I taught prehistory for a long time and got really tired of playing the, this is the first example of _______ game. It's fundamentally flawed unless you assume that we can ever know everything about anything, which is completely insane imnho. And it changed constantly for prehistoric artifacts which was awesome but super tiring.
Anyway I ended up feeling best introducing historical points in a minimal amount of implied context. "The people who wrote this textbook considered _______ to be the earliest major example of _______." or "As of 20XX this was considered to be the oldest known example of ______." etc.
I started to have a lot more luck with maintaining a positive productive engaged classroom conversation when I started doing that. And it let us dive into unstructured critiques of historical method and bias which was always a good way to run out of time in lectures.
Then I realized teaching couldn't support an adult human lifestyle and had to quit. I miss these kinds of discussions though. Always glad to see them on hn.
But "surviving" is the keyword here. Nobody claims it's the "first example" anyway. I think it's very cool if something is "the oldest surviving ____", it's interesting information.
It sounds like the disagreement here is over the definition of literature. I generally regard wiktionary's fourth entry (high fiction) to be its definition, whereas this seems somewhere between that and the second (collected creative writing of a culture). I was shaking my head at most of the examples given. Now I see we are operating from two different foundations.
Maybe this is why so many arguments open with the cliche "Webster defines..."
If you want to converse with me, first define your terms - Voltaire
I was taught that Gilgamesh wasn’t the first written work of literature, but the first written work of epic story. I don’t know if this is true, but many of the other works cited are biographies, proverbs, etc.
When talking about the age of the Gilgamesh Epic in general, not about the age of one of its many version that have been created during many centuries, it is appropriate to refer to the earliest version, not to the much later version written in the standard Akkadian language.
As mentioned in the article, in the beginning there were 5 separate stories about various adventures of Gilgamesh, written in the Sumerian language, some time around 2200 BC to 2000 BC.
A few hundred years later (around the time of Hammurabi), some Old Babylonian writer has translated the Sumerian stories into Old Babylonian, while making various changes to them in order to make them fit into a single long epic.
The Old Babylonian writer has also written several other stories, which were interleaved between the Sumerian stories and which integrated everything into a coherent epic.
Hundreds of years later, the Old Babylonian version was modified into the standard version that is best known. That version was also modified later into various other versions, some of them being translated into various languages of the neighbors of the Akkadians.
While there are many other earlier writings that can be considered as works of literature, the 5 Sumerian stories about Gilgamesh are one of the earliest examples of writings that are of the epic kind, i.e. which describe the adventures of some fictional character.
Most of the older writings mentioned in the article are not of this kind, but they may be considered as lyric, didactic or historic.
Most stories that might be older than the 5 Sumerian stories about Gilgamesh are other Sumerian stories about their gods, most of them being stories about Inanna, as mentioned in the article.
However, the age of all these Sumerian stories is not known with certainty, just that they have been written some time in the second half of the third millennium BC.
Some of the other Sumerian stories might be even a few centuries older than the 5 Gilgamesh stories, but they might as well be of a similar age.
So when talking about the earliest literature of the epic kind, it is not possible to pinpoint which is the earliest known work, but one must give a list that contains the Sumerian stories of the 3rd millennium BC, including the 5 stories about Gilgamesh.
The Sumerian stories about Gilgamesh might be the earliest where the main hero is identified as a human, not as a god.
I think the problem is that everyone knows what the current meaning of literature is, but that that doesn't allow for academic reference-baiting, however childish it may be. So now you take another meaning of the word, and find something that exceeds the previous record, et voila, a new article. When people feel cheated after reading, and argue "that isn't literature", you take the relativist position, even though you know it's poppycock. It's intellectual dishonesty.
> the disagreement here is over the definition of literature
Deeply, but though we can make distinction between a modern best seller and Brian's grammatically incorrect graffiti, "Romanes eunt domus,"[1], in essence they are both literature, even if the latter is fictional and framed within the larger contemporary story, because Brian wrote a message representative of some language.
Literature is defined by writing, and writing is defined by symbols representing language. Always given less emphasis than the ancient cave art found in caves all over the world are the abstract symbols that very often accompany the graphic depictions of animals. For all we know some of those symbols may mean, "this tastes good," and regardless of being unable to decipher them, they could still be the oldest extant literature[2] so long as they could represent language and tell a story, no matter how primitive a story.
Before the Egyptian hieroglyphs and Mayan pictographs were deciphered, there was no question that they had specific meaning behind them. Though in the strictest sense, pictography is not an alphabet, it still conveys specific messages in some once spoken language. In my opinion, if there are any abstract symbols that represent even the most primitive message, if it's clear there is even some vague attempt at communication, then it will still broadly fall under the category of literature, regardless of ever being deciphered.
While ultimately I agree that the epic of Gilgamesh is the earliest extant high, advanced, or complex literature, I think whether a written story still exists or not is an arbitrary distinction. The fact that Gilgamesh exists in the literary form that it does necessarily means earlier examples of high literature once existed but are unknown and likely lost. Between Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides there were over 300 plays written of which 33 survive. That the missing plays no longer exist should not diminish the fact that these were, in fact, written and were undoubtedly literature.
[2] https://www.openculture.com/2019/03/40000-year-old-symbols-f... note: Though von Petzinger herself clarifies in her TED Talk that the common ancient symbols are not writing, I think she's hedging for some reason (probably professional caution) contradicting what her own research shows and statements she makes immediately previously.
I don't mind that cliche at all, it's far less painful for people to give a definition of a word than to witness a painful argument where two people define a word in a different way and then criticise the incoherence of the other's argument.
"Maybe ... Webster defines ..." Not around here it doesn't (says {!US})!
You don't need to define "literature", it largely defines itself but not in a formal mathematical way (derived from axioms) but in a linguistic way which is rather closer to legal reasoning and quite open to interpretation.
So, we might have litera tura as an initial path to the to past to explore for literature. Latin for something like learning from letters (characters). I've searched quite a lot and I see litera being turned into a book which I think is wrong - a book is librum in Latin.
Litera are individual letters or characters but many "letters" starts to take on a new meaning. They become words (verbum) initially, and as you deploy more verbum you get paginae and then liberae. I've probably really mashed up the singulars and plurals - soz.
So I think we have literae tura. This gives us some latitude for interpretation. For starters, literature need not be confined to books - that might be liberature and get jolly confused with notions of freedom.
Right, now we have modern language sorted out, let's worry about how old an ancient text is or are or something.
Modern audiences hate the idea of any kind of moral ambiguity in their heroes, and they would need to rewrite his backstory to no longer include deflowering maidens on their wedding night. So we'd have to rewrite his first encounter with Enkidu, too. Maybe Gilgamesh will save him from drowning, and make some painfully obvious foreshadowing comment in the process ("Gee, I sure hope I never get that close to the ocean floor again!")
While we're at it, we'd probably need to rewrite Enkidu's story, too, because the idea of a Sacred Prostitute sanitizing a wildman through several days and nights of continuous sex is sure to rile some puritan feathers.
Curiously, the "Pyramid Texts" the author cites were not incribed in pyramids. The pyramids are all unaccountably blank. The oldest stonework is of best quality: mirror finishes, perfect right angles and flat surfaces cut into the hardest of rock. Likewise, the biggest one-piece stone columns and statues are oldest. Later dynasties stacked their columns.
All the oldest Egyptian construction was blank, but that didn't stop later pharaohs from tagging them with their own cartouches, chiseling off any older tags. Today, Egyptologists routinely date things to whoever was the last pharaoh to tag it.
But there must have been a real taboo about tagging pyramids, because none did them.
By the way, the reason noses and right hands of so much statuary is broken is that that was the standard Christian way of neutralizing the powerful magic they had enabled. Without a nose, they could not breathe in altar smoke. Without a hand, they could not bless.
> Curiously, the "Pyramid Texts" the author cites were not incribed in pyramids. The pyramids are all unaccountably blank.
Not all. See the image caption at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_Texts . You're talking of the Giza ones I assume, which were indeed surprisingly text-free. Might have been a 5th dynasty "invention"?
> By the way, the reason noses and right hands of so much statuary is broken is that that was the standard Christian way of neutralizing the powerful magic they had enabled. Without a nose, they could not breathe in altar smoke. Without a hand, they could not bless.
What is definitely known is that Akhenaten would deface images of older gods, and his successors responded in kind; IIRC this would usually manifest in literal defacing rather than de-nosing.
I don't get why people are defining "literature" so narrowly as to exclude things like wisdom literature. Ecclesiastes isn't literature? Or the poetry of Hesiod? That's pretty eccentric.
There's also the problem of applying the criterion of "fiction" to cultures that had no such concept. (The beginning of this article goes into it: https://theamericanscholar.org/fictions-revenge/ .)
In some instances I'm sure they had a couple beers and then had somebody tell oral histories and legends, and maybe made up some of their own. Probably they said "What? Mark down the tale on one of those beer-tablets? It is more fun to hear it spoken anyway and old Gilgamesh here works best when he's improvising."
In my amateur learning about Egypt, “beer” seems misleading. It’s definitely a fermented grain beverage thing, but more like bread + liquid that doesn’t make you sick.
Reproductions are kinda nasty and very low ABV from what I’ve heard and read. But a ton of calories and no amoebas. Perfect for a hard day’s pyramid building.
> Over the course of this period, Sumerian urban communities grew into the very first true cities anywhere on earth.
...of which we have knowledge now.
Keeping it humble is a general challenge. However, one feels confident that human knowledge is still closer to the beginning than to the fullness of any macro, micro, or historical understanding of the universe.
Were we capable of observing this romantic past, one surmises that we'd be shocked at how normal and boring it all is. Modulo technology, Solmon's observation holds constant: "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." (Eccl1:9)
I love wisdom literature. The author gives the Instructions of Shurappak as the oldest literature on his list. Many maxims are metaphorical, like Pythagorean sayings.
But, I’d like to share my favorite, the Egyptian “The Instructions of Hardjedef”, supposedly written in the 25th century BC:
* Clean yourself in your own eyes before someone can clean you.
* When you grow, build a house.
* Take a wife who has mastered her heart and multiply.
* You build for your children when you house yourself.
* Build a strong house in the grave and a noble place where the sun sets.
* Death lowers us, life lifts us.
* The house of death is for life.
That last line, that the house of death is for life, suggests that the tombs were for the living, to support memories, traditions and cultural continuity. It makes tomb building less of a selfish affair.
If you love wisdom literature. You may also enjoy "Old Irish wisdom attributed to Aldfrith of Northumbria: an edition of Bríathra Flainn Fhína maic Ossu" (https://worldcat.org/title/41404827) and "The Triads of Ireland" (https://archive.org/details/triadsofireland00meyeuoft). The problem with the "Triads" is that the translation/edition is old and it probably needs a new one.
That last line is also what you gather from contemporary sources, some of which can be found in the book “black land, red land” by Barbara Mertz. Many people went to visit the graves and do their tribute / ritual there.
Two observations, first, the significance with the Sumerians, especially in context of this article, is the writing (among other things), not the fact that they told stories.
Secondly, I think it's a fair assumption that there were oral traditions long before the invention of writing, but this is likely true for people living in the Middle East, or elsewhere. And as a sidenote, how can you prove the existence of extremely rich oral traditions?
Sure, but presumably the Sumerians also had a long oral tradition predating writing.
It is just that we don't know anything about oral traditions thousands of years ago, since they leave no archeological trace. What we can know about is what is written down on durable material, and Sumer happens to have some of the very oldest surviving writing.
Stories are probably as old as language, but this is pure speculation.
Really don't like the author or his writing style. It reeks of academic superiority complex. If you are in history and cannot admit that much of history is built on very flimsy and thin evidence and at least admit there is some merit to alternative theories you are just a snob.
Simple question: Epic of Gilgamesh is one of the oldest stories we have. Is it good? Is it worth reading today? Or is just just preserved for history's sake? Actually curious
I rather like it. In particular, I'd recommend Benjamin Foster's translation as one that is based off of an up-to-date critical text and is very faithful to the original language (or so I've been told).
Caveats:
* There are still gaps in the text. You're going to have to fill in the blanks in places.
* The story is from a distant cultural context that feels alien in a way that Greek stories don't.
Depends on what you like I guess? But if you like ancient epics it is great. Monsters, friendship, sex, death, a search for immortality etc.
Be aware that is is only partially preserved, so there is a lot of missing passages in the text which may make it a jumpy and somewhat confusing read compared to say Homer.
[+] [-] pkdpic|3 years ago|reply
Anyway I ended up feeling best introducing historical points in a minimal amount of implied context. "The people who wrote this textbook considered _______ to be the earliest major example of _______." or "As of 20XX this was considered to be the oldest known example of ______." etc.
I started to have a lot more luck with maintaining a positive productive engaged classroom conversation when I started doing that. And it let us dive into unstructured critiques of historical method and bias which was always a good way to run out of time in lectures.
Then I realized teaching couldn't support an adult human lifestyle and had to quit. I miss these kinds of discussions though. Always glad to see them on hn.
[+] [-] martopix|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] readthenotes1|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mach1ne|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bananarchist|3 years ago|reply
Maybe this is why so many arguments open with the cliche "Webster defines..."
[+] [-] shireboy|3 years ago|reply
I was taught that Gilgamesh wasn’t the first written work of literature, but the first written work of epic story. I don’t know if this is true, but many of the other works cited are biographies, proverbs, etc.
[+] [-] nottorp|3 years ago|reply
On the other hand, apparently self improvement books are older than the first fiction :)
[+] [-] adrian_b|3 years ago|reply
As mentioned in the article, in the beginning there were 5 separate stories about various adventures of Gilgamesh, written in the Sumerian language, some time around 2200 BC to 2000 BC.
A few hundred years later (around the time of Hammurabi), some Old Babylonian writer has translated the Sumerian stories into Old Babylonian, while making various changes to them in order to make them fit into a single long epic.
The Old Babylonian writer has also written several other stories, which were interleaved between the Sumerian stories and which integrated everything into a coherent epic.
Hundreds of years later, the Old Babylonian version was modified into the standard version that is best known. That version was also modified later into various other versions, some of them being translated into various languages of the neighbors of the Akkadians.
While there are many other earlier writings that can be considered as works of literature, the 5 Sumerian stories about Gilgamesh are one of the earliest examples of writings that are of the epic kind, i.e. which describe the adventures of some fictional character.
Most of the older writings mentioned in the article are not of this kind, but they may be considered as lyric, didactic or historic.
Most stories that might be older than the 5 Sumerian stories about Gilgamesh are other Sumerian stories about their gods, most of them being stories about Inanna, as mentioned in the article.
However, the age of all these Sumerian stories is not known with certainty, just that they have been written some time in the second half of the third millennium BC.
Some of the other Sumerian stories might be even a few centuries older than the 5 Gilgamesh stories, but they might as well be of a similar age.
So when talking about the earliest literature of the epic kind, it is not possible to pinpoint which is the earliest known work, but one must give a list that contains the Sumerian stories of the 3rd millennium BC, including the 5 stories about Gilgamesh.
The Sumerian stories about Gilgamesh might be the earliest where the main hero is identified as a human, not as a god.
[+] [-] tgv|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Maursault|3 years ago|reply
Deeply, but though we can make distinction between a modern best seller and Brian's grammatically incorrect graffiti, "Romanes eunt domus,"[1], in essence they are both literature, even if the latter is fictional and framed within the larger contemporary story, because Brian wrote a message representative of some language.
Literature is defined by writing, and writing is defined by symbols representing language. Always given less emphasis than the ancient cave art found in caves all over the world are the abstract symbols that very often accompany the graphic depictions of animals. For all we know some of those symbols may mean, "this tastes good," and regardless of being unable to decipher them, they could still be the oldest extant literature[2] so long as they could represent language and tell a story, no matter how primitive a story.
Before the Egyptian hieroglyphs and Mayan pictographs were deciphered, there was no question that they had specific meaning behind them. Though in the strictest sense, pictography is not an alphabet, it still conveys specific messages in some once spoken language. In my opinion, if there are any abstract symbols that represent even the most primitive message, if it's clear there is even some vague attempt at communication, then it will still broadly fall under the category of literature, regardless of ever being deciphered.
While ultimately I agree that the epic of Gilgamesh is the earliest extant high, advanced, or complex literature, I think whether a written story still exists or not is an arbitrary distinction. The fact that Gilgamesh exists in the literary form that it does necessarily means earlier examples of high literature once existed but are unknown and likely lost. Between Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides there were over 300 plays written of which 33 survive. That the missing plays no longer exist should not diminish the fact that these were, in fact, written and were undoubtedly literature.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_ite_domum
[2] https://www.openculture.com/2019/03/40000-year-old-symbols-f... note: Though von Petzinger herself clarifies in her TED Talk that the common ancient symbols are not writing, I think she's hedging for some reason (probably professional caution) contradicting what her own research shows and statements she makes immediately previously.
[+] [-] faeriechangling|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MattGaiser|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forbiddenvoid|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gerdesj|3 years ago|reply
You don't need to define "literature", it largely defines itself but not in a formal mathematical way (derived from axioms) but in a linguistic way which is rather closer to legal reasoning and quite open to interpretation.
So, we might have litera tura as an initial path to the to past to explore for literature. Latin for something like learning from letters (characters). I've searched quite a lot and I see litera being turned into a book which I think is wrong - a book is librum in Latin.
Litera are individual letters or characters but many "letters" starts to take on a new meaning. They become words (verbum) initially, and as you deploy more verbum you get paginae and then liberae. I've probably really mashed up the singulars and plurals - soz.
So I think we have literae tura. This gives us some latitude for interpretation. For starters, literature need not be confined to books - that might be liberature and get jolly confused with notions of freedom.
Right, now we have modern language sorted out, let's worry about how old an ancient text is or are or something.
[+] [-] type0|3 years ago|reply
edit: btw, I wish even a fraction of the current high-budget superhero movies had as good of a plot as Gilgamesh
[+] [-] AdmiralAsshat|3 years ago|reply
While we're at it, we'd probably need to rewrite Enkidu's story, too, because the idea of a Sacred Prostitute sanitizing a wildman through several days and nights of continuous sex is sure to rile some puritan feathers.
[+] [-] jvanderbot|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ncmncm|3 years ago|reply
All the oldest Egyptian construction was blank, but that didn't stop later pharaohs from tagging them with their own cartouches, chiseling off any older tags. Today, Egyptologists routinely date things to whoever was the last pharaoh to tag it.
But there must have been a real taboo about tagging pyramids, because none did them.
By the way, the reason noses and right hands of so much statuary is broken is that that was the standard Christian way of neutralizing the powerful magic they had enabled. Without a nose, they could not breathe in altar smoke. Without a hand, they could not bless.
[+] [-] generationP|3 years ago|reply
Not all. See the image caption at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_Texts . You're talking of the Giza ones I assume, which were indeed surprisingly text-free. Might have been a 5th dynasty "invention"?
> By the way, the reason noses and right hands of so much statuary is broken is that that was the standard Christian way of neutralizing the powerful magic they had enabled. Without a nose, they could not breathe in altar smoke. Without a hand, they could not bless.
This appears to be one of many theories https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/250763/1/2019%20-%20BM... .
What is definitely known is that Akhenaten would deface images of older gods, and his successors responded in kind; IIRC this would usually manifest in literal defacing rather than de-nosing.
[+] [-] xhevahir|3 years ago|reply
There's also the problem of applying the criterion of "fiction" to cultures that had no such concept. (The beginning of this article goes into it: https://theamericanscholar.org/fictions-revenge/ .)
[+] [-] kasey_junk|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bee_rider|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] salmo|3 years ago|reply
Reproductions are kinda nasty and very low ABV from what I’ve heard and read. But a ton of calories and no amoebas. Perfect for a hard day’s pyramid building.
[+] [-] omwow|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smitty1e|3 years ago|reply
...of which we have knowledge now.
Keeping it humble is a general challenge. However, one feels confident that human knowledge is still closer to the beginning than to the fullness of any macro, micro, or historical understanding of the universe.
Were we capable of observing this romantic past, one surmises that we'd be shocked at how normal and boring it all is. Modulo technology, Solmon's observation holds constant: "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." (Eccl1:9)
[+] [-] lproven|3 years ago|reply
For a start there is Göbekli Tepe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
Göbekli Tepe was nearly as long before cuneiform writing as cuneiform was before now.
It's not really about cities. It's about cultures that wrote stuff down.
[+] [-] dr_dshiv|3 years ago|reply
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Instructions_of_Shuruppak
But, I’d like to share my favorite, the Egyptian “The Instructions of Hardjedef”, supposedly written in the 25th century BC:
* Clean yourself in your own eyes before someone can clean you. * When you grow, build a house. * Take a wife who has mastered her heart and multiply. * You build for your children when you house yourself. * Build a strong house in the grave and a noble place where the sun sets. * Death lowers us, life lifts us. * The house of death is for life.
That last line, that the house of death is for life, suggests that the tombs were for the living, to support memories, traditions and cultural continuity. It makes tomb building less of a selfish affair.
[+] [-] cyocum|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prox|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] factorialboy|3 years ago|reply
Several other regions of the world have extremely rich traditions, oral traditions of literature, predating by centuries events of the Middle East.
[+] [-] kitsune_|3 years ago|reply
Secondly, I think it's a fair assumption that there were oral traditions long before the invention of writing, but this is likely true for people living in the Middle East, or elsewhere. And as a sidenote, how can you prove the existence of extremely rich oral traditions?
[+] [-] goto11|3 years ago|reply
It is just that we don't know anything about oral traditions thousands of years ago, since they leave no archeological trace. What we can know about is what is written down on durable material, and Sumer happens to have some of the very oldest surviving writing.
Stories are probably as old as language, but this is pure speculation.
[+] [-] Tor3|3 years ago|reply
Isn't that contradictory? You have oral traditions, and then you have literature ("literature" means written work)
[+] [-] shp0ngle|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] citizenpaul|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swayvil|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barbariangrunge|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wl|3 years ago|reply
Caveats:
* There are still gaps in the text. You're going to have to fill in the blanks in places.
* The story is from a distant cultural context that feels alien in a way that Greek stories don't.
[+] [-] goto11|3 years ago|reply
Be aware that is is only partially preserved, so there is a lot of missing passages in the text which may make it a jumpy and somewhat confusing read compared to say Homer.
[+] [-] kurupt213|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forgotpwd16|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cco|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rblion|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lakomen|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jawadch93|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]