That looks like an early physician's prescription formulary. I wonder if insurance plans were in play?
There seems to be a focus on human stick figures, too. Wonder if it is in first or third person? I remember reading a long time ago about some ancient cuneiform that amounted to some kind of inventory tally. That the first writings were business-like in nature.
Yeah, the vast majority of ancient documents are really, really dull - ledgers, tallies, accounts and so on, simply because there were more of those made, as opposed to literature or similar stuff.
Reading left to right, starting top left: 1. I'm a gonna get me a horse; 2. I'm a gonna chase down Don Quixote; 3. upside an' down low; 4. inside an' outside; 5. 0h, oh, toilet break; 6. me an' my horse gonna chase him down; 7. ain't I the shit; 8. Don Quixote, meet two tigers, two tigers, meet your lunch; 9. whistlin' past the police like I know nothin'; 10. hidin' updisde an' down low. I'll forego the million only when someone establishes beyond argument that my interpretation is incorrect.
There are several things slightly 'off' about this article. I'm not an archaeologist, but I've studied and researched ancient civilizations for decades ... so I hope you'll bear with me: 1. Of course Harappa exists, but it is only one city (that we know of), so it may be more accurate to call it a city-state until we know more about what happened there. 2. Harappa is far from being the only archaeological site in the region. Mohenjo-Daro (in the Sindh region, far in the south of Pakistan) is another such site, just as famous as Harappa. 3. There are countless other sites scattered across Pakistan and India, and two in Afghanistan. There may have been many more, but naturally, the fighting in the region has left the Afghanistani sites sadly unprotected. 4. The article claims that this script is IVS (Indus Valley Script or Harappan Script), and claims that it is 5,000 years old. This claim is wrong, and here is why: a. Estimates on wikipedia (links above to their articles on Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro) claim that both sites are roughly 2,500 years old, but I was dissatisfied with this, since other results on google claim that the site is as old as 8,000 BC, which would make it the oldest civilization in the world, older than the Egyptians. (The only site that claims this, though, is someone's blog, so I think we can discount that). b. After doing some more digging (no pun intended) and finding that the history of the place is divided into Early, Middle and Late Harappan, I googled "how early is the early Harappan period". Lo and behold, wikipedia itself has articles on the Indus Valley Civilisation and the Periodisation of the Indus Valley Civilisation, which make it very clear that the Early Harappan Phase did not begin until roughly 3,300 BC. (Of course there are pre-Harappan ruins dating back to as long ago as 7,500 BC, but that's the point: they're pre-Harappan). c. This timeline is backed up by the Britannica article on "Developments in the Ganges Basin", quoting that Harappa flourished "no earlier than the third millennium BC", and by this lecture from the University of Lucknow, saying that "The Early Harappan Culture may have been flourished during the later phase of fourth millennium B.C. to half of third millennium B.C..." To sum up in other words: it is not as old as 8,000 BC, or even 5,000 BC. It might have been around earlier in another form, but we simply don't know yet, so it's irresponsible of us to claim this. 5. The article likewise claims that the Linear A Script from Crete is 5,000 years old (which is where they got their headline from, I guess). That is also wrong. Linear A was used from roughly 1,800 BC to 1,450 BC, and Cretan hieroglyphs from 2,100 BC to 1,800 BC (roughly). That makes Linear A 3,800 years old. That's incredibly impressive, but nowhere near 5,000 year old. Why does it all matter? Because it's fake, and fake history is as dishonest as fake news. There are so many things about history that we don't know; they far outnumber the things that we do. Faced with this enormous blank canvas, archaeologists in the field -- and researchers, like me -- try to find the truth based on evidence and hard work, instead of making sensationalist statements to sell articles. (That's the ideal, of course). 6. Lastly, the article claims that M. K. Stalin is offering this prize. But I was wondering: Stalin is an Indian politician, so what's his connection to sites in Pakistan? I googled this, and perhaps this article from India Today might provide an answer. It could be that he is doing this for reasons of political and national pride -- in other words, business as usual in politics.
*shrug* Sorry, Moose. I haven't broken any forum rules, I hope? No-one ever said history was simple (and it's also a major passion of mine - I'm sure you've realised that). Obviously, I could've written something like "Argh!! That article is full of &%@*!!!" but that'd be neither nice nor professional. ;-P
Yup, major text wall of China. I think the effort Rath made to back up his anthro claims, in what appears to be in the service of factual accuracy, is a great example of the science thread's spirit.
What bothers me about "trust the science" is when it is incorrect, no one admits to being wrong. "It was the best we could do with the information available at the time" is not an attributable quote to anyone in particular but seems to be the excuse I hear when some "science"gets refuted or proven wrong. It would be very rare indeed for a scientist say outright "I was wrong".
science is proved wrong all the time - that's pretty much what the scientific method involves, not to mention peer review of papers. Also scientists often admit their mistakes for example https://www.clearerthinking.org/post/10-times-scientists-admitted-they-were-wrong-and-what-you-can-learn-from-them what you don't hear is scientists saying they were wrong because someone who doesn't understand the science thinks they are
The science is always changing. That is the nature of science. 'The best we could do with the information at the time" is not an excuse, but a statement of reality.
What's the thing that refutes, or proves that science is wrong? More science. And even more science might prove that science was wrong. And that is the extent of my contribution to this particular debate.
Central to the mind of a scientist is skepticism, and questioning in the face of new evidence. “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” ― Albert Einstein
I guess I carry a grudge of sorts. My family ran a very large processed egg business; cleaning, weighing, USDA inspecting, packaging, and delivering cartoned eggs to a wide variety of retail food businesses. When "scientists" announced eggs were bad for your health due to their high cholesterol content and should be avoided it almost ruined our business. Common sense tells you that the food source for a newly formed (chick) embryo should be one of nature's best nutrients. Currently that science has been revised and eggs are considered a great food source. The presence of cholesterol in food does not indicate it will be processed into serum cholesterol by an individual. I am not a science denier, but realize every study coming down the pike has to be heavily scrutinized and questioned.
Sorry, Moose. I've just been reading history for many years, so if I think something isn't quite right, I can't resist researching it and figuring out why. (Of course, if it turns out I'm wrong, that's fine. I'll admit it. No harm, no foul). Absolutely - at least, as long as the scientists concerned are neutral (i.e. their funding isn't at stake). Then they might consider fighting. Of course, even if their funding is at stake and they KNOW they're wrong, they'll admit it -- the ethical ones, anyhow. (The unethical ones soon get run out of academia, hopefully). Sorry that happened to you, Selluwud. I hope your family's business recovered. But yes, science is constantly evolving. The claims previously made were made because they didn't know any better. There are also different types of cholesterol, and not all of them are bad for you. It is also possible (and sometimes inevitable) that scientifical studies are manipulated by outsiders, especially politicians, to produce the results that said politicians want. But that's a completely other kettle of fish (or carton of eggs).
