Skip to main content
×
×
Home

The evidence for early writing: utilitarian or ceremonial?

  • Nicholas Postgate (a1), Tao Wang (a2) and Toby Wilkinson (a3)
Extract

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.

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

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Antiquity
  • ISSN: 0003-598X
  • EISSN: 1745-1744
  • URL: /core/journals/antiquity
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 3
Total number of PDF views: 538 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 579 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 21st February 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.