Why Cuneiform language lasted 3,000 years | Irving Finkel and Lex Fridman

Quick Overview

Cuneiform writing, the world's oldest writing system, lasted approximately 3,000 years because its complexity served as a barrier to entry, ensuring that literacy remained confined to a small, powerful intellectual class of scribes, priests, and royal writers who controlled archives and knowledge.

Key Points: Cuneiform writing persisted for about 3,000 years, making it one of the most successful writing systems ever created. The complexity of cuneiform—which involved mastering Sumerian and Akkadian, as well as various syllabic and logographic signs—acted as an inertial force preserving the script. Literacy was deliberately restricted to a small, powerful intellectual elite, including scribes working for the king, priests, and those involved in administration, law, and scholarship. For the common person, there was no incentive or opportunity to learn cuneiform, as they never needed to read or write contracts, letters, or administrative documents. The scribal schools, particularly in centers like Oxford and Cambridge (in the context of modern study), taught not just the languages (Sumerian and Akkadian) but also complex disciplines like astronomy and theoretical grammar. Those who did master cuneiform were highly valued for complex tasks like drafting legal documents, writing contracts, and compiling commentaries on existing texts.

Context: This segment features a discussion between Lex Fridman and Irving Finkel, a renowned Assyriologist, focusing on the longevity and societal role of cuneiform, the ancient Mesopotamian writing system. Finkel explains that the script's endurance for three millennia was not due to its simplicity, but rather its inherent difficulty, which intentionally limited its use to a specialized, educated class within ancient society.

Detailed Analysis

Irving Finkel explains that the incredible longevity of cuneiform, spanning 3,000 years, is directly attributable to its difficulty, which created an inertia that kept it in use. He notes that literacy was not widespread; instead, it was the preserve of a specialized intellectual class, including scribes working for the king, priests, and those handling archives. The common populace had little need or incentive to learn it, as their daily lives did not require reading or writing contracts or letters. Finkel illustrates the depth of learning required by mentioning that scribal schools taught complex subjects like astronomy and theoretical grammar, and the students were highly skilled, even capable of writing commentaries. He contrasts this with modern education, suggesting that if literacy were universal, the specialized knowledge of the ancient scribes would have been diluted, and the system likely would have been abandoned much sooner, similar to how many people today avoid specialized fields like higher-level mathematics or obscure historical languages.