Live data from Hacker News

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

phenomena.nationalgeographic.com

121–130 of 136 posts

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

#121
post #95
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 because most ancient societies were blatantly misogynistic. I have serious ethical concerns with such a claim. It gives a simplistic view of history, to the point of severe distortion. It implies that all women terribly oppressed, while all men had lives of unrelenting leisure. That's simply not true. What is true is that the Mesopotamian civilizations were violent, hierarchical, racist, genocidal, poor, etc…

I'm replying here again as the chain got too long, and as you made a point below which re-frames the entire ensuing discussion.

> [From further down in this chain:] I'm arguing against the ideas proposed by certain groups of people. People who (in my experience) typically argue that "that culture is misogynistic" means "all men have it better than all women".

Ah. Okay. Thank you for explaining and admitting this.

I do NOT subscribe to the line of thinking you are apparently disputing at all. Saying that "culture is misogynistic" means "all men have it better than all women" is absolutely idiotic, in my view. Reference the statements I made regarding patriarchal societies that also had male slavery. Many, many (probably most?) ancient civilizations included class-based socioeconomic systems. In many, the women in higher classes were much better off than the men in lower classes, on average

I'm not making any of the arguments or statements which you are arguing against. Thank you for clarifying that what you were actually reacting to and arguing against was something other than my statements, as I found your leaps in logic very surprising based on what I actually said/claimed/argued.

> I've run into many of these people online and in daily life.

I understand. Unfortunately, extremism and poor logic are all too common in discussions of important matters today. It's disappointing and frustrating.

I hope you can reflect here, though, and realize you are adding to this problem, in this example. You made an assumption about my worldview which wasn't based on any particular statement I made, and which absolutely does not represent my thoughts whatsoever. You then argued, and were even incendiary, based on that flawed presumption. This is the sort of thing that spins debates online and offline into bad places, which partially happened here as well.

> If you don't believe this, I'm sorry for insinuating you do.

Thank you, truly, very much for saying this. I feel a lot better now knowing what was actually happening here, as it made no sense to me previously. I think it's big of you to step back and reflect here.

> I was reacting to the normal use of that terminology, which, in my experience, does have the meaning I said.

I can see what you're saying, but again note that this doesn't apply to any argument I made. Thank you for clearing this up.

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

#122
post #102
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at the example image on Wikipedia's page, I still have a hard time recognizing the numbers, even though they are marked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexagesimal#Examples People have always been using short hand and sloppy hand writing, I don't find it surprising that you can't recognize the numbers without some practise.

Recognizing the "digits" isn't the problem; that's already been solved and published: http://erenow.com/common/sapiensbriefhistory/sapiensbriefhis... I can even find references to what many of the units represent: http://www.ancientscripts.com/images/su_numbers.gif For example, the six big circles in the middle seem to represent 6 x 3600. But I can't figure out what to do next.

Nice links!

Probably because it's not as simple as it looks. According to a handy copy of A History of the Ancient Near East: ca. 3000-323 BC, by Marc Van de Mieroop,

"The Uruk IV notations seem complicated to us because seven different systems were used, each of which varied the physical shape of the numeral according to what was measured. For example, a sexagesimal system, relying on units with increments of ten and six, was used to account for animals, humans, and dried fish, among other things. A bisexagesimal system, which diverges from the previous one as its units also show increments of two, was used for processed grain products, cheese, and fresh fish. Volumes of grain or surfaces of fields were measured differently. [...] Although the shape of the number signs could differ between systems, the same shapes are found in various systems but sometimes with different values."

Wikipedia, citing Archaic Bookkeeping Early Writing and Techniques of Economic Administration in the Ancient Near East by Hans J. Nissen, Peter Damerow, and Robert K. Englund (gonna have to get a copy of that one), claims more than a dozen different numeric systems.

So, yay, proto-cuneiform.

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

#123
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The culture was oppressive towards damned near everyone who wasn't of the highest class. Yes, yes, "all lives matter". It doesn't change the fact that given a man and woman of the same class, it was generally more oppressive to the woman, Biblical queen exemptions notwithstanding.

> It doesn't change the fact that given a man and woman of the same class, it was generally more oppressive to the woman, Please define "oppressive"... using either gender neutral measurements, or measurements which balance comparisons against both genders. As a case in point, I can cherry-pick the following facts, which are all true: * women live longer than men * more money is spent on womens health care than mens…

For the majority of women in most of history, oppressed means that your life is just as difficult as a random man of the same class, plus he might rape you.

I'm done here.

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

#125
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…

"2. The translations of the tablets seem implausibly precise. How could we possibly know that a particular bit of ancient Sumerian (or whatever it is) translates as the Anglicized name "Gal Sal" or "Sukkalgir" or (most implausibly) "En-pap X"?"

This is the catalogue data for the tablet: http://cdli.ucla.edu/search/archival_view.php?ObjectID=P0052...

(The fourth drawing is of the two (!) cylinder seals "signing" the tablet.)

Weirdly, the best diagram of the writing I can find is on the cover of The Oriental Institute 2010-2011 Annual Report (http://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/s...). (Yeah, just the front page. There's probably an article in there somewhere.)

This version of proto-cuneiform is a syllabary with glyphs representing "KUR", "SAL", "EN", "PAP", etc. (The "X" indicates a missing glyph; there's a chip off the tablet.)

For translation, Sumerian and Akkadian, both in cuneiform, were used for record keeping and official inscriptions for a very long time, at least through the Persian empire. Sumerian, I think, was used as the language of record for a good while even after Aramaic became the lingua franca of the region. (Sumer was a leading producer of skilled information workers, a.k.a. scribes, through the period of the Persian Empire, at least.) I don't remember the whole story of decoding the languages, but there are many multi-lingual inscriptions and literally tons of these tablets, including a lot of student work, word lists, and other textbook things, and letters to people who spoke other languages (see, for example, the Amarna letters).

As for pronunciation, you've got me there. I assume it's by correspondence with other languages that we do know how to pronounce, or possibly by weaker relationships; Sumerian is (AFAIK) unrelated to other languages, but Akkadian is Semitic and Aramaic (and some other languages) are Indo-European.

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

#126
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…

" 2. The translations of the tablets seem implausibly precise. How could we possibly know that a particular bit of ancient Sumerian (or whatever it is) translates as the Anglicized name "Gal Sal" or "Sukkalgir" or (most implausibly) "En-pap X"? " This is the catalogue data for the tablet: http://cdli.ucla.edu/search/archival_view.php?ObjectID=P0052... (The fourth drawing is of the two (!) cylinder seals "signing" the…

Whoo, hey! Just found this note from the copyright page of the Annual Report:

"Overleaf: This text appears to identify two named slaves in the possession of a third individual. The sign for “slaves” in fact derives from two distinct signs, one for male ( ) and one for female ( ) slave. Typical of proto-cuneiform texts, the inscription does not include a preposition or verb, which would clarify the roles of the participants. This ambiguity is, in part, resolved by tablet format and the organization of information into cases. OIM A2513. Clay. Purchased (Jemdet Nasr?). Ca. 3100 bc. 4.6 x 4.6 x 2.4 cm. After Christopher Woods, “The Earliest Mesopotamian Writing,” in Visible Language: inventions of Writing in the Ancient Middle East and beyond , edited by Christopher Woods, p. 39, fig. 2.6 (Oriental Institute Museum Publications 32; Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 2010). Photo by Jean Grant"

Pity the glyphs didn't make it through cut-n-paste.

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

#127
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Logical conclusions - without a food surplus, there is no class system and other results Even hunter-gatherers have chiefs and elders.

> Even hunter-gatherers have chiefs and elders. Hunter-gatherer bands do not have chiefs. Looking at the Wikipedia article for "Tribal chief" it says "Historically, tribal societies represent an intermediate stage between the band society of the Paleolithic stage and civilization with centralized, super-regional government based in cities." I couldn't put it better. Even with regards to Indian chiefs, and it's not ha…

To be fair, you don't have to refer to them as "Indians". Most serious academic anthropologists would refrain from doing so, preferring Native American instead. So to label them as "Indians" yourself and then to state that "it's not hard to see how there are misconceptions about them if they're still referred to as 'Indians'" is a bit disingenuous. I'm sure there are misconceptions but I don't take as evidence the fact that you chose to call them "Indians".

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

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 2. The translations of the tablets seem implausibly precise. How could we possibly know that a particular bit of ancient Sumerian (or whatever it is) translates as the Anglicized name "Gal Sal" or "Sukkalgir" or (most implausibly) "En-pap X"? " This is the catalogue data for the tablet: http://cdli.ucla.edu/search/archival_view.php?ObjectID=P0052... (The fourth drawing is of the two (!) cylinder seals "signing" the…

Whoo, hey! Just found this note from the copyright page of the Annual Report: " Overleaf: This text appears to identify two named slaves in the possession of a third individual. The sign for “slaves” in fact derives from two distinct signs, one for male ( ) and one for female ( ) slave. Typical of proto-cuneiform texts, the inscription does not include a preposition or verb, which would clarify the roles of the parti…

Wow, thank you for that amazingly informative reply! I wish I could give you ten upvotes. This is what HN comments should be all about.

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

#129
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't change the fact that given a man and woman of the same class, it was generally more oppressive to the woman, Please define "oppressive"... using either gender neutral measurements, or measurements which balance comparisons against both genders. As a case in point, I can cherry-pick the following facts, which are all true: * women live longer than men * more money is spent on womens health care than mens…

For the majority of women in most of history, oppressed means that your life is just as difficult as a random man of the same class, plus he might rape you. I'm done here.

I'm looking for quantitative measurements of "difficulty". You've admitted you don't have them, and are unwilling to look for them.

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

#130
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…

Cuneiformist? I am intrigued! I will be looking for some volunteer work when I retire. How do I prepare to be a cuneiformist? TIA,

It shouldn't be any worse than learning Japanese. May not be as easy as Mayan; I've heard those guys try to teach Mayan to anyone who will stand still long enough.

I've seen textbooks on Babylonian and Assyrian on Amazon, although I have no idea if they're any good. Any university with a Middle Eastern archaeology program might have an occasional class. You might check with /r/askahistorian on Reddit.

And yes, I think I've seen a translation of a largish tablet published by an amateur translator who learned on his own.

Post reply on HN