Origin of Writing

[Orcseeker]

I referred to them as precursors to writing, and asked whether or not petroglyphs, pictographs and even cave paintings could be building blocks towards writing. Nordic runes would be a more "advanced" form of written communication translatable as a language. I'm suggesting there may be transitional forms, as in evolutionary theory buttressed by fossilized finds. It's a heory. I am no expert.

My thoughts exactly

[Leonardo]

I referred to them as precursors to writing, and asked whether or not petroglyphs, pictographs and even cave paintings could be building blocks towards writing. Nordic runes would be a more "advanced" form of written communication translatable as a language. I'm suggesting there may be transitional forms, as in evolutionary theory buttressed by fossilized finds. It's a heory. I am no expert.

It's an interesting hypothesis, but I remain skeptical of any transitional linkage between pictographs and true writing. Primarily because of the difference in what they represent - with pictographs representing real-world or concrete things, while writing developed to represent abstractions.

While both are obviously visual representations, that is only because we are primarily visual beings. Because of this I doubt what EnigmaticLines presents in the OP, and in later posts, represents the "origin of writing". Writing came about because of a need brought on by the increasing sophistication of human societies and the need for those societies to communicate effectively with each other regarding abstract concepts - such as commerce, religion, politics, etc.

Pictographs, however, convey messages of concrete things - animals, asterisms, geographical features, and people. I see pictographs as the precursor to later, more sophisticated, forms of visual art rather than a precursor to written language.

[cladking]

I think the truly remarkable thing is that the first writing wasn't an explanation of

how they discovered writing! Why wasn't the first writing a recording of the old

oral traditions? Why didn't they record any of the science or metaphysics? These

are the important things to the first writers but none of this exists. Indeed, there

are no books from the first 1200 years of writing!!! All we have are a few lists

copied in later times. This should make people think and wonder why recorded

history doesn't start until about 2000 BC.

Writing probably arose from small clay discs that were used to represent farm

assets in Sumeria. People used these discs and realized that if they could re-

present things then they could represent sounds. Some of these symbols are

even preserved in the writing.

There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the ancients who invent-

ed writing. It's pretty hard to believe they mostly spoke in one word "sentences"

about mundane things. This would hardly constitute the incentive to invent a means

to record ideas.

[anubisptah]

It's an interesting hypothesis, but I remain skeptical of any transitional linkage between pictographs and true writing. Primarily because of the difference in what they represent - with pictographs representing real-world or concrete things, while writing developed to represent abstractions.

While both are obviously visual representations, that is only because we are primarily visual beings. Because of this I doubt what EnigmaticLines presents in the OP, and in later posts, represents the "origin of writing". Writing came about because of a need brought on by the increasing sophistication of human societies and the need for those societies to communicate effectively with each other regarding abstract concepts - such as commerce, religion, politics, etc.

Pictographs, however, convey messages of concrete things - animals, asterisms, geographical features, and people. I see pictographs as the precursor to later, more sophisticated, forms of visual art rather than a precursor to written language.

How is writing abstract? I believe when you read it messes with your left brain hemisphere. That is not abstract it is the opposite.

[Whisperer]

Another thought, writing could have began from 'Hunter Gatherer' maps, organised foraging and hunting plans made in situ for hunting and pre expedition for foraging.

Concepts for landmarks could have been verbalised as well as target species and stratagy placements...its easy enougth to scratch out in the dirt before agreeing upon the execution...*edited for bad spelling*

Edited November 16, 2013 by mumanster

[Considered_Ignorance]

seems pretty straightforward. Writing begins as marks made for permanence (laws, commercial records) or demonstration (pictures of animals, star positions), and through the 'reading' out aloud of the information that the marks hold, writing develops into markers for the sounds of words and ideas.

The earliest writing then relies on your definition of 'writing', but is probably the lists mentioned, in clay or rope markings.

What may be even more interesting though, is how writing influences and is influenced by civilisation. As noted, the commencing of commerce seems to instigate mark making, but what effect would the decline of commerce/religion/governance have on a cultures use of mark making?

sorry for rambling, just thinking out loud really.

are there ancient analogies to the christian attempt to monopolise writing in the dark ages? And what about similar renaissance and enlightenment periods of ancient cultures? In our earliest histories of writing, has there been periods where a type of writing has almost dissapeared? Do periods of decline in the use of a writing correlate with the massive transformations in that writing and a resurgence in ( or repurposing of) usage or transformation in the technology employed to record it?

Edited November 16, 2013 by Considered_Ignorance

[Kahn]

I would differ slightly from your assessment CI. If you think about it, trade requires writing, so it is not surprising that the oldest forms of writing we have found to date are mundane lists of trade items. After all, you got to have some way of figuring out if the merchant upstream is stiffing you.

[Considered_Ignorance]

Reading the article linked to about the 'geometric writing' again, I don't think this counts as writing really. That people made marks as a tally or map, then progressed to using it as a written language makes sense, but the geometrical writing of the OP seems wrong for this.

because it isn't the sort of mark making that would get 'read' out loud, is it? For the marks on those bones to represent the exacting angles claimed, it would need to be used in one location only, and as an indicator of actual physical positions rather than any abstract concepts.

A mark of 1, 2 or 27, and a mark or means to link that number to items of commerce is more abstract, and can rely on the marks made independently of the medium or surroundings. Such a record could be transferable, and could be read and understood by people other than its creator. Marking these angles on bone isn't the same thing, and hence the evolution of that system into othrr forms of communication seems unlikely.

Not sure if im making any sense here, basically in my first ramble I said that marks are and do become written language, but now I'm saying I dont think these particular marks count.

[Kahn]

I would diverge in that you seem to be forgetting that you have to apply numbers to items; i.e. 43 skins, 20 amphorae of wine, 12 monkeys, etc.

[anubisptah]

seems pretty straightforward. Writing begins as marks made for permanence (laws, commercial records) or demonstration (pictures of animals, star positions), and through the 'reading' out aloud of the information that the marks hold, writing develops into markers for the sounds of words and ideas.

The earliest writing then relies on your definition of 'writing', but is probably the lists mentioned, in clay or rope markings.

What may be even more interesting though, is how writing influences and is influenced by civilisation. As noted, the commencing of commerce seems to instigate mark making, but what effect would the decline of commerce/religion/governance have on a cultures use of mark making?

sorry for rambling, just thinking out loud really.

are there ancient analogies to the christian attempt to monopolise writing in the dark ages? And what about similar renaissance and enlightenment periods of ancient cultures? In our earliest histories of writing, has there been periods where a type of writing has almost dissapeared? Do periods of decline in the use of a writing correlate with the massive transformations in that writing and a resurgence in ( or repurposing of) usage or transformation in the technology employed to record it?

I could see the most definable purpose being for law for sure.

[Frank Merton]

Frank....

Do you now of any petroglyphs showing linear grid-like patterns in Vietnam?

Thanks for the question but I know of no early stuff in Vietnam at all (by "early" I mean prior to say 1000 BCE).

[Frank Merton]

I would differ slightly from your assessment CI. If you think about it, trade requires writing, so it is not surprising that the oldest forms of writing we have found to date are mundane lists of trade items. After all, you got to have some way of figuring out if the merchant upstream is stiffing you.

I dunno; simple trade can be bartered and caveat emptor. I figure writing started when tax collectors had to give receipts to taxpayers and similar proofs to the king. Maybe just ordinary debts needed proofs.

[jaylemurph]

I could see the most definable purpose being for law for sure.

The "law" is an awfully abstract concept to apply to the far more concrete medium of writing. Think about the idea (as above) of 12 amphorae of wine -- discrete, concrete, solid objects -- as opposed to "thou shalt honor thy mother and father". It makes far more sense to be that writing would first be applied as concretely as possible.

--Jaylemurph

[Frank Merton]

The "law" is an awfully abstract concept to apply to the far more concrete medium of writing. Think about the idea (as above) of 12 amphorae of wine -- discrete, concrete, solid objects -- as opposed to "thou shalt honor thy mother and father". It makes far more sense to be that writing would first be applied as concretely as possible.

--Jaylemurph

Yes of course. As I understand it what has been translated of some of the earliest texts is always disappointing -- not about kings and gods but about tables and chairs.

[kmt_sesh]

As I recall the oldest agreed object of art is a piece of stone or bone from South Africa on which an ancient human scored hash marks. It's around 70,000 years old. Although not representational art of the sort that would appear 30,000 years later in the caves of southwest Europe, this object was obviously scarred for a reason. Perhaps it wasn't art to the person who did it, but it represents the oldest-known object "decorated" by Homo sapiens sapiens. In appearance it reminds me of some of the scored objects seen in the links in the OP. But is this writing?

Of course not. No properly trained linguist or historian would regard it as writing. It's simply hash marks. True writing is significantly more complicated than that. The OP links also show examples of early Chinese writing and examples of cuneiform, and while a glance will confirm that these examples are writing, hashmarks certainly are not.

Early historians were curious about the enigmatic geometric symbols and signs found in the Upper Paleolithic caves of southwest France and northeast Spain, such as Lascaux in the Dordogne department (see example here, at the feet of the Great Black Cow). Some of these early historians posited that the symbols were an ancient form of writing or perhaps a precursor to writing. Almost no one holds to that theory today. It's simply not plausible. Modern theories lean toward clan markers or perhaps mnemonic devices, but a form of writing it is not.

One must take care even in leaning toward precursors to writing. When you think about it, what exactly does that mean? Numerous American Indian peoples such as the Lakota made elaborate, painted, pictographic winter counts generation after generation and yet never developed a true writing system until modern times, when they assimilated to the same Latin alphabet I'm using right now. (The Cherokee alphabet stands out as different but it, too, is an adaptation of the Latin alphabet.) Pictographs are not a form of writing. Down through time scholars who labored to understand ancient writing systems fell prey to the same mistaken notion that this or that script could never be deciphered because they were purely ideographic—that is, signs not representing words or sounds but thoughts or ideas only. They thought this of Egyptian hieroglyphs, Mycenaean Linear B, Mayan, and Aztec.

They were wrong every time. To date, no ancient writing system that has been deciphered has turned out to be ideographic. They are always logogrammatic and phonetic (as are Egyptian hieroglyphs, Mycenaean Linear B, Mayan, and Aztec). This is to say, with all ancient forms of writing there is a clear system in place, with context and syntax, to make one's language visible. And that's simply what all forms of writing are.

Hash marks cannot do this. At this point in time, the debate continues as to which came first, but all professional linguists and historians agree that the world's first true writing system was either Sumerian cuneiform or Egyptian hieroglyphs—both of which emerged right around 3,400 to 3,300 BCE. Nothing has surfaced in the world of archaeology or linguistics to make anyone seriously doubt this fact.

[kmt_sesh]

I neglected to mention, but earlier there was talk about why writing actually was invented. That's an interesting part of the study of linguistics because there is no one reason. Cuneiform in Sumer first took form as a means to catalog transactions and inventories, so economics were a driving force. The earliest Egyptian hieroglyphs record gifts from elite estates and soon after names and titles of officials, so they seem to have emerged in the Abydos region of the Nile Valley for the purpose of showing possession, position, and status. Linear B from the Mycenaeans was much like the earliest cuneiform in recording exclusively economic matters; although cuneiform would go on to record elaborate narratives, myths, legends, kings lists, and the like, Linear B remained exclusively prosaic (much to the disappointment of historians of the time, who were hoping for narratives). But Mayan hieroglyphs seems to have been developed primarily for prestige purposes, in the recording of kings and calendars and historical events, so economy doesn't seem to have been the focus there.

In other words, there is no single answer as to why writing was invented. It depended on your society and what the elite of your society wanted to be recorded. What's most interesting is that the world's four oldest deciphered scripts—Sumerian cuneiform, Egyptian hieroglyphs, the Chinese script, and Mayan hieroglyphs—all developed independently of one another.

[kmt_sesh]

Gess, I'm sorry for popping in again, but I forgot something else. I promise this will be the last time tonight, or may jayle's Basset Masters chew me to bits and turn me into kmt-poo.

I forgot about the origin of Chinese. This script first appeared around 1800 BCE and was used for the purpose of oracles, so its origin is ritual or religious in nature. This makes it quite different from the beginnings of the world's other oldest scripts.

Obviously linguistics is of considerable interest to me, but I'm done hogging the discussion for the night.

Oh, wait...just kidding.

[Frank Merton]

I usually refrain from "liking" the posts of moderators as it might be misinterpreted, but in this case I'm learning so much I can't help myself.

[Leonardo]

How is writing abstract? I believe when you read it messes with your left brain hemisphere. That is not abstract it is the opposite.

I'm not suggesting the fact of writing is itself 'abstract, anubisptah. Writing is patently a concrete form of communication.

What I am suggesting is that writing, true writing, developed to communicate abstract ideas and concepts. To be able to communicate concrete 'things' simple pictographs would be all that was required. Not only that, but the symbols representative of what is being communicated have to be abstractions - i.e. they don't graphically resemble what they represent.

Take this example:

One person uses a vertical mark to indicate each item - or thing - and follows this line of vertical marks by a pictorial representation of the 'thing' being counted. They place six vertical marks on a surface followed by a drawing or imprint resembling, or obviously representative of, a camel.

Compare this with someone who inscribes "Six camels" on the same surface.

Are both of these true writing?

Edited November 16, 2013 by Leonardo

[Frank Merton]

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but reading about abstract writing brings to my mind one of writing's real miracles: if what we write gets preserved, we actually send our ideas and thoughts forward in time to the future.

[Considered_Ignorance]

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but reading about abstract writing brings to my mind one of writing's real miracles: if what we write gets preserved, we actually send our ideas and thoughts forward in time to the future.

OMG! It worked!

[cladking]

OMG! It worked!

Still works.

I wonder why it didn't work the first 1200 years of writing.

[DingoLingo]

I wonder why it didn't work the first 1200 years of writing.

its all greek to me.. as they saying goes

[SHaYap]

~snip

I forgot about the origin of Chinese. This script first appeared around 1800 BCE and was used for the purpose of oracles, so its origin is ritual or religious in nature. This makes it quite different from the beginnings of the world's other oldest scripts.

~snip

Friday, April 21, 2000

Earliest Chinese Characters Discovered

After years of arduous effort, Chinese archeologists have confirmed that the inscriptions on a 4, 800-year-old piece of pottery unearthed in Juxian County in east China's Shandong Province are the earliest form of Chinese characters ever found.

thePeoplesDailyOnline link

Thursday, 17 April, 2003

Signs carved into 8,600-year-old tortoise shells found in China may be the earliest written words, say archaeologists.

The symbols were laid down in the late Stone Age, or Neolithic Age.

They predate the earliest recorded writings from Mesopotamia - in what is now Iraq - by more than 2,000 years.

BBC News link

updated 11 July 2013

Fragments of two ancient stone axes found in China could display some of the world's earliest primitive writing, Chinese archaeologists say.

The markings on the axes, unearthed near Shanghai, could date back at least 5,000 years, the scientists say.

BBC News link

Wednesday 10 July 2013

Inscriptions found in Shanghai pre-date 'oldest Chinese language by 1,400 years'

Markings on artefacts from Zhuangqiao relics site date to 5,000 years ago and include string of words, says archaeologist

..."If five to six of them are strung together like a sentence, they are no longer symbols but words," said Cao Jinyan, a scholar of ancient writing at Zhejiang University. He said the markings should be regarded as hieroglyphics.

theGuardian link

The first recognizable form of Chinese writing dates from 3,500 years ago, but many argue that its origins lie much deeper in the past. Regardless of its actual age, Chinese has evolved substantially over time yet has retained its ancient core, making it one of the longest continuously used writing system in the world.

ancient scripts dot com link

There is now scholastic opinion that the earliest form of symbol/writing is of 'surnames/clan names' , much of it which was lost during the early period of warring states 'eradication' of rival clans.

~

[Derek Cunningham]

Isn't it strange how all the various ancient bones stones and carved shells all show a series of lines....many drawn in parallel sets, and they all shows the same angular series????

How is it possible that the Ishango Bone and the Lebombo bones despite being circa 10,000 years different in age show an almost identical pattern if it is not writing?

http://www.midnightsciencejournal.com/2013/11/09/reinterpretation-of-the-lebombo-and-ishango-tally-marks-evidence-of-advanced-astronomical-studies-in-paleolithic-era-bones/

Why are the marks on these bones similar to the marks found in a circa 30,000 year old sample found in Europe?

http://www.midnightsciencejournal.com/2013/11/10/study-of-astronomical-text-on-the-dolni-vestonice-venus-figure/

and why does the same set series of parallel lines reappear in the Bush Barrow gold plate (Stonehenge Heritage Park) if this is not writing?

http://www.midnightsciencejournal.com/2013/11/13/presence-of-astronomical-writing-on-the-bush-barrow-lozenge/

The fact that so many of the lines are drawn parallel to one another really indicates the marks were made intentionally.

If they were tally marks there would be no reason to be so careful in making the marks and absolutely no way the Ishango and Lebombo bones should be so similar.