Humanity's earliest recorded kiss occurred in Mesopotamia 4,500 years ago | Hacker News Reader

Humanity's earliest recorded kiss occurred in Mesopotamia 4,500 years ago

phys.org

105 pointswglb75 comments

> Recent research has hypothesized that the earliest evidence of human lip kissing originated in a very specific geographical location in South Asia 3,500 years ago, from where it may have spread to other regions, simultaneously accelerating the spread of the herpes simplex virus 1.

I find the implied thought process here hilarious: the first stone tool industry is three million years old [1], fire a million years, modern humans 300,000, and agriculture about 10,000 years old.

But kissing? Yeah that’s gotta be high tech invented 4,500 years ago, a hundred years before the Egyptians gods invented felatio [2]. Yeah that tracks.

At what point can we say without concrete scientific evidence that the likeliest scenario is that we were too busy making out for tens of thousands of years to record the invention of kissing?

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldowan

[2] https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/worlds-first-documen...

Edit: thank you for the correction on age of controlled fire

That was the prior research and hypothesis, which the article claims this new finding supercedes, moving it back an additional 1000 years.

Also the new research doesn't claim that's when it started, it's just the earliest record. It even mentions further down that kissing is seen in primates, suggesting that humans have potentially always kissed. (It of course just took us a while to develop art and preservation thereof enough that we could both record it and have that recording survive to the current day).

It does seem to claim that's when it started, and attributes an increase in the spread of HSV to the introduction of kissing.

No, the linked article is a summary of another article written to contradict the earlier researchers that made the claim about HSV spread being connected to the practice of kissing.

Yeah. I find it far more likely that HSV just emerged to transmit through kissing like Monkey Pox virus or HIV just “spontaneously” came about as an STI that could take advantage of existing human sex practices. I find it unlikely that a new human behavior is going to suddenly transmit a new disease. Humans naturally tend to quarantine such behaviors that directly spread disease in this way.

Earliest surviving record. Evolution takes a very very long time. I’d take a bet (if we had a magical oracle) that likely some people have been recording their kissing and/or sexual exploits for a very very long time. Technology changes the expression but not really so much the message, sentiment, or desires.

> An ancient wine jug depicting a customer and a sex worker (a money pouch is hanging on the wall) dated between 480 and 470 B.C.E. Greece.

Sure more recent but that’s because things from Ancient Greece, Rome, and Egypt survived. Most of the other stuff from more ancient civilizations just didn’t. Do we really think humans spontaneously decided 4k years ago “hey I like this sex thing - maybe I should write it down”?

> A clay plaque depicting a couple copulating. Old Babylonian Period, 2nd millennium B.C.E. Mesopotamia (Iraq).

https://allthatsinteresting.com/erotic-art

Look, when some one says that the earth moved, it didn't leave a geological record. They checked.

On that note, the tectonic plate theory took geologists a couple decades to accept..

Finding and documenting the earliest evidence of kissing is legitimate research, and good on them.

But, yes, making even the slightest assumption that this evidence is related at all to the actual origin of kissing is ridiculous. I think researchers are very reluctant to add "of course, it obviously started 100,000 years earlier, we just don't have direct evidence" to their papers. That tacit acceptance that lack of evidence is evidence of a lack shows up in a lot of different fields, like cosmology, even our response to COVID.

I get that researchers don't want to add speculation to their publications, but overstating the certainty of evidence isn't good either. We all need some Bayesian initial priors set.

One data point is that of all creatures, only bonobos and humans kiss. Humans don't seem to learn the concept of a kiss until at least a year, and even then it's more of a mirroring gesture. It seems like a much higher level social construct than smiling, laughing, nuzzling, etc.

I guess I’m not sure what makes a human kiss distinct from a dog licking another dog’s face, for example.

Well, dogs also lick their paws when they're nervous, their wounds, and their butts. They lick us, and we interpret it as a kiss, but who really knows what why.

Nitpick. Fire probably goes back a million years or more.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_hum...

Right. One of our closest relatives, the bonobo, also kiss.

Also known for their unique handshakes

Like this? https://youtu.be/Ub9Ed7AFlvw?t=15

Probably something sexual... I was reading on bonobos recently, and how female bonobos quickly rub their clitorises together to greet one another.

It is really fascinating how sex is a huge part of their culture.

I agree. This is a common logical fallacy. The absence of proof is not proof of absence.

a) There's no way to prove that this was the earliest recorded kiss. Others may have been recorded but they haven't been found (or the record has been destroyed).

b) Of course as pointed out in the thread, the "earliest recorded kiss" is not the same as "the earliest kiss".

A better title would be "Earliest recovered record of a kiss is from 4,500 years ago".

This is all nitpicking about something every archeologist and historian understands. When they say earliest recorded kiss, they mean earliest currently recorded kiss, that we know about.

Time before writing is called prehistory - and that is different for different regions of the world. Nobody thinks that means nothing happened or people were not thinking before that time. Just that we don't know what happened beyond non-linguistic inference.

I don't think this shorthand causes any sort of imprecision among archeologists, and really all outside observers understand as well - hence the somewhat unnecessary nitpicking.

The language is unfortunate.

For this case specifically the meaning is clear, but often the shorthand gets translated into concrete statements of facts in a more general context, eg. "humans started doing _____ 5000 years ago", whereas what they really mean "the earliest known evidence of humans doing _____ is 5000 years ago".

And as other comments in this thread seem to indicate, even claiming that human kissing could have gone on (unrecorded) for millions of years is disputed. So how is anyone supposed to interpret this new "finding"? Should we think kissing only happened for a couple thousands of years (and probably not more than that)? If that's what we're supposed to conclude, I think these short hands are actively harmful, because they purport to tell people information whereas IMHO it shouldn't inform us of anything at all.

In this case it is a bit obvious, but often what an archeological find of this type tells us, is that something was important enough in that society for an artist to take the time to make a relief depicting it. It is not so much "people were kissing", but that "people were celebrating kissing as an integral part of copulation" at that time, showing that society appreciated the intimacy, rather than just treating it as the more animal pump and dump, then get on with your day.

Yes, I think the researchers behind the work TFA is talking about also finds it hilarious, but "that's stupid" is less publishable than "we found a counterexample in the archaeological record (and also that's stupid)"

I don't think there's any more reason to think that we've been kissing forever than to think we've been nodding up and down for "yes" and side to side for "no" forever. There are many people in the world who do not kiss, or who nod up and down for "no" and side to side for yes. Just because a behavior is shared by 99% of people doesn't make it necessarily intrinsic, or even historically likely or useful.

Also, as far as I can tell from anthropological films of rural tribes/bands with less contact, none of them ever kiss. Mouths that aren't constantly scrubbed out are gross.

I think up and down for yes and side to side for no makes genuinely more sense, though? A vertical line for "yes" and a horizontal line for "no", corresponding to an open and a blocked path forward. Is there a similar intuitive explanation for the reverse?

The rest of the article doesn’t make this argument at all, and even the paragraph you wrote is IMO merely weirdly written. It says “ the earliest evidence of human lip kissing originated in a very specific geographical location”, which is precisely what they mean. It’s absurd because of course the earliest anything found at an archaeological site came from a very specific geographical location.

On the linguistic side, Proto-Indo European does have reconstructed roots for "women and their suitors", but I don't know if we have making out in general or kissing specifically.

cf https://blog.oup.com/2014/09/kiss-word-origin-etymology/

I find your thought process hilarious as well, as you seem to assume the obvious facts you're stating completely flew past the researchers x)

If you read the article, you'll see the claim is earliest recorded kiss, not earliest kiss, as the researchers point out even other animals do it.

Serra da Capivara kiss painting at Pedra Furada site probably beats it by a couple thousand years, at least. The prehistoric rock art in the area dates from 12000 to 6000 years before present: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Kiss-O-Beijo-Serra-d...

Also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serra_da_Capivara_National_P...

It appears to me there’s a lot more than kissing going on in this picture

I'm introducing new legislation to protect our youth from this representational art menace. You may say it's been going on for thousands of years, and I say that's what happens when you don't nip it in the bud.

That's what I call some out of the box thinking. Thanks for dealing properly with this important matter.

Hmm. You might be onto something. I read the image caption, and it appears to indicate ... shenanigans!

Affirmative. The article implies only a single shenanigan, but you and I know the score.

Some say that kissing's a sin

But, tell me how can that be true

For kissing has been in this world

Since the very first day there was two

Now, if it was illegal then the lawyers, they would sue

And the prisons would be full of folk who had a kiss or two

And if they didn't like it, then away the girls would run

And if it wasn't plenty then the poor folk would get none

ChatGPT?

dubliners

Abo and Nusur, sittin in a tree, 𒆠 𒄿 𒌍 𒌍 𒄿 𒂗 𒄃

Do we have any evidence for the first person to shout “get a room”?

It may have been sometime around the invention of rooms, which is back in the neolithic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87atalh%C3%B6y%C3%BCk

I’d wager that sex wasn’t private across cultures and time periods

Even with loosening attitudes now you see that many people prioritize safety and privacy removes that

So public and group sex is more appealing to a broader range of people than might already be aware. For example, most of our courtship is spending energy demonstrating to women that we are safe to be alone with, and for women that its worthwhile to take a chance since there is no accurately way to predict which man will do what in private. (Men are vulnerable to the same things, but its not part of our culture to prioritize that, most supporting statistics are based on an absence of stats to overamplify the stats that do exist). This makes it seem like interest in sex is far different across the sexes than is accurate. But when you increase the safety aspect in other ways, you’ll find many more women would also rather skip the courtship games since that assurance isn’t necessary.

2 Samuel 16:22, calling out Absalom's public sex as marked, could imply that private sex was the unmarked, normal activity by old testament times?

וַיַּטּ֧וּ לְאַבְשָׁל֛וֹם הָאֹ֖הֶל עַל־הַגָּ֑ג וַיָּבֹ֤א אַבְשָׁלוֹם֙ אֶל־פִּֽלַגְשֵׁ֣י אָבִ֔יו לְעֵינֵ֖י כׇּל־יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

(I wonder if the safety aspect helped popularise the relatively public 1920's "petting party"?)

based Abshalom

Unsure about shouting but it's probably recorded in Roman graffiti.

I think this fits, implicitly anyways: “Theophilus, don’t perform oral sex on girls against the city wall like a dog.”

I am unsure if this is the ‘most excellent’ Theophilus that Luke and Acts both mention.

Maybe he was really good at it.

It's from the parody "Acts of the Adonis"

I wonder how far back the researchers think human sexual intercourse goes?

There are recordings going back at least to the early 1970s.

You nailed it.

“Sexual intercourse began in nineteen sixty-three (Which was rather late for me) between the end of the Chatterley ban and the Beatles' first LP.”

— Phillip Larkin

That's a difficult one, at what point do we differentiate between human and hominid ancestor?

The point at which the copulating pair are cognizant enough of their surroundings to look around and shout "Hey, you there with the stone tablet and chisel, what do you think you're doing?"

One of the best things I learned from an older software engineer ever, way back, was when we were discussing about whether it was worth investing effort into building some new tool or not.

"Is this actionable?" he said. Meaning, we shouldnt bother investing the effort to decisively learn some thing X if once knowing its value its... not really actionable.

That it doesnt empower us to do something differently than we would have done otherwise, in the absence of knowing X.

It was my first thought when I saw a story on HN about scientists figuring out (and only approximately, mind you) when the first kiss happened.

Who cares? What would we do differently today if we were confident the 1st kiss was exactly 8000 years ago or 5000 years ago or 120,523.74 years ago?

Nothing. Nothing would be different. So perhaps we should spend our time and focus on higher priorities (like say democracy dangers, climate, curing cancer etc.)

This is a good example of the kind of thinking which may increase some specific, short-term result, such as your output of "production code", but which inhibit attaining broader knowledge and reflection.

I find it interesting that this was your thought, I suspect, as you had a break from your cancer curing research to check HN for new and relevant information. I'll let you get right back to your saving the world.

But I suspect you won't get very far. Just as important as small-but-sure incremental steps towards the local maximum, is giant leaps to new realms of possibility.

Guess which type of increment are more influenced by seemingly unrelated, superfluous and irrelevant knowledge.

Hah, I must be the polar opposite of this. I love learning and creating things as long as they don't serve a practical purpose.

Earliest recorded sex act occured in Mesopotamia

It's quite the mystery as to how humans procreated prior to this time period, or why biological adaptations switches so suddenly to require such acts to procreate when for millions of years prior to this the lack of of recorded sex acts indicates that no such acts must have occured.

now im left wondering what sort of immune system benefits/detriments this practice produces - I'll have to try it sometime!

Just so you know.

https://www.news24.com/amp/life/wellness/body/condition-cent...

Strengthens immune system.

If you really cared about your well-being, you would set up hand-desanitizing stations. A simple bowl at every juncture filled with dirt, vomit, fecal matter.

Dr Karl (aussie science guy) got all the well-wishers to put their unsanitized finger into his eldest son's mouth on his birth day. Sample size 1, worked OK.

https://twitter.com/DoctorKarl/status/820944574906368000

Cromulent username

perfectly so

Yeah, but a baby has transferred IGG through the placenta, and IGA though milk, so for the first six months they are more protected from severe disease (at least for quite a few pathogens their mother has recently encountered). After that, exposing someone to pathogens, especially immune evasive ones like herpesvirus, gets a lot iffier. It's probably safer to only expose a baby/child to their mother's pathogens, as well as various food allergens to try to prevent food allergies from developing.

That is so true, at least as far as an exaggregated picturesque example goes. Already 20 years ago, stories started to pop up about farms offering holidays for kids from cities with immunological health problems. The explanation was, and it just feels like a logical thing to happen, that overly clean environments lead to all sorts of health issues, and putting kids in contact with a bunch of dirt and around animals can improve things. Presented by mainstream media, in ya face. And then there came covid-19, and suddenly there "we" were, spraying everything with disinfectant, and overall worsening the immune system of everyone by artifical separation and even mandated house arrest. And if you remembered the past, and happened to utter something about that making the immune system even worse, you were outcast as a lunatic. And what happened? We had a big wave of infections of small children after the pandemic, with overfilled hospitals and everything, as a result of avoiding certain infections you always happen to get. Postponing these almost created yet another crisis. Ah, but meddling is always a good thing I guess, and pointing at people with different opinions, thats also very important for apes. When it comes to "how to life your live" we are such a pathetic species blinded by materialism and systematically stupified by the media. And, everyone writing such a statement is automatically sort of cast aside as crazy. Its a lovely place.

Actually, hygiene hypothesis primarily applies to parasites and benign bacteria. Exposure to a wide variety of those reduces type II hypersensitivity (allergies and asthma) and digestive disorders. Data point of 1, I massively improved my allergies with helminth therapy.

Viruses and systemic bacteria kind of just fuck you up for the most part. Long COVID, Mono (EBV), Chickenpox/shingles, HSV 1 and 2, HPV, those all just wreck your body in difficult-to-repair ways, increase your risk of things like cancer and MS (and possibly dementia). Lyme, syphilis, and other nasties that hide from the body's defenses can cause lifelong inflammation, rewire your immune system to cause allergies and autoimmune disorders.

I mean, sure, believe this if you want to, but it's simplistic thinking. You're taking the answer you find most emotionally satisfying to you and running with it. As an anecdote, I grew up on an acreage. I was exposed to cats, dogs, dust, pollen, and horses and was in close proximity to all of them throughout my childhood. What am I extremely allergic to? Cats, dogs, dust, pollen, and horses.

Allergies are an over-response of the immune system.

So, yes, exposure will absolutely strengthen your immune system response. (...which in this particular case, is the wrong thing)

Possibly if it's too much, but a study on giving young children an Israeli peanut product appeared to reduce the chances of them becoming allergic to peanuts. It's probably dose and exposure route sensitive, as well as "luck" through various environmental and genetic factors, including MHC.

Possibly, but you can't improve your immune system if you are dead. For example, if you get infected with the Epstein–Barr virus at an older age [0], the probability of a severe outcome including death are increased. The Epstein–Barr virus, probably more so after these later and possibly more severe outcomes, probably causes many cases of multiple sclerosis. Kissing can spread the Epstein–Barr virus (EBV). Many herpesvirus, including Epstein–Barr, can cause superinfection, but if you were infected with EBV and HSV1, a EBV or HSV1 superinfection would probably be less likely to cause severe outcomes assuming you are HIV negative and your immune system is otherwise competent. If you plan on reproducing without the use of a turkey baster (or pipettes and sperm washing if you are a woman), it's probably not worth avoiding infection though, because you or your partner getting infected during pregnancy is way, way worse.

[0]: after six months is already not great, but as a teenager it's pretty bad and it just gets worse from there.

The lyrics "It started out with a kiss, How did it up like this?" come to mind

I think that the research is flawed and based on faulty assumptions. The origin of human lip kissing is much older and more widespread than the researchers claim. It is a natural expression of affection and intimacy that evolved independently in many cultures and regions. The herpes simplex virus 1 is not exclusively transmitted by kissing, but also by other forms of contact and exposure. The correlation between kissing and herpes is not causal, but coincidental.

I think they have the tablet turned sideways. Given the flat feet and only one leg raised, it seems likely they were standing.

Yeah, this phys.org repost is just a worse version of the original letter to Science[1], where (among many other benefits) they do show this tablet the right way up.

[1] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf0512

Birds and numerous other animals (including humans) tear off or chew food for infants. Making artwork sufficiently durable to last thousands of years is the only recent invention here.

'Earliest recorded ________' is archaeology hype, kinda like the periodic 'x-rays reveal NEW image underneath famous pointing!!!' stories are reliable art hype. It's interesting, but not profoundly so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com