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

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

#21

Post by laretluval » Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 1:38 AM UTC

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…

> It is only with the advent of "civilization", i.e. agriculture, that we find great power differentials, including the power of men over women.

And it is only with the advent of "civilization"/agriculture that we find writing. Note that the writing discussed in this article is about someone owing some barley to someone else.

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

#22

Post by erdevs » Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 1:43 AM UTC

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…

> Pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer societies were primarily matriarchal 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.

Okay. Are hunter-gatherers or agricultural societies more likely to have left written records that survive until today?

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

#23

Post by erdevs » Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 1:45 AM UTC

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…

> It is only with the advent of "civilization", i.e. agriculture, that we find great power differentials, including the power of men over women

That is exactly what I'm saying. Do you somehow contend that hunter-gatherers societies are more likely to have left written records that have survived to today?

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

#24

Post by contingencies » Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 1:45 AM UTC

467568985476 wrote: post #18

contingencies wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, if you think about it from a reductionist perspective, in non-monogamous societies children were by definition primarily socially familiar with their mothers, because they were the only family actually known.

Evidence of matriarchy includes living matriarchal societies (eg. the Mosuo people). I am no expert, though. If you look at Wikipedia's matriarchy page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy#Asia I actually live in Yunnan, which is smack bang in the middle of all of the Asian examples.

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

#25

Post by antoineMoPa » Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 2:00 AM UTC

For those trying to understand the numbers on the tablet, this could help: http://www.storyofmathematics.com/sumerian.html.

However, I did not find success while trying to read that.

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

#26

Post by pastProlog » Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 2:19 AM UTC

467568985476 wrote: post #18

contingencies wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> what evidence

Archaeological evidence

Evidence from literate civilizations writing about their uncivilized neighbors, which goes back to the earliest known works

Evidence from writers encountering such societies up to the modern day, although they're almost extinct outside of the deep Amazon and the like.

Logical conclusions - without a food surplus, there is no class system and other results

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

#27

Post by derefr » Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 2:21 AM UTC

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 scholastic, monastic, or financial professions

Even in a patriarchy, could it not be that one or more of these professions would be seen in some early societies as "women's work"—i.e. work at first done by women because it was low-status (it was the work that was "left over") and then later because those women became skilled in said work and it became their comparative advantage?

This is, after all, what happened with typing-cum-programming in the 1950s.

Besides which, at least one of the above professions—teaching—is usually heavily connected with childrearing, and thereby usually ends up female-dominated-by-default until large-scale market forces come into play.

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

#28

Post by vacri » Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 2:28 AM UTC

pastProlog wrote: post #26

467568985476 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> what evidence Archaeological evidence Evidence from literate civilizations writing about their uncivilized neighbors, which goes back to the earliest known works Evidence from writers encountering such societies up to the modern day, although they're almost extinct outside of the deep Amazon and the like. Logical conclusions - without a food surplus, there is no class system and other results

> Logical conclusions - without a food surplus, there is no class system and other results

Even hunter-gatherers have chiefs and elders.

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

#29

Post by duaneb » Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 2:30 AM UTC

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…

Social hierarchies are thought to be one of the innovations of civilization. There is not any evidence of an inherent matriarchy or patriarchy, and there were civilizations that went either way. In fact the strongest theory I've seen argues for a dichotomy of plough vs hoe civilizations: men are better equipped to plough, women are better equipped to hoe. This led to division of labor and social stratification along the lines of sex.

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

#30

Post by duaneb » Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 2:32 AM UTC

contingencies wrote: post #24

467568985476 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, if you think about it from a reductionist perspective, in non-monogamous societies children were by definition primarily socially familiar with their mothers, because they were the only family actually known. Evidence of matriarchy includes living matriarchal societies (eg. the Mosuo people). I am no expert, though. If you look at Wikipedia's matriarchy page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy#Asia I actua…

What do you mean? what makes you think there is any distinction between family and community outside of incest taboos, which may not have even existed in prehistory? What does an identification of a mother as family have to do with matriarchies? You haven't even made an argument.