There was a recent notice in Biblical Archaeology Review (link: Biblical Archaeology Review · The BAS Library) (Nov 2012) claiming that around 50 of the Dead Sea Scrolls were penned by the same scribe, who also penned a document found at Masada.
I don’t know if this counts, since he is certainly not identified by name. I don’t have the full article any more, but he would have been scribing before 70 AD.
But does a scribe really count as far as the spirit of the question? How likely is it that scribes who attach their names to a carving or document are the actual authors of that text. They are little more than proto- printing presses. I’m disappointed that archeologist have apparently yet to find an original manuscript in the hand of any of the great Greek or Roman writers we know by name.
Scribes was a skilled profession in the same way a typist or a stenographer was until the advant of word processors.You used scribes in the same way as you use a plumber or an electrician today, sure you can do a bit of your own water and electrical work, but you need expert for major stuff.
Interestingly one thing that I have read was common for was that a person would dictate a text to a scribe leaving out what he wanted to remain confidential and then fill in the missing bits later himself. Which makes one think that scribes were engaged as needed and not a permanent part of staff.
Philodemus, maybe.
That said, outside of deserts like Egypt or volcanically preserved cities , its pretty rare for parchment, paper or papyri to survive more then a few centuries. So its almost inevitable that any classical texts extant today will be copies made by later scholars.
Um, so what source would you consider better, on average, than the GBoWR?
He’s saying they’re a good source. I think you should address that question to Leo Bloom or Martini Enfield.
The term for what the OP requests is autograph—that’s autograph in the textual-history sense, not just a signature, but any document that’s literally in somebody’s “own handwriting.”
Ah you are right, the meaning is different without the quoted post.
My apologies to Simplicio.
Does a cave painting “signed” with a handprint bearing a particular bent finger count?
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/chauvet/page3.php
While not handwriting per se, it can be attributed to a specific individual. What he called himself among friends is a mystery, but we know him and his “writing style”.
Alas, as the date can’t be verified, I don’t think it can be counted. 
When you get to like 27,000 to 32,000 years ago, specific years and days tend to blend away. 
As a minor matter of interest, the oldest known handwriting in Latin by a woman, Claudia Severa, is probably on one of the Vindolanda tablets:
“The real prize of the Vindolanda tablets, though, are the earliest surviving letters in a woman’s hand written in this country. In one letter, Claudia Severa wrote to her sister, Sulpicia Lepidina, the wife of a Vindolanda bigwig - Flavius Cerialis, prefect of the Ninth Cohort of Batavians: ‘Oh how much I want you at my birthday party. You’ll make the day so much more fun. I do so hope you can make it. Goodbye, sister, my dearest soul.’”
From note #11 on the Vindolanda Wiki page. The note refers to the oldest UK letter, but the article (2nd para) says it’s quite possibly the oldest overall.
There is a papyrus in the cleopatra display that is believed to include her own handwriting. It is basically a tax break for a friend of Marc Antony. The part that is her writing is in Greek and says ‘make it happen’.
Superhal, as a tertiary source (compendium of brief, usually unsourced items) Guiness is pretty good. Not perfect, but pretty good. But here at the Dope, we prefer that people cite well respected secondary sources (peer-reviewed journal articles, if that’s what’s appropriate to the question at hand). Occasionally, a Doper will go the extra mile and do some original research – which can include looking at primary sources (a manuscript in a library, say). But we usually leave this last step for Cecil and his minions. Few questions in GQ prompt it, and even fewer require it.
It is true that the full text of most academic research articles are inaccessible to the general public, unless you’re willing to pay, like, ten bucks for a ten-page PDF. This fact does make tertiary sources like Guiness a bit more valuable, relatively speaking. But you can often find relevant direct quotes from academic articles in free sites, e.g. Wikipedia pages. Ideally, when citing such quotes, it’s best to mention both the Wikipedia page and the original article, but that’s a bit too much to ask for a forum like this. Just hyperlink to a free-to-view page – no need to actually provide a bibliographic citation around here.
First Guinness Book of Records was published in about 1955; they haven’t been around that long.
And yes, personally I think their trend (IMHO) away from “serious” records towards “trivial” records (There’s someone who holds a record for the fastest one-mile distance covered on a space hopper, for smeg’s sake) has done a lot of damage to their credibility overall.
That one’s a handsome example, however.
Wha’s a space hopper?
martini-I don’t think Guiness “lost credibility” with the change, BUT I absolutely agree they “jumped the shark”.
I think they called them Hippity Hops when I was a kid. A thick rubber seated bouncing ball with handles to hang on.
I’d agree on the shark-jumping thing (and what’s the bet there’s a Guinness World Record for longest jump over the greatest number of sharks? :p) but I think that also harms their credibility generally - 20 years ago I’d be inclined to take their records as True And Correct; now I’m likely to want to verify them with at least one other source (preferably not Wikipedia).
I guess, at least in my opinion, it feels like if they’ve lowered their standards enough to include “records” for things like underwater juggling or space-hopper riding, they might have been lowered elsewhere too.
Incidentally, I’m not saying there shouldn’t be established records for “trivial” things - I just think they need to be somewere less (ostensibly) “Established” and “Serious” than the Guinness Book of World Records.
I went back to the earlier thread and its citation.
How about, from the thoroughly fascinating article,
Miles of Clay: Information Management in the Ancient Near Eastern Hittite Empire
Theo P.J. van den Hout:
That there must have been a system to retrieve information effectively from the tablet rooms, is an inescapable premiss of any investigation into this matter: an international power like the Hittite empire cannot have done without. As for the arguments that support this, our tablets themselves bear the marks of organization. First of all, there are the colophons. Often scribes would “sign” a tablet they had written. A typical colophon reads as follows:
Tablet no. seven of the third day; finished. “When the king celebrates the Monthly Festival.” Hand of Tarhuntazidi, son of Pidda, written under the supervision of Anuwanza
As to another topic brought up here, that’s why you don’t rely on Guinness for such “answers.”