Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ManannanMacLir74 t1_ja5nv76 wrote

Reply to comment by Devil-sAdvocate in 4,500-year-old Sumerian temple dedicated to mighty thunder god discovered in Iraq. by Rifletree

Also another error is attributing writing to Mesopotamia first

−8

peteroh9 t1_ja5sjjk wrote

You need to explain that because actual writing absolutely originated in Mesopotamia.

16

tanksforlooking t1_ja5ynfw wrote

Can you explain?

6

ManannanMacLir74 t1_ja5zhx2 wrote

As I've said above watch the video but to give you a bit of context the idea that cuneiform came first or influenced hieroglyphics isn't widely accepted among all scholarship like it was decades ago.The most likely scenario is that the two evolved independently as they're very different and even if cuneiform evolved first it definitely didn't influence hieroglyphics much at all.Even the kingship in Mesopotamia was very different from the Pharaoh's of Egypt for a few reasons. Lastly if I'm not mistaken Egyptian civilization sprang up fully formed first while Mesopotamia was still in warring city states

−1

khinzaw t1_ja61lna wrote

None of this means cuneiform didn't come first. Scholarly consensus is that it did, but the degree to which it influenced the development of hieroglyphics is debated but consensus is leaning towards that hieroglyphics are independently formed with the most influence cuneiform could have had being stimulating the formation of a writing system if even that. This is because the oldest known hieroglyphics are younger than cuneiform but seem to have no connection whatsoever to it.

17

ManannanMacLir74 t1_ja62bcr wrote

Scholarship used to say cuneiform is about 300 years older than hieroglyphics supposedly but I fail to see how they came to these dates and timelines

−3

hereforstories8 t1_ja6l4ud wrote

Not going to argue the points here, but typically “I fail to see/don’t think/understand . . .” is not a good argument.

16

ManannanMacLir74 t1_ja7kay1 wrote

Typically not understanding that many dates in ancient timeliness are not set in stone and speculative is a good place to start

1

hereforstories8 t1_ja9wit1 wrote

Well understanding where you fail to understand is a good place to start.

0

ManannanMacLir74 t1_ja9z308 wrote

Understanding that most timelines are guessing is a great place to start and don't get me started on radio carbon dating

0

khinzaw t1_ja63k1w wrote

Because the oldest known cuneiform is dated to be older than the oldest known hieroglyphics. The earliest Cuneiform is dated back to around 3500 BCE while the earliest Hieroglyphics are dated to around 3400-3200 BCE. Both have some amount of proto-language going earlier but it is unclear how developed they were.

Additionally, Sumerian script has a long evolutionary history that goes back to 8000 BCE that can be traced, while hieroglyphics seem to have sprung into use comparitively suddenly. This is why some scholars say that even if hieroglyphics are a fully independent system, it is possible cuneiform still stimulated that creation of a writing system.

14

ManannanMacLir74 t1_ja61xic wrote

There is no evidence cuneiform influenced hieroglyphics why do you all keep parroting outdated scholarship??Yeah that's my whole point both consensus and evidence are now saying both scripts developed independently this is obvious

−5

khinzaw t1_ja622lt wrote

>There is no evidence cuneiform influenced hieroglyphics

I didn't say there was.

Your original argument was that it was wrong to say Cuneiform developed first, but then your argument for that was that hieroglyphics developed independently which does not say anything about whether Cuneiform develpped first

18

Devil-sAdvocate t1_ja5zeys wrote

How is that?

5

ManannanMacLir74 t1_ja5zpzk wrote

How is what?Are you going to be obtuse and refuse to watch the video?

−7

Devil-sAdvocate t1_ja5ztty wrote

Link a peer reviewed scientific written paper, anyone can make a random video.

10

ManannanMacLir74 t1_ja6078g wrote

What?If your going to discuss an academic level YouTube channel then we have nothing further to discuss and peer review means absolutely nothing

−4

ManannanMacLir74 t1_ja60fbc wrote

You're going to parrot peer review yet more than a few scientific studies and papers have exposed the flaws in it and argue it's ineffective nature.

Do you want those studies or papers too?

−10

MisterFistYourSister t1_ja6bl7q wrote

Why does your video carry more weight than peer review?

9

ManannanMacLir74 t1_ja6hwvc wrote

Peer review isn't really reliable but it's still used so why would I refer back to a flawed method?

−4