Deciphering Secrets of Ancient Civilizations, Noah's Ark, and Flood Myths | Lex Fridman Podcast #487

The following is a conversation with Irving Finkel, who is a scholar of ancient languages, curator at the British Museum for over 45 years, and is a much admired and respected world expert on cuneiform script, and more generally, on ancient languages of Sumerian, Akkadian, and Babylonian,

and also on ancient board games, and Mesopotamian magic, medicine, literature, and culture. I should also mention that both on and off the mic, Irving was a super kind and fun person to talk to with an infectious enthusiasm for ancient history that of course I already love but fell in love with even more. This is the Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description, where you can also find links to contact me, ask questions, get feedback, and so on.

And now, dear friends, here's Irving Finkel. Where and when did writing originate in human civilization? Let's go back a few thousand years.

The first attempts at writing that we could call writing go back to the middle of the fourth millennium, say, around 3500 BC, something like that. There were people in the Middle East, individuals who lived between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, who had clay as their operating material for building and all sorts of other purposes and eventually as a writing support, they somehow developed the idea of the basis of writing, which means that you can make a sign, which people agree on, on a surface, that another person, when they see it, they know what sound it engenders.

That is the essence of writing, that there's an agreed system of symbols that A can use and B can then play back either in their heads or literally with their voices, a bit like a gramophone record. So when it really began is a terribly, terribly awkward question for us because the truth of the matter is we have no idea when anything began. And all we can say is that the oldest evidence we have is around 3500 BC. But whether that was anywhere near the time or the stage when this started off for the first time seems to me very, very unlikely.

So among these Mesopotamians around,500, they started to do this. They made up signs which everybody understood, and they could write simple pictographic messages. Foot is a foot, leg is a leg, and barley is barley. And then, very, very gradually, they had the idea of how you could represent numerals, and then they had the idea that the pictures could also represent signs. And once they had the idea that you could write sounds with pictures, that's the crucial thing, that a picture of a foot not only meant foot, but it meant the sound of the word for foot.

Once this happened, some probably very, very imaginative and clever persons had a kind of lightbulb moment when they realized that they could develop a whole panoply of signs which could convey sound. And once you had that, you're liberated from pictographic writing into a position where you can record language. So language, grammar, and all the rest of it, and before long, proverbs and literature and all the other things that got written down.

So it was a pretty gigantic step whenever it was taken, but we really have no idea when it was first taken. But the first evidence we have presents a sort of clearish sort of picture. It was simple and it got more complicated, and then it became magnificent. So that with all the signs, a fluent, well-trained scribe could not only write down the Sumerian language, which was one of the native tongues of Iraq, or the Babylonian language, which was the other main language of Iraq, but also any other language he heard.

So if somebody came speaking French ahead of their time and spoke out loud, he could record with these signs the sound of French. And we have examples of funny languages in the world around in the Bronze Age which were written in cuneiform, purely by ear. And often, sometimes the scribes who recorded by dictation or by something wrote stuff they couldn't understand, but somebody else could read and understand it. So what you have is, long before the alphabet, when the alphabet was not even a dream, a

complex, bewildering-looking, off-putting writing system which was actually very beautiful and very flexible, and lasted for well over three millennia, probably closer to four millennia. And it took a long time for the alphabet, which anybody would say was much, much more useful and much more sensible, to displace it. So it's one of the major stages of man's intellect, because quite soon after the writing first took off, the signs began to proliferate. And someone said, hey, we haven't got a sign for this sound, or we haven't got a sign for this idea.

And so it began to swell out. And at some extremely remarkable stage, one, probably only one person, suddenly realized that if there was no control, they would grow exponentially and exponentially until it was all nonsense and everybody had their own writing. And the second thing is that no one could remember them unless they were written down in a retrievable way.

So they invented not only writing, they invented lexicography, which means that early in the third millennium, they put down all the things that were made of wood, and all the things that were made of reeds, and all the names of colors, and of countries, and all the gods and everything. They made a systematic attempt to make these signs, to standardize them, and to make them retrievable, and of course to teach them.

And having exercised that rigor from the outset, It meant that the thing became streamlined and stayed more or less as it was all the way through for three millennia or more, because the stamp put on it by those early visionaries, not only who came up with the system and how it would work, but to preserve it and to safeguard it was fantastically effective. So it means that there were scholars in Babylon in the third century or the second century when Alexander was there, for example, if somebody dug up a tablet in very early writing,

they would have a pretty good idea what it meant. They would recognize the signs even though they were so ancient and they'd see the relationships between them. So you have a fantastically strong system where the spinal cord was structured in a lexicographic regular system. So lexicography and what the signs were was jealously safeguarded and protected and it lasted fantastically. We should say that the name of that system that lasted for 3,000 years is cuneiform. Yeah, so in the 19th century, about 1840, 1850, they started to find these things on excavations in Iraq,

the bigger Syrian cities and sometimes further south, the Babylonian cities. They found these clay tablets which, in the ground, lasted unimaginable lengths of time. And they were all written in what we call cuneiform script. The cuneiform part of it means wedge-shaped, because cuneus in Latin means wedge. And when they first saw these signs, they realized that a cluster of marks broke down into different arrangements of triangular shapes. It's most clear on the Assyrian reliefs,

where the writing is very big, and you can easily tell that they were that shape. On a tablet, the wedge is not quite so predominant. So that was it. they first called them cuneatic or cuneiform, and the word stuck. And of course, growing up in the British Museum and reading these things for a living becomes a kind of lifetime's work to make sure that everybody in the country knows what cuneiform means, because once in a while you meet somebody who never heard of the word at all, and this is appalling.

So, people do survive, however. But it's an important mission because it's such an achievement by man. And so much knowledge was encapsulated in these lumps of clay because they used it for everyday things like letters and business documents and contracts. This is one thing. And then the kings wrote long, elaborate accounts of their campaigns and their military activities. And then there was proper literature, belle lettre, and magic and medicine, and all other

genres of literature that we would naturally list on a sheet of paper in alphabetic writing, what you would use writing for. They basically did. And it had the unexpected quality that most of these clay things lasted in the ground until now. So, however many hundreds of thousands of tablets are in the world's museums and collections, there must be millions of them in the ground

awaiting excavation. So, in a way, that's a comforting thought, because they're safe there and protected.

You said that the development of cuneiform, of these tablets, of written language, is one of the greatest, probably the greatest invention in human history. How hard do you think it was to come up with this? this. And we should make clear that that very specific element of encoding sound on the tablet, that's the genius invention. Drawing a picture makes sense. Okay, here's, you know, barley, here's the sun, here's whatever, the actual object. But to actually write down sound is a genius invention.

Well, I think it's rather paradoxical, because the first generation or so of tablets that we have are written in these pictographic signs, where each sign means what it looks like. So this is a very limited method of recording messages, and it doesn't lend itself to recording grammar. And then the secondary phase, as we understand it from archaeology, is the perception that you could take these signs, still meaning what they look like, but also what the words sounded like, so then you have all these wonderful ice cubes which express all the sounds of the language from which you can record words and grammar and everything else. Now, the thing is, the received law from Assyriology is that it was that way round,

that first we had pictures and secondly we had sound. Well, I have to say, I find this very hard to believe, because if you had a group of people in an environment where it was compellingly necessary to make a system that you made marks on a surface which everybody could understand and use, why wouldn't you start out with signs that made sounds? Because everybody speaks the same

language, right? So they didn't have A, B, C, D, E, F, G, but they could easily work out all the vowels and consonants without naming them as vowels and consonants, but the component parts. So they could have had signs that started out, because if you decided you had, we have 26, let's say they had 50 signs that would create the sound. They could write anything without any further trouble. So I find it very bewildering that they started off with the least flexible and the least adaptable

system of pictographs, and then they moved on to the sound. I don't know why they bothered with it. And my hunch is that the archaeological evidence that we have on this score is ultimately misleading, because I think this, that probably for a very, very long time before the Sumerians, people in the world, the world of what we call the Middle East, were in contact, they traded, they probably even had wars, and they had messages between them.

And I think there was a long-running system of communication between people who didn't share a language for whom pictures would suffice. So if merchants come and they have three sheep to sell, so they draw three little sheep, you know how much it is and what they are and so forth. And so I think that what happened with the Sumerians with their pictographic signs is that those signs are right at the end of a very very very long period of time when somebody thought what we can do is take these stupid inhibited no smoking signs

and write language yeah that is what I think happened that's what I think

happened is this a controversial statement? Highly controversial.

Highly controversial. Many, many ethereologists would leave the room.

Yeah.

But I'm not scared of controversy because it's natural. I mean, if you think about it, it's natural because you don't have to have an alphabet to divide your word into sounds. See, for example, in Sumerian, you have a funny system of writing. You have a root, like du, which means to go.

And then you have prefixes, like i, or mu, or ba. And one's a passive, one's an active, and this and this. So when you have a sentence, you have one of the mu, ba, or i prefixes, then you have the root, and then you have things at the end. So it's called agglutinative by people who like to make things look more important than they are. So you have the central thing, you slap stuff on the beginning, slap stuff on the end,

and each particle creates a bit of meaning. So you have a long verb which tells you, he would have done it if he could, but he couldn't, kind of thing, in the form of the verb. But the thing is, if you wanted to write that, you and I decided to write the answer, the first thing we would do is have a sign, Mu. And then we'd have Ba, and then we'd have I, because every five minutes people make those noises. You see what I mean?

Matthew 15 Yeah, absolutely. Do you think it's possible we might find much, much older? Richard 15 I do.

Matthew 15 Cuneuneiform type tablets.

I do. Or pictographic type tablets before the cuneiform and the drawing type. And I tell you why, because there's this marvelous site in Turkey called Göbekli Tepe. Oh yeah. You know about Göbekli Tepe? Yes. Of course. Well, everybody knows about the buildings and the architecture and the sculpture. Everybody

knows about it. If you go all the way through the photographs which the archaeologists unwisely put online, you will find in the middle of one color plate with lots of other things a round green stone like a scarab from Egypt. That's to say it has an arched back and a flat bottom, and on the flat bottom there are hieroglyphic signs carved in the stone, right? No one said anything about it at all. But it's clear to me, A, that this was a stamp to ratify where the carvings of the signs on clay or some other sealing material would

leave an impression. It must be that. So this is about 9000 BC. Now, when I was a boy at university, my professor said to me that the reason you can—writing evolved in Mesopotamia because they had complex cities with ziggurats and big buildings and lots of people and they had to organize everything, and so they invented writing to cope with it. Well, if they had to cope with that in Sumer in 3000 BC, they sure as hell had to do it at Gobekli Tepe, because they hardly even begun to finish excavating the sites of Gobekli Tepe.

They go on and on like Manchester and Newcastle united. And really, the old rule would be you could not have architecture like that, that planned and built according to principle with all the different people. You couldn't have that without writing in southern Iraq. So how come suddenly, 7,000 years earlier, they do it there? And that green stone shows that they had writing.

That was an official who sealed this, got the stuff, or whatever it was, or it was his dad's name, or whatever it is, got a wiggly snake and a wiggly this. That is pictographic writing. Maybe even as phonetic writing, I don't know, but it was writing thousands of years before in the South. And that's what I think it is.

You know, people came with metal from, or precious stones from Anatolia. They knew that in the South they had lots and lots of stuff. They wanted to trade. They had to communicate. And it's basically like having a cigarette with an X through the middle. Everybody in the world knows what that means. They don't know what the word for cigarette is in this language, or cancer, or filter, or tobacco. It doesn't matter.

That's pictographic writing. We still use it. And it's above all kinds of mess. And I think that was the prevailing system, because I honestly believe that the people at this time were not stupid. They weren't guerrillas.

They weren't less advanced than we are. They were probably indistinguishable from what we are. So you have merchants and wanderers and people who say, let's go down the river and see where we end up, and people looking for money, looking for women, looking for everything. That's surely how it was. But if you look at those Gobekli buildings with a skeptical eye, how it could be, I mean,

the finish of it is astonishing. The structure of it, the vision of it. So the workforce and the tools and the organization, you know, what do they do it with a megaphone? Your breakfast and all that kind of thing. No way. No way.

Matthew So that's a really controversial statement.

David It is really controversial.

Matthew At the time of Gobekli Tepe, they may have been already a writing system.

David There was, because the thing is about it, that it's a seal to ratify. It's not just a squiggle on a pot and you can say, oh, it's just a piece of deck. This is a finished thing with a flat surface. You press it down, say you have some contract, you have some building arrangement, we're paying for these bricks, whatever it was, and the official person had to squash it down, and it leaves the impression. I mean, I'm a great believer in Sherlock Holmes as a teaching system for intelligence and

rationality and logic and thinking. I read those stories a million times when I was a kid. And the thing about them, one of the things which impressed me most of all, was this point quoted by Holmes, not original to him, that it is theoretically possible to infer the Niagara Falls from a raindrop.

LWT That's a powerful statement.

CW That's a powerful statement. Well, that seal from Gobekli Tepe is a raindrop from which I infer writing. And it's perfectly possible they all wrote on flat leaves, carves drawn in many parts of the world. That's what happens. So, for example, in the Indus Valley, people write the most abject nonsense about the Indus Valley writing system, but all we have is seals, basically. So they are also for ratification purposes, and they have the name of the owner

in three or four or maybe five signs. And it's probably me, son of my dad, or milkman, or whatever it is. And it's obvious, it's obvious that they had writing on a perishable material. They can't just have had inscribed stone seals. And many parts of India today write on palm leaf. Why should it be any different? So people think, you know, well, just because it's now,

it wouldn't be then. But actually, that argument is utterly, utterly fallacious because the process of evolution is stymied, left, right, and center by inertia. Inertia is nearly as strong as evolution. And this is something that the people who talk about progress and ideas have no idea about. First of all, your whole line of work

you're making me realize is a kind of like Sherlock Holmes type of process. The deciphering of the language, archaeology of taking those pieces of evidence and trying to reconstruct a vision of that world. And now you're making me realize that even all the cuneiform tablets we have is just a raindrop compared to the waterfall of thousands of years of humans.

We have a lot, but it's nothing in comparison with what existed. But not only that, see, we don't have to decipher anymore. We can read Akkadian or Babylonian Sumerian pretty well, fluently. That's not a problem. So the information which you can get from these sources, especially three millennia

of sources, is very, very substantial. Very substantial, but it means that the Assyri have the in-built idea that what we have is something like all there ever was, which is absurd. For example, there's a period called the Earth-Free Period, where people lived in city-states, they wrote very small account tablets by the thousand, and there were two or three major cities where this is the way they lived.

People had to bring tithes and offerings, and everything was recorded by what I always refer to and people sympathize with is the ancestors of the inland revenue. Because everything had to be written down so that some schmuck could check it and fill out the ledger, and some other schmuck above him could okay it, so there was no funny business or no mistakes. Now the thing is, there are thousands of those tablets, written in about 2100 to 2000 BC,

thousands of them, about the size of a box of matches. So people like to generalize about the Sumerians at this time of the world. But they probably all came out of two rooms, because they were dumped when they were no longer needed in some kind of room. And the archaeologists in the 19th century came down on these, and then all the locals came and they dug them up and they sold them all over the place, and they got all over

the world, thousands and thousands of them, out of probably two storage rooms, which is not a whole culture, or a whole country, or their whole history, or their belief systems. So our view of it is slewed by the nature of the material. And sometimes the material is opulent and benevolent, but not always. And sometimes the people who work with slewed material don't even realize how slewed it is. I mean, you know, it's quite remarkable.

So you and all your time of studying cuneiform tablets, do you sometimes late at night get a glimpse of the waterfall? Like can you imagine?

Yes, I can imagine. I can imagine easily, because once in a while a library's discovered. In the 1850s, at Nineveh, which was the Assyrian capital, there was a fat king, king of the world called Ashurbanipal, and he had a fantastic library. And he promoted it. He impounded tablets, he had them brought to Nineveh. He wanted all the prevailing knowledge and all knowledge from before under one roof. It was a kind of Alexandria thing. So he was a trained scholar, and this is

what he did. And they found it in the 19th century. They dug it up, Layard and those people. So what did they find? They found the tablets higgledy-piggledy all over the floor of a huge room in the corridors and everything, and lots of them broken and lots of them burned. So ever since then, until really quite recently, seriologists have spent all their time, people who work on these Niniveh towns, have spent all their time joining the bits together. And you have the story about Gilgamesh and the goddess who falls in love with him in

the garden and she wants to seduce him and dot, dot, dot, you can't find the bit. So you look for another bit, you look for another bit. And gradually they piece together the literature. And the assumption has always been that if you put them all together again, you will have the whole library. But it's the absolute opposite because what happened was that

the Babyloniansites from Iran. They had a pincer movement and they beat Assyria, they conquered Assyria. They ran through the capital and they set fire to everything, pinched all the women, took all the jewelry and all the gold. And people say that in a fit of pique, they destroyed the library. But they wouldn't destroy the library because it was the giant brain from which the Assyrians ran a world empire.

They destroyed that. They spoke the same language. They had the same writing system. They'd have taken them all safely home. Cart after cart after cart.

And I think what's left there is duplicates and broken things, the things that got dropped and everything. And that's what everyone thinks is it. Oh, this is also on con is a controversial point.

You just not stop.

But it's common sense.

It's common.

Both of us canceled today, but you see the thing,

you see the thing is predicated on the assumption that what we have is what they're only what there was. And this is such a fallacy. It needs to be attacked left, right,

and center.

LR So a lot of the cuneiform language is already

deciphered.

CF Sure. LR Can you speak to the deciphering process? How hard is it? Maybe take us to this place of for for you yourself, first learning the language, figuring out the puzzle of it. How does it feel? How does it look like to a brain that doesn't deeply understand it? And how do you then piece stuff together? Maybe you can go to the early days, sort of the Rosetta

Stone of cuneiform also. That's important. Well, the first thing is how the cuneiform writing system works, because the crucial point, and once you see it, it makes a lot of things clear, is that they wrote in syllables. So if you take the English alphabet, which of course they didn't, you have the letter B, G, D, P, H, and so forth. They couldn't write a consonant. They couldn't do that. So what they did is they had a vowel before a consonant or one after.

So you have ab and ba. But as they had four vowels, you had to have ab and ba, ib and be, ub and bu, eb and be. So you had the range of things clustered around what we call a consonant. So they had all those for all the letters, which gave them a basic system. There was much more to it than that, and it was more complicated than that, but we don't have to really go into it. But basically, if you are a Babylonian, and we want to write the

word museum, which of course is one of the most important words in the English language and other languages too. So what you would do is you would write the syllable moo, and then the sign zee, and then the sign um. So you split the word up into its component syllables. When you read it in your mind, you squash them together into museum. That's the basic system.

They had other signs which gave you a clue as to the meaning and bits around the edge, but it's basically syllabic writing. So when you go to university to study cuneiform, what you have to learn is all the signs and all their values, because unfortunately, they didn't just have one for each, they had multiple ones. And the reason is not that they were mad or they wanted to make life hell, but because the syllables derive from the writing of Sumerian words. So, the Sumerian vocabulary

had a lot of words that were probably differentiated by tone. So you might have ba, and then a rising a, and then a lowering, and these signs all retain the ba value even though there were no tones. So it means if you look at a sign list, there's a lot of signs, you have ba number one, which is the common, then there's ba number two, ba number three, and you have to learn them all, and when you read, you have to learn them all.

And when you read, you have to learn how to do it. So in the modern world, if you go to university to do a seriology, which I hope you and all of your disciples will do as soon as possible, you actually have to cope with two languages, the Sumerian and the Babylonian. Now, the first thing is this, that the Babylonian language is a Semitic tongue, which, although it's extinct, is connected to or related to Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Ethiopic, Syriac, all that family of Semitic languages which are still alive. It's an early

example of one of those. So that when the decipherment came along, it was the Semitic dictionary that they fell back on to identify words, nouns, and roots. The other language, which is Sumerian, the one when you stick bits in the beginning and stick bits at the end, is not only not Semitic, it's not related to any other known language.

Oh, no. Yeah. This related to any other known language. Oh, no.

Yeah. This is a bewitching thing. It's a bewitching thing to me. And this is how to understand it, because the languages that we study in the world today, linguists study, they more or less all fall into a language group. So you have Indo-European with Spanish, Italian, Latin, Hittite, and so forth. So that's why French is one group, and you have Germanic, and you have Slavonic. And most languages, even the far-flung ones, fall into what can be seen to be maybe big and airy groups, their family, like that. There's not one for Sumerian. So this means

that the truth that languages do not exist in a vacuum, but they're part of a big family, must always have been true. So when writing arrives about 3000, say 300 BC, to write properly, it means that Sumerian was recorded just in time, but the big languages, maybe in China, in Russia, in somewhere else in Asia, that were related to Sumerian. Are gone?

Are all gone.

They're gone forever and ever and ever, unless something amazing happens. So we've got the one representative of this bizarre family.

Amazing.

It is, and it's a very stimulating thing to imagine. I personally believe that Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens for sure had language. For sure they talked to one another. It's impossible that they didn't. The point came when they did. They did.

And the Neanderthals, 100,000 years rule, live in Europe, they had to deal with the ice age, they all lived together, they bring up their children, you'd think they couldn't speak anything. They had the same apparatus. If you have a human brain, then it responds to stimulus.

And the more stimulus there is for communication, I mean, the idea that you and I were out hunting rhino, and you'd say, Lex! Shut up, I'm constantly, Lex! Lex! And I suddenly think, oh, I get it! You are Lex!

Right?

You only have to do that once, then you know who I am. So I know that I'm me, and that you are you. So people who say that they couldn't distinguish ego and all that, it's absolutely stupid. If you cut your hand with a knife, you sure as hell experience it. You sure as hell do. It hurts. It hurts a lot. You might even bleed to death. But it's not somebody else's hand. And it's your hand and it's your existence and your life that's threatened. You think people weren't conscious that they were an entity?

I don't believe it.

And they probably had a way to express that with sounds.

Well, eventually, yes. Names. I mean, names are things. And then you have the idea that a label fixes to something. Then the light bulb has gone on, and next minute you have rhino, and you have skin, and you have babies. Because I think you have an idea and the idea then drives the brain and the brain has another

idea and it works like fertility.

So what do you think is the motivation, the primary driver of developing written language? Is it goes hand in hand with civilization?

I think that the milieu in which it appears is when there's a lot of people living in an urban environment, and with rival institutions, or with a king, or with a government, or all those sorts of things. That's why I think Gobekli Tepe must have been the same thing. I read somewhere that they're all nomads, and they only came to Gobekli Tepe three months a year. I mean, that cannot be true that they were nomads and they cannot be true. To get the stone

and someone has to draw on the ground the plan of the building, they have to work out how thick it is going to be, how high it's going to be. And I mean, you know, you can't just, you know, like that, like gorillas. Uh, all right.

So deciphering, the process of deciphering.

So when I started, there were grammars and sign lists and dictionaries. Everything was marvelous. It was all basically deciphered. All you had to do was get on with learning it. But at the beginning, when the first tablets and bricks in cuneiform and stone inscriptions came to light, no one could read them. But they knew they were writing, but they didn't know how to read them.

And what happened was, like you said before, with the Rosetta Stone, it was something directly comparable because there was an inscription of one of the Persian kings halfway up a mountain in a place called Bissutun, where this king Darius had written an account of his successful career in Elamite and in Babylonian and in Old Persian, trilingual version. And Old Persian, although it is obviously an archaic form of the language, Persian is

still alive, it was still alive in the 19th century. So since the Old Persian was written in a very simple style of cuneiform, they deciphered it. They twigged it was Old Persian. They read it in Persian. And they read the names Dariyawush in Old Persian. And then suddenly, somebody realized that the other two columns are about the same length. What do you know? And the thing is, it said, I am Darius, the great king, king of the world, king of the universe, son of, diddly diddly diddly diddly, grandson of, diddly diddly diddly.

So there's a whole paragraph with repeated things in the Persian which they could understand. So what do you know? They're reiterated passages in the other two languages. So that was the key, the chisel that opened up cuneiform writing proper. And the thing was, they soon twigged that the language of the Babylonian was a Semitic tongue. And this was so important. I think the first word they discovered was the word for river, which is nāru in Akkadian and nakhār in Arabic and Aramaic.

And when they realized that the word that corresponded to the person had this form, this was a gift of gold, because everybody immediately seized their Arabic and Hebrew dictionaries and started leafing through looking for words that would fit in the context. And they basically decipher this inscription in that sort of way. And of course, all the other inscriptions came in order, and there were lots and lots of difficulties which had to be resolved, but that's the basic thing.

And without that trilingual, I don't know what would have happened. I mean, I suppose it's conceivable that in the very modern world, something might have happened. But as it was, it was done by sheer brainpower, by very, very clever persons just doing it. And they cracked it. The Elamite language is much more difficult, but they got a lot of it, too.

So it was a very romantic thing, because the inscription was carved on a mountain face far above the plane. And Henry Rawlinson, who was an upstanding young British officer who claimed to decipher cuneiform quite unjustifiably, climbed up there with some miserable kid and made squeezes of the whole thing, overlooking the plane thousands of feet up in the air,

and brought those back, and they were used in the decipherment. So, it's very romantic.

Wait a minute. More controversial statement from Irving today. Henry Rawlinson doesn't deserve the credit for that?

Peter No, I don't think he does. He's called the father of Assyriology, but I think he's the stepfather of Assyriology because when he first got these inscriptions, he wrote a long book about it, which was almost entirely wrong. And there was a clergyman in Northern Ireland called Edward Hinks, who lived in a place called Killer Lane, had five daughters, and ran this church, who was possibly a card-carrying genius, if not jolly, jolly close.

And what happened with him was this. There was an ongoing challenge to decipher hieroglyphic writing, which Champollion usually gets the credit for, and Hinks was very interested in trying to decipher hieroglyphic ahead of the French. And he ran into a sort of dead end at one stage, and he thought he'd have a look at cuneiform to see if it was helpful. And at the same time, he cracked it.

He worked out how it worked. He realized that one sign can have more than one value of sound and of meaning, because they are multivalent signs. I tried to shelter you from the horrible news, but it's actually not a walk in the park. It takes about five years to... You probably do it in about four, probably.

That is a compliment. I think you just complimented me. Thank you. Thank you very much. So you're saying one sign that looks exactly the same might have different sounds given the context? Yeah, and you have to choose the right sound.

And also, different meaning as well. Because for example, if you have a sign for hot, word hot, you can't really have a picture sign for hot. Doesn't make sense, but what they did is they did a drawing of a kind of complex thing with a brazier inside another sign, which meant hot.

So that sign existed, but it also meant other things as well. And you had to choose the right one for the context. It's all the context that matters. I mean, it really is quite a matter for despair when you start cuneiform, because on top of everything else, they didn't leave gaps between the words.

And that's—

Matthew 14 Because they's all connected.

That's really mean.

Yeah.

So when you read, um, what you have to do, you start with the first sign and you think of the sign this, and you go through the values in your mind and there's next sign. And if one is bar and the next one is AB among other readings, bar AB sounds like a syllable structure for a word, and you go on like that.

So there are two things about it. One is that if you want to, you can master it. The other thing is that the number of variables was restricted. They controlled it, so it wasn't insane. So in other words, if you learn the corpus and you learn how the signs are composed and you learn their different values, then you've got it down and off you go.

And it's very beautiful, I think. It's marvelous.

Can you, in all seriousness, take me back to the time when you were learning it? What's the process of learning it?

Well, I had a very abnormal upbringing because when I went to university, for about three years beforehand, I'd wanted to be an Egyptologist. So I read the grammar by Gardiner and was looking forward very much to studying Ancient Egyptian, and what happened was that I went up to the University of Birmingham, where I went to university, and there was a man called Rundle Clark, who was an Egyptologist. And Rundle Clark came in on the Monday and gave us one lesson about Egyptian sculpture

or something like that. And the next minute, the next day, he died.

Bang.

So the professor called me into his room and said, look, it's going to take me a while to get an Egyptologist. They don't grow on trees, but there's another person in this department who teaches another ancient language called Lambert, and he teaches cuneiform. So what I suggest is you go and do a bit of cuneiform with Professor Lambert, and then when I get an Egyptologist, you can convert back. So I went in and said, I want to learn cuneiform. And Professor Lambert, who was rather a Sherlock Holmes kind of figure, aesthetic, bony, sarcastic, cruel, absolutely terrifying. And I said I wanted to learn cuneiform, and he wasn't at all pleased because this was

a time in Britain when professors resented having students to teach because it butted into their research time. It was that sort of arrangement. Anyway, I started it off, and after about, I don't know, maybe one or maybe two lessons, I knew this was going to be my life's work. So that's what happened to me.

It was an amazing thing. So he gave me a list of signs to learn, basic signs. So I did, and the next couple of days, and then we came in and we started reading. So given the complexity of the signs, why did cuneiform last 3,000 years,

the most successful writing system ever?

Fair question. There were several factors. One is the famous factor of inertia. The second thing is that people who could read and write and were in charge of archives, and with the clerks in the temple and the writers for the king and everything, commanded a very

great deal of power, because most of the public couldn't. So they reserved to themselves knowledge, understanding, philosophical inquiry. I mean, no doubt it went on in pubs and things, but they were in charge. They had everything under lock and key. And they were, I think, the scribal schools are rather cliquey. They were certainly cliquey in the sense of Oxford and Cambridge being rivals, that sort

of thing. They had that sort of idea. And it was in no one's interest whatsoever. Nobody would ever concede any interest in the idea of literacy for all. This would be, it would never be thought of, and it would be anathema. And so if you got on a soapbox on a Saturday afternoon and say, ah, not for this, we have to teach the children, they'd be taken away, I think.

So we're getting, in these tablets, the output of the intellectual class, a very small fraction of humans. So we're getting just the Oxford and the Cambridge.

We are, except this, that when you went to scribe or school, you had to learn Sumerian and Akkadian, the languages properly, and all the vocabulary and the Samarian and Akkadian, the languages properly, and all the vocabulary and the grammar. So some boys probably had a lot of trouble doing this and, you know, they were okay, but there ain't going to be no geniuses. And I think the situation in the school was that the teachers farmed out the kids who

would actually rather have been outside playing football, but could read and write, to earning their living doing low-level reading and writing. That's to say, writing contracts, letters, everyday things for people, because no one could read and write. So you had to get a scribe if you're going to marry your daughter off, and you get all the witnesses about the presents and all this. All the things had to be done for four days. So the writer would come, and so your medium-level writers would serve that requirement, and very talented or clever or

intellectual students would be encouraged to go into one of the literary professions, which would be, so to speak, medicine, law, working for the king, working for the church, I mean, the priesthood, so forth. All those things which were dependent upon archives and writing, they would find their niveau, and also architecture, because if a big building had to be built, then somebody had to know about load-bearing things and brick measurements. So some of them went into that kind of work, and also probably some of them went into running the army, and you had to move stores and animals.

So they found their niveau, and some of them were intellectually very able indeed, and they went into the disciplines of, on the one hand, astrology, but more seriously into astronomy and theoretical grammar, because they had treatises about the relationship between the two languages and how they worked and different parts of speech. And they wrote learned commentaries as well, what words meant. So there was an intellectual high-level top, and then there were lots of professional scribes, and then the kids who left school as soon as possible and did all that. Like today. I apologize to be

philosophical, but Wittgenstein, the philosopher, said that the limits of our language is the limits of our world. So to which degree did the languages that were encoded in cuneiform define human civilization, would you say? What were the things that were complicated to express and therefore were

not expressed often? That's a really interesting question. So, in terms of richness of vocabulary and richness of verbal subtlety, I think Babylonian rivals Arabic and, of course, English. In other words, you can say whatever you want in English, however subtle it might be, even if people don't understand the subtlety, you can because the tools are fantastic. And Arabic has lots of synonyms and lots of devices, and all the same.

Same in Babylonian. It was a fully-fledged literary language. The question about whether the language put a stop to further things, which is basically what you're asking, is immensely complicated. But the one thing that strikes me as relevant is that a very huge proportion of scholarly literature in Espartamia, it takes the form of omens, because they believed that events

accidental or deliberately stimulated, had implications for what was going to happen. And they took omens from things in the sky and things in the street and every single thing if you were a well-qualified diviner would have this significance. Right? Now, there are thousands of lines of omens of all different kinds, and in Akkadian it says, for example, if a lizard runs across the breakfast table, the queen will die.

If you translate the Akkadian this way, the word if, verb and everything, if that, then this. So there are thousands of lines translated in many books about omens where if this happens, that will happen. So this is how it's understood by my colleagues. But this is absolutely impossible, because if you're the chief diviner for the king, and you open up a sheep to take a liver out and

examine it according to the myth that the queen's going to die and the king's there, you're not going to say, the queen's going to die. I mean, you're going to look like a fucking idiot if she doesn't die. And if she does die, you're going to be responsible. So all you can ever do and ever, ever have been able to do is to say there's a sign here that says that the queen could die, meaning could die, not will die, and therefore the requisite ritual or magic must immediately swing into action to defer the danger.

So the point is that A equals B is never true. It means that with A, B could be, might be, ought to be, should be, could be true. All those subtle things. So that the diviner who works for the king must have been a philosopher who looks at the king, he looks at the king, and he knows what the king wants him to say. So he has to tell the king what he wants to hear. He has to tell the king if it's bad, if it's in such a way that he doesn't mind or he won't worry.

It's the most beautiful thing. It's so subtle. It's like a violin concerto. It can never have been A equals B for a minute. So the medical texts say, if a man has this, you do this, you drink, he'll get better. Right? He says he'll get better.

So you ever met a doctor who will say, you do this, you'll get better? No. They say, all being well, you'll be back on your feet. Or I've seen this kind of condition many times. Everything should go fine, you should get better. You should be better soon. But never you will get better because what happens if you die?

Where are you?

The lawyers will show up.

Absolutely. So this means that not expressible in Akkadian grammar are these modal verbs. Could, might, should, ought. They can't be expressed grammatically, but it is impossible that it was such a magnificent literary language where they didn't have these subtleties. It's utterly impossible. And if you translate he will in a literary text, he might, then the

whole text is different. The whole text is different.

Yeah, absolutely.

And they don't, my colleagues translate, it says in the grammar books, like that, automatically. There's no self-appraisal of the folly of it.

You have said that translation is part archaeology, part detective work, part poetry. Can we just speak about translation and the art of it a bit more? Yes. I mean, it's such an incredible discipline. Just like you said, hinted at, just a subtle variation in a single word can change everything.

Well, you know, the truth about translation is that you never really have a word in one language which precisely equates another. You never do. They're always the best you can do. And sometimes it makes no difference, and sometimes it's really quite misleading. And so what people do when they learn Akkadian is they learn the Akkadian word and they learn the English translation.

Right?

You have the parasu is to divide. So whenever you have the verb parasu, it's some form of divide or division. But actually, it's not, because divide is like the primary root, but there's maybe ten nuances of what that can mean in English, where the one at the bottom and the one at the top, you'd hardly know they were connected. And the Chicago Dictionary, which is such a magnificent thing. When you come to the museum and see me, I'll show you. It's the most salient and important thing that came out of America in all its history. It's the Chicago-Assyrian Dictionary,

which is this long. There's only one rival to it for cultural importance, which is the electric guitar, of course. But the two of them, I think, are your countrymen's greatest achievement.

It's the pride of our nation.

I think so.

Those two things.

The very thing.

Chicago Dictionary. I'm sorry to take the tangent. What is the Chicago Dictionary?

It started in the 20s. And they made a dictionary of the Babylonian language, A to Z, so to speak. And it's as long as this table. It's a magnificent thing, and this big. And there, the people who worked on it were real translators, so they knew that it wasn't lexically

A means B, but they had... So if you have something in a proverb, the meaning is going to be a little bit different from in a letter, and you know, so people really, really understand the Kadian, they really do.

But this thing about the modal verbs is an interesting conundrum to me, because there's no way it's reflected in the writing. So I can only assume that there was some kind of drawing out of the vowel in a verb, meaning could, like you were saying, might do it, something like that. Anyway, so nowadays, it's not the decipherment

that's the job, it's just reading. And if you have lots of tablets to work on, like on a dig, it's very exciting if they come out of the ground and no one's looked for them before, you know, it's your job. And if you're a competent dysphoriologist, you should be able to sight-read more or less,

except most, say a letter or something like that, but most documents have some damage, so you have to learn how to interpret stuff. And also, some literature is very difficult because of technical vocabulary, and they

had technical vocabulary and unusual words. So you can do all of that. You can kind of figure out the technical complexities. You can figure out the noise, meaning missing pieces.

Yeah, sometimes you can calculate what it ought to be, make a reasonable suggestion. And this dictionary, which I was talking to you about, is such a fantastic tool because a lot of people worked on it for, it was the National Endowment for the Humanities and it was for decades and decades of work.

And most of the world's best Assyriologists collaborated on it. So the quality of translation and understanding is really extraordinary.

What are some things you've read from that time? Is there some

jokes? Is there some love letters? There are one or two letters about, from a chap to a woman, about, you know, you are very beautiful and your lips are like radishes and your ears are like walruses and things. But I mean there are some things like that. And there's a kind of street drama in Babylon in fourth century BC, something like that, when there must have been actors who did this in the street. And it's Marduk and Sarpenetum, his wife, and another woman.

Marduk's having an affair with this other goddess, and Sarpenetum is jealous, and there's women fighting in the street and heard insults to one another and you know, slot bucket and all this kind of stuff is hilarious and it must have been a bit like a sort of Verdi opera without the music, I suppose. I don't know. But anyway, it starts off when Salponitum is in the room and Marduk is in bed with this other goddess on the roof and

she can hear. You could say it was an eternal human issue.

LUKE Yeah, yeah, love, heartbreak, jealousy, all of that.

SIMON Between deities also. Because deities are only modeled on human beings after all.

LUKE Yeah, deities is a grandiose way of expressing human affairs, human behaviors, human ways.

SIMON Indeed. of expressing human affairs, human behaviors, human ways, yeah. Indeed.

In the writing, what was their relationship to the divine?

Relationship with the divine, well, the first thing to say is that they had a large pantheon of gods. So there were three gods at the top, sometimes called Anu, Enlil, and Ea. There were three gods at the top, and hundreds of other gods and goddesses. And you have the situation that I think lots of small villages and towns had their old ancient gods, and eventually they all worked into a kind of theological system, like a phone book, and the lesser, minor gods were amalgamated, and then they were given jobs in the households of the big gods.

So there was a sort of structure. So you have this in the background, a big sweeping theology like you have in the world today in some parts of the world. And this was the main system, and the main gods were concerned with the ruler and the fate of the country, and another god was concerned with illness and the dead and what happens to the dead, and they had other specialities, and they all had their own temples.

And when a baby came into the world, probably this was universally true, the baby was put under the tutelage of one or other of the gods. Sometimes the royal family, they were the big shots, but sometimes not, or the ones that were in the family or something like that. So people had, grew up with the idea that among all of them, there were special ones

for the family, and they had a special one who was supposed to look after them. That's the basic idea. But the trouble is, since gods are, as you say, human beings on a larger scale, they can be forgetful, or uninterested, or on holiday. And there are lots of ways that you have to prompt your little sacrifices and little bribes so they do their job and keep an eye on you. So they had that kind of slightly practical view of gods, that they were a bit unpredictable,

great when they were there but not always there sort of idea. And I also believe this, that a lot of people in the world today who did not have the disadvantage of growing up in a stifling religion, but are just normal people, get a lot more interested when they're really ill, or when they have a big disaster all of a sudden. God or gods seem a lot more important than they do normally. So few people walk about in a state of religious awe, and a good proportion of clergymen I've ever met don't do that either. It's a kind of

conception that's not actually based on reality, that the individual's response to religious stimuli fluctuates and is varied, and is often a response to need. It doesn't come from nothing. I mean, people don't suddenly feel, I've got to thank the Lord for the rainbow, or something like that. I think it's probably true today.

I mean, when you read the investigations they make of religion today, Christianity in this country is on the decline, because people who are supposed to be Christians say they aren't anymore, they're atheists. So the people who say, I go to church and I believe in everything, is a relatively small number of people saying,

now, this is the situation, which is quite remarkable, if you think about it. No one knows what the consequence will be for the human race, whether religion will balance out, whether it will die off, who knows?

I think it's an ancient technology that has proven across millennia to give a set of tools to humans to contend, as you said, with suffering. That's a part of life. So when those rare moments come when you have to deal with deep pain, loss, suffering, heartbreak, all those things. Looking up to the sky and asking questions and trying to figure out the answers in your conversation with the Divine.

I think that's true. But I think in Mesopotamia, it was different in terms of its potency and immediacy. Because there's no skyscrapers in Iraq. If you live in southern Iraq and you sleep on the roof, there are no lights at night. You're under the stars, you can see everything because of no smog and everything like that. And the idea that the gods are there watching is not like a big artifice like it is here. It just doesn't ring true here.

You can't come to it and really believe in it.

Whereas these people didn't have to really believe in it because it was it. It's the obvious practical part of life. They're right there. Yeah. It's like they didn't believe in ghosts. They took them for granted and they didn't believe in the gods.

They took them for granted. This is a different mechanism, because nobody here in the world today takes those things for granted, just the opposite. But I think that's how it worked. So you didn't have people wrestling with the idea of whether the gods really exist or whether they really care about me. They gave them a nudge when it was necessary.

They might offer this, they might offer that. It was the system. It was the prevailing system. And I think it's an important difference. And also that thing about ghosts is clear from the inscriptions, all of them, that I managed to find, that nobody ever asked themselves, do these things exist or not?

Or did I really see them or not? Or did I not? They didn't, they just took it all for granted.

What are ghosts? Is it usually ancestors?

Well, everybody who died in bed, naturally or peacefully, what we call their ghost, went down to the netherworld. And there they were. So they buried people jolly quick, for obvious reasons, like they do in Islam and Judaism today, it's the same kind of idea. And the spirit of the person went down through the gates of the netherworld and stayed there.

So that's the basic situation. And people in their houses had actual burials under the courtyard, and they had a thing where you pour stuff down, a whole fluid and food, kind of symbolic offerings to them.

So is that a way to lessen the impact of mortality?

I don't know, because you know everyone's going to die. I think the real tragedy would be is if we're not supposed to. That would be the tragedy. But every single person is going to die. So all relationships have this finite clause in them. So if you're very fond of somebody or you love somebody and they die,

it's kind of infantile to whine about it ever after. Because what do you think was going to happen? Either you or them. You know, I always see it like that. I don't feel grief when people die.

It is infantile, but I gotta tell you something about human beings. We're all kind of infantile all the way through from, you know, we don't stop being infantile after we're infants. It's one thing to know it, you know, theoretically, and it's another thing to know it, know it.

Like this thing ends, this ride ends. But that's the pain. It's the fact that the whole thing ends. And when people fall off the edge, they fall off the edge.

So yeah, the knowledge that it ends is the painful thing, not the actual moment of the ending. Yeah. Many times what makes moments really precious is that they're going to be gone. I think that's not a trivial thing for us humans to really contend with. I think religion, religious

thought, the divine, I think help with that. I think the big mistake for mankind was the creation of monotheistic religions because they brought evil into the world because if you believe in a monotheistic religion, it means I'm right and you're wrong if you don't. So it's already on that footing. Matthew 14

It's very dogmatic. Matthew 14

Dogmatic, and it's led to everything. Inquisitions and this kind of stuff. It's always a result of it that one religion is superior and the other should be stamped out and all that. And in my opinion, monotheistic religion has generated the most fantastic amount of non-religious feeling. Whereas, when you have all the different gods and have different specialities and the ones you like and the ones everybody likes and they have their temples and their offerings, it was very interesting to me to go into a temple in Calcutta when I went there with

my wife Joanna. We went into the temples and saw how they were, and I think they must be very much like the ones in Mesopotamia. So there was never anything about them which affronted people's individuality. I mean there's no religious prejudice or even racial prejudice in antiquity. All these things are modern, disadvantageous matters.

If you think what's done in the name of religion, it is absolutely staggering.

So, let's go to literature, because we didn't really mention literature much, except you did briefly mention Epic of Gilgamesh. So that was written in cuneiform. It's one of the earliest works of literature. That's right. Can you tell me about this work?

Yeah. Well, we know it best from this Assyrian library set of tablets. There are 12 of them. It's a 12-tablet work. That's quite long. And Gilgamesh is the hero of it. But the literature, we know it from earlier texts, and we know that Gilgamesh lived. He was a real person. He was a king in Uruk, and he was one of those people who lived after their death in the world, like Alexander, for example. So there were stories about Gilgamesh when he was alive, there were stories about him

afterwards. Firstly, they were oral literature, not written down at all. And then around the 1800s, people started to write them down in Sumerian or Babylonian. So there was a corpus, and eventually they were woven into this long, twelve Homeric type thing about the adventures of Gilgamesh. So it is certainly literature, and it's to do with humanity and immortality and man in the hands of the gods and incorporates lots of interesting, exciting stories.

It's a very Hollywood-y kind of thing. And you can see within it, even in the sophisticated Nineveh version, its roots are in oral literature, because when somebody speaks, it says Gilgamesh opened his mouth to speak and addressed his friend Enkidu, and then there's a speech, and then Enkidu opened his mouth and addressed his friend Gilgamesh. Well, when you're reading a story, you don't need that.

And that must be because when there was an enacting of an oral thing, a narrator would say, and it suddenly got frozen into the text. So it's a very strange thing, because if you're reading it, it's obvious that one person speaks and the other person speaks, and they always have this complicated thing stuck in the text. So it must be an echo of presumably you have your protagonists enacting their timeless matter,

and the person who's writing it down says, and then Gilgamesh said, you know, like in a script.

I mean, what can you say about the telling of stories in written form during that time? Do you think that too stretched back in time?

I do. I think the fireside narrative matter. You know, when we were kids, it would be twerks with a guitar sitting around a fire on holiday. But that mechanism when people gather after dark, when there is a fire and talk, is the sort of environment where narrative accounts flourish naturally among human beings.

Stories, telling a story. It doesn't have to be pragmatic, it can be literary in a way.

Yeah, either a human person like Gilgamesh or stories about the gods and someone sees the Milky Way and they think it's a god riding a chariot up it and they have a story about, you know, and all sees the Milky Way and they think it's a god riding a chariot up it, and they have a story about it, and all those sorts of things, or whatever it would be. But I think, probably, you have to allow for a strong creative principle surfacing in Homo sapiens at a quite

early age, because the paintings on cave walls, you try drawing a running antelope in color on a wall, I mean, the quality of the workmanship, of the artistic ability, is unsurpassable. It's not just good. So how is that an explicable thing at this very early date. It means that among all the population, you have Imusil and Einstein, and somewhere along the line, you have Rembrandt. And I imagine that half the cave paintings in Europe were done by one person. I mean, you get the impression every family had a genius painter. It's impossible. Probably there was a person who went from

place to place doing these paintings because they were so… could draw straight away accurately like that. But they are a distillation of creative artistic ability plus skill. So this is right at the pretty early stage, is it not, the cave painting material. So if you consider the human stock, which encapsulates such ideas ever after, then you have to reckon with that. Very creative people. So the function of stories to tell the young about what happened and about famous battles, or when the flood came, or how people learned to make fire, or how we invented the wheel, all those sorts of things

everybody puts down. But that's presumably what absolutely happened. And you have the capacity for people to adore and to respect among their own kind kind people of astounding ability. There must have been hunters who were ferociously quick and, you know, wrestled with polar bears

and all that kind of thing. And all this stuff would be grist to the narrators. And as things got more complicated and more sophisticated, so lessons might be incorporated or lessons might come out of them unintentionally. If you tell a story without a moral, it is usually immoral if you think about it.

And many of those stories are sadly lost to time or not yet found. You mentioned floods, and speaking of stories that have been lost and found, you're well known for a lot of things. One of them is decoding the so-called Ark tablet.

Yeah, that was a challenge because it's really hard to read.

You got to tell me the story, this ancient Babylonian clay tablet dating 1700 BC, which contains a flood narrative that predates the biblical story of Noah by a thousand years.

At least.

At least. Yeah. Okay. Well, you got to tell me the full story.

So the full story is like this. Visitors used to come to the museum to ask questions of the experts who worked there, and one would be on duty periodically, and sometimes people would bring objects, sometimes they'd ask questions. And somebody once came in with a whole load of objects, including this tablet, which to cut a long story short, I identified pretty much straight away as being part of the flood story. It was a tablet about eight inches by three.

Not the whole flood story, which is a complex narrative, which ended up in the Gilgamesh narrative much, much later. But this one was an early narrative in which the point was taken up where the gods in heaven had decided that the population of Mesopotamia needed to be wiped out because they were so noisy. This was the expression. And the gods couldn't sleep after lunch, sort of thing. So they decided they would wipe them out and create something quieter that worked harder.

So this was the basic mechanism, and they had different ways of doing it. And the most effective one was they were going to send a flood to wipe them all out. And one of the gods, the number three in the triumvirate, thought this was a deplorable idea, so he took it upon himself to warn this person called Atrahasis, who lived in Mesopotamia, to build a boat to rescue life when the waters came. And in it, he told him the shape of it and the materials he would need and how much he

would need of the materials so he could do it safely. And in the 60 lines of a tablet, all this stuff was there. It was like a blueprint to build this boat. And it was extraordinary because it was round, the boat. And everybody who knew their Bible, the arcs were the coffin-shape kind of affair, and nobody thought of it being a roundboat. And the fact is that roundboats were used in Mesopotamia on the rivers, coracles, that's to say, for transporting things, and they would never sink, They were very appropriate. So in this story, it was decided it was going to be a giant coracle, a really, really big one that would never sink. And the male and female animals

could go in, and Atrahasis' wife and his three sons and so forth could go in, and everything would be there, and it would float on the water. And when it came down, they said, we'll start all over again. So it's got very many points in common with the description of the Flood in Genesis. And of course, so did the one in Gilgamesh. So in 1872, there was an anteriologist in the British Museum called George Smith. And he was a very, very talented reader.

In 1872, he discovered that one of the tablets from the Nineveh Library we were talking about before had on it a passage which ran in parallel with Gilgamesh about the waters coming and the boat and everybody floating, and even to the point that when the rain stopped and the ark came to rest on a mountain, that the hero of this thing in Gilgamesh who was called Utnapishtim released a bird three times to see whether the trees had come up. And the first one came back, and the second one and the third one didn't, so we knew that. So this was not only in the Epic

of Gilgamesh, but it was also in the Book of Genesis. So what it meant was that you couldn't have two stories about the same thing. It was literary dependence. It was literary dependence, that one was locked into the other. The text of the Hebrew Bible from whenever it was written down, of course, nobody knows quite when, but whenever it was, it was about the same time as the one from Nineveh, about the 7th century, 6th century, something like that. The time interval between the Gilgamesh version from Nineveh and the Hebrew Bible is not like

a big expanse of time. So there was an argument that one goes this way and one goes that way, but then when this tablet came in a thousand years old, nobody believes the Bible was written in 1700 BC. So the primacy of the Mesopotamian matter was established, and it's important because you never get floods in Jerusalem. You just don't. But in Mesopotamia, they had floods. The rivers, sometimes there wasn't enough water, sometimes it was too much, sometimes it was far too much water. So the mechanism that the waters could be used as

a destructive force by the powers that be is a plausible Mesopotamian mechanism. And it's based in a sort of sense, in my opinion, in reality, I think there must have been some tsunami once. Most people were drowned and those who survived were in boats, obviously. And then afterwards, nobody ever forgot it. And it went on and on and on.

They mean, there actually could have been a catastrophic event of a large scale?

Yeah, not the whole world. Because people...

But just enough to imagine.

Yeah, sweeping down to the Persian Gulf and, you know, the flat plains, everything would be destroyed. All the houses would be destroyed. And they would also be drowned.

This is an incredible discovery. Do you think it's possible that this is the original?

There are flood myths in many cultures. I believe this. The Mesopotamians had a deep-seated horror of dependency on water when they couldn't control it. They were fearful of it. And they had a rainbow in Babylonia, like in the Bible, as a proof that the disastrous flood would never happen again. But I think there must have been one episode of this kind, maybe 5,000 years before the tablet, 10,000, it doesn't matter. Because with the passage of time, nothing happens in that part of the world. Something will be alive, grandfather to grandson, before you go to sleep and remember, my boy,

you only have to be careful because otherwise – and all that stuff. For sure, bogeyman stuff never quite died out in their conscious minds. So I think that when the Judeans from Jerusalem, after the destruction of the temple by the Babylonians and the rout of the priesthood and everything, the king and the others went overland to Babylon as refugees, and they had to live there for three generations of time under Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

So I believe that the text of the Bible was written then, because if you read the Bible attentively, which I can't say I do on a regular basis, but if you do read it dispassionately, you have the mechanism that the early books of the Bible explain to the reader how it is that these people are in such a mess, because they're supposed to be the chosen people doing all that. Look at that, they haven't got a temple, they haven't got a country. They're washed up and everything like that. So I think that what happened was, it's a complex thing, but the Judeans from Jerusalem, they spoke Hebrew, but they also spoke Aramaic, the two languages, their sister languages. And the Babylonians spoke Babylonian, and they also spoke Aramaic.

And they all wore the same kind of clothes, and they all had brown skin. And when all these refugees from Jerusalem were milling around in Babylonia, they would have intermarried and disappeared within no time at all. And the authorities who were there prevented this by drawing up a kind of charter of their history, explaining things from the beginning of time up until now, how it happened and what happened, and it was all intentional.

So that is, in my opinion, the driving force behind the Hebrew text. And the thing about it is that they didn't have, in Jewish philosophical tradition, stuff about creation and the beginning of the world. And they took Babylonian ideas, which they learned when they were there, and they recycled

them. So, whereas the Babylonians decided that the gods were going to wipe out the noisy persons. When the Jewish philosophers got this narrative to recycle about the vengeful almighty, he was in the Old Testament a very unpleasant, vengeful person, it was because of sin. It wasn't because of racket and playing the radio, it was sin.

So they took one narrative and they recycled it for their own purposes.

The flood is a useful tool to punish people for whatever X is.

That's exactly right. And something else is this, something else is this, right? You have five days to build the ark, or whatever it is, or two weeks to build the ark, so the clock goes tick, tick, tick, tick, tick. And about a third of the films that come out of Hollywood are, the world's going to be demolished by aliens. And you've got 24 hours to think of a cure.

Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick. So that narrative is irresistible. That one man can save the world, if he's lucky, in time from disaster. So it starts off with Utnapishtim, and it goes on to Noah, and then it goes on to Hollywood.

Do you think this Ark in the tablet actually was ever built? You did build a replica, one third the size.

Yeah.

And you, people should check out, you tell the story of that wonderfully. Now, what did you learn from building this replica, and do you think the actual ark existed?

No, I don't think so. I think it's a literary construction out of the reality that people who did survive were on boats. I mean, they had boats, for sure. And you might wake up in the Persian Gulf and never know what happened, but, you know, it's a literary, moral, principle, teaching narrative.

And look, missionaries take it all around the world. That's the other thing. See, this is the mystery of it, that you have flood stories everywhere, and some of them are from meddlesome missionaries who have all these innocent little kids sitting on benches and, I'm going to tell you a story, like that. So it moves into this consciousness, then it gets recycled, it gets recycled.

So this is one thing. And then also there probably are spontaneous ideas because it's not so complicated or so amazing that independently people would have such a narrative. After all, you know, like the Great River in China floods and everybody gets. So that's not at all surprising. But what was so shocking for George Smith, who was such a clever person,

is to read for the first time on this tablet from Ninouvi, long before the one that I discovered came to light, about the three birds being released, one after the other. And that was the clincher that the two stories were locked together. And lots of clergymen got very miserable about it and didn't know what to make of it.

LR – So that's a definitive proof that there's a literary…

RL – I think literary link. I think so.

LR – And I mean, these puzzles are then connected, but the arc, you discover a thousand years. So that means that story of the flood has been told many, many times across that span to, you know, do your homework or the flood is going to come. That's right.

To all the kings.

Oh, that's right. And every time somebody built a coracle and they didn't do the waterproofing right,

Yeah.

You know what will happen? You'll be out on the river and that will be your lot. You know, I think so. I think it was a, there's a certain amount of evidence that in Mesopotamian society, people talk about the time before the Flood and after the Flood. And it's like when I was a boy, people used to talk about before the war, we used to...

And now we do this. It's a kind of cataclysmic cut across history, provides a ruler so things are either before it or after it. Because there's a king list, for example, where they wrote down the names of all the kings all the way back to the beginning, including kings before the flood. They knew about that.

They had their names in their great regnal years or thousands of years. Fascinating.

So there's a guy named Graham Hancock who talks about the Younger Dryas hypothesis, 10,000 BC, that there was an asteroid that hit Earth and melted the ice sheets and that created a flood in North America. So that means an actual cataclysmic global event that then, as all the different civilizations sprung up,

they all carried that knowledge, that memory. That's his idea. What probability would you assign to that?

I would say negligible, because I regard it as a literary matter, which is not predicated on the existence of flood in people's minds. But I do believe that the story in Mesopotamia owes its inception to a disastrous flood, but nothing global, nothing that touched America or China or Birmingham.

So I don't have any sympathy with that, but people have drilled a cause in the, I don't know, I'm not interested in all that stuff. It's my mind. It's a literary topos of great potency, of irresistible potency, because everybody identifies with the idea of being in bed and someone knocks on the door and says, get up, you've got to build a boat and this is what you're going to need and you've got to get on with it, sunshine, or we're all sunk. I mean, what are you going to do? The most interesting thing is this Atrahasis in the 1700 text.

He wasn't a king, and he wasn't a sailor or a boat builder. So how comes this clever god who wants to find someone to build, wouldn't you go for a look in the yellow pages for a boat building company and say, listen, fellow, I've got a deal? No. You have to tell him.

This is the blueprint. This is the shape. You need all this. You need all that. You've got to measure it and all that. It's a very interesting thing.

I mean, yeah, that's a great story. You don't go to the great boat, boat builder, you go taxi driver or something, the taxi. And then that's that, like, uh, what did

you, of the boat?

Yeah.

One third of the replica. That was something else.

There were, there were three blokes who did it and they were specialists in reconstructing medieval Arab boats because quite often they're found in the mud or bits, or they have information, and they rec- so they were at home in it. And we built it on a small lagoon in Kerala. It was just the most unbelievably wonderful thing, because they used the instructions as a blueprint. They made it about a third of the size of the original, a pretty huge thing. But they made it because it had wooden ribs, you see. And they could get wooden ribs.

They worked out by computer the maximum size they could do it when it would work. Beyond it, it would be impossible because once they built the curved ribs and then the stuff woven all around it, it had to be covered in bitumen, which is also very heavy, to make it waterproof. So they calculated the size and it worked. So they built this thing on rollers and it was pushed out into the... It was just the most unbelievable. I went out there with my dear wife for the last few days and was on the maiden voyage, and they had trouble with

the bitumen because Indian bitumen is really not up to scratch and they couldn't get Iraqi bitumen because it's cultural property, it's carcinogenic. They wouldn't export a tank load of Iraqis. So we had to use the Indian stuff. But the thing is this, the bitumen, which they coated it with, it was okay, but it wasn't perfect.

So when he went out into the waters, there was a bit of a leak. Water had to be bailed out. So I was, ah, you see, I said, okay, it's in sunshine. I said to this producer, you ever been in a rowing boat without water in the bottom?

Excuse me.

Oh, you're saying that's, that's a feature.

Not the feature of the thing. That's the feature. That thing could have gone to Portsmouth. So it's authentic. Absolutely right. We had such an adventure with that thing. They made a documentary film.

Yeah.

In various languages. And you know what they did? You know, I was in it a bit, a bit, and they had people saying, oh, I don't think it was this. I don't think it was that, you know, and they didn't let me go back and say, what the hell are you talking about? I did it. I know I'm too. I can read Cuneiform. Can you? They didn't, they didn't do it. I couldn't get my own back.

I was really annoyed, really furious.

So you're, you're saying that there's some inaccurate things.

I am saying there's some inaccurate things.

Yeah.

Somebody in the rock said, oh, you couldn't read the stuff. I mean, it's really, really, really annoying. I mean, you should have a chance, shouldn't you? You know, if you're going to have a fancy match, you both have to have a rapier, wouldn't you say?

Yeah. And you're the OG. You're the person that decoded it.

Well, I can read it. Yeah. But the thing is this, the proportions of the material were accurate. This is the crucial thing that, um, what had happened was, is they took the information about how you make a real call, which is usually enough to people, a few sheep and goats, and they bumped them up so that it worked. And I know why that is, because it goes back to your question about oral literature. Because there must have been times when people went to villages and told them about the flood. And when they got to the question of the boat, they'd say something like this,

and Enki said, you've got to build the biggest coracle you've ever seen! Like that, right? Well, I mean, if you do this in cinema in Guildford, people will say, well, that's fine. But if you do it to a whole load of river people who use coracles and make build, they're not going to take that. They're not going to say, how big was it then? Come on, how big was it? So what do they do? They go to a coracle place and they work out the proportions of material and then they bump it up so that the actor who reads this for the first few times, he has in his pocket

how much it is, but after a while he knows it by heart, so that none of these people get angry. You can't expect us big enough for all this. So then you'd have all the stuff and they'd do it this way. And you need all this and you need all this, and you need all this, and they'd all be hypnotized by it.

That, I think, is actually, regarding your question, it's on the cusp of purely oral literature to purely literary literature. It's actually there because you can see that it was molded in the environment when people were still talking.

Yeah, you got to make it authentic to really connect with people.

Well, you couldn't pull it over their eyes. I mean, you know.

I wish many of the films in Hollywood today would have the same level of rigor.

Rigor is one of the things lacking in the world.

By the way, I forgot to ask, why was the flood myth focused on noisy people?

Well, it can't really be noisy. I tell you what the explanation is. It's something quite different. Before the flood, the gods had not created death. So I think the noise was a reflex of the fact there were just too many animals, too many people, and they had to do something about it. So it's a sort of euphemism, so to speak, because after the flood, at the end of the tablet, not my tablet, but the other ones, where it's still broken, it says there's a

tantalizing thing where they create barren women who can't have children, and men who can't have children, and people who—precesses who don't have children. They institute in society some figures who will not reproduce the species. So it's actually a rather sophisticated, Malthusian kind of philosophical position. It's remarkable. So the noise means there's so many of them. Not that they're actually so noisy that we can't hear ourselves think.

You have to tell me about the world of ancient games. Maybe we can start with the ancient royal game of Ur. What is it and how were you somehow able to crack the rules of it?

Well, the Royal Game of Orr is a board of 20 squares in a rather idiosyncratic form. It was pretty much unknown until the 1920s when Sir Leonard Wooley was digging at the site of Ur, and in the graves of the royal family, the Sumerian rulers, they found four or five boards of this pattern, together with dice and pieces, which showed that it was popular among them at this time, and also that wherever they were going in the world to come, they would want to be playing it. And so that was one thing. And we had the number of pieces and some dice, so lots of people had ideas about how it might

have been played, and that went on like that for a very long time. And thereafter, boards for this game turned up in most of the countries of the Middle East, sometimes quite a lot of them. The one from Ur dates to about 2600 BC, and from then down to the end of the first millennium, there's examples of boards from Mesopotamia itself, and from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Greece, Crete, all over the place.

And when you put all the boards together, you realize that you're dealing with a board game which was extremely widespread and extremely popular. Matthew 14 Across space and time.

Richard 14

Across space and time. So it lasted for nearly 3,000 years, and it was played all over the place. So it's one of those games, which is like chess or backgammon, which you can say are world conquerors. Because the way I see the issue is that human beings for a very long time have been, shall we say, hungry for things to do. Because all through the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, there was no television. You know, there were no nothing.

And kids played with pull-along things, and adults had board games, and they're kind of embedded in culture from a very early time. And this game was so widespread. You know, Tutankhamun, for example, in his tomb there were two or three boards for it with the pieces, so it arrived in the middle of the second millennium in Egypt, and even the pharaoh played it. So you have a game which the interesting point

about it is that it spread across the known world without without written rules, and without people necessarily knowing the same language. So a merchant would go, end up in a bar, come from India or I don't know where, start seeing these guys playing have a go himself, that looks rather interesting, you go home and try and remember what it looked like and try and work out how to, you know, be transported this way or the other.

And so you can see that the board has 20 squares. So you have a block of 4 by 3, and then a bridge of 2, and then a second 3 by 2 thing at the end. So it's difficult to describe the actual shape, but what happened was after about 2000 BC, the squares at the far end, which there were two on one flank and two on the other, were all put at the end of the central Avenue.

So you end up with 12 squares down the middle. So all the boards after the period of or have 12 squares down the middle and then four on each side at one end. So it meant then that when you play the game, you have dice to move the pieces. You have pieces all the same, and you obviously put them on your first corner and you turn the corner, you go up the middle and off the end.

And it was a race game of the kind that everybody knows from their own childhood. And some squares which had rosettes on were either safe squares or you had another throw, and you could maybe put two on one square, we don't know. You could try and block people. And but anyway, the crucial thing is that the widespread distribution of this idiosyncratic shape and its lasting thing shows it must have been a very good game if people more or less played the same thing

on it everywhere. I mean, it may be that they were completely different games, but probably not. So this is the thing. It makes you wonder what would be about it that would fit so well with a wide appetite from different types of person. And the thing is, although it's a race game where you're at the mercy of dice and lucky

squares and unlucky squares, the process of getting your pieces on and off the board as a winner is primarily fortuitous. But it has built within it, it's the way I understand the game plays, a measurable quota of strategy.

LW – It's a mix of probability and strategy.

MM – Yeah. So most games are either just probability like like snakes and ladders, snake shoots and ladders, it's just a thing like that, or you have a game like chess, which is pure strategy. And the grown-up game in the modern world, where fortuity or chance and strategy have a good balance, is backgammon, which is a sort of grown-up version of this sort of game, where nevertheless, if you play

according to the most rational interpretation, strategy is a major factor. So what happened was that many people had ideas how it was played, and the route followed, and I did too. And then I discovered this tablet in the British Museum, which was written at a very late period in the second century BC, so 2,300 years after this object existed.

It had on it the names of the pieces, what the pieces were like, and various things about the throws. It was obvious that the rules were to do with a game which was derived from this simple early game. And that working backwards from it, you could reconstruct the game in accordance with its later incarnation that might be workable, and it jolly well turned out to be workable because people play this all over the world now. And they even play it in Iraq in cafes.

Wait, now now?

They do. Because after it's come, come back to life, it's on the internet. People play, they're different rules. The ones that I invented are pretty much regular. So if you have a good balance between chance and strategy, and it's a fair game. And it doesn't take four days to play like modern board games.

So you can have a go. And if you're lucky, you win fast, and then you have another go, maybe best of three or something like that. It works out rather well. And once I was in California, in the Getty, and I had to give a talk about this with all the information, because there's lots of things to say about it.

And the lady who ran the Friends of the Getty had a brilliant idea. So she bought in 20 or so commercial copies of this game, and they had small tables with chairs. And after the lecture, I was supposed to say to everybody, OK, this is what you have to do. This is how you play, because you can get the rules down in three minutes like this. So I said, okay, first you have to do this, first you have to do that. So off you go. So there was silence.

And then after a while, someone said, I hate you, I'm never playing this game with you again. When they never played it before, when somebody had escaped at the last minute, cleaned up just when they thought they were going to get... And it provokes that solitary, benevolent fury and rage in the players, which all good board games do. And they were happily married couples who were, at the end of the afternoon, phoning

their respective lawyers to discuss the future, that kind of thing.

Beautiful matter. You think games are, you know, our desire to play games, a mix of chance, a mix of strategies, a part of human nature, you think that's always

been there? I do, I do, yes. I think, I mean, you can say that in communities you have rivalry, hostility, who's the best, who's the fastest, who's the strongest and things. And if you play a board game like that, all the reality of it is sublimated into a safe terrain. Where you can nevertheless get angry, but it's not, it's not like that. That's one thing. But more significantly, I believe, is the question of what in India people call time pass, which is not quite the same as pastime.

Time pass is the question of what you do when it's too hot to do anything, which is true a good part of the day and a good part of the year. And grandmothers sit under trees with their grandchildren and they tell stories

and they do this and they do that. And time pass is a very useful catch-all phrase for the existence of board games. And in India, there are many board games. Chess, of course, is the famous one, but there are quite a lot of three-in-a-row type games or fox against geese games, or wolves against sheep, and all those sorts of things which come out of the landscape in miniature and were played for pleasure.

And also, in a kind of way, it doesn't really matter who wins, because you might play and it goes round and round and round, and eventually somebody wins, and then they have another game. So it's a sort of that kind of rather graceful valid function for not wasting time doing something which is stimulating and beneficial without it being overpowering in either way. So I think it is a human matter.

Of course we humans also sometimes mix in gambling into the whole thing, to add some money on top of it, which I'm sure sometimes was involved here.

I think so, but probably only late on, because money as such, of course, that doesn't appear until quite late. But there are, we know in Mesopotamia, it's a rather interesting thing, there's a school tablet with three or four lines quoted from one literary thing and three or four from another literary thing. And one of them has this, "'O my Astragal, O my Astragal, woe is me, woe is me.

And that's all we have. And I think this is an example of a genre of literature called the gambler's lament, because they use knuckle bones or astragals as dice. And I'm sure there were people who bet sack of this or a roomful of that on the throw of the knuckle bones. This extract in the school text is probably from a literary tablet in which somebody lost

everything even though there weren't coins, because I think you're right, it's a natural thing to fit to a crew. And also, maybe men and women play differently, because there are some games which were played in the harims among girls, on a hot afternoon, where nobody was going to win anything. But the rules tablet, which gives this kind of backhanded information about it, is couched in such a way that it talks about people in a bar, because the movement of the pieces is calculated in

terms of food and drink and women, what you win. So the landscape in which the rules are couchunt for credibility is just exactly that set up.

As you mentioned, you are the curator at the possibly the greatest place on earth, the British Museum.

Oh yes.

Can you tell me what are some of the incredible magical aspects of the British Museum? Well, the British Museum is a magical place,

and it's a special case, because there's a lot of flurry and dispute now about what museums are, and what they're for, and why they exist, and whether they should ever have existed, and all these sorts of issues which people go on about. But the British Museum is unlike almost all

museums in the world because it's to do with the achievements of mankind from the beginning onwards. So it's a kind of celebration of art and more, but it's not an art museum. It's to do with the struggle of the human race against all the things that beset it and how it has triumphed and how marvelous it is and the things that have happened. Not turning a blind eye to all the contrasting, horrible things that have happened, but it's the narrative of the human race, as I see it, as discernible in objects.

So it means that we serve two very important horizons. One is that we represent, as far as we can, the whole world with no injudicious attention paid to any one or other culture. That they're all to us one. So there's no favoring any religious group, any country group, anything of the kind. It's the human species. We try to tell the narrative of, in its own right, and how it overlaps with its neighbors, and what it's learned from what came before. All those features together

is really what the concern of the museum is. And of course, to collect everything we can to tell those narratives, and also to look after them according to scientific principle. So all those things at once are the task of the British Museum. And the second horizon it serves is the unborn. So babies yet to be born, and their children, and their children, and their children. And it seems to me that the task of the Museum is of such cultural significance and such, so to speak, sacred

validity that it shouldn't have to put up with people carping about this or that, or saying the museums are sinful and wicked and should be demolished, because the people who say these things don't really have any idea of actually what it really does stand for. It's a kind of lighthouse in a universe where we are surrounded by darkness, ignorance, stupidity, disinterest, skepticism, ignorance, and so forth, about the very issues that we're interested in. And it's one of the places in the world where you can talk about truth and beauty and elegance

and intelligence without it being an affront to people who have none of those qualities, and without it being a kind of speech that people shudder or they think you're being naive about it, because those are the crucial things. And also about religion, that we don't favor a religion and we don't sponsor a religion. We try to look at them for what they are and to assess their relationships and what they offer.

Perhaps less with a less acerbity and less criticism than I would, if I was the director, I would try to put them down the wrong end of a microscope and look at them for what they are and what they have done and what's been done in the names of religion. You probably would never get away with that, but maybe one day that will be an important part because it's a major contributive factor to what's happened to the human race, which is never really articulated sharply about what religion has done to us and where we might have been without it.

Because not having religion does not mean not having law or morality or sensitivity or consideration or love or any of those things. None of those things depends on religion. And those are the things which are important. So I think it's, people say, ah, you say this because you work there and you're a curator, you would say that, that the British Museum is a special place. It has nothing to do with that. It is actually a special place because you cannot

point to another museum in the world with the same task. For example, the Louvre is basically a museum of art, not a museum of ideas. And the Met is definitely a museum of art. It's called the museum of art, and that's their priority. Design and color and shape, to us, to my mind, the British Museum, this is one factor among many others. And we are not an art museum, we're not a local museum, we're not a museum of the history of the bicycle, we're not a celebration of evil. We are, as

it were, doing, as I see it, the best we could do if, for example, a whole load of Martians arrived in the Great Court and burst through the front door and said to us, tell us all about this place, tell us about the world, can you do it fast because we've got to leave? And if you took them round and said, look at this, look at this, look at this, look at this, they'd get some picture which wasn't insane. The only thing they wouldn't get is a recording of

Johnny Be Good by Chuck Berry. But apparently one's been put into space. So this is a very comforting thing.

But that's kind of what the task of the British Museum is to do that, but for the entirety of human history. Yeah. is to do that, but for the entirety of human history. It'd be a store of artifacts that are the raindrops from which you can reconstruct the waterfall.

Precisely so. And it's not a valid criticism to say to us that most of the stuff is not on exhibition, which is what everybody says. It should go here, it should go there, because it's not on exhibition. But we're not doing it for any other reason

than stockpiling for future examination. there because it's not on exhibition, but we're not doing it for any other reason than stockpiling for future examination. See, this is the important perspective that nobody considers. Because the thing is, when you have something which is contemporary, if you're a clever journalist or a clever thinker, you can write essays about it, you can talk about it, and you can see it, but you can only see it from the perspective from which you operate.

And with the passage of time, the significance of objects, what they stand for, what they meant and what they can still mean, shifts. And the further back you go, the sharper you can understand things, especially in terms of their own precedent and their own modern contemporary parallels. So the benefit of distance, storage, and contemplation is inestimable.

There's so many questions I want to ask you. What wisdom do you think the people from whom these artifacts came had that we may have, the modern day humans may have lost, or lost in part or in whole. So it's often, as you've spoken about, we see the ancient peoples as lesser, dumber, more primitive.

And you've spoken about how they are basically the same.

I think you put them on a bus or wearing the same clothes. You wouldn't know.

That's my feeling, but there is some, I'm sure there's some greater wisdom they had about certain things as, as we have greater wisdom on others. Thanks to Einstein, we figured out the curvature of space-time,

which they didn't know about. But-

They knew quite a lot about astronomy though. Quite a lot about astronomy.

They stared at the stars.

Yeah. And they measured them and they, they, they, they make calculations. When the Greeks went to Babylon, they think, Hey man, this is really cool. And they wrote it all down and went home. Yeah, definitely. Well, I think it's a hard question to answer, but one of the things is that they were spared things which have cluttered up the essence

of humanity. Because I think that the modern adherence to the electronic universe is disastrous for humans, and because it reduces the vitality of the human component. I think it's restrictive in a way that people don't realize until it's too late. Like drugs, if you take drugs now and again, you think, oh, it's fine, it's fine, then suddenly you realize you're addicted to heroin. It's a bit like that.

People use the electronic world like an addictive drug, and they can't get through without it. And I think this is a very recent thing, but I suppose it's not I'm a Luddite and say we shouldn't have railway engines and we shouldn't have kettles, but I think one of the things about the ancient world was that people never went anywhere, unless they were merchants or soldiers. They never went anywhere. Probably people born and died in a village, and then their children born and died in the

village, and they never knew anything about the outside world. Maybe very little. Sometimes there'd be a message, but in principle, they had no idea about other countries, other languages, or how big they were. So I don't think they had wisdom in a way that you could type out following precepts will make life better.

Because they told lies, and they esteemed the truth, and they fell in love, and they committed adultery, and they did murder, and they did all the things. I think in a way, the ancient world allowed human beings to behave more naturally than it does now. The world in which we live, I mean, if you do live in a rustic environment or by the sea or you're a fisherman or you, I mean, all those normal real kind of things, then it's probably all

right. But most people who live crammed in the cities live a very, very artificial life where the principles which they regard as ineluctably crucial are not ineluctably crucial. They're not in… You know, one example is this ghastly thing on mobiles where you get a short clip from a real program. I think it's utterly, utterly wicked. So you have children all over the world who cannot articulate, spell, or make meaning

clear using the best, most literary and most beneficial languages ever been created, which is English, to save their lives. And they use a word, I'll give you an example. Yeah. Right. Like I went.

Like I went.

Like I went. So, difficult to define that grammatically. Difficult, like I should have gone. Where I went or I should have gone means to speak. Now how would it be if when we see the verb to go in Sumerian, it actually meant to speak? Where would we be? Where would we be?

I mean, we should probably say that even in that time, there was probably slang, right? It just wouldn't end up written.

Yes, there were dialects. There were words that sailors used, for sure. All those things.

But they wouldn't end up in writing.

Sometimes they do.

We have to remember that Cambridge and Oxford speak in a certain way that's proper and formal and very smart, but there's most of the people in bars, sailors have a different way of speaking. So they would probably say, like I went and have emojis and.

But the thing is, you have to moderate your vocabulary.

Yeah.

To talk to people of a certain age, because they don't know what the fuck you're talking about if you use language exactly. And the thing that was just so exquisite about English is like with a barrister, you can make a case which is absolutely wonderful because it says exactly what it means and there's no wriggle room. And the conversation should be like that with no wriggle room.

It's not just a matter of spelling, but the basic vocabulary. You know something very interesting? People say they know English or they speak English. Have you ever in your life opened a full-size volume of the Oxford English Dictionary? It's about that. Like this fact, I have a whole set.

I love them. So this is it. You take a volume off the shelf and you open the book and you run your forefinger down the various columns of writing, you might have to turn several pages before you find a single word you've ever heard before, because English is unimaginably rich.

I grew up in a house where everybody read literature all the time. I had three sisters and then a brother, and we all read literature. Went to the library every week, read lots and lots and lots of books. So we all had really good vocabulary. And that's how you get vocabulary. Otherwise you don't, because in conversation,

do you want more tea, all this sort of stuff? You don't learn new vocabulary. You have to get it from reading and listening to proper stuff. We should say the very important aspect of stuff, you don't learn new vocabulary, you have to get it from reading and listening to proper stuff.

LW – We should say the very important aspect of vocabulary, why it's important to know a lot of words and to speak clearly, because those words also define the quality of your thoughts at the end of the day.

CW – Sure, that's exactly right. I must say, I think it is a pity if, having produced such wonderful languages in the world that they don't, that their use is so inhibited.

I think the right way to think about it is the way the British Museum thinks about it. So you're commenting on the ephemeral, on the thing that is in the moment right now is happening. The reality is only a few select things will last 100, 200 years from now about this moment in time. And so we have to sort of think with the big picture perspective and the slowness of time. Yes, in the moment there is these catastrophes,

there's changing ways of speaking, the technology tearing apart the fabric of society. But when you zoom out, you will think about the grand ideas of Einstein. The battle of ideologies with communism and Nazism of the 20th centuries, the bad, the triumphant,

the rockets, these humans started launching rockets going to the moon, maybe to Mars, those things. And we won't be thinking about emojis and any of that. And in some sense, that's the stuff you're looking at with cuneiforms is the things that stand the test of time that are there.

That's true. But I think I think that language properly used is a crucial human tool for communication. Absolutely yes. Speaking

of which I have to ask some more about the cuneiform tablets. At the British Museum when you're surrounded by so many, and by the way, how many cuneiforms?

About 130,000.

That is so cool.

It is, it's pretty cool.

What are some of the most beautiful to you? Maybe ones we don't know about, cuneiforms? Like, that make you smile?

Well, there are not many jokes, you asked about jokes.

Yeah, they lost their sense of humor in cuneiform.

Yeah, I think there are. There's one that I can remember. This was a fly or a mosquito lands on the back of an elephant and says, am I too heavy for you or something like that. That's a Fabulonia joke.

Yeah.

You wouldn't use it in the pub or anything like that. Yeah, yeah, yeah, to be there. And also, do you like Tom Lehrer?

Of course.

Okay, that's good, that's good. I once went to America on a lecture tour and I ended up in a town where Dr. Werner von Braun ended up running the American rocket industry.

It doesn't matter.

Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down.

They come down.

That's not my department says Werner von Brown.

That guy. I mean, I could tell where your wit comes from. The fact that you know, Tom Lehrer.

But he's such a, the way he plays the piano is fantastic.

Yeah.

I think my dad recorded them off the radio on a reel to reel tape recorder, and I learned them all by heart, they were so fantastic. But I knew a Harvard professor who, I stayed with once, who was a sumerologist, and his wife said that she knew Tom Nera when he was in the math department. And they used to have parties, and he always played the piano

in the corner of the room. He's just amazing.

Yeah. The, I mean, he had a real, you have that, you know, I've watched a lot of your stuff, your whole way of being the wit. There's something about that, like biting wit. It's a bit of humor, a bit of sadness in it. It just kind of feels like it really quickly gets to the complexity of what it means to be human.

I think so. But the paradoxical thing about Tom Leary is that when he's talking about the bomb and all that, and devices and international trouble, it's so unchanged. And same with Dr. Strangelove, it's just,

it's very remarkable. Anyway, next time you're here, or when you're here, you should come and see me in the museum and I'll show you some of these confounded things for yourself and show you the Chicago Dictionary and give you a grammar book to learn.

Irving, you're a remarkable human being.

I'm very glad we met.

It's truly an honor to meet you, to talk to you.

Me too, it's been very interesting.

Irving, thank you so much for talking to me.

It's been a big pleasure for me, Lex. Be well.

Thanks for listening to this conversation with Irving Finkel. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description where you can also find links to contact me, ask questions, give feedback, and so on. And now let me leave you with some words from Ludwig Wittgenstein. now let me leave you with some words from Ludwig Wittgenstein. The limits of my language means the limits of my world.