origin of history, Daniel Lord Smail, a historian, is looking to other academic disciplines that deal with the past. In new work, Smail uses an interdisciplinary approach and existing research from the natural sciences to encourage a new understanding of the beginning of history.

The work arose from his teaching a class on natural history, in which students would ask questions such as, “How do we know when history began?” and, with regard to the history of early man, “Is this history, or is it anthropology?”

“These questions have relevance in the way that students are introduced to history,” says Smail, professor of history in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. “A student might be told in a Western civilization class that history begins in Sumeria in 4000 B.C.E. But how can we claim that this is the birthplace for history, when we now have extensive evidence that humans have lived on Earth for tens of thousands of years?”

He addresses these questions in his recently published book, “On Deep History and the Brain” (University of California Press, 2007). While he has not presented a “deep history” in this book, he has framed the questions regarding what a deep history might be, and how historians could benefit from research in the natural sciences.

In the 19th century, when archaeologists first began to discover the remnants of human beings that had lived well outside of the Judeo-Christian time frame, it became clear that human history was much older than previously thought. The question became, How would historians react to this new information? Historians agreed that events on this extended and earlier timeline did constitute history, but it was referred to as a “prehistory,” and there was debate about the place of this prehistory among existing historical narratives.

At one time, Small says, the major impediment toward the inclusion of deep history into “history” was the lack of written sources. However, research methods in the sciences have become so advanced that it is no longer possible to discount the evidence that is available about these earlier eras. Smail draws parallels between the ways that historians piece together evidence found in documents and how archaeologists reconstruct evidence found at a site.

In addition to suggesting that history can learn from the various fields of paleohistory, Smail also considers the role of neurobiology in history. He explains that historians often use psychology to understand the individuals about whom they write, and he encourages extending this incorporation of psychology by presenting the argument for a “neurohistory,” or an understanding of the ways that changes in brain chemistry have helped to shape history.

It is widely known that many daily activities affect the chemistry of both the brain and the body. This is true of ingesting certain food and drugs, including coffee and tobacco, as well as activities such as sports, churchgoing, or surfing the Internet. Smail points out that these activities — and their effect on the chemistry of the brain — have come about as a result of historical trends, and that it is a historical question to ask how and why these kinds of practices emerged. In the book, he explains that in Europe, in the century before the French Revolution, an array of mood-altering and mildly addictive substances and practices arose, such as coffee-and tea, cheap alcohol, tobacco, novel reading, and sensational newspapers.

“This is relevant to a deep history, because to understand why the brain-body system is susceptible to these kinds of practices, we need to understand how the brain evolved, and that means looking into the deep history of humanity,” says Smail.

While the ideas that Smail introduces are interdisciplinary, he does not present himself as a scientist, but as a historian who understands the importance of considering all different types of evidence in order to gain a greater understanding of history.

“By posing these questions, I hope to encourage readers to challenge their definition of not only when history began, but how history is both defined and created,” says Smail.