No, not that kind of old. What I’m looking for is the most ancient person in history who we can verify definitely existed and wasn’t a myth. If you must know why - I’m going to a fancy dress party and the theme is historical people, no mythological folk - and I want bragging rights for being the most ancient historical person. But then, I’m also genuinely curious.
I imagine it might be a Pharaoh of some sort. Any ideas?
Some Googling brings up Narmer in the 31st century BC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narmer
Edit: It looks like the Pharaoh before him, Ka, is also a candidate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka_%28Pharaoh%29 but there is less certainty over whether Ka was actually his name.
I’m sure we have bones of even older people.
Thanks! Those are great suggestions. Just realised I posted this in the wrong forum too, was supposed to be in GQ, whoops.
Ötzi might be a little difficult to pull off as a costume…
We have no idea of who Otzi was.
He’s the guy we found on the mountain. He definitely existed and wasn’t a myth.
He’s not a historical person; that is, his name does not appear in any history.
Otherwise there are plenty of much more ancient human remains.
Even if we argue over who the most ancent might be, this is more of a General Question than a Great Debate, so off it goes.
Then how did you hear of him?
By that logic, it should be Lucy. You’ve heard of her, right?
I did mention that possibility initially.
Historical Person = Someonevwho is mentioned by name orvdesignation in the historical record in relation to something. Titus Pullo is mentioned in Ceasers commentaries, we know who he was. Otzi is remains of a human who died thousand years ago. We know next to nothing about him, who he was etc etc.
Looking at the information compiled in his Wikipedia article, it is really amazing how much we know about Ötzi. The information about Titus Pullo on the other hand is rather sketchy, albeit in written form.
I think to qualify as a historical figure, there would have to be contemporary accounts.
Except we don’t even know his name. He is not a historical figure he is a museum piece.
I think we’re having a misunderstanding about the meaning of ‘historical’, common use ‘stuff in the past’ vs more academic ‘stuff within era of written record’-- before that being prehistoric era.
A simple way to disambiguate OP’s question is to ask for the earliest person whose name we know. Of course this leaves ambiguity – does a Pharaoh whose name was probably some unknown word meaning scorpion count?
The question has been discussed at SDMB at least twice that I remember. Gilgamesh is a candidate for first named historic person, and Shamhat, the temple harlot hired to seduce Gilgamesh’s rival Enkidu, was offered up as “first commoner of known name.”
But not his name. He’s called Ötzi becasue he was found in the Ötztal Alps.
I remember learning in jr high school that written history began in Sumeria in the Fertile Crescent.
So from the wiki, listing the kings of Sumeria—“The earliest monarch whose historical existence has been independently attested through archaeological inscription is En-me-barage-si of Kish (ca. 2700–2600 BC)”
how far back do the Egyptian Pharoahs go?
Through news reports, not through any historical record dating to his own time. What is his actual name? “Otzi” is a nickname for the remains of the person otherwise called the “Iceman.”
What is your definition of “historical”? It seems to be different from that used in dictionaries or in the OP.
In which of these senses is Otzi historical?
That is a rather narrow definition of historical. What about persons of whom we precisely know when and where they were born and when and where they died, but nothing more than that?