4.1 Writing
4.2 The Syntax of Symbols
4.3 The Reconfiguration of Perception
4.4 Thought ‘squared’
4.5 The Scribes
4.6 The Logic of Reflection
4.7 Writing as an Indication of Control
4.8 Writing as a Structure of Control
4.9 Historiographic Specificity
4.10 From Prehistory to ‘Post-History’
ERRORS in databases:
- "Boson1918Assiriologia.d": duplicate bibliography "Boson1918Assiriologia" for site "Akk-lg".
- "Bottero1992Reasoning.d": duplicate bibliography "Bottero1992Reasoning" for site "Mes-rel".
- "Buccellati1972Teodicea.d": duplicate bibliography "Buccellati1972Teodicea" for site "Mes-lit".
- "Cauvin2000Birth.d": duplicate bibliography "Cauvin2000Birth" for site "Mes-rel".
- "DMB.d": duplicate bibliography "DMB" for site "Mes-rel".
- "Edzard2003Sumerian.d": duplicate bibliography "Edzard2003Sumerian" for site "Mes-rel".
- "Oshima2014Sufferers.d": duplicate bibliography "Oshima2014Sufferers" for site "Mes-rel".
- "Trinkaus1983Shanidar.d": duplicate bibliography "Trinkaus1983Shanidar" for site "Mes-rel".
4.1 Writing
See Goody 1977 Domestication; about the so-called bureucratic mind, cf. also Strauss 1969 Mind.
– [ Giorgio Buccellati, July 2020]
About the “mythical” origins of writing, a Mesopotamian composition tells us about the story of a messenger who, entrusted by his king to dispatched a message to another king, since he was not able to keep in mind the answer the second king gave him to report to the first king, wrote the content of the message on clay (thus, becoming the first mythical scribe); for the text of the composition, known in literature as Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, see, on E T C S L, ll. 500-514. In Mesopotamian tradition, the invention of writing was considered as a great improvement; as an interesting counter-argument, it would be worth recalling the opposite, negative view of Plato, who considered writing as a dangerous tool, weakening the power and value of memory (see, on Perseus, Phdr. 275c-275e).
– [ Marco De Pietri, December 2023]
As for the origin of writing in Mesopotamia and its role in the development of reasoning and religious systems, see e.g. Bottero 1992 Reasoning; cf. also Van De Mieroop 1999 Cuneiform and Van De Mieroop 2016 Philosophy.
About writing in ancient Mesopotamia (with useful comparisons with other similar/different realities), see e.g. Gelb 1963 Writing.
On the role of the scribes, see e.g. Godart 2023 Scribes.
On writing in general, see e.g. Nissen &al 1993 Archaic.
Cf. also, for a general overview, Oppenheim 1944 Temple and Oppenheim 1964 Mesopotamia.
– [ Marco De Pietri, February 2024]
4.2 The Syntax of Symbols
Since they were made of organic material, we do not have actual styli retrieved thanks to archaeology; nevertheless, we can advance a comparison with some bronze styli found in the Hittite capital Ḫattuša/Boğazköy, dating to the second half of the 2nd millennium BC, for which see e.g. the dedicated section Hethitische Schreibkunst (bottom page, Figure 9) on the H P M website (click here for wider display of the same picture).
– [ Marco De Pietri, December 2023]
For the Sumerian word, see e P S D 2, under lemma; for the development of the cuneiform sign, from pictogram to abstract shape, see Malbran Labat 1988 Cuneiform, pp. 222-223 [no. 537].
– [ Marco De Pietri, December 2023]
As for grammatical connections, see e.g. Sini 2012 Sapere Dei Segni.
– [ Marco De Pietri, February 2024]
About tokens, see also Schmandt- Besserat and all her works; cf. also Crisa &al 2019 Tokens.
– [ Marco De Pietri, February 2024]
4.3 The Reconfiguration of Perception
On reification in the process of inventing writing, see Derrida 1968 Pharmacie: it is true that language tends to writing, but only in the sense that it aims towards reification, and that writing is the completion of reification; see Harland 1987 Superstructuralism, p. 129, cited in Foley 1991 Immanent Art, p. xiii.
– [ Giorgio Buccellati, July 2020]
Digital thought; cf. also the website dedicated to digital discourse.
– [ Giorgio Buccellati, July 2020]
Supra-linearity vs. non-linearity. The quoted texts are later (third millennium BC); the Babylonian Theodicy is dated to the end of the second millennium BC.
– [ Giorgio Buccellati, July 2020]
4.4 Thought ‘squared’
See Sokolowski 1978 Presence Absence.
– [ Giorgio Buccellati, July 2020]
See Gatto 2009 Neomarxismo, about the thought squared as a thought on thought.
– [ Giorgio Buccellati, July 2020]
About the aspect of ‘double absence’ described in Buccellati, Origins, Chapter 4.4, some useful thoughts can be found in Derrida 1968 Pharmacie, pp. 271-283.
– [ Jessica Scaciga, April 2024]
4.5 The Scribes
For the Sumerian word, see e P S D 2, under lemma; for the development of the cuneiform sign, from pictogram to abstract shape, see Malbran Labat 1988 Cuneiform, pp. 222-223 [no. 537].
– [ Marco De Pietri, December 2023]
In Buccellati, Origins, Chapter 4.5, the author talks about scribes and invention of writing as the best “experiment” of “coherence” and “persistance” within the community. To better understand the intellectual figure of scribes and their role, see Godart 2023 Scribes, pp. 34-35.
– [ Jessica Scaciga, April 2024]
4.6 The Logic of Reflection
See Nissen 1986 Uruk.
– [ Giorgio Buccellati, July 2020]
For this reason, we could maybe speak of a “science” of writing, since verifiability is a feature of science in the moder, post-Illuminism sense.
– [ Marco De Pietri, December 2023]
4.9 Historiographic Specificity
See Nissen 1986 Uruk.
– [ Giorgio Buccellati, July 2020]
On the bureucratic mind, see e.g. Taylor 2009 Mind.
– [ Marco De Pietri, February 2024]
4.10 From Prehistory to ‘Post-History’
See Fukuyama 1992 The Endof History.
– [ Giorgio Buccellati, July 2020]
About Gutenber’g invention of the printing press, see e.g. Childress 2008 Gutenberg.
– [ Marco De Pietri, February 2024]
About prehistory, see e.g. Guidi 2009 Complessita Sociale.
– [ Marco De Pietri, February 2024]