Just add... An Age Certificate

Preface

I am going to start this whole thing with the warning that language will get blue. I'll probably say that again at some point, just in case, and maybe heading the post with a explicit warning. This blog is, after all, about insults and the ways that we use it in modern life as well as historically. Not all insults are made with the use of what some might call 'foul' or 'colourful' language, but a good amount of modern insults certainly are. Together, we will explore as much as possible. I made a promise to myself that I wouldn't use swear words in my first post, because, well, I had to see if I could, but I cannot say the same for any subsequent posts. And that's not to say that people who swear set bad impressions – my partner barely gets through a sentence outside of work without dropping the F-bomb, but, after meeting her mother and some of her work colleagues, I have come to understand her relaxed attitude to language. And now...

I'm happy that you made it here (it felt weird to type "Welcome to my blog!") so that you can witness my efforts to (try to) learn more, involve and even entertain you about the world of giving each other grief with the aim of allowing all of us to bask in the warm glow of insult without feeling worried, denied, and/or shamed for doing so. I might roll back on that last one by my second post.

But, then again, I may not.

If I'm going to be 100% honest with you, I'm also likely to post random stuff on here. Sure, the focus will be insults and how we use them, but if you find that this blog sounds like a diary at times, or has some recipes included (with photos of variable quality) that have happened to have tingled my taste buds, don't hold it against me. I waffle, rant, I talk a lot using side notes (and I write how I talk) and sometimes make mistakes. I also lose direction. It's entirely evident and I cannot apologise enough. I appreciate transparency; I won't try to fool anyone and if I get something wrong, feel free to drop me a message/email and I'll check it out and correct my mistake. And if you want to call me out on my grammar, you are not allowed to do so without leaving a top tier insult. I like words. I'm not great with them, but I'm always learning. If you're lucky, the quality of the writing, and the site, might just improve. And if you're really lucky, the humour won't.

Anyway, how about those Akkadians?

First venture

I figured that we should jump right into it with what one of the reasons I started this blog: a youtuber states might just be the earliest evidence of recorded insults. I had read previously that a certain hand gesture (more on that one later) might have been the the first insult ever committed to record, but having recently consulted the oracle I have found that this is not actually the case. This was not before I went around telling all my colleagues about said hand gesture (because when I learn something new I tend to throw it around because OF COURSE everybody else wants to know it, too). Unfortunately, not having the foresight to do some actual research before I opened my mouth might just bite me on the behind, because not only does their intelligence surpasses mine, so does their capability to do their own research. Unlike me, they tend to not say the first thing that pops into their head and live under the eternal threat of looking like a right berk (more on that later, too). So, not being of the scholarly variety, I could not simply look some cuneiform and go 'Yup. That's the ticket. They were a funny ol' bunch, weren't they.' I instead took took the video as written.

The world's first insult? Credit to Cody Cassidy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIDmXWNbH8g

Even though this gent hasn't posted anything for a little over a year, I have yet to find a source that posts an earlier insult, but that may change as I progress this blog further. Lets look at this, shall we?

Full disclosure: I'm writing in a Wetherspoon's, I'm a few coffees deep, it's around 0930, and I just heard a few of the early-bird old-boys trading some absolute amazing insults at each others expense and then laugh it off. Ace.

Essentially the oldest know insult at the time, according to this video, was written on a clay tablet and presumably mocks someone's educational and economical situation – seemingly saying: you're poor and dumb and you can't have nice things.

The insults:

"Your husband has no clothes to wear, you yourself are wear such rags: your butt sticks out from them!"

"You have the intelligence of a monkey. Your house is like a pigsty. Your living room is like an oven."

The world moves on, yet seems to have not changed much. Sigh. Given that Cassidy states that the Sumerian cuneiform the tablet was written in was generally used to teach the elite, I couldn't help but find the parallels to the elite of today. There have been several times when I have heard members of the previous government on the news drop in some lines in classical Greek or Latin, and I couldn't help but be impressed. Of course, my minor venture into the world of classical studies still left me largely unequipped to understand what they were saying but it sounded pretty good.

Personally, I think one of many benefits of classical studies which includes language is that it can give pupils a larger access to original philosophical texts, and possibly a deeper understanding of them (I even had the internet check that for me – cheers, internets). It stands to reason that there is a chance that an individual studying these subjects may develop their critical thinking, have a more rounded sense of the world around them, and even some empathy. Obviously this doesn't always ring true, looking at some of the characters public (non-state) schools have churned out, but, then again, there is always a chance. What I found interesting was that Cassidy stated that these insults, according to scholars, might have been used to teach the Sumerian language as well as morality. Hell, surely the elite class should be given the opportunity to not have a black hole where their moral compass should be. Maybe some have that moral compass, maybe some don't. Not met many, to be honest. I'm obviously bias, but feel free to change the leanings of my bitter heart.

Cassidy surmised that the teacher instructed the writing to "ridicule the lazy and the foolish" and I found my bias nodding along, saying "yeah, nowt's changed" when he himself came to the same conclusion moments later. I mean, this video clocks in at 1m38s and in that time I went from thinking that it was a little funny to then feeling fairly offended pretty quickly. I took a moment to question whether I was offended on behalf of myself or someone else and, as the candle above my head struggled to light, I remembered: it was me. This did, however, made me more curious. I needed to know more and decided to go to the source and wanting to make witty remark on a short video turned into actual research.

Further reading

Jana Matuszak in a Sumerologist at the University of Chicago, and was credited in Cassidy's video for translating the tablet. It took me a little bit of savvy googling (cheers again, interwebs) but I was able to find translation published in a collection of essays called Disputation Literature in the Near East and Beyond, published by De Gruyter. Matuszak translates the tablet now called Two Women B (2WB) in her 19 page chapter: "She was dumbstruck and took it to heart.“ Form and Function of Insults in Sumerian Literary Disputations between Women. Quite a read.

Now, I couldn't tell you if Matuszak is the doyenne of translating/interpreting texts that have been written in ancient Sumerian, because most of my knowledge about the region of ancient Mesopotamia comes from the [ALIENS] guy (so entertaining, though), but I'm going to go ahead to trust that one conversation with Jana Mutuszak will leave me wondering if I'll ever truly be content with my educational limitations. I mean, probably not, but who the hell is?

Reading through her chapter, I had learned that this could have actually been a performance piece that displayed an argument between two women (hence the name of the tablet). Matuszak mentions the fact that there is an "audience" a few times, and reading further into the exchange of the two characters it became clear that I probably wouldn't have reached that conclusion without being led there. It did, however, become more clear that as the exchange progressed it also increased in its venom. Matuszak states that it starts as a "playful verbal contest about who’s the better wife, which slowly turns into a serious relationship conflict based on long-standing personal grudges." She then goes on to say "The text, far from being a random collection of insults, thus provides us with psychological explanations of the protagonists’ behaviour and displays a logical progression of events unfolding on the basis of the two women’s feelings towards one another." Whoa there! Trying to keep things light here. This is not quite what I had imagined myself looking into when first watching Cassidy's video.

While I do find the fact that the writing has been translated to show that the two women are actually arguing their case in a court, and that this has been interpreted through no use of narrative but instead context derived through direct speech quite interesting (I find lots interesting, yet I never took up snooker), if I concentrated on that alone then it will likely steer me away from the actual reason the initial video piqued my interest. Either that or I'll start another blog on the didactic use of performance through several eras in ancient history, and, let's face it, there are folks way more intelligent than me, who can communicate these things way better than me, so let this old idiot bounce back and forth between whimsy, some light-hearted curmudgeonliness, and even brief thoughtfulness, and we'll all have an okay time. Also, there are the actual researchers who do the original work. They're good, too. Google the stuff I put in bold.

Research note: I couldn't find the second line about intelligence and the state of home as read by Cassidy in Matuszak's chapter, or readily available on the internet (I googled the entire line and am not fully willing to describe what I found after some searching), but, as I do not have full access to Jana Matuszak's other works and dissertations, it could still be as stated. I did find something close though, which I'll detail and link below.

Interest piqued.

Having moved on from me just simmering over the idea that it was a bunch of poshos belittling those they deem lower than them, you know – people, the idea of teaching morality through the use of an audience seemed to broadened my thinking. Morality plays have been around for a long time now, but, instead of using the fall-to-redemption arc of a single character, the 2WB tablet appeared to be more of a slanging match after one person takes it too far, with both characters defending their actions and reasoning. Wanting to know how this applied to the teaching of morality, I read on.

In the chapter, Matuszak delves into to versions of insult – ritual and non-ritual insults. Now, these are not as heavy as they both sound and, from my reading, are basically insults that are non-personal and can be seen as part of the social ritual within certain circles, and then there are the other kind of insults that are deeper attacks on a person that are simply not lightly brushed off. I can't think of anyone in my friend circle who hasn't used insult towards me in a friendly, sometimes encouraging way (hmm. Now I'm thinking that maybe they actually don't like me), Although the way I describe it seems simple enough, the idea of friendly insults being part of an intimate, and sometimes wider, social ritual is something that I am now going to think about through as I trawl the rest of the world of insult. Expect it to be sporadically applied.

Personal note: As a performance that is meant to help the audience, and hopefully the students as well, learn by becoming moral judges, this tablet now becomes something more akin to twitter (I'm not calling it 'X'. It feels weird) where we all get to watch people tear each other to pieces and then form our own judgements. Some even enjoy this. But I don't think twitter is meant to be seen, or even used, in the same instructional terms as I would hope this dialogue would have. This then led to me thinking about how I consume social media, and I'll probably talk about that more as I write more blog entries, but I feel it is true that when we use dumpster-fires like twitter to people watch, feel like our points of view are being validated, and, ultimately, judge others from the anonymity of our lavatories, we get a chance to feel moral superiority, I wonder if we are using that time to see both sides of the argument rather than finding comfort in our biases. Just spit-balling here.

If this disputation was meant to play out in front of an audience, then they were in the thick of it (I'll also get on the series named after the idiom at some point – amazing insults!) and could very well have multiple discussions and disputes about the subject after the last line is read. I would have loved to have known their conclusions on the matter of which women was in the right, and whether casting that first stone was meant to be defensive or offensive. I have drawn my own conclusions, now having read a bit more (link below) but, to paraphrase a Mr James O'Brien: there's no point in having a mind if you can't change it. Feel free to try.

I found the entire translation of Two Women B via Jana Matuszak's twitter at: https://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/dsst/Q000771. There are plenty of scathing lines in there, and it has been set out by the translators in the form of a scripted dialogue with names bracketed). Have a read.

Jana Matuszak finishes her chapter in Disputations... stating the it was likely written by a male teacher for likely male students, and this leads me to believe that the way they rip into each other can only be read to be seen through the male gaze. If anyone would like to read the translated piece and let me know if this is a true reflection or approximation of a modern smearing match between two warring women, I would appreciate the insight.

Brief Reflection

Now, there as some more learned individuals on the internet who do not believe this is the correct translation, but, to steal from the great Bill Burr, I'm not going to sit here with my lack of doctorate in Assyriology and talk about stuff I have no expertise in and have had to searches up on the internet. These are qualified people, experts in the field, who both support and contest the translation linked above, and it does well to not discount either – but, hey! I heard once that people have had enough of experts.*

These various experts, who will have a great deal more to say about translations and context of Akkadian writing than I, will be able to answer the question I obviously cannot. And please do find them if that interests you, but I wanted to know about what was reported as (possibly) the oldest written insult, looked into more than I thought I would, and learned something new. For now, I am satiated.

*Almost a decade on and I'm still sour.

Tune in next time to see how a musical physicist inspires my own ramblings.