From the two readings, it seems that the language used in ancient Mesopotamia, specifically Babylon and Assur, was used much more for administrative and record-keeping purposes, as evidenced by the various myths and epic poems that have survived in addition to the records of business and laws that have survived. However, this doesn’t mean that the Greeks did anything better, it was merely different.

MESOPOTAMIA

An example of this comes from the Van De Mieroop reading, where great detail is gone into about how exactly the language works. Specifically, each element of language represents a specific meaning which can be condensed into one word, as seen in the details of Marduk’s thirty sixth name, LUGALABDUBUR (Van De Mieroop, 8). What appears to be a name is a complex sentence, a description of what was greatly important to be written down.

Part of the broader importance also comes from the goal of the writings. Van De Mieroop details about the differences in the script work between the scholars. It is pointed out that the teachers of the scribes would inscribe portions of text on one side, and the scribes would copy it line for line on the other. This was evidenced by the tablets being significantly thinner on one side from the teachers scraping away the clay so the students could begin again (Van De Mieroop, 18). However, it was also incredibly important to keep administrative records along the way, as evidenced in the several tablets we have available like this one, at Emory University in Georgia.

It is often seen that the Babylonians, for example, did not have a concrete philosophy system that they worked through, but this is simply not the case. They simply didn’t keep records of it in the same way that other civilizations did.

GREECE

The Greeks are famous for their philosophy, for their waxing poetic about everything under the sun. Initially, they had a similar setup to the Mesopotamians, where there were two simultaneous languages that people were fluent or literate in, but that changed once time moved a little further forward. Below is a bust of one such historian, Herodotus, who is credited with authoring a lot of the text we have today about the Persian and Greek wars that were around 500 B.C.

There is the thought that the Greeks were mostly an oratorical bunch, and this seems to be true based on a lot of their traditions regarding various festivals and the like. This is also seen through how some of the authors of various records we have, and their attitudes toward the other histories and thinkers. Specifically, I’ll point to one specific historian, referenced in Goody’s article, where Hecataeus wrote, “What I write is the account that I believe to be true. For the stories the Greeks tell are many and in my opinion, ridiculous.” (322, Goody)

Most of the way that the Greeks thought was not only complex, but was in a sense it lent itself to actually being able to process and think of more in depth ideas than other civilizations that may have struggled a little bit more to either survive or to develop the more introspective or philosophical thinking.

BOTH?

Both of these civilizations cared deeply about their records. They created libraries, sent for copies of texts they didn’t possess, took great care to preserve the texts they already had, and believed that what they already had was a foundation for the rest of their learning.

Part of the disadvantage that Mesopotamia struggled with was the way that their language and writing developed. Until much later in their civilization, there was no complete alphabet that was understood or used widely by anyone other than the elite, ruling class. This, in conjunction with the needs and desires of the individuals within the society as a whole, could possibly show why a relatively simple way of language, writing, and speech was developed.

In contrast, the Greeks had a significantly more complex way of speaking and writing, in addition to their stylized alphabet, and a greater population that could afford to do nothing but sit around all day and either wax poetically about the state of the government or research old books in order to write down history. In those senses, they had an advantage over Mesopotamian philosophers.

COMPUTERS

As we look at the various computer languages, we can see a similar shift in the things that the developers are able to accomplish. It is entirely possible, and usually expected, for a developer to be moderately proficient in each of the languages available, though they’re expected to specialize in maybe one or two areas. Because of this, the languages are not meant to do everything- you’d never expect to use CSS to run a complex data set and analyze tone shift in a set of words. In some ways, this limits the developer, because the more time that they need to spend on one particular skill they are less proficient in is basically a one-way ticket to ensuring the project won’t get done in a timely fashion. On the other hand, this empowers the developer in new ways to think outside the box and try new things.

All of this is in the eye of the beholder, and will of course shift and change throughout the new landscapes that continue to pop up as we move through the digital humanities.