Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who’s the First Person in History Whose Name We Know? (2015)

phenomena.nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 136 posts

Re: Who’s the First Person in History Whose Name We Know? (2015)

#11

Post by fallinghawks »

lisper wrote: post #7

Two things about this article registered on my bogometer: 1. In the image of the hands on the cave wall, some of the images are positive and some are negative. The negatives were plausibly made by the technique described in the article (put hand on wall, blow dust at wall) but the positive images could not possibly have been made that way. 2. The translations of the tablets seem implausibly precise. How could we poss…

> some of the images are positive and some are negative

It depends on the color of the rock underneath. When white dust is blown on a dark surface one might get the impression of a handprint rather than the outline.

Re: Who’s the First Person in History Whose Name We Know? (2015)

#12

Post by lisper »

fallinghawks wrote: post #11
lisper wrote: post #7

Two things about this article registered on my bogometer: 1. In the image of the hands on the cave wall, some of the images are positive and some are negative. The negatives were plausibly made by the technique described in the article (put hand on wall, blow dust at wall) but the positive images could not possibly have been made that way. 2. The translations of the tablets seem implausibly precise. How could we poss…

> some of the images are positive and some are negative It depends on the color of the rock underneath. When white dust is blown on a dark surface one might get the impression of a handprint rather than the outline.

Doesn't seem plausible. Some of the positives are the same dark color as the halo on some of the negatives. The rock looks to me like its all the same tan color underneath.

Also, take a look at the hires:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/SantaCru...

A the top center you will see a couple of positives that overlap each other. How did that happen?

Re: Who’s the First Person in History Whose Name We Know? (2015)

#13

Post by lisper »

colanderman wrote: post #10
lisper wrote: post #7

Two things about this article registered on my bogometer: 1. In the image of the hands on the cave wall, some of the images are positive and some are negative. The negatives were plausibly made by the technique described in the article (put hand on wall, blow dust at wall) but the positive images could not possibly have been made that way. 2. The translations of the tablets seem implausibly precise. How could we poss…

The "positive" handprints are still surrounded by a halo. So, blow dust on wall, put hand on wall, blow different-colored dust over hand on wall? Either that or dip hand in dust, put hand on wall.

I thought of both of those possibilities, but I don't think they can explain these images.

1. For the dark colored positives I don't see any evidence of the dark color bleeding through the light halo. Also, some of the positives have fingers that are faded, and some are overlaid by negatives. A light halo overlaying a dark base layer can't account for those.

2. The positives are too solid to simply be handprints. If you just make a handprint, it will have gaps in the center of the palm and between the palm and fingers (among other places). But all the images are solid silhouettes.

Re: Who’s the First Person in History Whose Name We Know? (2015)

#14

Post by erdevs »

The first recorded writer probably was a male, indeed.

That's because most ancient societies were blatantly misogynistic. It's unlikely women were afforded the opportunity to be educated or trained in the scholastic, monastic, or financial professions which were most likely to leave some form of written record.

So, yeah, the odds, based on historical predicates, are that the first recorded human's name was a male name. But not necessarily (or even likely) because of the author's claim that males seem to be more prone to be early adopters.

Nor is it at all likely that many of the hostile commenters on this author's article have the right idea that women in ancient history were equal contributors to society's evolution. They probably were not. Not because of any intrinsic inferiority of women, but because of the male-oriented power dynamics that clearly dominated most ancient societies.

Re: Who’s the First Person in History Whose Name We Know? (2015)

#15

Post by contingencies »

erdevs wrote: post #14

The first recorded writer probably was a male, indeed. That's because most ancient societies were blatantly misogynistic. It's unlikely women were afforded the opportunity to be educated or trained in the scholastic, monastic, or financial professions which were most likely to leave some form of written record. So, yeah, the odds, based on historical predicates, are that the first recorded human's name was a male nam…

The first recorded writer probably was a male, indeed.

That's because most ancient societies were blatantly misogynistic.

Actually, my understanding is that the emerging reality is more interesting.

Pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer societies were non-patriarchal and patriarchal societies only later became the norm with the rise of warlike/raiding and settled agricultural societies which co-evolved and co-depended on higher population densities.

This is certainly the case here in Zomia where uninterrupted matriarchal societies have continued to exist until today, though they are now rapidly disappearing.

However, writing did tend to evolve only after this shift, so your statement may tend toward observational truth despite being based upon fallacious assumption.

Re: Who’s the First Person in History Whose Name We Know? (2015)

#16

Post by selimthegrim »

schoen wrote: post #8

Other brief discussions about this topic suggesting other candidates: http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question114584.html http://ask.metafilter.com/103405/Who-was-the-first-person-in... One Metafilter user ("Riemann") makes the interesting point that a huge number of clay tablets that have been excavated remain untranslated, so it's quite possible that new candidates would turn up over time as scholars examine those a…

Aczel is no longer with us, I believe.

Re: Who’s the First Person in History Whose Name We Know? (2015)

#17

Post by littletimmy »

erdevs wrote: post #14

The first recorded writer probably was a male, indeed. That's because most ancient societies were blatantly misogynistic. It's unlikely women were afforded the opportunity to be educated or trained in the scholastic, monastic, or financial professions which were most likely to leave some form of written record. So, yeah, the odds, based on historical predicates, are that the first recorded human's name was a male nam…

That's actually not true. There's great evidence for the fact that hunter-gatherer societies had a fairly good distribution of gender power. It is only with the advent of "civilization", i.e. agriculture, that we find great power differentials, including the power of men over women.

I add that your indignation seems rather misguided. If "male-oriented power dynamics" could so easily take charge, how on earth can be conclude that women were not "intrinsically inferior"?

Re: Who’s the First Person in History Whose Name We Know? (2015)

#18

Post by 467568985476 »

contingencies wrote: post #15
erdevs wrote: post #14

The first recorded writer probably was a male, indeed. That's because most ancient societies were blatantly misogynistic. It's unlikely women were afforded the opportunity to be educated or trained in the scholastic, monastic, or financial professions which were most likely to leave some form of written record. So, yeah, the odds, based on historical predicates, are that the first recorded human's name was a male nam…

The first recorded writer probably was a male, indeed. That's because most ancient societies were blatantly misogynistic. Actually, my understanding is that the emerging reality is more interesting. Pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer societies were non-patriarchal and patriarchal societies only later became the norm with the rise of warlike/raiding and settled agricultural societies which co-evolved and co-depended on…

What evidence is there of matriarchy, and how is that defined? I think you're right that today a popular theory among anthropologists is that agriculture led to many inequalities, but like all things ancient, there just isn't much data for anthropologists to draw conclusions from.

Re: Who’s the First Person in History Whose Name We Know? (2015)

#20

Post by [deleted] »

littletimmy wrote: post #17
erdevs wrote: post #14

The first recorded writer probably was a male, indeed. That's because most ancient societies were blatantly misogynistic. It's unlikely women were afforded the opportunity to be educated or trained in the scholastic, monastic, or financial professions which were most likely to leave some form of written record. So, yeah, the odds, based on historical predicates, are that the first recorded human's name was a male nam…

That's actually not true. There's great evidence for the fact that hunter-gatherer societies had a fairly good distribution of gender power. It is only with the advent of "civilization", i.e. agriculture, that we find great power differentials, including the power of men over women. I add that your indignation seems rather misguided. If "male-oriented power dynamics" could so easily take charge, how on earth can be c…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN