One of the class’s assigned readings really bugs me and has raised some questions in my mind:
1) How does knowing how to write your name show that you know how to read and write?
Is it not possible that a person simply knows how to write their name and not really anything else? If I memorize a string of syllables and am taught that it is my name, without understanding any of the details behind the syllables, that does not mean that I am capable of reading and writing. All it means is that I possess basic memorization skills.
2) What about people who were not physically capable of writing or did not know that area’s language?
I know people who read for fun, but due to medical issues, are not the best at writing. Also, we have already seen that trade and transportation between different countries was possible at these earlier times. So, what if the people who wrote “X” were fully capable of reading and writing in Greek, but all these papers were written in English or Latin? Is it not possible that they simply followed the example of others?
Essentially, I do not believe that counting signatures is an accurate way to discover the literacy of the time. I think it would be better to also research how readily available writing supplies were to what populaces and if there were written materials in different people’s lives. For example, how common were posters or pamphlets without pictures? Perhaps looking for multiple factors will provide a more accurate way to determine the literacy levels of that time period.
I agree with your argument here Caileen. I think that using signature writing as a means of trying to establish literacy is a somewhat underwhelming methodology. However, I think that the authors did try to establish somewhat of a difference by using “crude literacy rates”, therefore, they acknowledged that signature writing is not necessarily a reliable means of determining the literacy of a population. However, it does become difficult to research the literacy rates of a population if literacy practices were not common or were not retained in a form that is accessible for research. While I question the validity of counting signature writing as a form of literacy, I also see where they have used it as one of the most abundant resources available for the early study of literacy in a pre-industrial society.