What can be deemed the earliest book known to humans? I'm talking cuneiform/clay tablets, or possibly other media.
The Epic of Gilgamesh in any which form is an early contender in my eyes...but are there books [or stories in general] known that predate the former? For I can't imagine that it was Gilgamesh alone, the only story educated for hundreds of years to a people that knew how to read and write. Have there been found earlier tablets with other stories?
Epic of Gilgamesh is considered 'the first great work of literature' written by, who knows, maybe a woman!! circa 2100BC. .. Not a 'book' but the poems of 'Ancient High Priestess of An', Enheduanna are, circa 2300BC, the now-considered first recorded writings, by yes, a woman
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r.../06_poems.htmlAssyriologists have known for 50 years that the first named author in the history of writing was a woman, a high priestess who lived 4,000 years ago in the city of Ur, in what is now southern Iraq. But the words of this priestess, named Enheduanna (en-hey'-du-ana), who worshipped the goddess, Inanna, have been locked away in Sumerian texts and cuneiform tablets largely available to experts.
--
Meador, a Jungian analyst who lives in Berkeley, spent years in study with Sumerian linguist and UC Berkeley lecturer Daniel Foxvog deriving an original translation of the poetry of enheduanna, the highest religious authority in Mesopotamia for about 40 years around 2,300 B.C.
--
Later patriarchal religions stripped violent, harsh power from the repertoire of female goddesses and made it totally male, said Meador. But before that time the goddess Inanna represented both light and dark sides of nature and human nature.
Originally Posted by Logos
Epic of Gilgamesh is considered 'the first great work of literature' written by, who knows, maybe a woman!! circa 2100BC. .. Not a 'book' but the poems of 'Ancient High Priestess of An', Enheduanna are, circa 2300BC, the now-considered first recorded writings, by yes, a woman
It is very possible that a woman wrote the 'Epic of Gilgamesh'.
This particular passage from the story makes me think twice, "his voice is warm and husky like dark melted chocolate fudge caramel... or something"... uhm, it does seem to have a woman's touch.
Interesting article, Logos, but please note that it does not claim that En-hedu-ana was the author of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Is there any evidence that you know of to suggest that she was? I am no Assyriologist (although I've known a few), but it is my impression that Gilgamesh was redacted--centuries after En-hedu-ana's time--from multiple independent poems; and that these works had long circulated as oral poetry (perhaps even before writing), so that whoever actually wrote down/redacted Gilgamesh was not the "author" as we would use the term, but more probably a scribe. If that is correct, then generations of both women and men would have been responsible for the epic.Epic of Gilgamesh is considered 'the first great work of literature' written by, who knows, maybe a woman!! circa 2100BC. .. Not a 'book' but the poems of 'Ancient High Priestess of An', Enheduanna are, circa 2300BC, the now-considered first recorded writings, by yes, a woman
For me, the most moving aspect of Gilgamesh is that after millions of years of prehistoric silence, when we can finally "hear" the voices of our remote ancestors, the questions they are asking are the same that we ask ourselves today: why do we have to die and, really, isn't there something we can do about it? So little have we changed.
Last edited by Pompey Bum; 06-08-2015 at 09:36 AM.
barf.. lol.. I think you have the wrong book."his voice is warm and husky like dark melted chocolate fudge caramel... or something"... uhm, it does seem to have a woman's touch.
Oops. I was not implying that Gilgamesh was written by Enheduanna. I just find it interesting that she's a real documented person and that her works of poetry, 'the first', pre-date Gilgamesh. I'd never heard of her until a few weeks ago.
My other issue with the article is the following:
Later patriarchal religions stripped violent, harsh power from the repertoire of female goddesses and made it totally male, said Meador. But before that time the goddess Inanna represented both light and dark sides of nature and human nature.
"Her qualities foreshadow the powers of the Hebrew god Yahweh (the god of the Old Testament). Only the names have changed," she said.
It's hard to know where to start with that. "Later patriarchal religions" seems to be code for the religion of Israel, to go by Meador's assertion in the next paragraph that "Only the names have been changed" between Yahweh and Innana/Ishtar. That claim is rather more than a stretch in itself: Inanna was not a creator god, nor a covenantal one, nor the authority for divine law, nor an arbiter of justice, as Yahweh was. She was a fertility goddess (and a goddess of war) who favored lovers until she tired of them or they offended her--then she killed them or turned them into animals. She may have had something to do with Circe, but the claim that "only the names have been changed' between Yahweh and Innana seems, on the face of it, absurd.
The idea that the Akkadian Empire in which En-hedu-ana lived in anything other than a male-dominated warrior patriarchy is equally fantastical. She was herself the daughter of Sargon the Great, one of the most brutal warlords in human history, and arguably the "inventor" of Western empire. The claim that "Later patriarchal religions stripped violent, harsh power from the repertoire of female goddesses and made it totally male" is problematic. If Meador is talking about Israelite monotheism, then what goddesses exactly were stripped of their "violent, harsh power?" What evidence does she have that Yahweh was originally thought of as a goddess? Or if she is talking about other ancient patriarchal religions, like Greek or Roman polytheism, then how does she account for the "violent, harsh power" of figures like Athena/Minerva, Aphrodite/Venus, or Artemis/Diana?
To go out on a limb a bit (recognizing that I am now moving into the realm of opinion), I suspect that Meador is making the classic mistake of trying to force the square peg of ancient religion into the round hole of modern social politics--in this case, modern feminism.
"In Enheduanna's poetry, Inanna is both fierce and cruel, loving and kind," said Meador. "In our society, women are not supposed to be like that. Where I grew up in Texas, there was no room in a woman's psyche for being anything but nice."
"But this is who we are as human beings," Meador said. "Both men and women have these violent emotions, and if you are taught to suppress the knowledge of these harsh feelings, you live in too narrow a range. That doesn't mean you have to express such feelings, but to know you have them makes you healthier."
Meador is, of course, entitled to both her personal opinion, and her professional opinion as a Jungian analyst (through she is not an Assyriologist) of what may make her patients healthier. It seems to me, though, that what is really going here on is a discreet sideswipe at the Judeo-Christian tradition, which Meador wants to convict of dictating to our times that there is "no room in a woman's psyche for being anything but nice." She does this by locating a conveniently female ancient poet who presents a goddess as a mixture of good and evil (something that virtually all ancient Mesopotamians believed about their deities--the pantheon in Gilgamesh is treated in the same way). She then (in my humble opinion) subtly slurs Jewish tradition as mentally unhealthy for women, by suggesting without evidence (and rather ridiculously) that Yahweh was a form of Inanna/Ishtar, different in name only, whose "violent, harsh power" had been "stripped...from the repertoire of female goddesses [which] made it totally male."
There is a long and terrible historical tradition of scapegoating Judaism for problems in society. Christians have sometimes been persecuted, too, and continue to be in our violent world today (although as a power group, some Christians have also at times been the persecutors). In my opinion, Meador should know better than to cast her net so wide. She should state what she means more precisely and not seek the supposed authority of antiquity for her modern social and political opinions, so that these may be considered on their own merits. Personally I would agree that some (though not all) Christian groups have sometimes taught women and girls that there is "no room in a woman's psyche for being anything but nice." But asserting this is somehow universal--that there is something inherently unhealthy in the Judeo-Christian tradition--is in my view, a serious slur. I remain open, of course, to other opinions.
Last edited by Pompey Bum; 06-09-2015 at 02:22 PM.
Define 'book'.
'So - this is where we stand. Win all, lose all,
we have come to this: the crisis of our lives'
I am unfamiliar with the word 'define'....
but u can use a 'dictionary' and look up 'book' and.... 'mise en abyme'.
But, Poetaster, I guess you are the only one who took time responding to my original question.
Can I at least conclude the currently known epos of gilgamesh is the earliest known compiled book, done by a woman?
I wonder what the bible would have looked like then. It also makes me wonder if Muhammed's wife was literate.
Or, if their gods were unable to read and write - you can go shoot translators as easy as piano players, nowadays.
Last edited by Duikboot; 06-08-2015 at 06:35 PM.
It is very possible that a woman wrote the 'Epic of Gilgamesh'.
This particular passage from the story makes me think twice, "his voice is warm and husky like dark melted chocolate fudge caramel... or something"... uhm, it does seem to have a woman's touch.
There are, however, some leads that Enkidu and Gilgamesh may have had sexual intercourse...i.e. with each other. "Chocolate knights" or "fudge packers" would then not be far from the truth. "Caramel and cream on top" is my own ejaculative addition to it, like icing on the cake. Gilgamesh, in the book turning down Ishtar..the goddess..with too many excuses, to me sounds like he his hiding his own homosexuality. This bird was probably the bomb in terms of female shape and forms, but spoiled..oh, so spoiled. I wonder even if she hard perky tits or melon kind of titties...I reckon no saggy kind, with a goddess. It showed that even divine females were attracted to males that were basically wicked. Even goddesses want to change a male humanoid. This actually means that humans made gods, and not vice versa. I don't know if you noticed, but Gods in mythology are often worse off than men - there can be only one explination....bull****...or minotaur****.
Last edited by Duikboot; 06-08-2015 at 07:15 PM.
Now, now, no need to be sardonic towards Poetaster.
If it helps, I was able to find this: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.c...-the-world.htm I take what "howstuffworks" to be a literal source, you must know.
There's a time and a place for mucking around.
Yus u can luck up da wordz bookz, lol lawl rofle.
But my point is: do you mean the first physical book, with paper bound between two covers or the first work of literary worth? They aren't the same thing.
'So - this is where we stand. Win all, lose all,
we have come to this: the crisis of our lives'
If that is meant as a serious question, then no, you may not conclude that. As discussed above, there are Sumerian works that predate the written form of Gilgamesh, and (also as discussed above) there is no reason to think that a woman wrote Gilgamesh. We can't be sure, but it is likely to have had many "authors," male and female, over many generations.
Poetaster is right to suggest that we need to be careful about applying our modern concept of "book" to this ancient epic. The same goes for our concept of authorship.
Last edited by Pompey Bum; 06-09-2015 at 09:39 AM.
is that not exactly why I wrote book italic? Was I not cynical when I posted that my question was not answered because you and others were only going on about if it was a woman or a men who wrote it? I don't give a flying fornication about who wrote it, I just want to have my question answered. That is: I demanded only some works predating Gilgamesh that are worth reading. If that is too much to ask then I'm am apologizing to you for having wasted my time.
I mean the very first book ever written that is worth reading, that has soap-series value: hetero, homo and animal alien sex, murder, tension, stress, war, famine etc etc. I don't get it really...what is so hard to understand about the word "book"? 50 percent of America never asked themselves the question who compiled the bible they hold in high regard...humans or one god. I am merely asking a simple question and all of the sud I'm interrogated by the literature-gestapo here. WTF?!!
this is not the oldest book ever. And it has nothing to do with being sardonic toward Poetaster. Was I truly mocking anyone? No. I do not think so. If so, I will not apologize either. But I was not.
Posting Permissions
