GEN 140 - The Evolution of Writing

In this first of two related E-lectures, Prof. Handke discusses the orgins of modern writing, from early paintings found 17,000 BC, via proto-writing systems, such as tallies or the Inca Quipu-system, to the predecessors of modern writing, such as the Cuneiform system.

[dewinthemorning]

Thank you for this wonderful video!

One has to have great admiration for those ancient people for their groundbreaking innovation - writing!

Fav'ed

[drkumar]

Very complete lecture. Thank you Mr. Handke

[AdolfoHickmannProf]

Thank you very much for your contribution!

[luismiguelagain]

Very interesting! The dates of the khipus should be rechecked though :)

[Roflcopterb]

I was hoping you'd get more specific in tracing the evolution of writing systems. It's always baffled me how the letters changed as the passed from the Phoenicians to the Greeks and the Greeks to the Romans. They hardly resemble each other!

[Ugaritic]

Wasn't the oldest symbolic written languages found at Jef el ahmar in Syria?

[Pakanahymni]

This video is really quiet, you might want to do something about that.

[traktortarik]

You sound kinda like David Attenborough :)

[mansouribnalandalus]

Salut. This is not right that the phonologic system is not a Logographic system. Yes Georges, you need to study this aspect of our latin system origin. Just an example, the graphem O is the sound ع and it means Eyes. So Even the english word Eye is a semit phoneme (Ey = ع). So the round O is an eye. See ? : )
More info : INTRO - Secrets of the Hebrew Letters

[paulflute]

a couple of comments..
Firstly you refer twice to 'utterances'.. the first time stating it as requirement..
I don't believe this to be the case.. for example the second time you say it there are emoticons in the background.. I'm not aware that these are associated with actual utterances.. some people in the english speaking world may refer to this particular one as a 'smiley face' or even just a 'smiley' or probably many other slang things but they exist in many forms each carrying specific meanings that are not associated with specific 'utterances'.. Another example would be any of the many sign languages.. though often originally evolved in association with a particular spoken language a fluent user develops them in a way that carries meaning that does not correspond to sounds. in a more general sense a written language does not 'need' to be 'spoken' to be a language..
17, 000 BC is 39.000 years ago.. "painting done are the first documents our fore farther left behind for others to see" - THAT WE SYILL HAVE AND KNOW ABOUT.. we have no idea when people began painting or even writing for that matter.. it's quite possible people made marks in skin or on sticks for millions of years..
why do you suggest that what you call proto- systems have no linguistic elements associated.. how do you know this.. the history part of this is a very mainstream interpretation of very little evidence.. it's a bit misleading to present any history of this sort as if it'd known and understood.. so much of this is nothing more than current speculation based on chance finds and guesswork and a huge dose of cultural bias and conditioning..