Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Devil-sAdvocate t1_ja5hbmt wrote

> The Sumerians were possibly the oldest civilization in the world and the first to establish religion and a code of law.

Other firsts include: invented the first form of writing, the first known number system with place value was the Mesopotamian base 60 system, the first to develop the turning wheel- which is a device which allowed them to mass-produce pottery, and they invented the plow.

204

be0wulfe t1_ja5och7 wrote

Base 60!?

I gotta read up more on this... Why base 60?

47

HermanCainsGhost t1_ja5qxjz wrote

Because 60 has a LOT of factors that can go into it.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15... etc

It's the reason why there are 60 minutes in an hour (and ultimately why there are 60 seconds in a minute, though that's a later development). It's also ultimately why we have 24 hours in a day (they had 12 for daylight hours, which ALSO has a lot of factors, it was eventually doubled).

A lot of time keeping stuff is due to them

139

AppleDane t1_ja7twnl wrote

The 12 hour clock was more due to having 1 hour of dawn and 1 hour of twilight. Night wasn't counted as "time", so they had 10 hours of effective time.

6

dreadcain t1_ja8e9n2 wrote

Source?

1

AppleDane t1_ja8g2mo wrote

I have to give up on finding any. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I remember this from either a documentary on TV or some article I read.

Everyone points to the babylonian number system, so I'm doubting myself too. Maybe I misremember this, or it was a later invention.

0

Devil-sAdvocate t1_ja5zdba wrote

Likely finger counting. The base 60 system likely originated from ancient peoples using the digits on one hand to count.

With the left hand, the left thumb counts up to 3 knuckles on each finger for a total of 12. Then with the right hand, the right thumb counts each additional finger as +12. Five multiplied by 12 equals 60.

65

False798 t1_ja60yxd wrote

what

Am I going to learn about expanded edition finger counting on reddit

38

2Twospark t1_ja6v31v wrote

That's how I first learnt about it.

Use your thumb to point/count your other joints in the fingers (including the base) and you can count to 12 on one hand. If you do the same with your other hand you're able to count up to 144 with just two hands.

:O

14

bestoboy t1_ja7estu wrote

how do you get to 144? Isn't it 60 on each hand?

2

firala t1_ja7qh4d wrote

12*12 == 144

I assume you multiply the two hand values when you are using two.

1

neokraken17 t1_ja7epn0 wrote

Counting 12-15 per hand was how I grew up learning, I thought this was the way everyone did it?

2

False798 t1_ja867it wrote

My education experience in the US was only 5 for each hand - I resent not learning about this for so long because I definitely could've used it countless times.

Time to build muscle memory...

1

ManannanMacLir74 t1_ja5nqqy wrote

Many scholars actually argue for simultaneous evolution of both Egypt and Mesopotamia and no Mesopotamia had contemporaries so they weren't the first at all to have a religion which is absolutely absurd to say.But there is evidence for a divergent evolution especially when it comes to writing between Mesopotamia and Egypt. I keep bringing up Egypt because it's the oldest contemporary civilization to Mesopotamia

25

Devil-sAdvocate t1_ja5zkr5 wrote

I thought archaeological evidence shows cuneiform dates back to at least 3500 BCE while hieroglyphs date back to around 3100.

18

ManannanMacLir74 t1_ja5zw6h wrote

I'm not a scholar in these fields but I do try to keep up with the latest developments in this debate

−6

ManannanMacLir74 t1_ja5ztbn wrote

All of that is based on old dating and I don't know how it's evidence anymore than it is guessing.

−7

Pademelon1 t1_ja5zqqu wrote

The Indus Valley was also contemporaneous

14

ManannanMacLir74 t1_ja601lb wrote

Absolutely and we still don't know how to read the Indus script but it doesn't help that some scholars argue that the Indus script isn't a script at all which opens a can of worms in that debate

14

thestoplereffect t1_ja64goi wrote

If it's not a script what could it be?

3

ManannanMacLir74 t1_ja6hppo wrote

I don't know but this is the same problem with the script of the Vinca culture which predates Mesopotamia.Some scholars say it's a script and other's say it's not

8

vmp916 t1_ja6juw7 wrote

How came some say it’s a script while others say it’s not? A representation of a spoken language which in modern day would be script but back then it could mean representation of sounds or meanings behind sounds. How is that not a script?

3

Flammenschwert t1_ja80dob wrote

There's kind of a big muddy area between abstract symbols and a full on script, which is specifically symbols representing spoken language. They may have had symbolic meaning without directly standing in for language. For an example in the modern world, a roadsign indicating a turn has symbolic meaning, but that doesn't make it a script. The Nike logo definitely stands for a particular meaning, but it's not part of a script either. It's unknown whether or not the Indus Valley script is a proper script or if it has non-language symbolic meaning.

1

assassinshogun307 t1_ja5q6l5 wrote

>the first to develop the turning wheel- which is a device which allowed them to mass-produce pottery

I misread this as mass-produce poetry and I spend half a minute trying to figure out how a turning wheel could make people come up with multiple poems lol

12

ManannanMacLir74 t1_ja5nv76 wrote

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