My bad. I think I’m confusing my Edison info with a cheesy grade-school biography of Franklin. I think Franklin’s lifetime would fall more in the electricity as novelty frame.
Kisses
No, what I was proposing was a definition of “geek” which included two traits: A. dedicated to the pursuit of one area of esoteric knowledge. Esoteric means “hidden” or “not generally well understood by the layperson.” Often these areas of interest are scientifically or technologically based AND B. Such interest is so consuming or distracting as to stunt or threaten to stunt his or her personal growth or social development.
What I was proposing was an alternate definition of the word “geek” which differentiates it from the word “scientist.” Social awkwardness seems to be a common earmark of “geekiness,” one which a scientist may or may not posess. Archimedes, Galton, DeBroglie and Daedalus were all a little weird, socially speaking.
In fact, as I check bartleby for the etymology of “geek,” I first notice this definition “b. A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept.”
Sorry, this wasn’t clear from the OP. I have no such quotes to give you. As far as I can tell, “geek” in this context (as opposed to a chicken-head-biter) is a relatively new term, albeit derived from the Low German or Middle Low German word for “fool.” Since you didn’t give us another word which might have been used in its place in history, I’m not sure how to answer your revision to the OP.
No, I specifically was replying to the question asked by Wendell Wagner “Before the industrial revolution, what sort of technical things were there which one could experiment or tinker with?” and then I offered an alternate definition of “geek” in reply to **astro’s ** “Geek (in this context) = Someone with a strong technical bent, who is inclined toward experimentation and tinkering.” because I thought that definition was adequate for “scientist,” but didn’t quite capture the connotation of “geek”.
Now, as **astro ** was the OP (which I didn’t realize at the time), perhaps I should have simply left his definition stand. It doesn’t affect the rest of my post, though. All of the things I listed were legitimate areas of scientific pursuit before the industrial revolution.
Sorry if all this wasn’t clear in my first post.
My problem, WhyNot, is that I can’t put together your definition of “geek” with the examples that everyone else is giving in this thread. I understand your definition. But everyone else is just giving examples from olden times of people who loved to tinker and to collect esoteric knowledge. Nobody is showing that this people were socially awkward. I can see how the examples that everyone other than you is giving are examples of proto-scientists. They’re not examples of proto-geeks, though, since no one is showing that they were socially awkward.
Gotcha.
Of course, keeping things in broad generalizations won’t work then. Like “flint-knappers.” Yes, we can reflect on human nature and the distribution of flint knapping sites and make educated guesses as to the relative social status of the flint knapper and put ourselves in his father’s head. Conjecture. But we have no way of knowing for sure, nor do we seriously believe that every flint knapper for 30,000 years was socially inept. But do we really believe that every computer programer, or every model rocket builder, or every AD&D player ever is also socially inept? Broad strokes sort of come with the area. “Geek” is not a sociological definition, it’s a social one.
We also don’t have reason to believe that human nature has changed that much over the years. If we and find an occupation and hobby that takes a relatively similar amount of solitary time, focus and tinkering, we can assume a similar level of isolation, and therefore social delay.
But if you insist on naming names, then I think Archimedes still stands. You have to be pretty self-absorbed and not-aware of others to get yourself killed like he did, or to run down the street naked and dripping, raving like a looney. These are not social skills. Sounds like a geek to me.
Maybe Galileo? He certainly pissed off a lot of important people by not taking the feelings of others into account and being pretty brutal about tearing down an entire world view. A few “I” statements and contact statements would have gone a long way there.
Einstein, of course, didn’t talk till he was three, was not a success in school and was pretty reclusive for years. He seems sweet enough eventually, but it’s probably not a stretch to assume his social development was abnormally slow. He wasn’t around before electronics, but before modern electronics.
From the literary world, there’s Tolkein, the uber-geek. Invented his own languages with actual grammar and rules, fer crissakes. Taught a few classes nobody comprehended and spent his hours hiding in his office inventing elves and Uruk-hai and balrogs. Not only the uber-geek, but the geek from whom an entire genre of geekdom was spawned.
Dude, if you’re going to make “socially awkward” a part of your geek definition, I propose Isaac Newton as King Geek. The man was weird. Seriously weird. Probably died a virgin, too. And I imagine alchemy makes you smell, in general. 
I’m also going to agree with Bippy… they were monks. Come on, the haircut is a dead giveaway.