Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-5kt27 Total loading time: 0.305 Render date: 2021-09-24T01:16:46.438Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Article contents

The evidence for early writing: utilitarian or ceremonial?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Nicholas Postgate
Affiliation:
Trinity College, Cambridge CB2 1TQ, England
Tao Wang
Affiliation:
School of Oriental & African Studies, University of London, Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square, London WC1H 0XG, England
Toby Wilkinson
Affiliation:
Christ's College, Cambridge CB2 3BU, England
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Extract

HTML view is not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A comparison of the evidence for the earliest scripts in different parts of the world suggests that an apparent preponderance of ceremonial; and symbolic usage should not be interpreted too literally. It seems to have more to do with archaeological preservation–the better survival in archaeological contexts of the durable materials preferred as vehicles for ceremonial texts–than with any deep-seated differences in the function of the scripts. It may well be that the earliest Chinese, Egyptian or Mesoamerican texts were largely as utilitarian in their application as those of Mesopotamia.

Type
Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1995

References

Baines, J. 1989. Communication and display: the integration of early Egyptian art and writing, Antiquity 63: 471–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berjonneau, G., Deletaille, E. & Sonnery, J.-L. 1985. Rediscovered masterpieces of Mesoamerica: Mexico-Guatemala-Honduras. Boulogne: Editions Arts.Google Scholar
Beverley, E. 1873. Report on the Census of Bengal 1872. Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Press.Google Scholar
Bisht, R.S. 1991. Dholavira: a new horizon of the Indus civilization, Puratattva, Bulletin of Indian Archaeological Society 20: 7182.Google Scholar
Bloch, M. 1989. Literacy and enlightenment, in Larsen, M.T. & Schousboe, K. (ed.), Literacy and society: 1535. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Boehmer, R.M., Dreyer, G. & Kromer, B. 1993. Einige frühzeitliche 14C–Datierungen aus Abydos und Uruk, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 49: 763–8.Google Scholar
Boltz, W. 1986. Early Chinese writing, World Archaeology 17/3: 420–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, K.C. 1980. Shang civilization. New Haven (CT) and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Mengjia 1956. Yinxu buci zongshu. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe.Google Scholar
Coe, M.D. 1992. Breaking the Maya code. New York (NY): Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Coe, M., Snow, D. & Benson, E. 1986. Atlas of Ancient America. Oxford: Equinox.Google Scholar
Culbert, T.P. 1993. The ceramics of Tikal: vessels from the burials, caches and problematical deposits. (Tikal Report 25.A). Philadelphia: University Museum. Monograph 81.Google Scholar
Dreyer, G. 1993. Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof. 5./6. Vorbericht, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 49: 2362.Google Scholar
Emery, W.B. 1938. The Tomb of Hemaka. Cairo: Government Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J.D. 1987. The Kululu load strips, economic documents in Hieroglyphic Luwian, Anatolian Studies 37: 135–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, Tianxin 1937. Hangxian Liangzhuzheng zhi shiqi yu heitao. Shanghai. Society for the Study of the History and Geography of Kiangsu and Chekiang vol. 1.Google Scholar
Helck, W. 1990. Thinitischen Topfmarken. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 50.Google Scholar
Hoffman, M.A. 1980. Egypt before the Pharaohs. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Hubeishenc Jing-Sha Tielu Kaogudui. Baoshan Chujian. Beijing: Wonwu chubanshe.Google Scholar
Justeson, J.S. 1986. The origin of writing systems: Preclassic Mesoamerica, World Archaeology 17/3: 437–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, S. 1948–49. Early pottery from the Liang Chu site, Chekiang Province, Archives of the Chinese Art Society of America 3: 13–42.Google Scholar
Keightley, D.N. 1978. Sources of Shang history: The oracle-bone inscriptions of Bronze Age China. London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kidder, A.V. 1947. Artifacts of Uaxactun Guatemala. Washington (DC): Carnegie Institution of Washington. Publication 576.Google Scholar
Krispijn, TH.J.H. 1993. The Early Mesopotamian lexical lists and the dawn of linguistics, faarbericht Ex Oriente Lux 32: 12–22.Google Scholar
Lacau, P. & Lauer, J.-PH 1965. La Pyramide à Degrés V. Inscriptions à Venere sur Ies vases. Cairo: Institut Frangais d’Archeologie Orientalo.Google Scholar
Marcus, J. 1992. Mesoamerican writing systems. Propaganda, myth, and history in four ancient civilizations. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, R.J. 1993. Cities, seals and writing: archaic seal impressions from Jemdet Nasr and Ur. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.Google Scholar
Michalowski, P. 1993. Tokenism, American Anthropologist 95: 996–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nissen, H.J., Damerow, P. & Engujnd, R.K. 1990. Frühe Schrift und Techniken der Wirtschaftsverwaltung im alten Vorder Orient. Berlin: Franzbecker.Google Scholar
Norman, V.G. 1973. Izapa sculpture. Provo (UT): New World Archaeological Foundation. Paper 30.Google Scholar
Parpola, A. 1986. The Indus script: a challenging puzzle, World Archaeology 17/3: 399419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parpola, A. 1994. Deciphering the Indus script. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Payton, R. 1991. The Ulu Burun writing-board set, Anatolian Studies 41: 99106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pendergast, D.M. 1979. Excavations at Altun Ha, Belize, 1964–1970 I. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum.Google Scholar
Petrie, W.M.F. 1900. The Royal Tombs of the First Dynasty I. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. Memoir 18.Google Scholar
Petrie, W.M.F. & Quibell, J.E.. 1896. Naqada and Bailas. London: Bernard Quaritch.Google Scholar
Postgate, J.N. 1986. Middle Assyrian tablets: the instruments of bureaucracy, Altorientalische Forschungen 13: 10–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postgate, J.N. 1992. Early Mesopotamia: society and economy at the dawn of history. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Qiu, Xigui 1989. An examination of whether the charges in Shang oracle-bone inscriptions are questions, Early China 14: 77114.Google Scholar
Ray, J.D. 1986. The emergence of writing in Egypt, World Archaeology 17/3: 307–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, G. 1985. Writing systems. A linguistic introduction. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmandt-Besserat, D. 1988. Tokens at Uruk, Raghdader Mitteilungen 19: 1175.Google Scholar
Schmandt-Besserat, D. 1992. Before writing. Austin (TX): University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Shandong Daxlie Lishixi Kaogu Zhuanye. 1993. Shandong Zouping Dinggong yizhi di’si wo ci fajue jianbao, Kaogu 4: 295–9.Google Scholar
Smith, A.L. 1950. Uaxactun, Guatemala: excavations of 1931–1937. Washington (DC): Carnegie Institution of Washington. Publication 588.Google Scholar
Spencer, A.J. 1980. Catalogue of Egyptian antiquities in the British Museum V. London: British Museum Publications.Google Scholar
Symington, D. 1991. Late Bronze Age writing boards and their uses: textual evidence from Anatolia and Syria, Anatolian Studies 41: 111–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsuboi, K. & Tanaka, M. 1991. The historic city of Nara: an archaeological approach (trs. Hughes, D.W. & Barnes, G.L.). Tokyo/Paris: Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies/UNESCO.Google Scholar
Van Den Brink, E.C.M. 1992. Corpus and numerical evaluation of the ‘Thinite’ potmarks, in Friedman, R. & Adams, B. (ed.), The followers of Horus. Studies dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman: 265–96. Oxford: Oxbow Publications.Google Scholar
Wang, Tao 1992. A textual investigation of the Taotie, in Whitfield, R. (ed.), The problem of meaning in early Chinese ritual bronzes: 102–18. London: University of London, Percival David Foundation. Colloquies on Art and Archaeology in Asia 15.Google Scholar
Wang, Tao 1993. Colour symbolism in Late Shang China. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of London.Google Scholar
Xu, Xitai 1987. Zhoayuan jiaguwen zongshu. xi’an: Sanqin chubanshe.Google Scholar
Zhang, Bingqian 1957–72. Xiaotun di’erben: Yinxu wenzi, bingbian. Taibei: Zhnogyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo.Google Scholar
You have Access
28
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The evidence for early writing: utilitarian or ceremonial?
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The evidence for early writing: utilitarian or ceremonial?
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The evidence for early writing: utilitarian or ceremonial?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *