Robert K. Englund Texts from the Late Uruk Period I. Preface Whoever has spent an afternoon wandering about on ancient tell in Iraq knows all too well the compulsion to search the ground for remains of a civilization long lost to us. Here a colorful glazed shard, there a smoll pebble with possible incisions, all these artifacts are inspected, mentally sorted ond, dependent on the rigor of the archaeologist or Iraqi civil servant who might be in accompaniment, deposited in pockets for later cppraisol. So did certainly stocks of intriguing objects first form in the dwellings of local Arabs in Iraq, and so did too the first Mesopotamian artifacts in the bags of visitors and trade agents leave Iraq for Europe in the 17th century, to be followed in the 1 8th by more, until beginning seriously in the 19th century a full-scale plundering of uninhabited Near Eastern settlements took place. In a sense, early European excavators worked hand in hand with Iraqi natives to strip the land of its ancient fruits. Workers in the Assyrian centers of Nineveh, Khorsabad and Nimrud filled raft after raft with stone colossi, reliefs ond inscribed objects, destined for exhibition in the holls of the British Museum and the Louvre, while at the same time local robbers spent chilly nights ond hot summer days helping to satisfy the seme foreign calls for more objects from the distant past. Colonial rule and impressionable Ottoman officials provided the opportunity for this plunder, and national rivalries among European states even stimulated a certain excitation among the early excavators to bring the largest and most impressive treasures home. Thus the lew dusty shards drawn from the pockets of wives of Mercedes dealers during the dull return to Baghdad bear no resemblance to the ten-Ion bull and lion, hewn from stone nearly three thousand years ago and set up in the palace of Ashurnasirpal, which now attract the awe of visitors in the British Museum. Still they represent manifestations of one and the same impulse: to is Texts from Ihe Late Umk Period 'lefcee lake possession and thus share in the essence of a history of civilizolion reaching bock beyond the Renaissance, beyond the legions of Rome, and beyond the democratic stirrings in ancient Athens, into a pre-cbssical age marked in its earliest phoses by the lirsl development of cities and, toward the end of the fourth millenrium B.C., the emergence of writing. The Roman script we use loday has been in existence *or some two and a halt millennia. By the 26th century A.D., this form of writing will eclipse in length of uninterrupted use the period of documented Iransmission of cuneiform in Mesopotamia. That is no mean accomplishment, but of course Roman, and Greek script derived from earlier models in ihe Near East, and these owe certainly the impulse to graphically iep;esent language, if not the form of writing itself, to earlier scripts in the region, above all io hieroglyphics and to cuneiform, and of these two the development and use of the latter, in its earliest form generally known as 'proto-cuneiform', is much better documented. The term 'archaic texts' refers generally to those documents inscribed on clay or stone tablets using the proto-cuneiform script, dating roughly lo the final stages of Ihe Late Uruk period, lhat is, Uruk IV and III, arid including the first levels of the succeeding Early Dynastic period. 'Ihe span of ca. 3200-2700 B.C. generally accepted for these archaeological levels covers an age in which the monumental center of Uruk in southern Babylonia seems to have been in decline, breaking into disarray about 2900 B.C., and following which new centers in the soulh began to form. The first general introduction to the proto-cuneiform writing system and an overview of the text genres found in the archaic texts from Mesopotamia was offered in 1936 by the father of modem Sumerology in Germany, Adam Faikenstein. Since the appearance of that publication, the work of an ongoing research project directed by Hans J. Nissen, a studenl of the Heidelberg scholar and since 1971 professor of Near Eastern studies al the Free University of Berlin, has made substantial strides in the edition of the ca. 5000 archaic lexts and text fragments uncovered by German excavators of Uruk, the largest settlement on earth at the end of the fourth millennium B.C. Situated on the soulhern slretch of the ancient course of the Euphrates river, this city achieved a size of some AO hectares 5100 years ago, and, with the concomitant hierarchizalion of skilled labor and administrators, offered the most likely atmosphere at the time for the revolution in communication requisite lo an expanding bureaucracy forming in the city that was a system of writing. Some scholars, among them most forcefully Nissen, have in recent years relativized ihe importance of writing in our cultural development. Since the great mass of the earliesl wrillen documents were economic and administrative records, and since ihese doiumer.ts had clear functional precursors in the form of cylinder seals, numerical tablets ond, still earlier, clay and stone calculi, writing could be considered little more thai an expansion and improvemenl of occounling mechanisms already in broad use. Yet the intellectual advance evident in the early use of symbols not only to qjantify and qualify objects and measures and persons, but also to identify more involved transaction stales, to designate probable phonetic approximations of elements of words and proper names which had hilherta not been signified in ihe early iconography, and possibly to represent spoken language, suggests an entirely new level of semiotic representation. The publications of the Berlin research group, with which I have been associated since '. 989, have begun to lay the basis for o comprehensive examination of the archaic writing system and the adminislrolive forms il served. However, two receril developments in the decipherment of archaic writing in Mesopotamia - both only indirectly connected to research in Berlin - have had important consequences in the way we think about the exploitation of wrilinc, ard have implications for the contextual decipherment of archaic documents. The first is ihe work by Denise Schmandt-Besseral on the large numbers of small stone ond clay objects almost invaricbly found in excavation levels of Near Eastern sites predating those of the earliest writing stages. Despite occasionally heavy-handed criticism of her methodology, there can be ittie doubt that her general proposition of the derivation of proto-cuneiform writing from ihese early discrete symbols, called by her tokens, is correct, and that the discussion which her work hes provoked, not only of the role of ihese objects as object-qualifying counters but also of the sealed bullae which contained a large variety of 'tokens', and o" the so-called numerical tablets found in levels immediately before those of developed writing, has formed a vital part of our current understanding of the intellectual developments which preceded the emergence of writing in the Near East. The second is ihe breakthrough in the anolysis ol the numerical systems, represented in quantitative notations in archaic administrative texts, achieved by the historians of science joran Friberg and Peter Domeiow. Remembering lhal over 85% of all archaic texts ore administrative documents recording above all quantitative data, il is no! difficult lo imagine the significance lor decipherment of ihe texts a elect understanding oF accounting notations can hove, particularly for a period in which the diversity ond complexity of counting and measuring systems was still great. The present paper represenls an altempl to weave logelher some of the disparate material which Nissen, Damerow and I have published in the course of our cooperative efforts and which has nol always been easily accessible to interested readers. It is a pleosure to acknowledge thai without the professional assistance of Ihe edilors of this series, Pascal Aitinger and Markus Waller, ihe present study would no' have been written, and lo thank them for their greot patience. 16 i? Excavations and chronology 2. Excavations and chronologv1 It is nol surprising thai the first antiquities to arouse the interest of visitors to ancient rViesopolumia were those most recently buried. They were closest to ihe surface, and above all she great stone remains or the neo-Assyrian period were in many cases visible in the shifting sands ot northern Iraq, or al least known to local residents. These and other stone monuments which often bore inscriptions in cuneiform were retrievea and shipped back lo European capitals in the mid-nineteenth century, together with the day tablet archives of Ashurbanipal unearthed in Nineveh. Below the archaeological strata which produced these finds were levels containing successively older artifacts, including ecriier cuneiform archives. Beginning in the 1 BBO's, British/American and French excavators opened the sires of Nippur ond Girsu in the south of modern Iraq, oncient Bobylonia. These two sites more than any others led archaeological, but above all philological research into the third millennium B.C. and into the developmental stages of early cuneiform. The Nippur archives from the scribal school situated in the temple district of Enlil remain our most important source material br understanding the intellectual history of early Mesopotamia. 1 The conventions of lext transliteration used in this paper are those a1' the Berlin/Los Angeles re search project Archaische Texte ous Uruk and have been spelled out in same detail in previous publications (see, for example, MSVO 1,9-12, ond note thot the designations 'obverse' and 'reverse' of opposing inscribed tablet faces mcty be arbitrary; il is often not possible to determine where an accoun! on a damaged frogmen! might have begun). Generally, lexis are published here with as much al'enlion paid to norr-specialisls as possible. The readings of the signs in individual transliterations are based on those presented in the Uruk signlisl (ATU 2; 'unidentified' signs in this list ore assigned the code ZATUh number], incorporating however the further-reaching sign differentiations presently employed in our work in Berlin and Los Angeles on the archaic corpus (see my remorks in ATU 2, p. 347, Ic language identification JESHO 3 I [ 1988] 131 -1 33"). Text copies in the following are published ot 75% of original size unless otherwise noted, but are rotated 90' counter-clockwise of their position in ancient times, in accordance with standard ossyriologicol convention; ci. Ihe reasoning and justification for (his positioning in ATU 2, I481; P. Damerow and R.K. Englund, Tepe Yahya, 1 1-1 230, with reference lo ihe compelling work by F. Picchioni. There are very few exceptions ond contradictions (for example, W. Orth-nann, PKG 14 [1975], pi. XI; A. Archi, "Po5ilian of the Tablets of Eblo,' OrNS 57 [1988] 67-69) to ihe rule adhered to here that the 9fJ-shift occulted duting or just before the Kassite period. The terms 'scrip!' and wriling system' are used here interchangeably. Finally, I hove chosen lo continue c convention adhered lo previously in publications of our research project concerning the designation or proto-cuneiform'signs. We have dislingu'shed generally only numerical and ideographic signs (representing quantities ard qualities, respectiveV), fully aware ol ihe terminological imprecision both names imply; 'numerical signs' did not represent abstract numbers, and 'ideographic signs' in oil likelihood were often nol semographs bul rather referred lo specific words. Historians ol writing categorize developmental (and usually diacfronic) systems ol graphic communication into iconography (usualfy prehistoric art}, pictography (clear iconic referents in ihe eorliesi writing systems), looography (strict correspondence between a single sign ond one word), ideography (correspondence between a single sign and one semantic field!, syllabography (phonographic use af signs lo rep-esenl syllables) and alphabetography (phonographic use of signs -o represent phonemes), recognizing that no system excludes elemenls of systems preceding it chronologically. It will be obvious that many of the signs colled here 'ideograms' ore more precisely 'logograms', and some may be 'syllabograns', dependenl on whelher proto-cuneirorm is a mullrvalenl writing system. It is, in any case, a question of interpretation as la when such ambrvolent signs os U4, in ideographic meaning light', day', 'white', ond so on, assume concrete, i.e., togogrophlc roles in written longuage, remembering that even then cuneiform signs ore often only parlial representations of contextually implied grammatical forms of words. Although dating to two centuries after the collapse of the last political stale whose administration was conductec in the Sumerian language, the literary and lexical texts from Old Babylonian Nippur7 certainly offet un on the whole genuine reflection of the writing system, Ihe language and the literary culture of third millennium Mesopotamia, and these texts form the core of the Sumerian dictionary project now underway ot the University of Pennsylvania. Less impressive fo: literary history, but all the more so for the history of writing, of archaic administration and of political formations, were Ihe French finds in Girsu, modern Telloh.3 The excavations were characterized by a feverish tempo, and despite the correspondingly sligh' attention paid to archaeological methodology and the agiloted demand for antiquities, however they were acquired, felt from abroad, some 60,000 texts dating to the third millennium were apparently recovered from administrative contexts.' A further 20,000exemplars, including nearly all nose deriving from the pre-Sargonic lagash period,5 were plundered between regular seasons.' These archives build the most complete and continuous record of administration, and necessarily of writing ond means of accounting, available to us from the second half of the third millennium. Their importance compared to the literary archives from Nipput may bee seen above all in their contemporaneity, in the fact that they contain tablets he Tassive site was situated about holf-woy between Baghdod ond U'-l* on whet Stemkeller hes -erVred to as Ihe border between Sumerion south with a strong tradition of city-states, ond a Semilic norlhem Mesopotamia marked more by regiorol polities. This location may have played a role in the 'special status Nippur was apparently accorded throughout Ihe Ihtrd millennium. Even in Ihe orchaic periods, Uruk scribes included in ihe lexical list of city names the loponym ENo.KID0 (=NIBRU) in second place after thai representing soulhern Ui (see R j. Mathews, MSVO 2, 34-39), so that with high probability archaic levels in Nippur are merely still buried (for those remains recovered see K.L. Wilson, 'Nippur; the Definition of a Mesooolamian Gcmdal Ncsr Assemblage,' in: U. Finkbeiner ond W. Rollig feds.), Gomdal Nasr, 57-89). The unifying effect in Mesopotamia of the city god cf Nippur, Enlil, es the chief administrator of the Sumerion pan'heon, is a phenomenon wel documented in texts Irom folor third millennium archives, pointing lo the strong political mlluence the prieslly class in Nippur had on ihe south, withoul ilself serving as residence of the ruling families. The blessing of the Enlil priests seemed no less critical to Babylonian monarchs Ihan that ol ihe Holy See lo rulers in medieval Europe. Finally, the system of domeslic Irode (so-called 'bala'l inslilulecl by Shulgi toward the end of the ihird millennium, partly to service ihe Nippur culls, underscored the importance lhal city enjoyed e/nnvlřr I: Ear'y Dynaslic 11 Dynasty of Akkod Gudea of Lugash Ur III Writing Phase Clay bullae and numerical table's Archoic texts fror-i Uruk: Writing ?hose Uruk IV, Wriling Phase Uruk III Archaic lex's from Ur Texts from Fota O d Sjme-mi 'exts 0'y nalionolists and fascist sympathizers; the Orient expert was able to escape Briiish capluro by furtively returning overland to Syria (see W. Kohlhaas, Hiller-Abenteuer im Irak [Freiburg 1989J). while ar ihe same time lloyd was on his way back to Uqair from Baghdad - openly. 31 P. SteinkeJIev, 'On the Reading and Location of the Toponyms URy.U.KI and A.HA.KI.'JCS 32 j 1980) 23-25. " The texts have now been collected and republished as MSVO 4, nos. 1 -40. t>eposit ol Jemdet Most potteiy ond tabids Sounding I sections Figure 4: Toblel loci at Uqcir Plan ol Ihe piesumablc cTOpel ca. 15 meters eosl of the "aimed Temple of Ucair below which \ pottery ard tablets d Urul. Ill dote letter 5. Llcyd end F. Solar, JN[S 2 [ 1943) pits. IV end Vl). i found 2.3. Law? The provenience of o group of 27" exceptionally well preserved tablets, all bought from antiquities dealers, can only be conjectuted, P.E. van derMeer purchased 17 of the tablets in this group while inspecting oriental collections in the vicinity during his work al ihe excavations of Kish in 1935.3" In his publication of the texts the following year,35 van der AAeer staled lhal the table's in oil likelihood came from a site close to Kish, probably Jemdet Nasr. The common underwriting officials PAo AN MARo ond NAM, BU3 PAP attested in these tablets and in texts Irom two other small collections, one bought by the Iraq Museum, 35 Now collected and 'epublished os MSVO 4. nos. 41-67. 3< from a paper lead by W Delsman, Katholieke Universileil, Nijmegen, delivered ot ihe occosion of ihe presontal,on ol Ihe.von do, Meer collec1.cn os o permanent loon to ihe Vrije Unive.siteil, Amsterdam on 71 February 1989. p. 2. ' " ^Mftabl^^mlP^raP,'^«.'RA 33 (1936) 185-190. Ollhe 17 texls published by von der Moer. 1m no 3 p. 190) apparently neve, entered the Nijmegen, ond so is not in the present Vriie Unrvors.to.1 collection; see F A.M. Wiggermann, Aan de wieo van he. schrilr Mesopolomische Texts from the lole Uruk Pa-ioc Excavolions and chrenfilngy - Lorso? Baghdad, in 1933,36 the second by the Yale Babylonian Collection in 1934,37 suggest they were found together. The only information available from any of the individuals involved in the sale of these tablets was given officials of the liuq Museum at the time of their 1933 purchase by a dealer in Baghdcd, who stated that the tablets derived from (illicit! excavations at Senkere, ancient Larsa. Falkenstein discounted this information, however, and proposed instead that these texts as well as those published by P.E. van der Meer hod been stolen during regular excavations of Uruk, with which he was associated.36 Indeed, Uruk would at the time have been a likely target lor thieves interested in ready access to tablet levels and A. Falkenstein may have been privy to information he was for professional reasons unable to divulge - and dealers O'e notorious sources of bad information -, yet the reticence of Falkenstein and others lo ascribe tablet finds lo sites which had otherwise produced no comparable material may have been overdone. We know from the archaic list of Babylonian toponyms3' that Lcrsa assumed third place behind Ur and Nippur and before Uruk and so must have been a major center in the archaic period," we know that the sign combination U. AB/ARARMAj (=Larsa) is also attested in seven archaic administrative texts from Uruk, in at least two of which the geographical nature of the combination is clear,"1 and we know that the plundering of the site Senkere in the early 1930s was so annoying to its excavator A. Parrot that he was relieved to terminate his work there". Larsa, specifically a temple household within the settlement designated AN MAKg," can thus not be dismissed as a possible source of this archive, which deals almost exclusively with the administration of grain, in particular by the two officials named above and a small number of other officials apparently active in AN MAR,. The accounts in this group of rather substantial 34 A. Falkenstein, "Archaische Texte des Iraq-Museums in Bagdad,'OLZ40(1937) 401-410, The purchase was pesumably mode by ihe Uruk excavator J. Jordan, al the time direcloi general of the Iraqi antiquities department. 37 FJ. Stephens in G.G. Hackman, Sumerian and Akkadian Administrative Texts Irani Predynaslic Times r0 the End of the Akkad Dynasty, BIN" 8 (New Haven 1958) p. 4. The accession of iho lirst three archaic texts published in SIN 8 (nos. 3, 4 and 5) in ihe Collection of James B. Nies l^NBC), o1 Ihe last |no. 9) in the Yale Babylonian Collection (YBC), Implies they did not enter the United Stales in the some lot. The different subject matter (small cattle) and subscribing official (EN0 KU. RADj suggest that this tablet probably does nol derive from ihe some archive and is possibly nol from the same sile as ihe other lorsa' texts. 38 OLZ40(1937) 401. » See below, figs. 25-27. *> The version of this list contained in the jemdet Nasr 'city seof places larsa before Nippur; see R.J. Matthews, MSVO 2, 36-38 (to ARARMA2). ATU 5 pi 13 W 6705,g obv. i 1 (?; ihe identification at the sign is nol certain); W 17729,g obv. i 1 (unpublished), W 17729.Q obv. i 2 (see ATU 3. pi. BBl, W 20327,5 obv. i 2 (see ATU 2. pi. 32), W 20511 2 obv. v 2a5 and 4a (unoublished), W 24033,1 obv. i 3 [see A. Cavigneoux, BoM 27 11991] 1 17), and W 24004,3b i 2'(IN, ARARMAj/ 2N, SAl, following IN, URI5 / IN, SAl and before [col. ii] IN, BU0+BUn+NA2a / [ SAL], a list ol fe.Tia'e slaves donated to Uruk cults by mopr Babylonian towns?; see°A. Covigneaux, BaM 22, 78). a A Porrol RA 30 (1933) 175. See also the comments of L. Goldstein end K. Kinligh. American Aniiquiiy 55 (1990) 585-591; C. Wile!®, FS Sjoberg 557-571. * Allhough Ihe most common personal designation in the archive is the sign combination PA, AN MAR, AN MAR is attested in isolated contexts suggestive of a sponsoring inslilulion; see MSVO 4. pp. 14.19. grain quantities" seem to support the contention that ihey reflect a household economy smarter than that of Uruk of the Late Uruk period/5 but still larger than that registered in the groin accounts both from the 'Uqair group,"4 and from the site Jemdet Nasr."7 2.4. Others One small, and one large archive nearly complete the survey of those text groups from the archaic period which did nol derive from regular Uruk excavations. Two small texts come from excavations of Tell Asmar^, demonstrating that elites were active in the Diyala valley in the Late Uruk period. The second archive consists of 85 extraordinarily well preserved tablets from the former Erlenmeyer collection."* The archive deals above all with the administralion of an archaic brewery and related groin depot; although this activity is poorly attested in the Uruk texts, the archive was, based on the use of professional names highly reflective of (he Uruk professions lisrM ond on the common atteslotion of the brewery office "KU SIM"J\ presumably pilfered from either Jemdet Nasr or Uruk in the lole 1950s.52 There Compere MSVO 4, nos. 44 (totals corresponding to 4N,. 2N„ 2N,g, corresponding to ca. 21,300 48'.BNli lNla 2N,, co. 36,203 liters), 59 (2N^ 2Nti 6N,„ 3N, 1 N30 + 2N37 !N,78N ■' [ . 2N.j 2N,"' 1 Nj,, ca. 24,1 30 liters) ui-.d 62 (three subtotals corresponding loco. 45,000 liters' life's) Campore W 17729,ca (notation corresponding to 4711+ N,, or ca. 118,000 lilers), W 20740,6 (two subtotals of botley and emmer wheal corresponding to 4764 N, or ca. II 9,000 lilers), VV 22123.c (a to'al co-responding to 54CO N, or co. 135,000 liters; all three texts unpublished), and the account W 19726a [a total corresponding to 36,032.2 N, or co. 900,800 lilers; see P. Dameiow, R.K. Englund and H.J. Nissen. Spektrum der Wisserisc ha fl, März 3/1988, p. 47, and HJ. Nissen, P. Damerow ond S.K. Englund. Archaic Bookkeeping, pp. 32-34). Compare MSVO 4, 1-2 [totals corresponding to just 660 N,, or approximately 16,500 liters). Compare r\ASVO i, 65 (notation co-responding lo 600 N, or approximately 15,003 liters); MSVO 1, 42 (somewhat more, but since it is from the ont quilies merket, its provenience remains uncertain). According to highly speculative models cl calculation used in MSVO 4, p. 17"6. ihe often cited field meosuiemcnl texts MSVO 1, 1-6, could represent a grain notalional range of from 14.350 to 172,800 N,, or ca. 360,000 to over 4 million liters far the lorgesl occounl (see MSVO 4 p 1744) M5VO 4, nos. 79-80; see fig, 1. See H.J Nissen, P. Dametow ond R.K Englund. Frühe Schrift und Techniken der Wirtschaftsverwaltung im allen Vorderen Orienl (2nd edition, Berlin 1991; now avai'oblc in English translation os id., Archaic Bookkeeping: Early Writing arid Techniques of Economic Administralion in the Ancient Near East [Chicago 1993)1, and P. Dameiow and R.K. Englund. The Praia-Cuneiform Texts of ihe Erlenmeyer Collection, MSVO 3 iBerlin, forthcoming!. The mojorily (80) of the texts fiom this archive enleied the onliquilies collection ol H. ond M.-l. Erlenmeyer in Ihe mid-fifties (only eight tablets were missed: ihe five texts from the Bibliotlieca Bodmeiiana. Genevo. published by E. Sollberger, 'Sumerico ' ZA 53 [ 19591 1 3 two tablets purchased in the 1960s p| by G. ligobue. Venice, and one boughl by M. TMeny ond published byJ.-P. Gregoire, MVN 10. 81). See figs. 32 and 35 below. On on unpublished lablei from Uruk (unnumbered) in the Iraq Museum, but note also the attestation of the sign combination KU,,, SIM,, in the Jemdet Nasi text MSVO I, 216 obv. i 2. ond further Ihe peculiar form ° '.:;.1in„EN' ,,W ™-nbinalion EN, SAl. wife of the EN', lound both in Erlenmeyer texls (for example 63 and 64; see below tig. 72) ond in those fiom Jemdel Nasr (especially in the " 1. 2. 3 ond 5; see below, fig 83) in MSVO 3. nos. 61 held lexis MSVO 1. It may be s-a.ed (a, rhe record thai the recently deceased], van Dijk in a peisonal communication reported thai 1« was shown the spot in Uruk wheie the tablets we.o removed, oppaienrty in connection with the 30 3' Texts From the lote Uruk Period Excavctions and chronology - Uruk is some evidence in the onliquities markets in Europe, in particular in London, that archaic levels of one or more sites hove been reached by recent irregular excavators; the extent of this post-Kuwait-war activity will only become apparent in the coming yeors.i3 2.5. UxtlK Despite their often impressive state of preservation, an effect on the one hand ol ihc firing of thejemdet Nasr tablets which took place in antiquity, on the other of the sifting effect the antiquities markets have on tablets leaving Iraq and destined for a buying public in Europe and the United States, the sizes, and the temporal breadth of those archives pale in comparison with the numbers of tablets unearthed by the German excavations in Uruk. The data base of the Berlin-Los Angeles research project Archaische Texte aus Uruk currently comprises some 5410 numbers representing as many archaic texts ond fragments from the periods Uruk IV and III. Of this number, fully 5000 represent archaic documents from those levels in the district Eanna of Uruk.w The early excavation and work on the objects from the southern Babylonian site ol Uru< are inextricably linked with the names of two German scholars. The archaeologist J. Jordan" and the philologist A. Falkenstein56 formed the early core of a group of Germans who have removal in the same area of the Late Uruk srrake bowl' published in W. Nagel, 'Frühe GroFiplasliL urd die Hochkulturkunst am Erylhröischen Meer,' Berliner Jahrbuch Für Vor- und Frühgeschichte 6 (1966) 30-40 + pits. 2-8. While (his must be understood as hearsay once removed, von Dijk had broad experience in Iraq, in particular with the Uruk finds, and was a garrulous and inquisitive scholar. The dealer M. Kouloulokis, Geneva, who moved almost the entire Etlenmeyer collection into European hands, was unable or unwilling to make any ol the earlier circumstances ol the tablets known to me. 53 The conliscation by the Iraqi Department of Antiquities of hundreds of Ur III tablets pilfered in Umma has been widely, if informally reported: so too hos the depressed market in london and elsewhere lor lexis from Ihe same site due to ihe numbers ol pieces currently being offered and their obviously unclear legal status. !J The archaic texts (torn Uruk are currently available for study in five Berlin publications- A Falkenslein ATU 1 (Berlin 1936); M.W. Green and H.J. Nissen, ATU 2 (Berlin 1987)- A Cavicneaux in: A. Covigneaux el al., TJruk 33/34," FJaM 2.2 (1991) 33-123 ('Die Texte der 33. Kampagne')'and 124-163 ("Die Texte der 34. Kampagne'] leopicsand catalogue of Ihe archoic texts from Ihe 33rd and 34lh campaigns); R.K. Englund ond HJ. Nissen, ATU 3 (Berlin 1993): R.K. Englund, ATU 5 (Berl'n 1994). A complete catalogue and four further volumes of archaic administrative documents are nsw ,n preparation, and a complete data base of all prclo-cuneiform sources will be mode availab'e via the internet (currently [December 1997] in preliminary form under ihe URL ht!p://eoriy.;uneiform humnet.ucla.edu/], 55 J.Jordan studied architecture at ihe University oF Dresden, and was introduced to Near Eastern archoeoloqy by W. Andrere. His first excavation experience was wilh R. Koldewey al Babylon in 1903, then tiam 1903 to 1912 wilh Andrae in Assur, and from 19) 2 as director of excovalions at Uruk » A. Falkenstein studied under B. Landsberger in Icipzig and completed his dissertation deoling wilh Sumerian incantations in 1929 (Die Haupttypen der sumerischen Beschwöiung literarisch untersucht le.pzigei Semitische Studien, Neue Folge 1 [Leipzig 1931). One year later, he assumed a position as research assistant al the Orient-Fo.-schungs-lnstifut of ihe Max Freiherr von Oppenheim Foundation in Berlin. In Ihe Vorderasiatisches Museum of ihe Berliner Staatsmuseen, Falkensteín further pursued his interes' in literary texts, seeing to a very rapid completion the exemplary edition of 133 of the 250 such table Is [Litera rise fie Keilschrifttexte aus Uruk [Berlin 1931]) discovered just two years ecrlier as pail of the approximately 6000 cuneiform texts ond text fragments from the 1928-29 German expedition to Uruk. mounled yearly campaigns to Uruk since 1928, interrupted only, but often, by the effects of world and regional wars.57 The first German campaign look place in 1912,iB followed by a tang hiatus caused by World War I and the subsequent convulsions in both the German diplomatic relations requisite lo academic work in the British protectorate of Iraq and of course the financial capabilities of hard-pressed Weimar Germany to support and conduct large-scale excovalions abroad." Excavations resumed in 192860 when wilh financing of the Noigemeinschaft der Deulschen Wissenschall, an organization created to secure short-lerm financing of projects which might olherwise have been irrevocably lost to German scholarship, Jordan began a large-scale attempt to recover the architectural remains of the major mound in the middle of the expansive remains, named, according to later identifications, Ecnna, 'House of heaven' [figures 5. 6). A great appeal for ihe architect Jordan by in the fact thai in ihis cenlral district archaic building levels were partially exposed, wilh out the often tedious layers of later settlements which had lo be removed and dulilully recorded. Nevertheless, the first campaign after the war was spen: surveying the mound and making some preliminary cuts in areas including Icter deposits. Among the greal numbers of neo-Babylonian economic documents from lhal campaign, only 4 archaic tablets were recovered, and these remained unidentified.01 " The campaigns through 1956 ore described in some detail by R. North, "Status of the Warka Excavation,' OrNS 26119571 135-256. is See J. Jordon, MDOG 51 (April 1913) 47-76, MDOG 53 [April 1914) 9-17, and WVDOG 51 (leipr g 1928). In fact, Uruk had been the object of some historical interest sincej. Fraser's visit in 1835, reported ir his Travels in Kocrdislon, Mesopotamia, ic, [...], vol. 2 (london 1840) 139 (calling the mound 'Wartha); W.K. Lcflus conducted a short excavolion at ihe site in 1850 and again in archoic levels in the first months ol 1854, as the resull ol which one archoic tablet and some ether objects were sent to the 3iilish Museum. See J. Reode, 'An early Warka tablet,' FS Slrommenger (Munich 1992) 177-179 ■ pi. 79. The text BM 1851-1-1-21 7. a numerical tablet ol a type herelofo-e unknown in Uruk, bears o Strang resemblance lo a specific type of numerical texts from Susa, Tell Brök ondjebel Aruda [a. A, le Brun and F. Vallal, Torigine de lecrilure ä Suse,' CahDAFI 8 11978] 11-59, particularly p. 47-S.A. JosimandJ. Oates, 'Early tokens ond tablets in Mesopotamia [...],' Word Archaeology 17 [ 19B6] 358; G von Did. Tabids Iromjebel Arudo.' FS Kraus [Leiden 1982] 12-25], Loftus was also ihe first to publish o map oF Uruk [W.K. loflus. Travels ond Researches in Choldooa ond Susiona [...J [London 1857] bet*. 160-161), which he had drawn together wilh H. Churchill during his 1854 visit. E. Koldewey, in a survey expedition (together wilh ihe Berlin Orientalist E. Sachau) which resulted in his choice of Babylon as excovction site, exemined and presented a detailed report ol Uruk. On the 18lh of December 1902, final y, W. Andrae visited and drew up a rough rr.ap of Ihe ruin, and guthered some surface objects, including a Selcucid period cuneiform trogment from Ihe Irigal temple; see A. Kose, 'Waller And.ae's Besuch in Urut-Worko vom 18.12.1902,' FS Boehmer (Mainz 1995) 299-306. Thus both men with whom Jordan first worked in Iraq had included Uiuk omong Ihe possible sites of their own excavations. 15 British officials in loci authorized R.P. Dougherty of Yale lo assume control of the Uruk site in 1920; since Dougherty was unable to organize excava'ions in due lime after Ihe 1920 agreement, however, the drrectot of antiquities in Iraq. S, Smith, relumed excavolion rights lo Jordan. 00 The 1928 campaign was designated the first Uruk excavation in ihe official publications of the excavators. ftl W 1872,1-2, 2134 and 2352, see ATU 5, pi. 1; see the report by J. Jordan, Uruk-Wotko noch den Ausgrabungen durch die Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft, WVDOG 51 (Leipzig 1928); id., Erster vorläufiger Bericht über die von der Noigemeinschaft der Deulschen Wissenschaft in Uruk-Worko unternommenen Ausgrubungen [UVB I), APAW 1929/7 (Berlin 1930). 3i 33 T Texts from the bte Uiirk ?cnod Over 200 archaic tablets ana fragments were unearthed in ihe folowino compaign of 1929-30," far which the Assyriologist W. von Soden acted as philologist as replacement for A. Falkenstein, who was completing work on his doctoral candidacy. From 1930 on a research assistant at the von Oppenheim Oriental Institute, Falkenstein was able to participate in the following Uruk campaign of 1930-3 ] ,63 in the course of which over 650 texts and text fragments were recovered. The imparlance of these finds was immediately apparent to the excavation team. Not only were a number of tablets of the Jemdet Nasr, that is, the Utuk III type among the recovered texts - Uruk III period labiets exactly like those published from Jemdet Nasr excavations conducted several years earlier and published by Langdon in 1928 - but the great majority of the archaic finds From the ear!y campaigns were, based above all on paleographic criteria," still older than thejemdel Nasr style texts and thus the oldest known texts from Mesopotamia altogether. Unfortunately, the paleographic identification of archaic Uruk documents would come to play a ecding role in Late Uruk chronology, rather than the stratigraphy of the site," Generally speaking, eighteen slratigraphic layers, counting from top to bottom, were identified within Eanna for the time before the Ur III period. Layer I dates to the Early Dynastic, layer III lo the Jemdet Nasr period.66 The layers IV to VIII were ascribed to 'Laie Uruk'. Excavations have shown lhat the Uruk III level buildings were erected over the grounds of razed Uruk IV constructions, and that the leveling of the many pits formed in razing the old buildings resulted in substantial earth moving, including the transportation of fresh and already deposited debris from the prior administrative centers. Thus trash heaps of shards, bones and discarded tablets were mixed with ancient excavations of still alder debris and used lo fill in holes and pits. It is nol difficult lo imagine the impact this mixing and depositing hod on the original archival contexts of the tablets concerned. The archaeological context of the tablets from the early campaigns is thus heavily conlam incled particularly so in ihe case of the difficult architectural and above all stialigraphic situation encountered by the excavators in the region, chosen lor digging in the 1930-31 campaign to the immediate southeast of the Ur-Nammu zigguraf in the central district, Eanna (figure 6) The superimposition of diverse building levels reaching from the Uruk III into the Uruk V strata in this area led the excavators first to assume they had uncovered there a homogeneous Uruk IV period monumental building, called by Jordan the "Red Temple".67 Subsequent work however, has weakened the case for a discrete architectural feature,68 leaving but remains of walls and floors which seem to be associated with one another in large part through contextual finds, including tablets. The confusing stratigraphic situation is vexing, since it « J.Jordan, Zweiter vorläufiger Bericht)...](UVB 2}, APAW 1930/4 (Berlin 1931), in particular pp. 28-20 and 43-47 for a short description ol the finds. 63 Cf. J.Jordan, Dritter vorläufiger Bericht [..,] [UVB 3), APAW 1932/2 (Berlin 1932) pp. 11-1 2. M These will be discussed below, 65 Sec Ihe commentary ol Falkenstein's 'stratigraphic ideniificotions' by HJ. Nisser in ATI! 2. 26-28. 66 Layer II has as c defective identification been dropped from current terminology. a UVB 2, pp. 29-31 with pi. 4. 68 H.J. Lenzen, ZA 49 (1950) 12; HJ. Nissen, ATU 2, 28-34; R. Eichmann, Uruk: Die Slroliaiochlr. [ 1 AUWE 3 [Mainz 1989) pp. 30-31, pits. 1 -4 and plan 1. Excavations end chronology - Jwk Figure 5: Plan of Uruk Each square imwcsenrs 1 OOx 100 meters. The district liom which most orchoic material wos excovoted is found in the rnidd'e of the mound. Its name Eanna. 'house of heaven,' derives from later identifications. was precisely in this areo lhat ihe largesl groups of administrative tablets from the paleographic phase Uruk IV were unearthed. The remains of the Red Temple and thus the tablets found there covered by a leveling ol the area carried out in ihe beginning Uruk III period (Uruk lllcj are now generally assigned to the building sub-phase Uruk IVo,65 dated lo ca. 3200 B.C. Large numbers of the piclographic tablets, however, are now ascribed by D. SuTenhagen to the straligrophic levels Uruk IVc-b, and a small number ol so-called numerical tablets (see below) to level Uruk V. Siirenhagen v! Nissen, ATU 2. 29-30. following Lenien, e*plains the reasoning behind ihe correclion ol ihe original, poleographicclly determined dating oi the building comp'ex horn IVb to IVo. 34 35 Text from the lole Urult Period Excavations and chrono'ocy - Uruk Figure 6: Plan of trie central district Eanna Each square represents 20x20 meters. The numbers of archaic texts found ore indicated in the respective nxco vation squares. The highest concentrations ol Uruk IV period texts came (ran in and around the area of the "Red Temple', that ol ihe Uruk HI period (ram in and around the area of Hie 'Great Court". 36 PcWI,5 MXV1.2 Probable firxrspnl cjl !he tablets W 6S81-6SB3 Ft KVI.Jl Figure 7: The so-called Red Temple Wall eleven ions and ihe Imd spol ot important numerical tablets are indicated 37 Tests Írom the lote Uruk Period Excavations and chronology - Uruk bases this asctiplion on a review of the sltaligraphy and architecture of this area and of the seal impressions and pottery found in association with groups of in particular the numerical tablets,70 but above all based on his belief that the Red Temple through its association with the pillared terrace to the southwest is to be dated to Uruk IVb or.d (hot the niched woll shown in figure 7 obove was in fact the enclosure wall of a temple below the Red Temple complex, of which only the H-shaped base posfament was preserved. The tablets found in association with this wall will have thus been deposited at the lime of the construction of the Red Temple 01 even earlier. This theory, if correct, would have severe consequences (or the now conventionally accepted belief in an explosive development of prolo-cuneilorm curing the Uruk IVa period.7' Toward the end of the third campaign, and again in the seventh, the Uruk excavators undertook to clear away and examine the remains of the White Temple 'figure 8)72 in the squares K XVII which exhibited architectural parallels to the larger temple complexes ol levels IV and V of neighboring Eanna, two hundred meters to the east. The gypsum tablets found in various rooms of this structure will be discussed in a later section; unfortunately, the straligraphical relationship of the building complex to the majo' architectural remains of Eanna cannot, despite the dating ttench dug between the two areas, ot present be clarified, nor is the relationship of ihe tablets themselves to the building obvious, as H.J. Nissen has pointed out.73 The publication of the archaic texts from the First three post-war Uruk campaigns oppeored in 1936 as the volume Archaische Texte aus Uruk.74 In this study, Falkenslein surveyed the malerial and techniques employed in the production of archaic cloy documents, the text formal of these tablets, and offered an outline of early cuneiform paleography, citing Ihe sources and studies of early tablet archives known at the time.73 The contents ol the archaic 70 For a preliminary summary of Surenhogen's arguments for this chronology, hopefully to be laid out in full with publication of his Hobilitotionsschrift, see his article "Relative Chronology of ihe Uruk Period '...]," Bulletin of The Canadian Society forMesopotamian Studies 25 (May 1993)57-70, in particular -lie fiqs 5-7, 71 The matter will be discussed by H.J. Nissen in Hie introduction to a complete catalogue of lire orchaic texts from Uruk to appear as Katalog der a-cnaischen Texte aus Uruk, ATU 4 (Berlin, for Incoming). Ii may bo noted here in advance of Nissan's catalogue that D. Siirenhagen includes among tablets with a terminus ante quern of Uruk IVb those from the squares PeXV),2 ond Pd-eXVI,3-4 assigned the excavation numbers W6150, 6216, 6611, 6705, 6748, 6759, 6782, 6860, 6881-4, 7204, 7227, 7881-4 R. Eichmann will in his forthcoming AUWE 14 volume on Uruk architecture ofler o de'ailed review of the original excavation plans ond an interpretation of the niclved wall conlrory to thatol Surenhagen [Eichmann believes this wa'l lay in the middle of and aver ihe ternp'e remains preserved at aboul 17.5 m obove plain; nole that the critical straligrophic relationship between the niched wall and the sou'heasl wall of Ihe 'Red Ternp'e' could not be clarified, since the section of the niched woll adjoining the Red Temple was completely missing). 72 So-called because of the while plasler used on its walls. See E. Heinrich, Die Tempel und Heiliqiumer im alien Mesopotamien (...) (Berlin 1982) 35-45 and 61-67, summarized in W, Orlhmann, PKG 14 (1975), 132-133, and R. Notth, Orls'S 26 (1957) 233-237 The temple was situated on the rap level o( the so-colled Anu Zrggurat. « ATU 2, 49. 7i Now integrated into a series of the Berlin Uuk Pro|ect as ATU 1. " ATU 1, pp. 4-43. Figure 8: The White Temple from square K XVII in Uruk texts could be roughly divided into two major categories. The large majority of the texts from the early Uruk campaigns were shown lo be documents from the administrative sphere of activities, for example, lists of personnel, records of tations distributed toofficiols, lo workers ond to livestock, accounts of products deriving from agricultural households and from craftsmen. For fewer texts contained lists of signs and sign combinations which, the same as two comparable tablets already known from Jemdet Nasr,76 represented archaic lexical compendia probably forming part of the curriculum of early scribes/7 Tablets unearthed in subsequent campaigns were only very sporadically edited in preliminary reports of the Germon excavators. J. Jordan was named Director of Antiquities in Baghdad in 19317B: consequently, direction of fhe Uruk excavations was transferred to A. Noldecke, 71 MSVO 1, nos. 2d 2-7M, ongmolly published by S. longdon asOECT 7, nos. 194 ond 101, respectively. See now R.K. Englund and H.J. Nissen. ATU 3, 66. 77 The lexical lisls ore Vealed below, section 5. replacing Sydney Smilh in ihis posilion on ihe 21st of March ond conlinuirig as director ihrough to rnid- Novembct of 193d. thoreallei as advisor lo Soti ol Hasri until 1939, when he wos replaced by S. lloyd. His residency in BogWod was marked nol only by the highly successkil continuation of Germon excavations 38 30 Texts from the Ida Uruk Period [xcuva'ions nrd chronology - L'ruk who together with the architects E. Heinrich and HJ. Lenzen continued work ihere into the 11th campaign in 1939, when events in Europe would discontinue German accessibility to Iraq. Above all the architects Heinrich and Lenzen influenced the archaeological planning and execution of ihe Uruk campaigns throughout this period,79 laying free the foundations of the major presumable temples in ihe Eanna area, including Buildings]/Ternpies} C and D, the Pillar Hall and the Building with Four Halls, the intriguing Great Court', the function of which is entirely unclear (see figure 6J. Tablefs and other debris were used in ihe leveling and other architectural elements, including wall fill and the bricks ihemselves, of all of these buildings, in particular in and around the Great Court; however, none of the inscribed remains found could be shown to have been pail of the original inventories of 'he buildings with which they were associated, so that any tentative reconstruction of an archival context of the texts will have lo be proposed based on internal criteria. H.J. Lenzen resumed excavations in Uruk after 'he Second World War in 1954 and continued work on archaic levels through the late 60s, with first A. Falkenstein, then H.J. Nissen, and final fy A. Covigneaux assuming responsibility fo - editing the arch arc epi graphic finds. Despite the steady discovery of tablets among 'he debris o' excavations subsequent to ihe early campaigns, no further syslemolic publication of the lexis was presented by the edilois following Falkenslein's ATU I in 1936 until Nissen and his collaborators in Berlin begcn to present the results of their cooperative effort to decipher the texts ir 1987.60 Unfortunately, ihe level of record keeping by the Uruk excavators on their archaeological, in particular inscribed finds, was, by current standards, inadequate in campaigns before and after the War. As a rule, all objects were recorded cccording to two criteria: first, the iocus in ihe south ol ihe counhy, and by a particularly close relationship to the then d-recta of tile Vordcrasia-lisches Museum in Berlin, W. Androe, but also by the developments in Nazi Germany ar.d his own apparent anti-Semitism; see Agatha Christie: An Autobiography (London 1977) 561-562. Incidentally, Jordan had good contacts with representatives ol the German Reiclisaußciministerium in the early wnr years (see S. Welding, 'Dia Altertums- und Orientwissenschaft im Dienst des deulschen Imperialismus,' Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universität Halle XX/2 .1971] 90-91) and presumably assisted in the planning of the Deutsches Orienlkorps. The staled goal of ils Sondetstab Grobba wos. according lo a memo from the office olj. von Ribbenlrop from 6 November 1941, the 'Vorbereitung des deutschen Vormarsches in den arabischen Raum* (Documentation center of the Gerrran Democratic Republic no. 368142). A. Folkens'ein and H.J. Lenzen belonged lo the military amn of the Orientkotps, the Sonderslob Felmy. Jordan dfed in February 1945 in Berlin. 79 NökJecke was himself an historian of Islamic art who en'oyed some archaeological training wi'h R. Koldewey in Babylon. Cf. lhe prelimhary excavation repo-ts published by Nöldecke, Heinrich, lenzen and oilier contributors beginning with UVB 4 (Berlin 1932) through UVB 1 1 (Berlin 1940), ond Ihe considerable number of articles and monographs dealing with specific topics in ihe Uruk work, including E. Heinrich Kleinfunde aus den archaischen Tempelichichten, ADFU 1 (Leipzig 1936); id., "Die Siel ung der Urukternpd in der Bcrugeschichte," ZA 49 (1950) 20-44; id., Die Tempel und Heiligtümei im al'cn Mesopotamien [...] (Berlin 1982); HJ. lenzen, "Die Tempel der Schicht Archaisch IV in Uruk/ ZA 49 i 1950| 1-20; id., 'Mesopolamische Tempelanlagen von der Frü'nzeit bis zum zweiten Jahrtausend,' ZA 5 1 (1955) | .3^' id.. Die Entwicklung der Zikurrat[...], ADFU 4 (Leipzig 1941); A. Falkenstein, ATU 1. The eaily monographs and reports on the archaeological work are currently being Ihemolicolly revised in the series Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka: Endberichle (AUWE). 80 M.W, Gieen and HJ. Nissen, ATU 2. See above, n, 54, for furlher references. o- the object in excavation squares 20*20m was noted, and second a rough description of the relationship the object bore to some architecturally interesting feature was made. This method of recording often led to entirely horrific generalities about large agglomerotions of small finds. Archival inforrnot on which might have been derived from lhe excavated Uruk lexis was in great pari lost, due both to lhe recording method of the excavators, but also and fundamentally lo the fact thai the archaic texts f'em Uruk (ormed - seemingly without exception - pari of the general debris of pottery shards, animal remains, etc., removed from administrative units of the central dislrict Eonna and either deposited in trash holes or used as fill in constructions of walls nrd floors, 'his find siluation is of course not only disruptive in any attempt lo reconstruct tablet orchives of specific periods, but moie seriously it exacerbates the difficulties of placing the texts in their chronological framework. Thus the construction levels capping this debtis serve as termini ante quern, that is, as chronological levels before which the lablets must have served their purpose as communication tools.81 These slratigraphic aids, with few uncertain exceptions,8^ huve al best been helpful in assigning rough chronological divisions in lhe inscribed finds, for instance, between texts of Late Uruk and Early Dynastic dale, but not between texts of Uruk III one Uruk IVa dote, lei alone among lexis cf the subdivisions a-c of lhe construction level Uruk III in Eanna. In these cases, Falkenslein, Nissen and others hove attempted lo define poleographical characteristics peculiar to specific subdivisions83 which might serve to define essentially slraligraphic sequences. Despite these difficulties, cataloguing and research of the Uruk text corpus have shown that in many cases at least the taalets found in particular loci formed substantially coherent and discrele administrative and lexical crchives, that is, that oflen tablets from an individual accounting or school unit will have been gahered and directly deposited al a construction project, thus retaining some of the original integrity cf the writing units. Precise informalion concerning the find locus of lhe tablets might consequently be expected lo aid in lhe important analysis of archival relationships. 81 H.J Nissen has written on extensive commentary on lhe chronology of lhe archaic texts in ATU 2, pp. 21-51 (Datierung der archaischen Texte ous Uruk"), lo which I make general reference as the current standard o: our understanding cf slratigraphic queslions relating lo the archaic epigraphic finds Irom Uruk. See also R. Eichmann s detailed treolment of the entire slratigrcphy ond architecture of the site in his Uruk: Die StrotigtopS.e i ,.|,AUWE 3 liVoinz 1989) and Uruk: Die Architektur I [...], AUWE 14 [Mainz, forthcoming) Disregarding the gypsum rablets Irom the While Temple (see the discussion above), it appears Ihot only the group of lexis ascribed the excovation nos. W 21300 rnighl hove belonged lo the original inventory of the Uruk IV period Building C (lig. 6) where ihey were found. Excavation records place the tablets 'von Brandschult uberdecki auf dem obe'sten Estrich im T-förmigen inngioum des Tempels C der Schichl IVa, dicht neben der Ecke aus nordös'lichem T-Arm und oberem Ende des Longraumes' (see ATU 2, pp. 39- " HJ. Nisser,. Innere Dalieiungskrilenen," ATU 2, pp. 53-62. The divisions chosen by Nissen ore fotmolly indopondeil of the building levels Uiuk lllc-a, since ihere was no slratigraphic justification for ossigning representative lets lo the wrihng phases he designated Uiuk 111.3-1. See my discussion below. 40 41 Prehistoric Wrilirry - Seals 3. Prehistoric writing Writing may be thought of as a set of commonly accepted graphic signs used to represent communication, historical writing a set of signs which represent a spoken language. There can be little debate about whether proto-cuneiform fulfills the criteria of the former definition. That writing syslem wos a set of symbols commonly accepted and indeed transmitted from one generation to the next, and with it pieces of information were graphically communicated from one partner to another - from the transmitter tc the receiver. Whether or not proto-cuneiform was used to represent a spoken language, for instance Sumerian, as many assume, or some other unknown language, is still o matter of debate. Certainly this was nol its initial, nor ever its primary purpose. As an accounting system, proto-cuneiform served above all lo communicate and stare administrative data. However, there is some evidence thai despite its accounting role archaic writing could not but reflect elements of the early scribes language. Personal names and toponyms can scarcely have been entirely iconographic combinations in proto-cuneiform, particularly in light of the contact with foreign peoples implicit in the Uruk expansion of the late Uruk period. Further, ihe lexical lists from the 15% of proto-cuneiform documents nol classifiable as cccounts contain evidence of writing conventions which could reflect spoken language, ranging from some standardized sign sequences in combinations which rep'esented attribute - noun (see below, section 4) to a canonized composition which in ell likelihood represented our earliest example of literature (see below, section 5). Since the earliest ideographic syslem unearthed in Uruk, from the Uruk IV period, appears to have been highly developed and conventional zed, some historians have assumed that there must have been pictographic precursors before proto-cuneiform was in use in Uruk, which have either heretofore fallen prey to the vagaries of excavations and remain buried in Near Eastern tells, or were written on materials that could nol survive the millennia as did clay and stone.8' This conservative argumentum ex silentio can, however, be disregarded, The precursors to Uruk IV period proto-cuneiform are clearly found in the archaeological record from Uruk itself, as well as from nearly every major Lale Uruk site excavated in the Near East. The increasingly involved administrative tools employed by accounling offices of emerging urban centers in the 4lh millennium B.C. included stamp and cylinder seals, counting devices and clay tablets, to name those devices which remained intact in Near Eastern ruins." 84 For instance, S.J. Liebermon, 'Of Clay Pebbles, Hollow Clay Balls, and Writing: A Sumerian Vrew ' AJA 84 (1980) 339-358, argues p. 35B that the level of standardization of the Uruk IVa tents "con only have resulted from a long development'. The more recent and concrete example of I.L Finkel, "Inscriptions from Tell Brak 1984,' Iroq 47 (1985) 187-189, is unsatisfactory for two reasons. Aside from the fact that rhe two purportedly pre-Uruk-IVa tablets discussed by the author derived from fill obove on appareir Old Akkadion level at Brok, the objects themselves cannot be shown lo contain texts; ralher, they may contain simple sketches of animals as ornamentation, and the 'numerals' (in bath coses one circular impression ot Ihe top center of the tablets, giving the appearance of an unsuccessful siring hole) might well serve some purpose unclear to the excavators. 85 HJ. Nissen has most forcefulty presented the view of o measured development ol controlling devices employed in the Uruk period, of which protocunoiform was merely the most obvious. See his comments in 3.1. Seals86 As Adams and Nissen have showr., the Uruk period saw a substantial peculation movement into the Bobylonian alluvial plain, obove all into the region surrounding the southern center of Uruk.67 At ihe same time, and well before ihe initial appearance of inscribed tablets, the first cylinder seals appear,83 replacing the earlier used stamp seals. These devices carried some rnolif - from simple geometric incisions to highly plaslic and natural islic representations of animals and humans - and were impressed on a malleable surface, in Mesopotamia clay. The day thus sealed migh' be a coil wrapped around a cord lying up a leather bag or fastening ihe door of a grain depot, it might also be a stopper pushed into the neck of a jar containing vauable dairy fal. The ve-y act of sealing represents on expression of the aulhorily of the person o: office lhal owned ihe seal. With his 'signature1, ihe sealing individual assumed responsibility for the correctness of a certain transaction and assured the integrity of the clay document' os long as it remained intact. It has been noled that there were o large number of seals, based of course on the sealings ihey left, found in late Uruk assemblages (some few examples are depicted in figures 9-10), and that the larger the settlement the greater the number of motifs ottesled there.99 The jacket Archaic Bookkeeping p. 1 1 See also his "Aspects of the Development of Early Cylinder Seals,' BiMes Ö (1977) 15-23; Grundzüge einer Geschichte der Frühzeit des Vorderen Orients (Dormsladl 1983) 83-87; "The Context ol the Emergence of Writing in Mesopotonra and Iran,' in: J. Curtis (ed.). Early Mesopotamia and Iron: Coniac! ond Conflict 3500-1600 B.C. (londcn 1993) 54-71; lurther, M.A Powell, "Thrcs Problems in the History ol Cnneilorm Writing: Origins, Direction of Script, literacy,' Visible langauge 15 (1981) 419440. esp. 423-424 (remarking on the fad lhal the work of D. Schmondt-Besseret ottered ihe besl evidence of a conceptual deve'opmenl prioi to ihe emergence ot proto-cuneiform). 86 Beyond the standard seal books', see R.J. Matlhews, Clay Sealings in Early Dynastic Mesopotamia: a Funclionol and Conlextual App'ooch (unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University ot Cambridge, 19B9); id., MSVO 2; R. Ditlmonn, "Seals. Sealings and Tablets |...].' in: U. Finkbeinerand W. Köllig (eds.), Gomdal Nasr, 332-366; M.J. Shendge, "The use ol Seals ond the invention of Writing.'JESHO 26(1983) 1 13-1 36; D. Cotlon, First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in ihe Ancient Near Eosi (london 1987); VI. Zeltler, 'Sea'ings as Artifacts of Institutional Administration in Ancient Mesopotamia,'JCS 39 (1987) 197-240; end the general survey McG. Gibson or.d R.D. Biggs (eds.j. Sealsand Sealing in Ihe Ancient Near East, BiMes 6 (Malibu 1977). Early slamp seals have been recently studied in an exemplary publkrolion by A. von Wickede, Prähistorische Slenpelglyplik in Vorderosien, MVS 6 (Munich 1990). 8? R.McC AdamsandH.J. Nissen, The Uruk Countryside [..,] (Chicago 1972); R.McC. Adams, Heartland ol Ci'ies [...] (Chicago 1981). Adorns notes in ihe latter sludy, pp. 67-94, that the settlement patterns showed a decided movement of Middle Uruk inhabitants of the northern alluvium around Nippur and Adab to the south oraund Uruk in the Late Uruk period (compare his tobies on pp. 69 and 90); using the conventional assumption of a population of 125 persons per inhabited hectare, ihe population of his northern setllcmen! enclaves decreased from 38,500 in ihe Middie, lo 21,300 in the tale Uruk period, while in the south it ireteosed from 20,000 to 4 1,000. 18 As early as Uruk VI. See H.J. Nissen, The Developmenl of Writing ond Glyplic Art," in: U. Finkbeiner and W. Köllig (eds), Gamdot Nasr, 316-331. " See, for example. R.J. Malihows, MSVO 2, 14. The motifs in fig. 9 were possibly not simply chosen at random to represent some characteristic of orchaic life, although Ihot is certainly also Ihe cose. The cult represented in ihe firsl scene, the mortiol ccltons of the second, or the represen'alion of domestic animals, including hunting dogs, in ihe next two, were dearly o common part of archaic existence well if indiiedfy documented in the written sources. R. Ditlmonn in his Ireolment ol ihe practice ot sealing in late Uruk and 43 Texts from the lole Uruk Pwiod entwined [toru Figure 9: Common archaic seel nolifs of o cylinder seal offered space for a broad variation of forms, and we should assume thai each seal represented one, and possibly several officials from a single office in a household administration. The seals had to serve as irrefutable proof of authorship should a sealed transaction be in any way contested. The need for clear correspondences between sealing individuals or offices and seal impressions clso explains the large number ol figurotive seals - extrapolated from published settlings - in the Late Uruk period. At the same lime, the numbers of seals are indicative of an increasing control of economic movements, and the need to store over time information bearing on the authority of numerous offices charged with controlling those activities. proto-Elomite Susa in: U. Finkbeiner and W. Rdllig (eds.), Gomdot Nasr, 332-366 (following M. Bron-des, FAOS 3 [ 1979]), has suggested that mere ihon containing-characlerislic scenes, the seals may have borne motifs directly related to the activities the sealing officials were controlling, thus, for instance, the How of sacrifices to a temple household in the case of the first scene (here from Uruk] in lig. 9. This will scarcely be true in the case of the many hunting scenes attested in 'he late Uruk period. Fig. 10 contains eight separate scenes of boar hunts alone. The boar was known os o very dangerous beast with phenomenal charging strength, ond hunting this animal will have boon a sign of particular courage, to which rhe several depictions attest in those scenes of the hunt led by on elite of the archoic period (evidenr for instance in scene c' in his beard, headdress ond his long spear; see also the second scene in lig, 9j, These scenes must have derived from seals representing the authority and the household ol a high-status official, presumably the ruler of the settlement in which the seals were used. See also ihr: important contributions oF P. Amiet, Glyptique susienne, des origines d I'epoque des Perses achemenides [.,.], vols. I-II MDP 43 (Paris 1 972); M-A. Brandes, Siegelab-ollungen aus den archaischen Bouschichlon in Uruk-Warko, FAOS 3 (Wiesbaden 1979); and M.J. Shendge. JESHO 26(1983) 113-136. Prehistoric Writing - Seals figure I 0: Archaic seals wirh scenes of wild pigs Recons'rucied seol impressions depicting lions and boors (a), lions, boor and caprids (b), and apparent hunting scenes (boars being hunted in seals from Uruk, Susa and Hobubo Kabira, as a rule with dcgs| (c-h) (scole ca. 1:2). Tti^ Ic-aT imp'easlons in she figmn- weic drawn olfei llie toltcwing pvbhections: ol R. Boehmo,, ,„■ It X FngW. ATI J 5. pi 121. no 7 (cl. E Scholl. UVB 5 (1934) 43. pi. 25b. ond P. Amfcn, to gl/pliqufl mnjopotamienne oichd'que [Poris '961 [pi. 10. no 184). b) J Jordan, UVB 2 (1Q31) 42, to 32 to W 7229,a b. and Schorl, op at, 43, pi 24e Id Amiet, op tit., pi, 10.no, 1821, 0 Bwtimii.opu.pl 13P,no. 16 Id. ScM, cp.dl., 43, pi 25a, HJ lenzen, ZA 49 [1950] 11,%. 14, and AaM. opci-.pl I0.no-, I B7-IBB |ane seal]) d) I Ingrain. MOM 6 11921) nl 16, no 243 [cl I Le Guten. Iraq 19 [ 1957) 100. Ira. 20, no. 22. end pi. 24. no. 6, und Amiel, open , pt 39, no 604]. nj Ingram, op » . pi 16. no 245 (cl Ic Breton, op.ctt,, 106, lig 20. no 3. ond Amiet, op cil , pi. 39. no. 607). 1,1 [ SloH-n^ngi-i. HobulM Kabiio tine Srodlvor SCXXlJahjen (rVtainz 1980) 62. Iiq, 55|dj id Snommenaer A1A 84 !l9B0]4aS. lig 3) g) Amiel, ufjcit, pi 40, no CO? I,i II) Nnrra, ' IWnlt K fcnglund, frühe Sch.ifl und InWn der VU.rtscfffl'ljverwalnmg im siren Vorderen Oicnl ißellm '1991} 43 |lne W Imnmuion on o tobte" Irom Ihn brmci trlenmrryrrf collection purchoied by the □wlnorjries of ll«- rVWrofldrkm rVWwi, to™ Yo.l„ wos onginolly drown by Abdoltoh M Kot.il; o cemrrenttjrv will be published bv H P.nmrmondJ Aru.-l ' r ' 44 4Í Text« from the Lote Uruk Period Prehistoric Writing - Tokens 3.2. Tokens Although ihe use of seals continued into the period of ideographic writing, it seems obvious that individuals and offices under whose authority goods and services were moving could identify themselves with use ol the new script; the seal impression imparled a personal verification lhal a transoclion was above-board and reconstructable. Bui the crilicc i n'o-rnaiioi, namely the objects and their numbers or measures that were being accounted for, wos stored using other accounting tools. Since her ear'y publications in the mid-1970s, D. Scfimnndi-Besseral has systematically gathered and studied smell, ollen quite unassuming clay and slone objects found in nearly all excavations of pre-lilernle sites in the Near East, ond bosed on he-understanding of the use o( these ob'ects as the earliest prese-ved accourling lools in the Near East has presented c theory of 'he emergence ol prolo-cuneifom which substantially undermines the presumption that the convenlionclizec Uruk IVa willing system presupposes earlier pidographic forms. Her research into the form and function of the objects she called 'tokens'"0 has provoked a healed discussion of their meaning, wilh occasionally harsh criticism of her methodology and conclusions.1" In reviewing her work, it is importont to first note ihose elements which are, based on the archaeological and epigraphic material, currently generally understood 1o be valid. Undecoraled small geometric objects, Schmandl-Bcsscrat's plain lokens', were present already Figure I 1: Examples of tokens from Uruk °'J These small objects nod been collected in Near Eoslern excavations since the turn ol die century. Iiowevoi. they were invariably catalogued by the excavators 05 cull objects or gaming pieces A [. Oppenhcim. 'On an Operational Device in Mesopotamran Bureaucracy. JNES 16 (I959i 151-128. published a clay ball horn the middle erf the 2nd millennium B.C. which contained 48 pebbles in on inner cavity, unci bore on its ouler surface a list of small cattle, altogether 48 head It wos thus clear thai the jiebblei os counters represented, in a one-to-one correspondence, the individual ammcls. The director ol Ihe Oriental deportment of the Louvre Museum, P. Amiet, recogni7(vd ihe lonneclicn between the pebbe-, iclen',l,..d ry, counters by Oppenheim and similar cloy objects found v/ithin cloy envelopes vo~i Susrj tinting to "if .at,. Uiuk period I'll y a 5000 ans les Ebmites invcntoicnt I'ccrilurc,' Archeology I 7 1966. '6-23.. 'ji'l '1 ■, student Schmandt-Besserat, finally, connected these cloy pebbles with the innumerable small ol,|-.i-. Irorn pre-literate levels throughout the Near East which she had been studying in conjunction with work on the earliest examples ol ceramics. See her "The Use of Clay before Pottery in the Zuyoj. F/pedition 16 7 (1974; 1 1.17; 'An Archaic Recording System and the Origin ol Writing, SMS 1/2(1977; 31 -70, Tlie Envelopes that Bear Ihe First Writing," Technology and Culluie 21J19B0) 357-38 5; Rcferc Numerals. Visible Longuage 18 (1984) 48-60; The Origins of Writing [...],' Written Communication 3119861 31. 45; 'From Tokens to Tablets: A Re-evaluation of Ihe So-called "Numerical Tablets Visible kingixKH* 15 (1981) 32 1 -344. These sludies were merged in her recenl Before Wriling vols. Ill 'Austin 1992], which unfortunately due to a poor editorial eFfort did not offer a synthesis ol her cuircril understanding o! '*irly accounting anri piclcgraphy [an abridged edition of vol. I was published in 1996 under rh<- tide of Haw Writing Came About I. See the generally negative leviews by R.K. Fnglund. Science 260 [ I I June- 19^3; i 67a 1671; P. Michalowski, American Anthropologist 95 (1993J 996-999; I'. Daineiow, Re/hls hislorischesJournal 12 (1993) 9-35; J. Fribe-g, OJ. 89(1994; 477.502; P. ZimonsV.y, |ouiraiiof I Archaeology 20(1993) 513-517: and SC. Blown, C5MS Bulletin 3 I May 1996 . 35-43. 51 The lirsl slinging rebuke ol her work was mode by S.J. Liebermon, AjA 84 1980] 339.358, rw/e criticism has come from G. Sampson, Writing Systems: A linguistic ntredtction ]Palo Alto '9H4 •>//,' S.A. Jasim ond J. Ootes, "early Tokens and Tablets in Mesopotamia; New Information Loir le'l Al ,-„)., and Tell Brak," World Archaeology 17 (1986; 349-350, ond most reccnlly by live leviewr, of |ie|.,i.. Wriling cited in the preceding footnote. ;n Near [astern excavation levels doling lo 8000 B.C. and continued lo be found in levels representing ihe centuries immediately before the appearance in ca. 3200 B.C. ol hue willing in Uruk. In the 4lh millennium, decorated (in Schmandl-Besscrat's terminology complex'; lokens, i.e., cloy lokens of plain ond complex lorm which had been punched through and so probably hung on a siring, or hod been decoialed with varying numbers of hatching incisions, ot bolli. begin lo appear. Many of ihese decotatod lokens beat a striking resemblance to signs bund on the eotliesl tablets, leading Schmandt-Besseral lo identify them as symljolic ihtee-dimensional precursors of two-dimensional prolo-cuneiform signs; ihese tokens, loo, generally ceased lo exist with the emeigence of writing. Archaeological context makes il very difficult lo evaluate the liuc function of these objects (see figure 1 1), they wuie found or at hast recordeo with no convincing administrative context, and in some cases derived (torn loci which would seem to undermine any adminisliative function, for inslnnce in Ihe nirivr.-s o! chi!dic-n.,;-' Orv 11 ilvlev, successful drums ol Schmandl-Braeral's publications is that ihese catty iolien assemblages ii<| w-vttfvl a en; frit and conventionalized mteiicgionol occounling system, which is unsuppoiled by the nirlm)-nln;|ii ol reronl. >,., us stirtore improbable, and which led in many instances to ad hoc explanations el -,1111111 lirek lUit (,-Kilrl l.,jv.- leriminetl uiinxplginrtj without damage lo her basic ideos. Small clay "'......'■'" '"'"■' 1 imiiť-r-ítnlfir-rers and iierderr. in coves of 8lh and 7th millennium Persia - really " ' * 1 ^ 'l 'H'*1 «*»»*«*■" tokens lound in mbbish - roolly 0 reflection of tlvc practice "' '"' '""'""'t'"'-l'"bvl™>« upon completion of a transoclion'.! Small cloy objects found ....►luh-, -.moll ..|T-ef.... ;,.aver, o! rluld.en - roolly markets ol Ihe high status ol aichaic \,,H.,f,n >»i ne.iv I„„„| virarioi-, nlleruigs ol gram meant lo to for eternity on the other- -16 Texls from the Late Uruk Period P'eltistcric Writing - Clay envelopes figure 1 2: Cloy envelope with contents, horn Susa 3.3. ClAY ENVELOPES More recenl excavations in Persian Suso seem lo demonstrate thai, in levels immediately prior to the Uruk IV period/" administrator enclosed plain tokens in clay envelopes and sealed the outer surfaces of these hollow balls with figurative seals. In numeious Laie Utuk settlements, including Persian Chogha Mish,™ soulhern Babylonian Uruk and Syrian Hcbuba Kabira, such clay balls have been found both opened and in contexl wilh enclosed tokens, and still intact, thus withholding from inspection token assemblages which could be heard moving loosely within the balls. These groups of tokens were thus the first conlexlually meaningful assemblages of accounting tools in the Uruk period, a reasonable first link in the very long use of simple geometrical shapes to represent discrete units or measuies of commodities transferring through accounting offices of the Late Uruk period. The tole of the tokens found within or at least in conlexl with clay balls as forerunners ol the hignly developed and convert Nona ii zed numerical signs o' the earliest Near Eastern tablets (see below, section 6.l) is now unquestioned, although the reticence particularly ol museum stall ond «3 A le Brun, 'Recherche; slraligraphiques ä l'Acropole de Suse, 1969-1971.' CohDAf 1 i 1971) 163-216 f Valla! 'Le materiel epigrophiaue des couches loö 1 d de laaopoie." Poleoricm /. (1978! 193-. 195'; A. le Brun and F. Vollöl, CahDÄFI 8 (197B) 11-59. trpfM Alinal report ol excavalions has recently appealed: P. Delougazond H.J. Konlor loclilocl by A. Alizadef GrL^haMish vol. 1:1-2, OIP 101 (Chicago 1996); see 1:1, pp. 120133, 1:2, pit-., 3/1-/10. \ 2A. 4B excavation d:rectars lo open all clay envelopes, ostensibly to protect the integrity of the seal impressions on the surfaces, remains a vexing problem in our attempts to decipher their meaning. It may come as a surprise that fully eighty of the total of ca. 130 excavated clay envelopes remoin completely ir-tacl." The prosoect of using tomographic analysis in the future is no excuse for this obstruction, especially giver the fact that the process is very expensive, time-consuming, and of limi'ed value even if conduced.w Yel Ihough limited, radiographic analyses of all clay envelopes would add some statistical evidence concerning the likely numerical systems employed in this early method of bookkeeping, and the particular signs within the systems. The current state of ou' understanding of the tokens does not allow us to postulate wilh confidence whether the best attested numerical systems in archaic Babylonia, namely, 'he sexagesimal and the grain capacity systems, are represented in the envelope groups and thus to make cn educated guess concerning the types of commodities being controlled with these devices, ana the quantities of those goods. Certainly the notion of an Uruk expansion driven by luxury demand in southern Babylonia would suffer if it could be shown thai lire cloy envelopes dorr reputed Late Uruk trcde colonies in Syria ono Pe'3 a corct nec without exception symbolic representa'ions of small numoers of animals and of grain measures consonant only with the burooucroltc needs of a local administration, as I suspect is the case based on the little material currently available. D. Schnandt-Besserat, Before Wriling I, 117, pub at jusl live, ct less than 3% of the total, the number of envelopes whose contents are known with certainly: lour specimens from 5usa opened with a knife, one from Tepe Yahya sowed open tlhe loner statement, however, has been questioned by the Yahya excavator C. C. Lcrnberg-Kurlovsky; sec P. Dorrerowond H.-P. rV.e.rzer, Computeriomogrophische Untersuchung ungeöPneior archaischer Tonkgetn cus Uruk W ?0987 9 W 20987,1 1 und W 20987,12," BoM 7b ;I995). p 283-i. Two analyses ct lomogicphically inspected envelopes have been published, both resulling (torn lite generous permission of officiols to misuse' Ihe radiological deportments o( mojor medical centers. The fi'st, F. Drilhon, Pi to. lavo-Jecnlel, ond A. lahn-.i, 'Elude en bboroloire de seize bulles mesopotamiennes apparlenart au Dcpailenient des Ar.tiquites Orieritales,' in: PrehistoiiedebAtesopalarnie. La Afesopotamic prehistoiiquc cl lexploialion reccnle du djebel Harrain, Poris 17-18-19 decernbre 1984 (Paris 1987] 335-3/1/1, deall wiln sixteen enve'opes ftom Suso housed in the collection of the louvre. The second, P. Dcmetow end H.-P. Memzer, Cornpuluilomogiapliische Untersuchung ungeöffneter archaischer Tonkugeln aus Uruk W 20967,9, W 20967,11 und W 20987,12,' BoM 26 (1995) 7-33 + oils. 1-4, examined three- u-opened envelopes from Uruk in the Uruk-Worko collection ol the German Archaeological Inslilule (DAI), currenlly housed in the University of Heidelberg. Despite the high resolution afforded by the choice o' 0,3mm scanning cuts of the envelopes in the former study, and ihe dilleting density of Ihe fited lokens as ogoinst the unlired envelopes in the second, neither publication could claim to have sufficient'// idontilied all of the lokens within the analyzed envelopes. Objecls in the louvre collection were often only summarily noted ond described according lo o typology of forms employed by the museum curator P. Amiel; lltose in ihe DAI collection were in some cases possibly Iraclured ports of original tokens. In both studies, the resolution was such thai eventual incisions on ihe surfaces of ihe lokens would not have been ond were not iKagnizaWc, so lhai ihe queslion ol whelhet decorated lokens were enclosed in ihese discrete assemblages could not be answered. Howevei, even in the cose ol ihe descent idenlified wilhin the envelope Sb i931 iOnlhon et al., pp. 339-340; that noled lot Sb 1937 on p. 339 is not obvious in the images on pp. 3/10-3/11;. st.ol.es ocioss its suiloce would not necessarily identify ihe token as complex' ond so lor Schmandt Bosseiol plastic ideograms; instead, these could represent early fotms ol decoraled numerical '.inns, for winch soe below, srrction 6.1. ,10 Tcx's froT ihe late Uruk ^enod 3.4. Numerical tablets Al the same time or possibly somewhat later than the occurrence of sealed clay envelopes, two types of accounting devices clearly related to them came into use. In the first case, on the surface of some clay balls shapes were impressed which reflected in form and number the tokens enclosed within the bails (figure 121.07 These impressions were evidently mode with the tokens themselves, with other objects, presumaby including styluses, mimicking in form the enclosed tokens, and even simply with fingertips. The ordering of these impressions gives us the first opportunity to speculate about the possible numerical structure, if any, of the system of counting ot measuring which the tokens might have reflected. In the second case, clay lumps were pressed flat and, apparently dispensing with the enclosing of tokens, similar impressions were made on the surfaces of these 'tablets', and the whole sealed. The numerical tablets', obviously part of the accounting repertoire from archaic Uruk which entered settlements to the northeast, north and east o' Babylonia (for primitive Syrian examples see figure 1 3)DS quickly assumed the farm of Uruk IV pictographic tablets" and ore generally considered the immediate antecedent of the earliesl true writing. "7 A. le Brunand F. Valid, CahDA'l 6 i'978) 13-18, 45, 54-56; E. Stiommengnr, Habuba Kabira. fine Stadlvor 5000Jahren (Mainz 1980] 64, fig. 58. *8 In addition to the Inose unearthed al Habuba Kabira (D. Schmondi-Besseral, Befo-e Wtiling I. 1 36) and Jebei Aruda (G. van Driel, FS Kraus, 1 2-25), numerical tablets of a mote primitive form were found ot Tell Brok (S.A. Jasim and J. Oales, World Archaeology 17 [1986] 358). Mori (A. Parrot. Lcslouiiles de Mori. Quolorzieme compogne (Priilemps 19641," Syria 42 [1965] 12), Nineveh (D. Gallon and J. Reode, 'Archaic Nineveh,' BaM 14 [1983] 34), Khafoje (H. Frankfort, OIC 20 11965] 25), Godin TepeJH. Weiss and T.C. Young, 'The Merchants of Suso [...]," Iran 13 [1975] 5.10; ca. 30 numerical tablets from Godin Tepe remain unpublished), Chogha Mish (E. Po-ada. 'Iranian Art and Archaeology: A Report of the Fifth International Congress, 1968,' Archaeology 22 (1969] 58, number 432 A, and P. Delougazond HJ. Konlor, Chogha Mish vol. 1:1, p. 120, l;2, pi. 33BG), and of course Susa (A. Le Brurr and F. Vulkil, CahDAFI 8 [197BJ 18-20, 47, 57; D. Schmandt-Bessorat, Before Writing I. I 34-136; o number of numerical tablets presumably from Susa, are in ihe collection of Ihe University ol Sao Paolo [71/5.36-37, 72/4.44-45]). Apparenrly, none were found at Tall-i Molyan. Until all tablets ate published, and more examples from the north ore unearthed, it wili be difficult to stale with confidence whether a preliminary categorization of these texts into early and late formats is justified. As 0 working hypothesis, il seems that the numerical tablets from Syria and northern Mesopotamia were of a more primitive form than most exemplars from Susiana and Uruk. This primitive Form, attested ol oil sites (including an exact parallel to the Syrian documents from Uruk recenlly published by J. Reode, 'An Early Warka Tablet," FS Srommenger [Munich 1992] 177-179 + pi. 79 [and ATU 5, pi. 121; see there p. \7-*>% is characterized by a more rounded formal, earlier seal motifs, and often numerical notations impressed along the edge of the tablets; nore olso the fact that theeorfy tablets liomjebel Atuda in tig. 13 contained notations which were not in accordance wilh bundling rules attested both in later numerical lablels from Susa and Uruk, ond in Uruk IVa period tablets from Uruk. The later lab'els were flal'er, cushion-shaped, contained more structured numerical notations aid later seol motifs. This diachronic typology suggests thol Late Uruk influence from soulhem Babylonia broke off earlier in the north ihon in Persia. ^ The text In fig. 14 derives from o group of gypsum tabets excovated Irom the While Temple m Uruk (see above, section 2). All contained seol impressions and ihe circular impressons of round objects al varying diameters. The function of these, in some cases quite large and heavy lablels. i.e., whether ihey roa'ly contain numerical (grain measure) notations ar are decorated stands of some kind, is not obvious to me. Preh;sloric Writing - Numerical lablels Figure 13: Early numerical tablets Two preliterate rumerical tablets fromjebel Aruda (after G, var Driel, FS Krcus, 14 fig. la, 6, ond 2} docurrenr The repetil on cf signs exceedir-g the limit known ftom la'er lex's. Figure 14: The gypsum tablet W 10133,a The gypsum toblets were p'aoed cn reed mols while still wet, leaving impressions of the molting on their bottom surfaces. The seol impressions have been dealt wilh most recenlly by R. Boc timer, ATU 5, 26 and 28. Scale of W 10133,0 co. 1:2. The Uruk tablets in figures 15-16 contain interesting examples of features peculiar to this stage of wriling and common to both Uruk and Susa. A stylus with □ rounded end was used in both centers to impress numerical signs, in contrast to the use of a flat-ended stylus in the following ideographic phases, and only ct this lime, and again in both centers, was the shank of ihe stylus used to impress dividing lines between discrete notations, instead of the sharp edge of the 'ideographic' stylus. 3.5. NUMERCHDEOGRAPHIC TABLETS The most intriguing sign of contact between Uruk and the Susiana up to the very time of their respective development of separate ideographic scripts is evident in a number of numero-ideogrophic' toblets Irom both regions (fig. 16), These tablets share with the numerical tablets the characteristics of simple numerical notations, seal impressions, but the inclusion of one, al most two of a group of ideograms, common to both regions, which represent discrete 50 51 Texts from the late Uruk Peirbd Prelrstor,c Writing - .Xuniero-rdeogrophic tablets Figure 15: Three numerical 'ablets The loblet to the upper left oppenrs la be a numerical tablet recording a large sexagesimal number (corresponding to I 185 onilsl; lhat lo ihe upper right a field of ca 120 ocres The reverse faces of belli lexis urn uninscribed. W6245,c exhibits numerical signs created by Ihe rojnded butt ed(jQ of a stylus; this drome-terislic and Ihe use of Ihe stylus shark in drawing lines cf case separation ate common features of such Pablo Is from Uruk ond Susa of the pie-ideogrophic period. ob;ects (sheep, jugs of beer ond dairy fats, strings of dried fruits, textile products).'03 Such object designations are in my opinion the missing link between numerical rotations which according to context imply an ideogrophic meaning, for instance o grain notation, and the mixed notclions of numerical signs and ideograms which mark the inception of proto-cuneiform. That the immediate influence of Uruk on its surrounding territories waned at this time is demonstrated by the fact lhat in the north no development into an ideographic script occurred until Babylonian cuneiform wos imported in the Early Dynastic III period, end thct to the east a writing system was introduced, conventionally called 'proto-Elamite', which, although having borrowed some conceptual elements from the Uruk sign reoe-tory, employed entirely different s'gns. The presumption that decorated tokens appearing from approximately the middle of the 5th millennium B.C. in Uruk (but only from ca. 3500 B.C. in Iran and Syria) led directly lo pictographic script is the elemen' of Schmor.dt-Besserot's work which has been most debated. Comparing Ihe graphic forms, she was able to propose the correspondence of a large number o: decorated tokens wilh ater ideograms, ond these identifications are now moving through the sec on dory li'erature as if I hey hod been justified or even in part accepted by exper's. The basic argument agcinst such fecile identi'icotions is that we know graphic similarity, in the absence of contextual proof, can be notoriously misleading, placing as it has Sumeriar. scribes as far af'eid as Rumania and China, This is the more dangerous when not even the objects being analyzed can be shown lo hove been included in meaningful token assemblages, i.e., when complex tokens are nol found within, or at leasl in context wilh clay balls. Of ihese, there are few; in (act, only the so-called oil token (presumed to correspond to the proto-cuneiform sign Nlo, (L>} was clearly enclosed in clay envelopes,101 and it may be questioned whether this key evidence is nol simply a derived numerical sign lou SeeR. Dirmann, in: U. Finkbeiner ond W. %'lig (eds.j, Gomdal IMasr, 344-345; R.K. Snglund, ATU 5, p. 33, to W 6762,0. The upper two tablets in fig. 16 contain ideograms which based on Uruk IV and ioter Irodilion reoresenl textiles or poss:b'y apporati employed in ihe lexlile manufactories (see below, section 6.3.2 and Ihe signs ZATJ644 ond ZATU662-663 see 1Le conventions listed above, n. l]). W 6881 .d Ic the lower left contains a clear piecuisoi form ot ihe Uruk 111 sign DUG,, Iran 13, 9:2, lo the lower light a possible early form of Ihe sign DUG^, both signs repiesenling containers ot doiry oils (R.K. Englurd, 'Archaic Dairy Metrology," Iraq 53 [1991 ] 101-104]. All objects were apparently qualified with numerical notations derived "ram ihe sexagesimal system. 151 The 'crescent' noted above is the second deal candidate lot a complex Token in discrete administrative context. Irdeed, the refeienl prolocuneiloim sign, KU^, has been translated by some, based on later cuneiform tradition, wilh 'silver', or more generally, 'precious melal', so that a successful identification might even be usee' in an o.'gu-nent about the use of In s Lale Uruk accounting device in controlling the movement of such metals into Babylonia. However, the simple form of ihis token, without incised strokes, is likely o simple numerical sign, and even if a decorated example of Ihis token were in luture found within one of the many unopened cloy em/ebpes, it could represent either a numerical sign from one of the derived (incised) numerical systems, ot -eolly ihe sign KU3l> in its meaning of 'one-half (container of dairy fat;, as I hove discussed in an ea'lioi article |"late Uruk Period Cattle and Dairy Products: Evidence from Prolo-Cuneifoim Sources,' BSA 8 j 1995. 42''-°). A thud candidate far o complex token Irodilion can be seen in lite group ol tokens found associated wi'h Uruk clay envelopes and labeled W 20987 27 (P Domerow and H.-P. Meirzer, 3aM 26 j 1995] pi. 4). Among ihe plain tokens in thol collection a.e nol only the oil token, but also th'ee exenp'ors ol who! Sehmandl-Bosserai fancifully inletprels to be 'trussed poultry' (closer la the sign £>, "Ml. 52 53 Texte Írom the late Urut Period Prehistoric: Wriling — Numero-idcogrophrc [obletí Iron l3,0:3j(«d,r.Teps! Figure 16: Examples of nurnercvideographic tablets from Uruk and Susiona much like the sexagesimal signs impressed wilh a single stroke and used, lor example, to qualify o particular contoiner of dairy oil in the archaic texts from Uruk, Certainly on the basis of this token, found in Uruk and in the Syrian site Habuba Kabira, no judgment is possible about the ultimate role of the myriad of decorated tokens from this period. One might rather wonder why other products of the archaic economies - beer, wool, etc. - were not so represented. Further, a possible connection of some of these complex tokens wilh corresponding signs in the proto-Elamite scripl, which evolved after the emergence of proto-cuneiform in Mesopotamia, has gone unmentioned, despite the fact that the majority of contexlually determined tokens derive from Elamite Susa. And proto-Elamite texts would seem to offer the best evidence for a limited transfer of decorated tokens into late Uruk writing systems. Signs for small cattle - in both cases so-called abstract signs of the type often mentioned in Schmandt-Eesserat's work - are nol only graphically, but also semantically related in the two archaic scripts, for example, ihe proto Elamite -|- seems clearly related to proto-cuneiform QiJ, meaning collectively "sheep and goats".102 A corollary development in the discussion put in motion by Schmandt-Besserat is the currently espoused belief that the evolutionary view of the origin ol writing from c primitive stage o( pictography through revels of abstraction, best stated by I J. Gelb in his famous A Study of Writing in i 952, 03 has been discredited.104 It has not. The basis ol ihe argument put forward by Schmandt-Besserct ond others is that the archaic repertory consisted of a large number or abstract signs, indeed that there were but relatively few pictographic signs in ihe earliest stages. However, once the proponents of or abstracl sign system - and we need to remember that Schmandt-Besserat is realy speaking of a two-dimensional representation of plastic complex counters - have cited the sign UDUo [the sign Q3), repiesenling both sheep ond goats, as evidence of this archaic abstraclion, there is little more discussion of further evidence.105 Thai is understandable, since among the Uruk IV period signs few, if any others can be demonstrated to be non-pictographic, given the fact that we often cannot judge whal the real referents behind difficjlt graphemes might be.,a- lo? The most cu-rent Treatment of the pro'u-Ebrnite texts is found in P. Durneruw und R.K. Enylurid, Tepe Yahya; to ihe question ol signs representing smoll coltle, see pp. 53-55, ond compare the earlier works cf J. Friberg, ERBM HI, ond A.A. Vajman, 'Uber die Beziehung der protoelamischen zur piotosumerischen SchritV BoM 20(1989) 101-1 14 (IronsUon of his Russton article from VDI 1972/3, 124-133). 'm In ihe second edition of his A Study o: Writing (Chicago 1963), p. 201, Gelb slates that 'writing must hove possed through the stages of logogrcphy, syllabogrophy and alphobefography in this, ond no other, order.' ,w See for instance J. friberg, OL7. 89 (1994; 478; P. Damercw, Rechtshislorisches journal 12(1993) 27-29 and 32-35. P. AAichalowski, 'Writing and literacy in Early States: A Mesopaiomionist Perspective," in: D. Keller-Cohen (ed.k literacy: Interdisciplinary Conversolions (Cresskill, NJ, 1994)49-58, goes so far as to oorodize an evolutonary concepl; however, the author seems himself a victim of traditionalist views when he stales p. 55 that earliest Mesopotamion writings include phonetic [he means Sumerian] elements, so one cannot conclude that this was o lo'ei development,' theieofter citing vorious scholars who also believe this ra be true. This radicalism of conviclon in specialists, who then ore cited by general historians of writing, cannot be welcomed. More general treatments ol the history of wriling hove been kinder bofh ro Gelb's releological view of the evolution ol writing ond to Schmandt-Besserot's hondling ol her dcla: see for instance M. Kuckcnburg, Die Entslehung von Sproche und Schrift. Ein kulliirgeschichtli-cher Ube'blick (Cologne 1989), and H.M. Rbhr, Wriling: ils evolution ond relation kj speech {Bochum 1994). 105 It is nol even obvious whol ihese critics of the pictographic theory understand abstract signs to be, wholly artificial constructs or signs including abstracted representations ol original pictograms. Friberg, loc.cil., has validly mentioned the numerical signs themselves as abstract signs in this connection; there has, however, been little controversy in ceding the paint that contextual charged numerical symbols hod a long hlslcry in prelirerate societies such os those of the 4th millennium Near East. 104 Indeed, oil ol Itiese signs seem lo be picrogrom; representing eilhei complete or, according to ihe common graphic practice cf pars pro tola, partiol objects. Since, moreover, it Is nol possible to isolate and identify any phonetic use of signs in the archaic period, we connol presume thai ihe oiiginal use ol proto-cuneiform signs was nol simpk/ as referents ol the objects they represented, presumably wilh the rapid development of mullivalency in sign usage. Thus particularly the very many phonetic values (reodings') ol cuneiform signs in late' periods could point towards precisely the graphic development Gelb hod in mind, whereby 'Sumerian' reodings of signs con be ob|ecl names derived from the longuoge of those who created pictographic pioto-cuneiform. Si 55 The Nclure of Pforo-Cur.eibrm ond lire Sumerion Question - Tobler formats 4. The nature of proto-cuneiorm and the Sumerian question107 Unfortunately, the 'numerical tablets' unearthed in archaic levels of Uruk were found in secondary locations among debris ond other, Lc'e Uruk tablets,103 making it impossible to archaeo logically ascribe those texts loa level preceding that of ideographic texts. This may be inferred, however, from comparable finds from Suso, where in the levels Acropolis I 19 through 17B-A both clay envelopes and numerical tablets are found, in some coses bearing the same seal impressions.,m 'Numero-ideographic' tablets have been tentatively ascribed to the level 17A 'contact' or 17Ax,110 immediately before tne level 16 from which ihe earliest prolc-Elamite tablets derive. 4. 1. Tablet rarawus Even something as seemingly unassuming as tablet formal is a good indication of chronological development of writing during the archaic period. It may be reasonably speculated thai the clay envelopes and their contents, as well as the sealed numerical tablels, and at the end of this prelilerale development ihe numero-ideographic tablets, each represented one discrete transaction within a complex administration. For instance, the tablet tan 13, 9:2, in figure 16 above, might hove contained the record of the teceipl by an official of a temple household - the person who sealed that tablet - of thirty-three jors of dairy oil from a represenlalive of Godin herders. This documentation was presumably only of importance during a short accounting period, so that a precise dating was not included, ar was recorded in some other fashion invisible to us."1 107 For an excellent recent summary of the major characteristics or the cuneiform writing system, seeM. Kiebernik and HJ. Nissen, "Die sumerisch-akkadische Keilschrift,' in: H. Gün'her ond O. lud wig (eds.). Sc fir if I und Schriftlichkeit (Berlin 1994) 274-288, with literature. Jenold Cooper kindly discussed ihe fallowing section of this poper with me; the mistakes and misconceptions that remain ore my own. 108 See ATU 5, nos, W 6245, 661 3, 6881, 6883, etc. Even in these cases which oppeo- to represent a modicum of archival deposition, lor instance, ihe unifotmly numerical or rumnro-idecgrophic apfwarance of the tablets wilh ihe excavation numbers W 6881 and 688 3, there are grounds for dears suspicion lhot these 'archives' were eonstrucied by the Uruk excavators. All tablels W 6881-6883 were fojnd in ihe square Pd XVI, 3 (sec fig. 7 above) 'agoinst the northern edge of the niched woll belonging b level IV, 1-2 m northwest of the door, pailly in a depot in the wall recess 1.5 m northwest of the door' (ATU 5, p. 34), including those numbered 6882, a group of sixteen wilh a somewhat irregulai labial forma', but without exception of Uiuk IVa period sign lorms. '» A. Le Brun ond F. Vallal, CohDAFI 8 (1978) 1 1-59. In line wilh this sequence is ihe foci lhal inscribed material in Syria (Habuba Kabira, Jebel Aruda, poss'bly Mari) and norlhern Wesooolomia (Nineveh) ceases after lbe occurrence there of numerical labels, that is, that sealed numerical tablels at ihose silos derived from distinct strata prior to the appearance of ideographic writing "° R. Ditlmann, BBV0 4/1 |1986) 296-297 and 458, tab. I59e, following A. Le Brun, discussed level 17Ax or 17X. The "conlacl 16-17" proposed by le Brun, CohDAFI 1 (1971) 210, is derived from unslralified material from earlier de Meequenen excava'ions; tablets edited by F, Vallal. CahDAFI 1 (1971) 237 as "contact 17A-I6" were apparently equally unslralified (cf. Dillmann, in: U. Pinlbeinoi and W. Röllig [eds.], Gamdot Nas', 171'). See also D. Sehmandt-Besseral, 'Tokens ol Suso ' OiAnl 25 (1986) 93-125 + plls. 4-10; A. Le Brun and F. Vallal, CahDAFI 8 (1978) 11-59- R, bysen BAS international Series 379 (Oxford 1987) 648-649. 111 In fad, mut^ inloi triu I ion which we con irol see vra^ Essertt ally the same format is found in the lecsl complex, and the oldesl tablets from Mesopotamia, those texts doling lo the Uruk IV period (ca. 32CO B.C.) and, bosed on current excavation records and on our best understanding of objects dealt through the antiquities markets, without exception From the Eonna district in Uruk. Only the obverse of ihese texts is inscribed, and only with one entry jan entry will usually consist of ether a numerical notation, or one or a combination of ideographic signs, or, most frequently, both'17). Each tablet was meant lo carry one concise unit of information (see figures 17:1 and 19, W 19592,n)."J One subtype of ihese single-entry accounts known as tags [figure 18,1 is charactenzed by a peculiar cushion shaped formal, by a perforation through the long axis of ihe tablels certainly used lo hang the tablets on a siring,114 and by the absence of any numerical notations. While a number of the ideographic notations on these texts contain no obvious object designations and so probably represent proper nouns, either personal or official names, but not, it appears, lopor.yms,'15 several do consist of signs which denote presumable beverages and dried Fruils and so mighl indicote their use to tag shipments or stored amounts of these commodities.116 The more common sirgle-entry tablets correspond fully to the sealed numera-ideographic accoun's in iheir use of numerical notations and object designating ideograms lo qualify the taolets und envelopes, the inclusion of these documents in boskets lagged with global qualifications, to name arte example, would odd much specificity to this and accompanying texts, lo name onolher, we have no way ol knowing whether Further qualifications lo simple accounts were kept cn perishoble mo'eiiols or were signaled simply by the holder ol these accounts. 112 There is some, if not slrict, organization evident in the position of signs within individual enlries. The first and thus most prominent position in the entry is assumed by the numericol notation, always found al ihe head of □ singk^-entry, or of an individual case of o multiple entry text. Mumerical signs within a numerical nola'ion 'o low a stricl sequential pattern diclated by ihe value of individual signs within ihe numericol system Ihe notal on reflects. As o general rule, signs representing counted objects are situated closcsl lo ihe numerical notation, inscribed, insofar cs this is discer.nibe due to the existence of sign distortions caused by subsequent inscription, immediately aFer ihe rumericol notation and before the impression of the occompuriyirig ideograms. 1,3 For on overview o' archaic text For ma's see M.W, Green, "The Construction and Implementation of Ihe CuneiForm Wrilirg Syslem," Visible language 15 (1981) 345-372, esp. 349-356; further, A.A. Vojman, 'Formale Besonderheiten der proto-sumerischen Texte," BoM 21 (1990) 103-113 (translation of his Russian article in VDI 1972/1, 124-131). u This transve'scl pe-forarion, like that of cylinder seals, suggests lhat the strings holding Ihe tablets were knotted al one end such that the tab ets hung like pendants from the objects - or persons - ihey qualified. 15 In contrast To the pib'ished opinion of 'he German excovolors o! ihe predynoslic Egyptian sile Abydos lhat the tags found in ihe grove complex Uj there documented (he place names of ihose settlements From which the logged goods (occorcirg lo the excavators bolts of cloth) derived (see G. Dreyer, Umm e!-Qoab I: Das prädynaslische Königscrob U-j und seine frühen Schriltzeugnisse, AV 86, [forthcoming]), These tags contained the earliest known examples of writing in Egypl. '"' The sign DIN in the lexis W 20883 and 21 183 in fig. 18 is conventionally understood lo represent a lypeol wire; the sign combination DUG0 lA/v^ on ihe tag W9656,n! mighl loo represent a type of wine, cens-de'ing the foe' thai Ihe simplified form of '.AM,., KURQ, is known to qualify a type of DIN (see ATU 2, pi. 6, wilh photo o1 W 20907,2) and lhat DUG0 represents a jar with a spout, used lo state liquids, in particular beer. The texl W 7000, finaly. consists only ol the sign 'rlASHUR, a slringed fiuil, in later texts a type o1 apple (see I. J. Gelb, "Sumerion ond AlAodion Wolds For "String of Fruit'" FS Kraus [leiden 1932 i 67-82; ATU 2, 150"; R.K. Englund, Ur lll-Fischerei, 38-39, with Footnotes).' So 57 Tex:s from the Late UlIc Period The Nature df ^roto-Cuneiio-m and the Sumerer Question - Tablet ioimots O V J 1 i 1 c la ■\ ih 2 la 3 3a 3S> 4 4a 4b □ lo h - J: jb is -i:) V 4:: 1; ib lo \ lb 2o 2b ío 2b 3a 3b 3a Jb 4b 4i 4t / y|, S— bi 2» 1__ \ r r 1 ó — obverje f-- Axij cf Rolat či --e-- Axis ol Rolaiicn Ibl la Ib2 Ic2 lb3 V J 'everse II Hi Direction of Script Figure 17: Tablel formats found in the archaic texts 50 Texts Frcjr-i [he Lore Uruk Period The Nature of Prclc^CuiKjjfurm and the Sumerian Qyesiion -Tablet fofmals W 9579,byr2 f-HO ( 1 W7000 III// ( e W2 1183 ĚĚW W Vů56.cn 1 ll W 1 5o5B 1 3 W 14758 W 9570.br MSVO 4. 75 |Cor»l TotH Figure 18: Archaic 'lags' Small tablets characterized by o lack of numerical signs and by perlcralion through their lenglli, and sumabty strung, mighl represent rags altached to commodities. The inscriptions seem to quolity either or offices, or in some cases the commodities themselves, including beve'oges and died fruits. so pro-persons object of the recorded transactions, and of a further ideographic no'ation qualifying the person(s) or office responsible for the correctness of the data. Such accounts probably represented receipts and formed the lowest order in a hierarchy of texts leading into large, consolidated accounts (figures 17:2-6 and 19, W 20368,2, 2004d,38, and 20044,58) More complex lexts are characterized by llie division o( the tablet surface inlo columns and cases, each case containing a single entry and so corresponding to one of ihe single-entry lexis discussed above. Thus Uruk IV period accounts could consist of two or more entries 60 recording numbers and measures of objects together with an accounting official, and ihese single entries could themselves be further divided 'o attach lo the main unit of information such qualifications as were deemed necessary to fully identify a given Iransaclion (figure 17:2"7); still more single en'ries were entered into o single account by dividing the length of •he tablet into two or more columns, eoch column consisting of one or more individual entries"8. Tne relationship of these single-entries lo each other in an administrative sense is obvious when wilh smaller lexis two or more enlries consisting of only numerical notations and ideograms representing objec's ore globally qualified by an ideographic nolalion ohysically distinct from ihe numerical notations (figure 19, W 20368,2); wilh larger accounts, •he scribes will offer induce, as a rule or the reverse face of the tablet, summations of numerical notations included in individual entries. Both types of information correspond to 'he colophons of later cuneiform tradition. These totals consolidate multiple entries into a single notation, thus documenting ihe fact that the individual entries represent intrinsically comparable goods, and that they all fell under the responsibility of a single accounting office. Ideographic notations accompanying numerical totals act as global qualifications of objects recorded in ihe accounts, of the responsible offices or officials, and of ihe type of transactions recorded This accounting lypology became substantially more complex, just as ihe qualities of goods became substantially greater, in the Uruk III period, that is, in the period of purported decline after 'he great building activities, ond the presumable colonizations of the Uruk expansion1 ending in the Uruk IV period.1" The two account types in figure 17:6-7 lepiesenl high levels of occounting, found only in the Uruk III period. Multiple entries filling ihree obverse columns in the former lexl are consolidated in three steps on the account s reverse surface. A concrete example of this involved procedure is shown in figure 20 in a (reconstrue'edi summation of the Jemdet Nasr account MSVO 1, 185.120 Various summonda ore here totaled through three levels of commonality. This reconstruction of the reverse side of tie text implies that, as is obvious (torn the entries on the tablet's obverse, the lex! consists of the accounts of three years (l-3N17+Uj and that the counted objects 'DURt' (meaning unknown) are qualified either as BA or Gl. The tablet is then rotoled around its horizontal axis and each yearly account individually itemized in the right-hand column of the reverse face. The first summations consist of the addition of BA DUSa and Gl DURb for eoch year; secondly, all ihe BA DURb ond all ihe Gl DURb are totaled, ond finally the two sub-totals of BA and Gl are subsumed in a general total of all DURb. '17 Tire numeration within ihe text fa-mats indicates the entry sequence, counting the cases 1 ff. from the lop, and la, I b etc. w thin particular cases. 118 Fig. 17:3; ihe columns are in corventional transliterations qualified with the use of Roman numerals i, ii, etc. Note that this simple multiple-entry formal was lhat ol the so-called lexical lexis discussed below, section 5. 1:5 1 he apparent economic expansion documented in the occounts in o lime of seeming decline - note also that ihe commodities represented in pto'o-Elamite occojnts far eclipse in economic value any goods documented in such prel terate accounts as clay envelopes o-d numerical tablets, insofar os we can understand their mooning (see P. Damerow and R.K. fjnglund, Tepe Yahyai - should ocl as warning lo proponents of an expanding southern Babylonian administration in the late Uruk period, followed by dec'ino ond withdrawal from regions bordering Mesopotamia in the Jemdet Nasi/Uruk III phase r'° See also 'he example MSVO 1, 95, in fig. 21 below. 61 Tcxfs Írom ihe Late LJruk 5eriod The Nature of Prolo-C jneifoim and the Sumerion Question - Tobiel Formofs lable* wilh enly ens er.-t -y. 21 ó-ŕ unite ľ f a grain ptodvel in a b sexoges • mal" notation (revetse un-rnseribeaf Tcbtel with fvvo entries (fiisl column) ďíd o s'g-nature [aeccod column): 120 grnin retens and 30 jars of 'beer' (re/veise i.: ľ : • • i Table! wilh rim entliei íií.T one ■o fan uni's of sun-dry grain produds (reverse unnv vrribŕd) W 20044,56 W 20044,38 Obvefje Reve-se TaUeívvrth four entries on the obveMo, o rotation ai ihe edgs and pa»ib DUG, >Q> DUG; A6., C-U.- AMAR SAH; BU„ SAG 3> - Uruk III o eO 5(mij> A Y> Snakes >0*- i'vV.v: TUR Jl" Children V=_ Figure 22: Paleographic differences The lable dc'ncnsiralei iorne of the graphic development brylwren the Uruk IV ond IN periods. 1: ■sliaignl-cmng of oblique linei, 2: ob^'OCHcr. of piJogtOn^, 3; siinpli'icalion of ckmtin.s. siandardizoiron o! sign or enlalionr A; voTta EN Uruk IV «^3 SANGA Uruk III Chief ^ Admini- j= stralors Exchequers | | fcj III1II__—1 lllltr ' a GURUS Workmen <3 MUS3 Gl, Nirjhls L^= = AN 0 Stars G'v, 18 6? 88 fexts from ihe Laie Itruk Period Tlie Mulure uf Prulu-Curitf:fuirn und iSie 5u-nericn Question - Research of pralo-cuneiforrri Counting signs might seem an effete exercise, yet we know that such efforts can tell us much about the purpose of the texts these signs cppear in. The list presented below indicates those non-numerical signs of greatest frequency (from 1000 down to 100 attestations; translations are for the most pail hypothetical} in the administrative text corpus doting to the periods Uruk IV-III, beginning with ENo, which seems to represent the highest official in archaic administration.,3J This sign is attested more than twice as often as the next-most numerous sign, SE 'barley'. The sign BA of about the same frequency as SEa represents an administrative function, presumably 'distribution' or 'inspection'. AN and NUN= are both likely designations of deities (possibly An and Enki, respectively; notice that MUS^ = Inanna is quite bw in this list!). The object designations with the highest frequency are, not unexpectedly, se^, followed by SAL - 'female s'ave', and UDU a - 'small calf sigr. meaning frequency sign meaning frequency EN 'chief administrator" 996 ME, "a textile8" 223 SE0 'barley' 496 GU° "ration" 220 3 A 'distribution" 495 MUS,, Inanna?" ? I g AN "An?" 4b5 GAR 'grain ration" 212 NUN a "Enki?" 456 NAMj "official qualification" 209 PAPo overseer?" 409 AB, "cow" 202 SAL° "female slave" 388 TUR "small (person)' 197 Gl "delivery? 368 DUG C 'dairy oil jug" ' 96 SANGAa "accountant" 365 "household?" 195 GAL "large (person)" 353 UNUG 'Uiuk* 190 ° "household" 335 NEC "red?" 186 UDUo "small cattle" 330 SI "? (horn)" 183 su "hand, receipt" 298 DUG. 'beer jug" IB) u, "day' 286 HI "egg2' IB0 TUG& "bolt of cloth' 268 SUHUR "dried fish" 179 BAR ■8' 265 "fresh fish" 176 BU0 "? (snake)- 265 TE "on official" 162 SITA, "an official" 252 G\ "milk bucket' 155 A "water" 250 ERIMc "prisoner3- 163 A3. 'large household" 242 MA ° "string (of fruit)- 151 SU, "cap?" 233 KUfa 'half measure ol Oil" 146 J.J "? (feet) 237 ZATU753 132 PA "supervisor?" 226 su, "leather" 131 iq. "place" 229 APIN 'plow' 1 15 SAG "human" 72A mas" 'male kid" 1 15 135 This is to be noted to the curious fad thai EN is nol listed in Ihe lexical professions list lu, A, lor which see below, section 5. This might sugges" that the term is a general designation ol household administrators (compare bebw, section 5 [with n. 227-228], to II. 14-22 of the lexical list UKKIN). or thai Ihe profession list merely included those members of the administration who onswered to ihe EN. 70 GAN, 'fie'd' 114 KURo "male slave" 113 DAo '?" Ill MUSEN "bird' 110 Gl J. ox" 108 SUBUR 'pig' 106 ZATU752 "seal?" 106 SE3 'dung?" 105 Nlo "dairy oil container" 104 SIG„, "wool" 104 Another form of 'sign-crunching which might have been used lo derive statistics from the texts helpful in establishing statistically s;gnificanl sign sequences is the frequency of signs in first and last position of isolated sign combinations, the frequency of signs in a 1-2 and 1-2-3 sequence, and so on. The same grapholactic characteristics of prolo-cuneiform which moke an identification of lenguoge elements difficult, however, also hamper a necessary further e'eansing of valiants. For although sign notations follow a strict sequence insofar as numerical and object designating signs are concerned, ideograms which represent persons and administrative functions are notoriously fluid in their case positioning. This phenomenon has been noted throughout the ED II and Ilia (Fara) periods; a standardized sign sequence reflecting spoken Sumerian seems first attested in the early pre-Sargonic Lagosh period around 2500 B.C. Certain types of combinations do, nonetheless, seem to follow a prescribed sequence, at least in the Uruk III period. For instance, professional designations attested in the ED Lu2 A lis! (see below, section 5, and figure 32) invariably exhibit the sequence NAM./GAL/ENntqualifier, whereas other lists suggest that qualifiers precede inanimate object designations.136 4.3. Characteristics of the script The physical characteristics of prolo-cuneilorm signs have been discussed in earlier publications.13* 1 have staled above my conviction that with few exceptions oil proto-cuneiform signs are pictographic representations of real things. Such piclograms either took the form of a complete rendition of some object, or, using the metnod of pars pro tolo, a part of an object, most often the head of an animal or human. It seems likely that with such piclograms as SU, hand', ideographic meanings are implied which would reflect actions related lo the pictogram. The original meaning of the Sumerian composite verb su—ti, 'hand-approach' will have had no mare impact an its understanding by native speakers than the pedantic references in German middle schools lo the literal meaning of be-greilen have on students today. Thus such administrative uses of SU in archaic accounts snould be understood lo represent actions of giving and receiving; o reduplication of the sign as a global qualification of an account in such texts as MSVO 1,11 and 36, is even more suggestive of its ideographic use. 134 See , for example, the combinal ons with TUG2 ond GA'AR in ihe list 'Vessels' bebw, fig. 29, and note the consistent sequences GAlrt i JAR and JAR h TUR in the text MSVO 3, 1 1, below lig. 76. 137 See still Ihe admirable study of A. Fol ken stein, ATI! 1, 22-29, All general histories of writing hove included descriptions ol archaic signs, including recently M. Kuckenburg, Die Entslehuna von Sp-oche und Schrift. Ein kulturgeschichtlicher Uberblick (Cologne 1989); A. Robinson, The Störy of Writing (...) (london 1995), P.T. Daniels ond W. Bright (eds), The Worlds Writing Systems (New York Oxford 1996) (ond see D.O. Edzard s coniribulions '(Die) Keilschrill' in: U. Housmann [ed.], Allgemeine Grundlagen der Archäologie [...](Munich 1969) 214-221, ond in RIA 5 [Berlm 1976-80] 544-568). Texts from the lole Drill Period The Nature ol "roto-Cu'ieiform and the SLRlerion Question - The Sumerian question Remembering that to achieve the original orientation of proto-cuneiform texts we would need to rotate all figures in this contribution 90 degrees clockwise, it is not difficult to find a strong tendency on the part of the scribes to achieve a symmetrical design through the vertical (conventionally, our horizontal) ax's of most pictogroms, including the abstracted numerical signs. This is not a fortuitous development but rather is grounded in cognitive experience of the world, and may have payed a role in the entire process of abstraction which can be shown io have boon at work between the Uruk IV and III periods in Utuk. The physicol constraints on sign forms of writing on a clay surfoco using a carved stylus of wood or reed seem overemphasized, since we cannot say with certainty how scribes held either tablet or stylus. But is does seem likely that the natural tendency io inctease the speed of writing in an administrative, and not a literary context, influenced the form of pictocrcms and gave archaic cuneiform the same 'flow' in :he direction of writing - ogain, along a vertical axis - known from later cursive forms.139 Thus a simple count of heads' and 'tails' of archaic wedges will show that those impressions drawn against the flow of writing in the U'uk IV period are dropped, and often replaced in favor cf those drawn with the flow.'3' Figure 22 attempts to demonstrate some of ihe common graphic elemen's evident in the Uruk IV period which in a process of abstracting and presumably more rapid writing were altered in the following script phase. These changes range from the most obvious of, in the interest of writing economy, straightening those oblique and curved strokes which belter represented the form of pictographic referents, to simplifying physical elements in ihe heads of animals ond humans, including deleting facial contouring and eliminating eyes. Gunificcttan and cross-hatching can be standardized to a series of parallel strokes. For example, the imp-essed dots in the Uruk IV per'ad sign KASa, probably borrowed from the numerical system used to qualify barley groats (below, figure 41), fo'med parallel lines in the Uruk III period sign (see figure 22: l). Cross-halching in the Uruk IV period sign GAo, representing the matting of teed baskets, was in the Uruk III period made to conform to a vertical/horizontal pcllern (figure 22:4). Further, by the Uruk III period, sign orientation was so far standardized that variant orientalions were no longer used, including, for instance, the mirrored forms of the signs EN and MUSr Attempts by Falkenstein and Nissen to assign, using less objective criteria, certain texts to palecgrapiic subdivisions of the Uruk III period have by and large been unconvincing.1,10 I3B H.E. Brekle, 'Konventionsbosiorlo Krilerien der Buchstobenstruktur am Beispiel der Enlwicklung der kanaondisch-phoniiiscfien zur altgriechischen Schrifl," Kodikas/Code Ais Seme olica 10 {19871 229-246, hes emphasized the historicci and cognitive ifnpo'tance of vertical symmetry in early alphabetic scripts. In 'Some Thoughts on a Historico-Genetic Theo-y of the Leltershapes of our Alphabet," in: W.C. Wat: led.}. Writing Systems and Cognition [...', Neuropsychology and Cognition 6 (Dorareclit, Boston, London 1994) 129 139, the same author reminds us of the tendency of letters in the Phoenician-Greek-Raman line of script development to'look' in the direction of writing, i.e., that the ideal letter consists ol on initial vertical Followed by one or two additions in the direction of writing. 135 A. Falkenstein, ATU 1, p. 9 (with tig. 2). UD See ATU 2, 53-62, and Archaic Bookkeeping, 21-23 + figs. 24-25, with a division into Uruk 111.3-1. reflecting, but not employing the archaeological subdivisions Uruk lllc-o. The subdivisions wore Ixjsoc on few texts and on a presumed mixing in those texls of sign forms from both phases Uruk IV and III. 4.4. The Sumerian question It seems an inherently reasonable assumption that prolo cuneiform should have been invented and developed by Sumerian administrators. Despite the discontinuities obvious in the archaeological and epigraphic record of the third millennium, major architectural, artistic and administrative remains suggest thai in fact o homogeneous culture reigned in southern Mesopotamia,"11 which was transmitted to the east, Ihe north,1" and, il seems, to the south.'i3 The great preponderance of Sumerian readings of signs, both as logograms ond os syllabograms in the writing of Semitic names in the Fara period, of entire Semitic texts beginning in the Old Sumer an period (Ebb), makes it appear that the cuneiform of this period was borrowed by East Semilic Akkadians from Sumerians ond consequently that the Akkadians, os the second dominant cultural element in the Fara period, are not candidates to have been the inventors ol prclo-cuneiform.l'u Attention should also be drawn Io some tew apparent elements in archaic Drlhogrnphy which moy or may not have grammatical relevance. First, os an agglutinating language Sumerian also forms duratives and iteralives, as well as marks plurality of subject or object, by repetition of ideograms, "here are some instances of this practice in archaic accounts, including a doubling ol the signs SU and Gl, both of which according to their position in T-is is most clear with respect Io Ihe major cultural dagnostics of the lole Uruk period, namely in the conception ond realization of community buildings, in ceramic design and typology, in the production and odmimslrolive use of the cylinder seal, and in the exploitation of writing. Pbns of temples and other monumental ouildings shew a progressive development beginning in the Uboid period and continuing rhoughoul the third millennium. The same opplies lot arlistic representation in sculpture and relief, as well os in depictions on seals. Most important appears to be the continuous use of the same script as a general administrative tool, mo-eover of specific text formats, of specific numerical and mettologicol systems, and cf specific signs and sign combina'ions os stable representative devices throughout this period of over a thousand years. w Thus the long-laslmg discussion of a Sumerian expansion' in the lole Uruk period. See, lor example, G. Algaze, The Uruk Expansion: Cross-cultural Exchange in Ear'y AAesopotamiori Civilizotion," Current AnthroDology 30 J1989) 571-608: id., The Uruk World Sys'em: Trie Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesooolamian Civilization (Chicago 1993); P. Michalowski, 'Memory ond Deed: The Historiography of Ihe Polil.cai Expansion ol the Akkod Stole," in: M. Liveroni led], Akkod, The First World Empire: Sliucture, Ideology. Traditions, HANE/S 5 [Paduo 19931 69-90, esp. 72. M. Tasi, 'Fatly maritime cultures o' the Arabian Gu'l and the Indian Ocean,' in: S. Al Khalifa and M. Rice leds.j, Bahrain llnough Ihe ages: ihe Archaeology {london 19861 103; H. Mynors, 'An Examination ol Mesopolornion Ceramics Using Pedographs and Neulron Aclivolicn Analysis,' in: A. Aspinall and S. Warren (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Symposium on Archaeometry, School a! Physics ond Archaeological Sciences (Biodford 1983) 377-387. u" Note also that R.D. Biggs. OrN5 36 ■ 1967; 55-66, refutes D.O. Edzard s suggestion, Geneva n.s. 8 i I9601, 243"1, thol some nomes Itom the arclioic lexis Irom Ur, primarily of Ihe so-called 'Banana' type, con have been Semitic; they probably retlecl a non-Semitic element in the populolion. See also ihe comments of l.M. Diakonoll. VD1 84/ 2 (19631 168». Given iho high unreliability of ascribing Sumerian values to prolo-cuneilorm signs. P. Sleinkcller s p-o posed Akkadian inlerpretolions of the sign combinations rViAS.GAN, [for maslami. tins was also ihe feeling of M.W. Green, who included ihis sign combinalion os a ligolur in it.e npnlisi AIU 2| and BA DAR [for pafarru; disregarding the speculation concerning t.OUR, to. e-. duruv ol possible Semitic etymology) in BiOr 52 (1995) 695. can, based cn ihe conlexl ol the available administrative attestations [BA.DAR ,s. in (act, only lound on Ihe ED I Blau tablet OIP 104 no. 11). 1« disregarded - a simple sorting prog.om would generate hundreds of equally probable AkkcicJitm irXKWK]:, 72 Texts from (tie Lote Uruk °eriod The k'oture o- ProtoCuneilcrm and ihe Sumerian Question - The Sumerion question texts ond to their later cuneiform t-adition would seem to represent administrative functions, and specifically probably verbal actions. The counterpart to Gl mentioned above, BA, however, is never reduplicated in administrative context. A certain Sumerian bias might explain the early identification of a presumed example of Sumerian mulfivalency in the archaic scipt by the Assyriologist and Archaeologist S. Long-don.145 As excavator and epigraphis' of the first large group of archaic texts unearthed in Mesopotamia, those found at the northern mound of Jemdel Nasr, Langdon isolated among the many apparent personal designations of the Jemdel Nasr lexis the sign combinations EN E2 Tl, which he analyzed as a common Sumerian form (dJEn.lil2.ti, 'May Enlil give life'. This personal designation would share two characteristics with Sumerian prosopogrophical practice. In the first place, the name would exhibit devotion to members of the Sumerian pantheon, in which the god Enlil played the leading role. In the second, it would exhibit the feature that many Sumerian names consist of sentences with subject and predicate, or of other recognizably grammatical elements."4 A correct analysis En.lilj.ti would, moreover, provide us with clear evidence for the multivalent use of the sign ARROW in proto-cuneiform,uy namely, in that the word for 'arrow' should be a homophone of the word for 'life', 'to live'. As has been noted to distraction, this homophone construction is known onh/ in the Sumerian language. A closer look at the combination EN E2 Tl, however, makes this analysis of the name unclear, if not improbable. Of the ca. 50 attestations of the sign, Tl is found in no other cose in the archaic corpus together with a presumable divine name and in only one case of a tablet from Uruk together with EN E2 (W 17729,ee rev. i 3b)."18 This posited divine name ui Langdon was, in foot, so fixated on the Sumerian origins of Mesopotamion culture as lo venture in 'A New Factor in the Problem of Sumerian Origins," JRAS 1931. 593-596, that planoconvex builders [of the Early Dynastic I period] were a 'recrudescence of trie culturally retrograde indigenous inhabitants of South Mesopotamia," although, to the contrary, plonoconvex bricks may have been the earliest contribution of Surnerians la Mesopotamia! Ui See the introduction to H. timet, L'Anlhroponymie sumertenne [...] [Paris 1968) 61-1 12, and mate recently W. Heimpel, "Sumerische und akkadische Personennomen in Sume: und Akkod," AfO 25 11974-77) 171-174, and R.A. di Vito, Studies in Third Millennium Sumerian and Akkadian Personal Names SlPahlSM 16 (Rome 1993) 18-122. K7 The sign itself is a pictogrom o'an arrow and a bow. This would more precisely be called a paronomastic use of pictographs, since muftivalerKy is defined OS the use of o graph paronomoslicol'y and paraseman'ically (the same graph represents variable, phonetically distinct words). Only after a growing ambiguity -resulting from increased multivalency - has led fo confusion will the use of semantic and phonetic 'determinatives' be introduced, as these ore posited for the archoic writing system by some scholars (see below n. 158). ,ie A.A. Vajman, 'Die Zeichen E und LJL in den proto-sumerischen Texlen aus Djemdet Nasr," (3oM 21 (1990) 1 14-1 15 (translation of the article which appeared in Peredneazialskij sbornik 1979/3, 57-59), thus analyzed the combination EN E3 Tl either as e} en.li, "house of the god Enti,' or os e7 ebih, 'house of Ebikh'. The hypothetical divinity En.ti could be analyzed as lord (Bow and) Arrow* or os 'Lord life', Dependent on Ihe proclivity of the philologist concerned. Some support of this interpretation may be derived from a comparison of in particular entries AB ENa.TI0 in ihe Uruk III period text W 1A 355 olw. i 3 ond Em, EN0.TIo in Uruk 11 period texts from Uruk (vV 17729,ee rev. i 3b) ond Irom Jemdel Nosr ond elsewhereffor example, MSVO 1, 196obv. I 2, 212 rev. i 3a, 4o, ond MSVOa, 13 obv. ii 2, 36obv iii 6). Both ABa (later reading esj ond E2 represented households nominally headed by gods. Ebikh was 0 settlement in the northern Diyala region, thus probably in at least commercial contact with ihe region EN E, is on the other hand represented in about 30 archaic attestations, however only in texts from the northern settlement of Jemdet Nasr together with Tl.1'" MSVO 1, 196 obv. i 2 IN, EN, EJo \ MSVO 1, 212 obv. ii la IN, rKURoENJIo Ej MSVO 1, 212 rev. 3a 1N2 EJoENoTI° MSVO 1, 212 tev. i 4a IN, SAL E3VENo MSVO 1,213 obv. ii 2a IN, SAL+KUR° llu EN, Tlo MSVO 1, 213 obv. ii 3a IN, SAL+KUR" ENnTI°E,° MSVO 1, 213 obv. ii 4a IN, SAL+KUR° EN° E° Tl° MSVO 4, 13 obv. ;l 1 E,, EN Tl MSVO 4, 36 obv. iii 6 IN, EN E,. Tl 150 While it may be thai EN E3 reoresents something other lhan Ihe expected 'administrator ol the household', ils ascription to the god Enlil would appear to be excluded by the only clear lexical attestation of the sign combinalion. The Uruk III period text W 21126, the only witness containing the initial lines of the archoic city lis! (fig. 24 below),151 attests in ils around Jemder Nos-. The presumable Jemdel Nasr geographical list MSVO 1, 243 (tablet purchased by ihe trustees of Ihe Brilish Museum in 1924 Irom the Parisian deoler J.E. Gejou; see MSVO 1, p. 7) contains cbv, iii 4 an opporent reference to ihis settlement with the etitry A.A EN.TI, and the Uruk IV period acminisl-ative text W 9579,oo obv. r I contains the enlry 1NU ; PAPn Tln EN0 IDK3NA GAl0 UNUG^ with a possible ossociat on between ENTI and the Tigris IDIGNA. Note the presumable attestation of the same ploce-nome in the Abu Salabikh lisl Ol? 99, 39-43 (see 39 vi 4 // 43 vi 5). Note that ihe texl MSVO 1, 213, rep:esenls o copy ol a section of 21 2, thus reducing the number ol real olles'aliors in Jemdet Nasr to four. It is not cleor to me whethe' the use in the two MSVO 4 texts of the b-variont ol the sign E3 in this sign combinalion rellecls a scribal or regional vuiialion. See the fo lowing foo'note. 150 MSVO <5. I 3 and 36, certainty the latter ond pobably both deriving from Uqoir excavations, write the com.binoiion with the variant lotm E^ |more than two horizontal strokes inscribed in the sign). The cose belore ofcv. iii 6 of ihe later text contains the notation IN,; EN0 DARA Tl0, the sign DARA^, parallel la EJb, was used lo qualify oxen/bulls ond calves in ihe lexical lisl oTdomeslicaled animob and is believed lo represent o color designalon. See J. Krecher, "Eire unorthographische sumerische Wortliste oris Ebb,' OrAir 22 [1983) 179-189, esp. 184-185, ard note the combinations dor a,, ti ab, in line 14 oh he composition, understood by Krecher as "cow wilh dark, coo red) rib (oreo)". 5 The text was first discussed in M.W. Green, 'A Nolo on on Archaic Period Geographical List from Worko.'JNES 3611977) 293-294, wilho reading -bosed on excovotion photographs -of the second entry ol EN E?; ihis reading termed ihe basis of HJ. Nissen's short discussion of the sign combinations EN Ej /KID m "Orlsnamen in den orchoijehen Tex'en aus Uruk," OrNS 54 (1985) 228. My subsequent collation of the tob'et in the Iraq Museum, Boghdod, ()ESHO 31 [ 1988) 131 -132', and see R.J. Matthews, MSVO 2, 34,40. ondR.K, Englundand HJ. Nissen, ATU 3, 34-35, 145). showed thot the second entry consisled of ihe signs EN KID0. This correction is to be noted lo the recent comments of Th. Jacobsen, "The lil7 ol ^En-lilj,' FS Sjoberg, 267-276, to whose paleogrophical table on p. 267 the archaic form of KID0 may be appended [note thai the variant KID,, should represent some type of comestible, in parliculor os attested in the Jemdet Nosr lexis, for which see R.K. Englund ond J.-P. Gregoire, MSVO 1 S.V.; P. Slcinkcllcr's discussion ol this matter in BiOr 52 [1995] 700, is uninstruclive). Jacobsen in ihis article (p. 270. ciling the eorly opinion of A. Deimel, Pantheon 356.1b) incidentally analyzes the name Enlil again os lord wind', ogoinst current opinion thai the name represents o poputot Sumerion etymotog/ of o substrate name Ellil/lllil. whence the Akkadian ellilu, ellilulu, derived (lacobsen presumes an assimilation ol n and I took place). Note iino'ly ihot os Matthews has clreody staled in M5V0 2, 34, the elemenl KID was in Ihe Jemdel Nasr city seal imptession replaced by the sign NUN, and thai the leading of Enlil in on 74 75 Texts from the late Unjfc Period "he Nalire of Pioto-Cuneiiorm nrd 'he Sumerian Question - The Sumerian quest on second case the sign combination representing the city Nippur, which according to later tradition was written with the same signs as those representing the tutelar/ god oF that city, Enlil.152 In this and in one other probable lexical lex! dealing with opparent geographical designations,153 the second element of the sign combination was not E, but KiD , thai is, the same sign which in its later Early Dynaslic form was reserved for the position ol /lil/ in the writing of the consort of Enlil in the Sumerian pantheon, Ninlil.'5'1 A review of the attestations of this sign combination in the archaic text corpus exhibits its consistent usage h colophons and summations in a position which would make sense if it represented a geographical designation; it is attested only in texts from the northern settlement of Jemdet Ncsr, ond in these cases together with opparent designations of high officials, including a PAa KALAM (overseer of the land' ?; MSVO 1. 94 rev. i lbl), a SANGA ('exchequer' ?; AASVO I, 185 obv. i 4), and an ENo (chief administrator', corresponding to the head of administration EN of Jemdet Nasr, for which see below, sections.3.5 MSVO 1 107).'" These considerations lead me to believe that the combination ENo E!o Tlo should provisionally be left untranslated; considering that the designation seems to be of an official who stands in some relationship to counted slaves in Jemdet Nasr lexis, and -hat the pictcgram Tl represented a counted object registered also in baskets and, ol least in prolo-Elamite texts, in very large numbers, it would not be unreasonable to anticipate a meaning household ol the bows and arrows', armory' of the term. Another candidate which might represent a Sumerian rebus writing in the archaic corpus is the sign Gl. A.A. Vajman first drew attention to the fact that the sign Gl was found often in archaic texts in a context which excluded its interpretation os o representation of o reed stalk,156 but rather in which the sign must represent an administrative oclior concerned with oppcrenlfycryptrjgraphicMtfK^raphy from ihe Fara AN/dingir, GAL - EN, and NUN = e3/lil3 and, in the writing ol Ninlil, KID [M. Krebernik, Die Beschworungen aui Fara und Ebb [...], TSO 2 fHildeshcim, Zurich, New York 1 984] 279i. Whether the value /lil/ of KID, adduced by K.D. Biggs, OP 99(1974) I 1 ]' (and seejocobsen, op.cil, p. 267'| for ihe Ui III period also obtains for the Eorfy Dynaslic texts is unclear. 152 This list of city designations was copied into the Old Babylonian period, attested by Ihe text UET 7. 80 from Ur, transliterated in MSL 11,62 (the reverse face of the toblet contains o list of gods). O! the three Early Dynaslic witnesses of the same list, SF 23 and Ol' 99, 21-22, ihe fiisl text is damaged ond commences wilh ihe 5th line of the city Irs', the latfer two - both from Abu Salabikh - preserve only ifie sign E2 of the second entry, suggesting that the city name was misrepresented or reinterpreted during the preceding, ED I period. 153 The text W 20921, an unidentified list with entries containing for the most port the sign ENn together with other signs or sign combinations; obv. i 5 consists of the entry ENn KIDo, and is followed by on entry reading EN0 SURJPPAfCo. Ihis biter entry would seem to indicale on interpretation of EN_ in ihe preceding enlry os o separate logogrom - and ol KI0o as O ploce name - and may serve as a warning to remain suspicious of all readings of archoic sign eombinolions based on later tradition. ,s4 ThesignE2/lil,wci5in ihis period found In Ihe writings of En,lil, and Nippur (EN.Ill/'}, Sec R D Bioras JCS 20 (1966) 84 85, ond OIP 99 (1974) 1113, and Th. Jocobsen, FS Sjoberg, 267-276. ,i5 See also MSVO 1, 95 rev. ii 1, with a possible lime notation (3N,7 SU0 GIRT!) and a notation lepresenlinn o chief cook(ENGIZ SAGAN) Jihis text was discussed by ihe author in J. Hnyrup and P. Doineiow feds. J. Changing Views on Ancient Near Eastern Malhernolics [Berlin, forthcoming]], and MSVO 1,115 rev. ii 1, with EN KIDa in similar context. '» 'Uber die protosumerische Schrift,' AdAnlH 22 (1974| 16. the control of goods and agricultural lend. The naluial choice of interpretation would seem to be that Gl = /gi/ and thus ihe homophone of the Sumerian administrative term gii( 'to (cause to| return'. It is, however, difficult to explain the qualification with Gl and BA ol two quontities which are subsumed in a common total, since o Sumerian identification of BA as 'distribute' would result in the consolidation of entries qualified 'income' and 'expendilures'. Moreover, Gl and BA can qualify porcels of land in archaic accounts, suggesting thai both interpretations may need to be revised. Qher attempts to identify within the proto-cuneiform sign repertory phonetic elements,157 in particular phonetic indicators (signs added to indicate one -eading of an ideogram which presumably had several) derived from Sumerian have, in the aggregate, been unsuccessful.155 A soohisticoted attempt to locate Sumerian in archaic Mesopotamia derived from an analysis of oncienl numerical systems. In 1972, M. Powell first stated his conviction that since the li? J. v. Dijk, tin spdtaltbabylonischer Karalog einer Sommlung sumerisctrer Briefe,' GrNS 58 (1989) 446, suggests a reoc'-.ng po:nom,rju /soj, interpreted further as narrij-s^-po - nam sipa(d), of ihe professional designation PA.NAMj.RAD/ZA known in the herding texts edited by M.W. Green 'Animol Husbcndry at Uruk in the Arctoic Period," JNES 39 (1980] 1-35, to qualify a person responsible for accounted animals, su is believed lo be a pfousible Sumerian reading of the sign RAO (derived from sudjl.vorianl saj [ZaJ. ZA is however a different sign INUNUZ, ZA7), the author meant'a", a simplified form of RAD PA is likely the designation ol ihe administrative function of Ihe persons involved, NAM,.RAD Ihe designation of tfiei' charces. 159 M.W. Green suggested in ATU 2, p. 174, thol the sign MA together with the sign DARA3 or PIRfG represented a Sumerian phonelic determinative. Aside from the fact that 'MA' is only secondarily a Sumerian value ol the sign (reading peij, o type of fruit; o meaning ol mo' is not known), we have good reoson to believe that MA represented o noose with which the animals DARA., or PIRIG were led into captivity. The same use cf MA (the sign seems pictographically to represent the cord on which fruits were driedl is found in the sign SAG • MA lour.d in only one Uruk texl. but in a number of Jemdet Nasr occounts (MSVO 1, 212-217|. Whether the sign NA attached to URI3 represents the Sumerian moon god NANNA (p. 252, NA sirnp'ilied lo Kl in later Ircdilion'i is provisio-al on or- understanding of the meaning ol ihe sign NA. M Krebernik in OiZ B9 [1994| 3B3-384, and P. Sleinkellcr in BiOt 52 (1995) 694-695, have listed o number of other possible phonetic usages ol prolocuneilorm signs which would indicate a spoken Sumeiion at the time of earliest script development. Unfortunately, the corrtexl and continuity of cpplicalion of ihe signs ciled by both have not been suiliciently documented lo lead to ony firm conclusions cbout rheii phonetic realizations. The reading ol /am/ for AN, as a presumable phonetic indicator ol ihe sign AMA. is itsell o construe! of grammarians ol Old Sumerian texts, ond we cannot soy whether this sign mean 'mother' in the archaic lexis (nothing speoksfor this interpretation, and only Ihe form AMA^GIS + AN] survives into the ED I texts from Ur), or whether, for instance, the sign AN was rather o semantic delermi-na'ive. The same weakness applies lo the sign MEN cons-sling of EN written within GA2; heie, we should expect that if EN wos a phonelic indicator, the sign MEN should have had a leading which ol least conlaired the full form ol EN, namely /emen/. since ovei-lull phonelicisms are unlikely (cp. J. Bauer, AfO 36-3711989-90) 78) ond neither the leading emer, of MEN, nor men of EN, is attested. Of ihe long list ol certain or foirry certain phonetic indicotors given by Sleinkeller. loc.cit,, only NA in NANNA ond ZA in AZ ore not evidently ad hoc. Neither, however, would moke a cose lor Sumerian writings in ihe archaic peiiod !if I coriectly understand such statements as 'the fact that this sign [ESGAR] appears lo be o logogrom for 'female kid' is nol sufficient grounds for assigning lo it a phonetic value ..." in BiOr 52 11995| 700 to no. 149 [ond compare p. 701 lo no. 184; IAK £90 is indeed related to go.ARjl], 5leinkellci believes the majority of the Sumerian values oscribed by Greon to the proto-cuneiform sign ■cperlory m ATU 2 ara proven). I hove indicaled above (n. 147) ihol the use of semonlic and phonelic indicators shou'd follow on o lengthy development ol mullivalency. It ntoy be noted in passing thai a hornophorious relationship appears lo exist between ihe signs Zl ond Sl4 in ATU 5. pi, 35, W 9123,al. 76 77 Texts from ihe Lote Uruk Period The Na'ure of Froto-Cuneifo'rn and the Sumerian Question - The Sumerion question sexagesimal system of counting was found amply documented in the earliest texts Itom Mesopotamia, and since this numerical system was only known in Sutr.erion texts and documented as Sumerian-bound in lexical attestations of number words, the archaic script must have been invented by Sumerian-speaking scribes.15' This theory seems disclaimed both by the historical facts and by Sumerian numeracy. On the one hand, it is more likely that the Sumerian number word series originated in the inscribed sexagesimal system rather than the other way around;1*0 on the other, there is greater evidence for a vigesimal rather than a sexagesimal basis ta those Sumerian number words attested in the third millennium. 61 The strength of the assumption that Sumerians developed proto-cuneiform and that the script was used to write texts in Sumerian141 seems so imbedded that it even hampers discussions of the inadequacy of cuneiform in representing the phonetic structure of Sumerion words. Both CP. Boisson143 and, following him, M. Schrelter,w, have in recent publications '» ZA 62(1972), 172. 100 See P. Damerow and R.K. Englund, ATU 2, 150". The ollestatiors of Sumcon number words ol the series of multiples of 60, lhal is, ol 2*60 - gešj.min, 3x60 = gešjjjš, and so on. o( 10-60 - ges'u, ord of 60»ÓO = šařj, are with the exception ol attestations of the lost sign, derived not Itom third millennium, but rather horn First millennium scholastic texts, shot is, from texts posl-catina the end of the spoken Sumerian by some 1500 years. Such paradigmatic wore lists need not be unreliable, given the cxlrcmcly conservative lexical tradition in Mesopotamia, but the - understandable - lack of phonetic representations of numbers from pe'iods oi spoken Sumerion musí serve as o warning lo judge later representations with some skepticism. Even 'f the late lexical tradition were lo present a Irue reflection of Sumerian number words, those would not in and of themselves offer ony mere than passing support of the Sumerian involvement in the invention of proto-cuneifom since the a Nested word sequences could equally have arisen from the borrowing of ihe sexagesimal system from o precursor culture and ihe simple assigning of a descriptive terminology to these signs. 141 As Powell and others have slated, ihe rather well attested Sumerian number wo'd sequence befow 60 exhibits a vigesimal structure, in which u = ' 10", niš = '20', usu = 30Íušu possib'y derived from n is^ u, twenty + ten', with loss of initial n and vowel harmony of o short i with a long u; firsl proposed by A.P. Riflin in 1927, for which see \M. Diokonoff, "Some Reflections on Numerals in Sumerion [...],' JAOS 103 [1983] 85*"), nimin -- 40|*niš.min, 'two twenties1', ninnu - 50 (*nis.min.u, 'two twenties, ten], gešj = 60(possibh/ derived fromniš+eš, 'three twenties', with haplo'ogicol reduction; this term, incidentally, may have boon on early 'infinity' in Sumerian, sirce it would at the same time stand lor many twenties , the number ward ei, 'three', being a plural marker of this language. M.A. Powell, Visible language 6 [1972] 17-18s has noted, however, 'he lol'owing complications in this idenlilicolion: 1) a syncope ol /$/ is poorly attested in Sumerian orthography, and 2) lexical attestations of the number word for 20 write Nl-iš, and Nl is never used for the /a/ phoneme [some grammarians do believe Nl might be a nasalized vocalic/i/; note fvther thot it would be difficult in the proposed etymology to explain the /si/ Auslaut of the word for 60, mosl recently discussed by P. Slehkeller, 'Alleged GUR.DA - ugula-ges-da and the Reading of the Sumerian Numeral 60," ZA 69 [ 1979] 176-1 87). This vigesimal structure seems, however, entirely missing in the numerical system, in which, for instance, Ihe quantity '20' is nol represented by an independent s gn, bul rather by the simp'e ode'ition of two signs, each representing 10'. :ů2 5eealso A. Falkenstein ATU I, 37-43, and F.R. Kraus, Sumerer und Akkoder [...] (Amsterdam 1970Í 55. A. Ccrvigneaux, Técriture el la reflexion linguistique en Mésopotcmíe,* in: Auroux, S,. Mordago, P. [eds.l, Histotre des Idées Linguisliques. Vol. I: la naissance des mélalangages en Orient of en Occident [liege-Brussels 1989) 100, identifies a "good orgumenl for cllribuling lo Sumerian the edition of lexis for the period immediately following [Uruk IV) fcolled Uruk III or Jemdei Nosr, circa -3000): Iwcause they contain lisrs of words which are without doubt Sumerian, [my Ironsiotion, my emphasis]. 143 "Conlrcintes typologiques sur le sysiéme phonologique du Sumerien,' Bulletin de la Societě de Linguistique de Paris 84 (1989) 201-233; Topics in Sumerian Phonology," unpublished manuscript Itom 1991 cired by M. Schretter (see the following footnote). !4i •Sumerische Phono'ogie: Zu Konsononlenve'bindungen und Silbensttuklur,' Ada OrentoLa 54 (1993) 7-30. underscored he difficult phonological situation with respeel to the graphic realization of possible consonant clusters in inilial or final position in Sumerian words.145 We have mentioned above the major factors complicating the determination of a possible subslrale language in the archaic texts, be that Sumerian or some other language, namely, lhat bookkeeping is not language oriented, and that there appears to be no adherence to a language-bound sign sequence. Yet this apparent laxness con be demonstrated only to a cerlain extent. Number sign sequences within discrete notations ore, as might be expected, very rigid and so follow a defined numerical 'syntax'. Within text entries, moreover, ihe position of numerical notations relative to ideographic notations is (airly rigid. The remaining ideograms are presumed to represent proper nouns, above all personal designations (names and professions] and piace names or. tne one hand, one1 adminislrative functions, for instance GU? = 'rations', on the other. The need to represent personal names, and the known pattern of grammatical syntax within Sumerian names, would seem lo invest these isolatable sign combinations with particular importance. Such texts as W 23999,1 ond W 20274,2 in figure 65 below, as well as the series of lexis MSVO 1,212-214, present us with incontestable lists of personal designations, and yet the sign combinations in those text entries appear to be incompatible with Sumerian syntax and lexicon, regcrdless of the sign sequences chosen. Il may seem improbable thai a script comprising close to 900 discrete signs, used in a highly eclectic fashion, should not have included elements of multivalency comparable lo those bund in eorly Chinese ond Mayan, but more importantly in the approximately contemporaneous dacu mentation from Egypt.144 Candidates for o determinalion of a Sumerian 155 Insiead ol considering Ihe reasonable possibility thai protc-cuneifoim might hove been borrowed and nol developed by Sumerians, a hypothesis which would morn S'mply exploin the many incongruities found in the representation of Iheir language through the use of lhat wtiling system, however, Schrelter writes ihol 'Baissen counters one poss:ble argument against the assumption of consonant clusters in Sumerian, nomely that cuneiform wos developed for 5umetion and so must have been titled to the lo-.guoge, with ihe case ot the Luvan sylbbic scrip', o-d indicates lurthet thai ihe Sumerion vowels ore ceJoinly inadequately represented ..,'. Such clusters are in current grammars considered anathema lo Sumerion phonology, o v.ew based, however, largely on a non-critical analysis of a lexical Irodition founded in Old Babylonian Nippur scholoslicism. M. Civil has often, lor example, in 'Studie! on Early DyrcVic le«icos:go!iy,'OrAil 21 (19821 lOfdiscussmg /Igudr/; seealso his important survey of the presumed Sumerian syllabary in'From Enki's Headaches to Phonology,'JNES 32 [1973] 57-6!, ond "The Sumerian Wriling System; Some Problems," OrNS 42 [1973] 21-34), emphasized the very preliminary nature of our understanding of Sumerian phonology. See also G.J. Selz, AS) 17 (1995) 255n, to /dri/ etc., who presents further evidence for consonant clusters in inilial and final position in Sumerian (and cp. id., OIZ 87 ]l992] 140'°; M. Yoshikawa, BiOr45[1988| 50i;J.A. Black, RA 84 [1990] 107-1 18). ,cö The inscribed labels found in tombs in the Nile del'a settlement of Abydosond recently edited byG. Dreyer, Umrr. el-Qacb I; Das prddynaslische Königsgrab U-j und seine frühen Schriflzeugnisse, AV 86, (forthcoming), demonstrate the o'ready developed nature of this scripl. The finds have been doled lo a period of from 3350-3ICO B.C., roughly correspondir-.g to ihe Lote Uruk period IVb-a in Mesopotamia. I find the presumption of Dreyei and others of the multivalent nature of this scripl convincing, yet I must draw attention too possible chronological connection lo late Uruk developments. Il has been shown lhat many ol Ihe products togged by Ihese labels wete impotls from Palestine and Syrio, of which ot least ports were in this period m'luenced by liode ond possibly colonial contacts with southern Bobylonio, Among the cultural elements brought into Syrio during the late Uruk period wete both sealed clay envelopes and numerical tablets, indisputable adminislrative tools serving os precursors of wriling in Mesopolamio. Such so-called bills ol lading will have been understood and exploited by native Syrian traders, who in turn may have been the source of some ol the exports into Egypt. 7B exls from the Lole Uruk Period component in the earliest inscriptions must be characterized as imposing. There is no need to burden the comparatively well underslood Sumerian syllabary of the lat-er 3rd millennium lo build a list of sign combinations from the archaic material amenable to mullivolenl analysis. Texts from succeeding settlement periods in southern Mesopotamia dated lo before the inception of the Old Sumerian period of pre-Sargonic Lagash, during which a grammatically, syntactically and phonetically developed Sumerian was written, contain ample evidence of the use of cuneiform to write Sumerian. The Fara period doles some three to four hundred years after the collapse in southern Babylonia of Uruk HI. Texls from this period excavated primarily in Faro, ancient Shuruppak, and in Abu Salabtkh, exhibit the homophonic use of Sumerian words in personal names and 05 grammatical elements in verbal forms.'67 The most obvious example of the latter phenomenon is the use of ihe sign MU, Sumerian /mu/, "name", to denote a prefix mu- in finite verbs, for example, the sign combination MU DU, literally "NAME FOOT", con be demonstrated to represent the verbal chain mu.gen, "I wenl". The sign GA, Sumerian /ga/, "milk (container)", lo cile another example, is found often in Fara period lexis together wilh the sign KA, *moulh"; the combination must be understood as the verbal form du,,.ga, in which the latter phonetic element represents the syllable-final consonant oF the verb dujaj, 'to speak', combined wilh ihe independent element wilh nominating force, lhal is, /dug/ + /a/, "the spoken (thing)1. Such writings prove the use of the early script lo write Sumerian both front a phonetic as well as from a grammatical standpoint.145 A consideration of some readings of signs, finally, cou'd present alternative, but very obscure candidates for ihe language behind the archaic texts. Doubtless most Sumerobgisls have paused at such readings as /bi/ of the sign KAS and any number of oilier readings roted in Ihe course of sign acculturation . If it is unlikely that such readings reflect entirely arbitrary decisions of early scribes or scribal schools, then /bi/ should represent some object or actions related to ihe production of beer (Sumerian kas/s). The most plausible explanaiion would seem to be lhal such readings represent loans from on unknown language; put another way, bi might be the word for beer in archaic Uruk, In the same vein, we might wonder why Sumerian 'foot' is written with the sign giri3, a pidogram of an equid, and not with du, the pictogram of a foot. One possibility: /giri/ or /gri/ might be the name of an animal in a lost language, ond its pictographic representation was chosen as a rebus by ED Sumerian intruders.,(W ,t7 See the early treatment of the verbal forms from Fara by R. Jeslin, Tabletles sume.-iennes de Suruppck i... (Paris 1937) 9-14, and the current revew byM. Krebernik in In is volume. !6C h fad the period succeeding the Uruk III period alter an opparenl gap ol same 200 ynars, lepresented epigraaliically by texts an tablets found both in Urjk and, in much larger numbers, in archaic levels of Ur, seems lo contain substantial numbers of sign combinations which can be so interpre'ed. See preliminarily R.A. di Vila, Sludies in Third Millennium Sumerion and Akkadian Personal Names |... ], SlPohl SM 16 (Rome 1993) 23-24, and odd such examples as MES.PA,. DA (UET 2, p. 35, no 529, //UM.PA,.DA] MES.KUR.RA (p. 38, no. 710, sub UM.KUR.RA). I hove profitably discussed Ihe ED 1 lexis will', K. Abrohornson in Berlin. 140 Such writings as ab.sin,, 'Furrow', might represent deep loans' In'o Sumerian From o consonantally inflected archaic language, whose word for plow wos 'apin', as has been suggesied elsewhere (B. Londsberger, 'The Beginnings oF Civilization in Mesopotamia," in Three Essoys on ifie Sumerion:, SANE 1/2 [Los Angeles 1974] 10). TIih Nature of P-oto-Cuneilorm ond the Sumerian Question - The Suineiian question While these explanations mighl appear all too ad hoc, there ore a number of concrete examples from the archaic texts of signs whose pictographic referents cannot have represented the objects they denote, and so might present us with evidence for a vocabulary o) the language 'Archaic 170 The sign AB in Ms Uruk IV form (Figure 22) can scarcely represent a temple built on a high lerrace; ralher ifs graphic form seems more easiry connected to the Sumerian referent of AB, 'sea', perhaps the depiction of the Persian gulf and the large swamp of southern Babylonia. However, thejemdel Nosr texts'71 give very strong evidence for interpreting the sign to represent c [temple) household, consonant with the reading /es/ of the sign and thus explaining the confused io'entifica-ion of the pictogram. Again, the archaic sign GURUS is a clear depiction o) a sled, and appeors in ihe Uruk IV period pictogrophicolly supported by apparent wheels or al least logs. Vel the large cereal field account MSVO 1, 1 (below, figure 87) places ihis sign in clear context together with SAL, 'female s:ove, such that its interpretation as 'male slave'172 seems binding, consonant with the reading /gurus/ of the sign. I would suggest that /es/ and /gurus/ or /grus/ were homophonic words for 'sea' and 'household', ond for 'sled' and 'worker', respectively, in the posited language 'Archaic', and thai ihe rebus use of the signs (es/household, gums/ worker) was borrowed into later Sumerian. Accordingly, it would be reasonable to assume that, since only in the ED I texts (of the SIS 4-8 levels in Ur, with some further texts from Uruk and other sites) da we fird apparent evidence o' Sumerian phonetic determinatives, and [here al once in some nurtibets, the Sumeriars entered ihe southern alluvium shortly before the period represented by those levels, bringing with ihem 'he diagnoslic planoconvex brick .<■'* "° In avoidance oi the term'proto-Euphrolic', which B. Landsberger coined lo describe on important substrate language in existence prior lo the invention of wriling by Sumerians (Three Essays on ihe Sumeiians, SANE 1/2, 9-12). Another straightforward element which should enler considerations of ollernative cfoices in longuage decipherment of Ihe aichoic 'exls is cropnolactics in those sources which ofer an apparently static sequence of two ot more signs. For instance, lexical lisls discussed below, section 5, include entries of obects quolif.ed ir various ways. As a rule, when signs representing objects and athbules (colors, origins, forms, etc.) are clear, the ollribulive sign precedes ihe noun (see below, n. 349-350, lor some exomples), in contrail lo the sequence noun - attribute in Sumerion. While ihis may be orthographic convention, the regularity ol the sign sequence, which by the way olso conlrodicls lhal of the proto-Elamite lexis (see P. Damerow ond R.K. Englund, Tepe Yohyo, pp. 13-15 wilh fig. 7), is striking, and may be languege-bound. '7I SeeMSVC 1, 26, 79, etc., ond the o'leslalions logethei wilh NI.+RU (compare the exomples MSVO 1, 108, below, fig 79, and MSVO 1, 2, fig. 83). which I have posited mighl represenl the ancient name of lhol settlement, 'ri And so parallel lo KURn; see below, section 6.3.3. 173 J. Hcyiup's understanding of Sumerion os a Creole type language would be consonant wilh this view. See his 'Sumerion: the descendant of a prolo-histatical Creole? An alternative approach lo ihe 'Sumerian P'oblem",' Annoli dellTsliluto Orientale di Napok Annali del Seminorio di studi del nundo classico Sezione linguis'ico 14 (1992) 21-72. EC Lexical Texts end Archaic Schon's - Format of Ihe lexical ists 5. LEXICM TEXTS AND ARCHAIC SCHOOLS Approximately 670 of the 5820 archaic texts and text fragments unearthed in Babylonia share specific Features identifying them as lexical lists.17'' Such lists are above all recognizable by the strict and simple format of separate cases arranged inlo text columns; each cose contains an inscribed notation consisting of a sign or sign combination preceded by the numerical sign which represents the basic unit in the sexagesimal system (i.e., the sign i ,'7i according to the signlist ATU 2 = N,),174 in contrast to the great majority of administrative texts, whose individual entries contain, as a rule, numerical notations representing varying quantities of goods or measures. Further, the texts we identify as lists contain entries which with few exceptions folbw a standard sequence such that copies of the same text can be compared and fitted together to form so-called scores (German PaiUtvh. Finally, these texts from Uruk are merely the earliest witnesses of a very long scholarly tradition of copying lexical lists, apparently as part of the school curriculum of scribes. Their slavish adherence to tradition was of great importance for the reconstruction of the Uruk lexical material, since even very small tablet fragments containing some lines or even just some signs ol a particular list could be included in an archaic text score based on the correspondence of these sign sequences with those found in canonized lis1 copies from later periods in the third millennium. 5.1. FOSAAAT Of THE IEXCAI ItSTS The rigid format of tablets containing archaic lexical lists as a rule presents sufficient evidence for their categorization as such. The tablets are usually larger than administrative texts - and l7d For a discussion of the secondary find situation of nearly all archaic texts 'torn Uruk, and to my knowledge of all school texts, see above section 2 and H.J. Nissen, ATU 2, 21-51; R.K, Englund and H.J. Nissen, ATU 3, 10. See below for a discussion of the relationship between list witnesses dated lo the earliest, Uruk IV writing level, and those doled to the lokowirg Uruk III period. 175 The substonliol number of text colophons including, os a total of the tablet entries, numerical notations with two or more of the signs N34 (D>) representing "60' prove that the sign N, was understood as the basic unit'l' of ihe sexagesimal system. For a general review of the lexical tradition of the early third mil'ennium see HJ. Nissen, "Bemerkungen sur Lislenliteratur Vorda.-asiens fm 3. Jahrlausend [.,.],' in: L. Cagni (ed.), ta lingua di Ebla (Naples 1981) 90-108; id., 'Remarks on the Uruk IVa and III Forerunners." in: M. Civil (ed.|. The Series lu - so and Related Texts, MSL 12 (Rome I960) 4-9; A. Covigneau*, 'Lexrkalische Listen/ KIA 611980-83] 6C9-641 ;and most recently R.K. Englund and H.J. Nissen, ATU 3,9-37 (cl. iho comprehensive review of this volume by N. Veldhuis, BiOr 52 '1995J 433-440), 176 Only two such texts from the late Uruk period have been found outside of Uruk. L.Ch. Walelin s 1928 Jemdet Nasr campaign unearthed the fragment MSVO 1, 242 |- S. langdon, OECT 7, 194 and JSAS 1931, 842, no. 6; see OECT 7, p. Vlllfwilh a copy of ihe orchaic Itsl "Vessels'. The tablet MSVO 1, 243 (-OECT 7, 101; for both texts, see also ATU 3,66 and pits. 67,79, ondX), wilh a list of toponymy was purchased in 1924 from the Parisian antiquities deobrj.E. Gejou, who hod himself bought a group of archaic tablets including this text from the dealers Dumani Freres. This group of documents was said lo hove derived from illicit excavations in Ircq conducted befo-e 1915; see R.K. Englund ond J,-P. Gregoire, AASVO 1, p. 7. The Vessels witness is of patlicu'ar importance as our only incontrovertible evidence ol the use ol such school texts outside of Uruk, indeed well to the north close lo the large settlement Kish, from which o number of archaic administrative texts were also recovered. There con be little doubt lhal, beyond all the othar key text archives which have been suspected lo exist in unexcarated levels of Kish, large numbers of archoic texts, both administrative and lexical, remain buried. this size is also demonstrable in the case of badly damaged fragments, since therr thickness and the curvature of their preserved surfaces help to deduce their original size - and ore divided by lines drawn the length or the tablets into columns of regular size. The columns, inscribed from left to righl, are further divided into regular coses nscribed from top to bottom. An inspection of preserved tablets demonstrates that the dividing lines closing cases were drawn after completion of the individual entry. The upper dividing line of such an entry could, but need not necessarily be used as a line of orientation for the physical impression of signs, just as in later periods signs generolly 'hung' from this rafter.177 Composition of signs within cases seems for the most port, however, to have been up lo the scribe, although some effort was made to center signs or sign combinations on a vertical axis through the case. Care was taken lo justify the co'umns by inscribing one or more signs of 'he entry to the right of the case. The reverse feces of list witnesses are seldom inscribed with list entries, but rather if inscribed then usually only with a colophon which indicates wilh a sexagesimal notation the number of entries recorded on the tablet obverse, and with ideograms possibly the scribe or office responsible for the inscription. In some Few cases, tne list found on the obverse of a tablet is continued on its reverse; here, scribes followed the bookkeeping practice of administrators and turned the tablet around on its vertical axis (see figures 17 and 21 above) and continued the list in columns from left lo right.I-'B I am aware of no exception in the archaic lexical material to this rule. The individual entries of all archaic lists generally began with the sign N,, representing the basic unit" 1" of the sexagesimal numerical system.179 The actual entry consisted of one or a number ol ideographic or numerical signs representing an enclosed concept. Dependent on the nature of the list, such entries might consist of signs standing for substantives, i.e., logograms, os a rule a designation of on object; of signs standing for qualifiers, for example, definitions of physical composition referring lo colors, lo age, to size, and so on; signs presumably standing for abstracta and other specific language concepts like kin relationships, justice, piety, etc. The relative position to each other of signs in multiple sign entries-re-. membering that the numerical sign introducing the entry is alwoys the first sign in the case- is generally rigid. Fo* instance, the first nine entries of the list Lu; A all consist of a numerical i 177 See, for example, ATU 3. pi. 4. W 15895.S: pi. 47. W 15895,p+; pi. 51. W 21208,2. 178 See. lor example, ATU 3, pi. 4, W 11986,a (L, A on the obverse. Metal on the reverse foce of the tablet; in both cases, columns reading from lefl to right); pi. 23, W 9656,h (Uruk IV!); pi. 36, W 12139; pi. 39, W 21075,3; pi. 43, W 22090,2+ (note that, in accordance with administrative proclice. Ihe tablet was initially rotated around its i/erticcl oxis fo continue inscription ol individual entries, then returned to its original obverse position to be rotated around its horizontal axis lot ihe inscription of a tobfet : colophon); pi. 79, 8: MSVO 1, 243. 170 t may be noted lhal Ihe corresponding entry idenlifier in the Fara lists was Ihe sign Nu(!".') representing '60", that is, ihe same oblique impression, bul mode wilh a rounded end of a lorge stylus. Both signs correspond lo the vertical wedge 1 representing "I" in enliies ol ihe lexical lists of Ihe second ond first millennium, ond were in all cases simply visual and memory oids in counting ihe number of lines inscribed on tablets so as lo be able to collate line totals on original and copies. The same means of rechecking line numbers ore often found on table's containing literary texts, wilh, fot example, o check mork impressed before every tenth line. a: S3 Texts from the Late Uruk Period ■exicrjl Tex's and Archaic Schools - Use nf later lists sign representing " I", followed by two ideograms representing the designation of a profession in the archaic Uruk administration.180 The first of these ideograms, either GALa ot NAM,,131 seems to represent a qualifier of the second sign cesignaiing an office. No Uruk III period writing of ihese lines - on average over twenty witnesses per line - devioted from the sequence NAM, SIGN,182 suggesting either that writing conventions dictated specific sign sequences in defined environments, or that the signs represent the sequence of words or concepts in a spoken language. It was above all ihe lablel formats and the evident copying of these texts which led A. Dei me I in his initial publication of the Fara texts to identify ihem as 'school texts,"'83 akin to the writing exercises and text copies well attested in later periods. Practice exercises ore found among the archaic texts (figure 23); they are, however, rare. The large majority of lexical list witnesses appear to be ihe result of a practiced hand, and few examples are know of sections of lists either or small tablets, or inscribed together on larger tablets. -co- figure 23: Arcaic scribal exercises The 1e*' to the left seems to contain otempls ot o student to copy various signs, the text to the right doodles based on ihe sign T1Q j— the Uruk IV period with relative certainly. m Only ihe 'Tribute' list attested in 55 tablets and fragments was lecoveied in compaiable numbers. Iw If is still difficult lo judge the curricu um of ptolo-EWile schools, We have slated that no texts have been discovered in Elamile excavations which bear even superficial resemblance to ihe lexical testis Írom Mesopotamia. The characteristics we mighl expect, wíthoul being able lo decipher the meanings of ihe signs attested, would be a rigid format of coses, inscriptions which did not include numerical notations, some common denominator of the ideographic notations which could be documen'ed in Ihe piOtO-Elarnile administrative archive, and above ell multiple copies of the same pesscges, indicating lhat one text had assumed a 'school funciion". Thus the instruction in the use of ihe early Persian script must have involved writing practice accounts or tablets containing repeated od ministra live entries, ond we do have evidence cl this practice. The large account MDP 26, 362, seems 'o represent on ollernpl to document the use of all known numerical signs in ihe prolo-Flamitc capacity system, and contains no ideographic notations which would idenlify on cdminisiralive funciion of the label. Texls such as MDP 17, 32B, on the olher hand, seem lo represent simpe 'exercises'. 5ee P. Domerow and RX. Englund, Tepe Yahyo, 18-20, and in particular ihe fwo volumes cited there, J. Friberg, ERBM HI. 86 \ 67 Texls from the jate Urui Period Lexical Terfls and Arcnoic Schools - Development of lists during tlie lule Uiuk Period Pniod: (sIh) Unjk IV-lll |Uruk) Total Name: lu3 A(nomeiao) IS5 Ivj E 'J" 1 : Vmdi 91 Tribute 56 utukin (Jemojl Naif] Wood Gallic A Coltlf B CffnuolsA CF : ols E Cfkids B Rili Ciinj Gcogr. Groin 3ird> Vocobulory UniderJitied Godliils FbJa Monolingual A/Yithcmotical Ehh Vocabulary [S!s.txjr kinj 3D 2i 158 22 2B 2 70 4 22 I 22 21 1 17 1 13 3 12 12 9 1 8 4 2 5 2 2 11 11 125 125 W 20713.) ? MSVO 1. 242 MSVO I. 243 ED Uri U:T2. 14. 264. 799301 JET ?. 204 UET 2. 105 '■ (W.G. Inmberl. ASJ 3. 34) ED la Sf 33 35, 75-76. W 12466 SF 64 Sf 12. 13 . ISS 264 - sr 68. M it 61 - sr 59 St 59 5' 9.1 ST 73 24 Sf 1517 Sr 5B, 67 . NISS 1?3 SI 17. 53 24 ED Ilk) >Ab, soiobkh) OIP 99 1-3 483. 487 OIP99. 54.56. 55. 57-60 OP 93. A, 79 OIP 99, 402. 459, in OP 99. 13-7 -OIP 99. 18-20 OIP 99. 25-27 OIP 99. 10-12 OIP 99, 21-22 - OIP 99. 91-1 11 OIP 99, 5,6 ED :iid (Ebb) WEE 3. I, 2-5. 3.4 M.EE 3. 6-1 1 MEE 3, 26-76 MEE 3. 12-17, 62 liyllabic) MEE 3. 21-25 - MEE 3. 50 MEE 3, 50 MEE 3.43 MEE 3. 27-38, 64- [syBabic) - O.NS 47. SON. (All. gsogr I WE 3.48)49, 63 (syllabic), ABET 5.23 MEE 3. 39. (40| OP 99. 23.24 30', 402,412,436 OIP TO. B2-TO Et> lltb (Girsv. Nipaurl DP 337 ECTJ 220 Ctd AJtkadKin ZA29. 79, OSP 1. U:VOS 1. 12, MDP 14, 8B MAD 5, 35 HSS 10, 22! MVN 3, 1 5 FT !. pi. 44 Speleeij, RIAA 46: CBS 14182, Ni 5034, A 3670 MEE 3. 44.46. 53 MEE 4. 780-615 |W.G tambnil, Bilinguismo 39311\ MEE 3. 51-52 MEE 3. 54(1-101. 73 MEE 4, pgnirn MO"1 18. 2 I; MDP 27, 196 Fales/Krispijn, JECX 26, 39J6 6 NT 676 Gurney, Iraq 31 3-7 6 NT 677-6B0 Old Etobylooior SLT 42 » Ni 1597 cf MSI 5, o?n. d MSI 12. 9.10 UET 7, 80 [MSI 11, 62| in 2. 5898 * 5, 9251:6NT681 9 US2 KUi,, RAD0 ^—^-j |~ w 20200,74 00104 UR; KU&, RADa CilieslO SVA.RAft, imU]j|g^|~ w 20266,74 OO105 SIMq RAD0 92 93 Texls Írom he Late LW< Period Isiical Texts ona Archoc Schools - Ihe lisls An extraordinary seal impression found on a large number of texts from Jemdet Nasr and discussed in detoi. :n a recent publication by RJ. Matthews/00 however, could speak for a political or economic meaning in ihe list, reflecting a 'league of cities'. The first and fourth entries in this city seal parallel those of the lexical series, however the second and ihird are reversed. The sign combination EN NUN seems in the city seel to correspond to the combination ENo KIDo in the lexical list. Another eleven texts can be identified as compendia of geographical names based primarily on parallels in texts from Abu Salabikh and Ebla,201 however without in oil cases forming scores which might indicate a real lexical tradition.70' 5.4.2. Animals Four of the lexical lists first composed in the archaic period are compendia of domesticated and other animals which were exploited in southern Mesopotamia, including large cattle,"33 pigs, fish and birds. The first of these lists deals with oxen (GUj, cows (AB2), calves (AMAR; and possibly, wild bulls.204 Each section of the list consists of entries representing the respective animals and a static sequence of signs which apparently qualify the animals as to their age, color, etc. A second compiles sign combinations representing fish, their forms of preservation and probably methods of preparation, as well as descriptions of fishing gear and means of transportation.205 Fish were as a rule represented either with the sign KU^ (a piclogram of the fish, see below, section 6.3.1} or the sign SUHUR (a pictogram of a split and dried fish wilh its head removed). Birds are described in a third list of animals106 Two texts, of which one is completely preserved,507 contain in 58 entries'08 a list of pigs (ŠUBUR).2!W 100 MSVO 2, in particular pp. 29-36. »1 Sec MEE 3, pp. 227-241; OIP 99, nos. 39-12. 202 The large text W 20266,3 must derive from a standardized composition, since two further fragments [W 20266,146 and 147] contain entries running parallel 10 three lines in the larger text. See ATU 3, 150-151, 161, and pi. 79. For a survey of Ihe geog raph icol n ames fou nd i n admin i stra live docu mení s see Hj. Ňisscn, O.-NS 54 (1985) 226-233. 203 The exclusion of the much more important sma'l cattle in our witnesses is incomprehensible ond presumably a consequence of the fortunes of excavotion. The prolc-cuneiform signs which represent small and large collie in the lists and administrative texts arc offcreo in fig. 51 below. 5(14 See ATU 3, 22, 89-93, and the ED witnesses SF 81; OIP 99. nos. 25-27; MEE 3, nos. 12-17, pp. 47-50 and the syllable version MCE 3, no. 62, pp. 251 -252, edited by ThJ.H. Krispijn, JEOl 27 11981-82) 47-53, and J. Krecher, OrAnl 22 11983> 179-189. 205 See ATU 3, 22, 93-98, the ED I witness from Ur UET 2, 234, and Ihe ED HI witnesses SF 9-11; OIP 99. nos. 10-12; MEE 3, nas. 27-38, pp. 91-104; an edition of Ur III witnesses of the same lisljoN-T 677-680) is in preparation byM. Civil. Although Hh 1 8 begins wilh the same sign suhui, it bos tittle else in common wilh the archaic list. See ATU 3, 22, 98-100, and the ED II witnesses SF 58; MEE 3. no. 39, p. 105-118; o preliminary edition of Úr III witnesses of ihe same list (6N-T 681+ 6N-T 689 ond ITT II, 5898 -r ITT V, 9251j has been offered byG. Pettinoto, OtAnt !7(I978| 165-178 (cf, M. Civil, MEE 3 11981 ] 275-277). See below, fig. 63. 708 Documented by a numerical notation 5Nla 8N, along the left edge of the lexl W12139, in lull correspondence with the number of coses on the toblet. 2» SeeATU3,22-23, 100-103, P. DamerowandR.fi. Englund, ATU 2, 146'7*, S.K. Englund. JCSHO 31 94 5.4.3. Plants and manufactured products A list of trees and wooden objects (see ligure 28) is only in its first 40 lines a standardized composition ond was not canonized in later cuneiform tradition210; these first lines apparently lisl the designations of trees, and the larger, but uncanonized second section deals with wooden objects. The sign GIS in nearly all entries, apparently a piclogram of a simple planed piece of wood, seems to fulfill the function in this list of a semantic indicator, since some witnesses dispense with its inclusion in the individual entries. A very poorly preserved second list in this group contains designations of plants and of a variety of other objects, including time designations, and might represenl some sort of agricultural manual.2:1 A third list (figure 29), one of the best represented of all archaic lexical compositions, contains three sections. The first (II. 1-62) consists of involved designations of vessels represented by pictograms, o long series of which is qualified by various signs inscribed within a vessel graph, the second (II. 63-84) of sign combinations which represent prepcred foods, including apparent soups, porridges, ond cheeses, and the third (II. 85ff.) of designations of presumable textiles.2'3 The pictograms of vessels in the first section of the list were drawn from an administrative repertory of impressive complexity213 Scribes differentiated vessels for apparent semliquids from ihose for liquids through the addition to the pictogram of a clay jar of a stroke which represented a spout.'1'1 It would appear lhat the first section of the list Vessels' dealt with containers o'r dairy products,2,i presumably oils, some of which were mixed with a variety of condiments and 'he like. Since most of these latter products, represented by the sign DUGb and on inscribed sign which qualified the dairy product in the vessel, were not attested in the administrative texts, it is likely that iheir appearance only in lexical context was a matter of paradigmatic completeness, i.e., that the composers of this list included all products 11988) 147-148'"", ond below, n. 397. 2,0 See ATU 3. 23-25, 103-1 12, 154-159, and the ED III witnesses 5F 68 and CHP 99, nos. 18-20, ond compore ihe forerunner lexl of Hh 3 jMSl 5, pp. 83-142], wilh a similor distribution of designalions of trees and wooden objecls. 211 SeeATU3,29, 120-122, and the ED Ilia witnesses SF 58 (with 'Planls' in i 1 -vi 10,'Birds' invt 11H.J, 67 r NTSS 123 (phato join by A. Westenholz, 05P 2, p. 8982); OIP 99, nos. 23+24, 301, 402 I?). 4 I 7 and 436; on edition of on Ur III wilness of the same list (6N-T 933) is in preparolion by M. Civil. Cp. also the Old Babylonion text M. Civil ondR.D, Biggs, RA 60 (1966) 8-11, CBS 7094 (p. 9, fig, 2] For lines 1 1-20 [lime notations), see R.K. Englund, JESHO 31 (1988) 164-168. 212 See ATU 3, 29-32, 123-134, and the ED lib witnesses Sc 64 ond OIP 99, nos. 4, 7-9. This is the only canonized list ol the Uruk III period found in o witness ojtside cf UruL The Jemdet Nasr lablei MSVO I, 242, contains ihe first 65 enlries of Ihe lisl end proves thai the lexical tradition reached into notthern Bobylonio. ;l- See below, section 6.3.2. !" See lig. 22:1. The sign designated 0UGo [and its derived correspondent sign KASj was ihe only form used for 'beer' ,or, as has been recently suggested, o drink akrn to kvass); DUGb° , wilhoul a spoul, represented vessels for doity poducls, above all butter oil. The sign Nl in the lirstfine ol the list is of unclear pictographic meaning, but probobty represented a conicol vessel with a lid. 211 5ec Ihe cursory treatment of these products in R.K, Englund, Archaic Dairy Metrology' Iraq 53 [ 19911 ^°mc CA',^dJ'!?^'^e'0i> fo' b'e' pe"ods' 'Re3u!o,i"9 DoitY Productivity in ihe Ut 111 Period,' OiNS 64 (1995) 377-429. 95 Texts (rem the Lois Uiuk Period Lexical TexJs end Archaic Schools - The Inh fe=@ Figure 28: The "Wood List' W 20327,2 (shaded areas teconslruc'ed) mm ' =0 *© *=> eO ® ^ 6f> »3 rr^> ^ E® »=> rz^> #1® !=> r=^> •1® IBB O !^|> •1® cx ^HH ir=> rrf^> 't^JI c$> Bill ' ~ Hill IK •NX! • ^ r> <^ MD)tX © © HlUXI rr§> j|§§l§ I^e=© .= rr^ iSS .=(> g ^> llll r^_© i= (S © Cf> Sill ■it • - rr^> iilil »m^I1)© fMli Figure 29: Compasile copy of the lexical lisl Vessels" Texts from the lete U.uk Period Lexical Texts ond Arcfoic Schools - The lists which might imaginably hove beer stored, but which not necessary were ever really in vessels, at least not in vessels which were the concern of the central households documented in the archaic lexis. Following the section on vessels and products kept in vessels are five entries describing an apparent foodstuff, possibly soups or stews, ond then fifteen entries representing variously prepared cheeses.214 The regular inclusion of the signs TUG^ and TUG^gunu, pictagrams of tied bolts of cloth, characterizes the third section of this list. Both signs are in series qualified by further signs, for example in the lines 91-98 with the signs Uir Gls, Gl and NEo, which represent the colors 'white, 'black', 'yellow1, and 'red'. Another well preserved list, the fourth of this group, contains signs and sign combinations which represent such objects made of metal as vessels, knives (the sign GIRj and tools (among others the sign NAGAE, 'bit').217 The witness W 22104,0 demonstrates that after ihe lisl of mela! objecls a list of stone objects in the form of beads, designated by the sign NUNUZnl, was appended. This section contains the earliest cleor attestation of the mineral lapis lazuli, written NUNUZ,, KURo ('beads of the mountain [or 'man-beads'] ?', approx. Sumerian za7.gin3).2,a. A fifth list of products contains designations of apparent grain measures ond grain products.2"3 Unfortunately, the firsl lines of this lisl are so poorly preserved and ihe Fara period correspondences so irregular that we are unable to make clear sense of their meaning, l! is at least obvious that this part of the lisl offers a series of numerical notations which represent increasingly large measures of grain.220 216 The sign GA'AR0|, corresponds to the ED sign LAK490, and the neo-Sumerian combination go HAR/ UDgunO. Cp. P. Damerowand ft.K. Englund, ATU 2, \52"; R.K. Englund, OrNS 64 (19951 38 j ond 385 (ct least the Ur III correspondence of archaic GA'AR has been shown lo be a dried end mce or less fat-free cheese prized in simple herding societies lor Ms high pro'ein level and low spoilage! 217 See ATU 3, 32-34, 134-141, and the ED II! witnesses SF 8 and 9; OIP 99, r.os. 13-17;MEE3 nas 26+76, S. 73-76 ond 275; CBS 14182 (identified by A. Westenholz), N 5034, A 3670 (identified by M. Civil) ond L. Speleers, R1AA 46; and the Old Akkadian1 text O.E. Gurney, Iraq 31 (19691 3-7 *■ p| I, Ashm. 1931-128. Since, unlike ihe list ol trees and wooden objects, ihis list did not contain a general introduction wilh designations al metals, all objects which were not specifically so qualiliod were probably made ol copper, A series of objecls a re qualified wilh the sign AN, probably denoting an olloy combining copper and another metal (lin'; see H. Waetzoldt, In; L. Cogni [ed.], la lingua di Ebb [Naples 1981] 373-378; improbably 'iron', suggested by A.A. Vajman, "Eisen In Sumer," AfO Berh, 19 [ 1982] 33-37}, 211 Cp. ihe Uruk III period (temple?-jinvenlory A. Cavigneaux, BaM 22 (1991) 88 W 24008 8 ii 6-9 21« See ATU 3, 34-35, 142-145, ihe ED Wo witnesses SF 15-17; OIP 99, nos, 5-6; MEE 3, nos. 48 • 49 pp. 165-168, and a syllabic version MEE 3, no. 63, pp. 252-253 (edited by M Civil OrAnl 21 11982) 1-26; cf. id., ZA74 [1984] 161-163), ard the Old Akkadian lexlsMD? 18. 71 on'dMDP27 196. 220 Whether ihe text W 15895,y really belongs here (see ATU 3, 142) is a maltei ol debate. At lean the witness W 21208,8+ seems to offer a dean progression of [i-]5N. followed by NM. The sign KUR qualifying measures rep'esenled by in this text is curious; il might denote a small mound' o* grain al have some olhe- semanlic or phonetic (/kur/ for /gur/ 8) meaning. OS 5.4.4. Literaluie An archaic lexical list of 94 lines (see figure 30) contains the earliest work of written literature on ea'lh.221 Ths crchaic composition, derived entirely from 57 witnesses of Uruk III period date and redacted down through the Old Babylonian period, derives its current name 'Tribute List' from additions to the text made in the Fora and the Old Bobylonian periods which describe as 'tribute' (Sumerian gun?) commodities listed in foregoing sections. ™ This text has very little in common wilh other lists, which are characterized by their formal and simple division into entries introduced by the numerical sign N,, by their semantically arranged contents - compositions of animals and animal producls, ol trees and wooden objects, etc. - in contrast to the highly complex Format of ndminislrotive texts consisting for the mosl pari of numerical notations representing commodities of varying size interspersed with hierarchically placed general qualifications. 'Tribute' in fact combines both, with blocks ol quantitative entries consisting of numerical notations and signs or sign combinalions representing animals, animal products and other commodities, preceded and followed by shorter sections cons:slinc ol apparent ideographic notations. These latter entries and all entries of the second half of the text are, like any other lexical list, introduced by the numerical sign N,, ond the many copies of the composition place it firmly in the lexical tradition. Although the text is, despite the existence of redacted copies from later periods, including a version from Old Bobylonian Nippur223, poorly underslood, the internal slruclure, in particular of the first half of the text, lines 1-58 in the archaic version, strongly suggests thai il is a literary composilion. After an introductory two-line section with ideographic notations (disregarding the entry-qualifying numerical sign N,J, the text contains a series of entries (lines 3-26; consisting of numerical notations and ideograms qualifying numbers and measures of Babylonian producls and domestic and wild animals. A following four-line section consists of, again, only ideographic notations, fines 31 -58 repeat line for line the earlier section of numericol notations and ideograms; this passage repetition would reflect o common rhetorical technique in the oral traditions of folklore, very broadly employed in Mesopolamian literature,224 and so be a strong indication lhal Ihe lext is an example of early literature. 221 See ATU 3, 25-29, 112-120, ihe ED Ilia witnesses SF 12; TSS 264 + SF 13; OIP 99, nos. 402 (but possifcJ/containing the beginning of ihe lisl'Plants'), 459 and 465; MEE 3, no. 47, pp. 153-154; MVN 3, 15; on edition ol on Ur III wilnessof the same list (6N-T676) is in preporolion by M. Civil, and cp, the Old Babyloniun version SLT 42 i Ni 1597 and ihe remarks byM. Civil and R.D. Biggs, RA 60 (1966) 11. J.G. Westenbolz plans lo publish forthcoming o commentary of his list. 222 After the lines 30 ond 58 was insetted sa3 nam.gun? sum (only in the Old Babylonian vctsion), after line 72 SO] gun? g\a (Eorly Dynastic) oi so3 gunj.bi nom.gi, (Old Babylonian j. Unfcrlunalety, even these later oc'di';ons remain ambiguous; we might hazard translations giving [i.e., imposing) cs tribute' and 'brought in as tribute', respectively, of Ihe two insertions (compare the latter insertion lo ihe introductory lines 5-7 [sa3 (dEn.lilJ.la3| guj.bi nom.gijof Cylinder A o!Gudea[D.O. Edzord, forthcoming, //Enki and the World Order 445-446, C.A. 3enilo, 'Enki ond Ninmoh' and 'Enki and ihe World Order" UPenn disseitalion, 1969. 113, II. 446-447'). 223 See obove, n. 221. 224 The Shulgi hymns, for example, com-non fy contain a long passage wilh a proclomotion of ihe heroic ocls the king would perform, followed by a more or less word for word repetition ol the description of these acts. The Tribute' lisl will have been based on a similai play of events: perhaps o lisl of goods de'monded 9? i Texts From she Late Urul Period Ü © s. - 3s> • ♦ ü ^ • @ if @ •=> ©@> §g © • (> • n if © • Efco i=> -fo oil* • © s+a • n • ffr^T • to o -fO • (TOTTI fllll ID bp ^ • # 1=1 • ik i^rj l.l**8> • # 1 *=>&© - D >=> ^ be © • o 1^3 1=1 Moreover, the first section of the text con plausibly be interpreted lo be conform with later traditions of literary irtroductior.s.225 and received. The notations II. 27-30 // 55-58 (15,/SAHAR / NAR / UB SA,a / GAR], albeit not understood, must ha>/e included the description of what was to happen wilh the goods listed, lines corresponding to ihese from later periods remain, unfortunately, difficult lo interpret (IS / NAR / GAR / URI IS SA5 [ED] and IS / NAR / GAR / URI.RI IS X [Old Babylonian!). See C Wllda, FSJacobsen. AS 20 (Chicago 1976} 212-13, for a concise description of the 'epic repetition" in Sumerian literature. 'ni The signs Ua in both cases might represent temporalis elements meaning 'When The sign AD, of the archaic version, I. 1, corresponds in the Fara version to ad.gi^. perhaps "counsel(er}'; the moaning of the combination Kl0 SAG is unclear. In '.. 2, the combination AD HAL could refer lo the correspondence piristu from later tradition, meaning 'secret', as J.G. Weslenholz, op.clt., suspects; ABRIG would in this vein refer lo the lemple administrator abarakkum, who was entrusted wilh these 'secrets'. Compare also the Akkadian Gilgomesh epic, tablet XI 9-10: tupleka dGilgamei omol nisirli u pitata io ibni koio ^fcaSolsec mos> recently S.B. Noegel, ASJ 16 11994] 307). Lexicul Texis and Archnic Schools - Ihe lists Tubule 1-2 Tribute 3-30 If ® i ® If o • n "rb'-i 3 I-.'.2 w ® • n • So Figure 30: Composite copy cl the lexical list Tribute' [on pace 100) and internal structure oflinos 1-5B 11 hX' re # • (> taf « [_t=> -to • a |= g>» 100 I 01 lexfs from rhe Late Uruk Period Lraccol Texts and Archaic Schools - The lists Signs for remple households: 1 Emblem involved; ft UM3o t'/US], .' INANNA I" Moled signs: NUNC MANMA0 Figure 3 1: Signs representing archaic lemple households Overview of signs representing probable te-npfe househo'ds in texts from orchoic Uruk (all signs hove been rotated 90* clockwise to demonstrate their original pictogrophic position). The section following line 58 contains rotations with ideograms whose meaning is unclear. Such repetitions of certain sign combinations as Gl, Gl Zlo, Gl Zlo SE., in lines 64-66 or EN SEj, ENo SE3 Zlo in lines 68-69, none of which are attested as personal names or object designations, suggest that the text continues with literary narratives. 'Tribute' thus assumes the role as best candidate fo' o literary piece hidden among the many archaic lexical texts; it remains a matter of speculation why, given Ihe very strong impac' the Surr.erian pantheon exercised on scribal choice of literary and lexical themes of the Fora period, we have no evidence of gods in the archaic lexical tradition, let alone in possible literary compositions. Certainly numerous signs and sign combinations are known in the archaic material that correspond lo later divine names in the Sumerian panlheon, some of which combined with a sign representing a community building to stand forapparenl temple households [see figure 31)™; the discrepancy in treatment of the referents behind these signs might, again, be the result of the vagaries of excavation, but might also point lo a substantially different system, or level, of religious belief. 7ia See K. Szarzynska, 'Some of the oldest cult symbols in orchoic Uruk,' JEOl 30 (19B7-86) 3-? I cp further A. Polken stein, ATU 1, pp. 58-60, E. Heinrich, Schilf und Lehm. Ein üoilrag zur Baugcschichle der Sumerer, Studien zur Bauforschung öjBerlin 1934) 1-13- pits. 1-6; id., Bauwetke in der altsumerischen Bildkuri5t (Wiesbaden 1957) 1 1-38 i"Bauwerke in ländlicher Umgebung'); id., Die Tempel und Heiliglü-mer irr. ollen Mesopotamien [..,] (Berlin 1982) 6-7 with figs. 15-18; and, For o detailed current treatment ol an archaic toponym iconography often based on cult symbols, RJ. Matthews, MSVO 7. 5.4.5. Persons The first of Iwo lists containing designations of persons consists of an apparent mix of personal and professional names."7 An underlying structure or purpose in the composition is not obvious. After a section of 22 lines of which the first contained the sign UKKINa [a vessel for dairy oil, in o transferred meaning referring to an official) and including subsudions possibly based on sign associction (in particular lines 14 22, all with the exception of 19 including the sign ENo538), this list contains o number of entries corresponding to the first entries from the much better attested second list of pe'sonal designations. Cerla i n ly 1 he most popu la r of the I ists f rom ths a rcha ic period is the com pend i u m of desig nations oF professions found in this so-called Lu? A32° list (see figure 32). The 185 tablets and fragments currently known to contain witnesses of this list are rivaled only by the 91 texts with witnesses of the list with designations o'' agricultural products {'Vessels'). The complete composition must have numbered some 140 entries, of which over 130 are preserved in the archaic witnesses now available."0 The numerous witnesses of the list from the Fara period and later demonstrate that the list was a central text in the scholarly tradition of the later third millennium, and although it consisted for the most pari of professional designations no longer current, the sequence of signs was strictly adhered lo. A simple comparison of the first entries of both archaic and ED Ilia versions (figure 33) unde-scores the importance of these compositions in determin ng exoct sign correspondences and in charting po'eographical development in the first half ol the third millennium. Indeed, this list more than others with its nearly complete Uruk IV period forerunner text7'11 hos been a substantial aid in anchoring a number of signs from the earliest writing phase into an otherwise well known, but heretofore poorly documented, paleography of third millennium cuneiform (for some examples see Figure 34"7). "7 See A1U 3, 19-22, 86-89, and the ED III witnesses SF 59 and MEE 3, no. 50. Related lists are known, see OIP 99, nos. 37. 62-71, MEE 3, no. 43, A. Archi, SEb 4 (1981) 177-204, id., RA 78 (l984| 171-174, F.M. FalesuridTh.J.H. Kr i spi jn, J EO126(1979-80) 39-46; SF 28, 29, 44, 63, F. Pompon to, JAOS 104(1984) 553-55B. m Cp. Ihejemdet Nasr administrative text MSVO 1, 112, with entries of personal designations in the some sequer-ce os the lines 16ff. of this list. JW See ATU 3, 14-19, 69-86, end the edition by E. Arcari, lo lisla di profession Early Dynastic IUA" (...) (Nop'es 1982), based on G. Petlinoto, MEE 3 (1981) 3-25 (coxpare her "Sillcbario di Ebb e ED LU A: Rappa-li mlercorrenii Ira le due lisle,'Or Ant 22 j 1 "583 167-178). The r.ame derives from ihe Sumerran designotion for 'man', lu,, which was ihe first element in o lexical list from loler scribal tradition known os Itjj =- so, lu, - (that one) which , The vcrious compendia dealing with ihis topic known to members ol the project Materials lor a Sumerian Dictionary were listed in o presumably chronologicol sequence and named (so lar) lu, A through e. ™ The exact length of lu, A remains uncertain. The colophon ' 1 Nj/" ( ] on the reverse surface of ihe witness W 20517,2a i proves (hot the list contained 60+ lines, and the best preserved tablet W 20266,1 contained from 90-1 CO entries. ATU 3, pi. 23 (and l), W 9656,h (1; see ATU 5. p. 49). Anollier lout fragments from ihe lu, A list dale lo the Uruk IV period. The five Uruk IV wilnesses do nol give us sufficient material to build o canonical version lor the period, and W 9656,h 1, deviates substantially from the canonical Uruk III period, so that it would still oppcar thai no orchoic lists were completely slondordized before Uruk III. As on exception, the original orientation of ihe signs is kepi in this figure in order to better follow the development from piclogiom lo abstract sign 102 103 Texts from the lole Uruk Ptriod '■- HI ^=40 - go- ,-,=l_ w =1 ilk -g § r-,KI W ~ g £3 ij purni € ■KM-if-^— -I ^ - I C 1' Eh • • ^g ^2 «=» 'i € •■=0 t- «&- '--si ''-eH @ '< • rt- Hf- [> p(prrn v— ' nH|§ l-^LXI (— X>--~ • m-o '5™? |;>*i»-r-| 1=^) '-«-ft * Eh- Hn §s ■=§-0 , =, m Figure 32: Composite drowing of the crchaic lexical list [j7 A Despite the fact that it has not been possible, based on the large numbers of administrative documents, to clearly understand the function of the professions represented in these entries still considering the formal structure of the list we can moke some general comments about such designations. H J. Nissen has in various publications, beginning with his contribution to Figure 33: The first lines of the list Lu? A A comparison of parallel lists from the Icle Uruk (left column) and the Faro (right column) periods established numerous sign correspondences Sell x;ls - The lisls 3000 BC 260O B.C. 1 2 3 Et A § g S 8 5 0 7 W B 9 10 i 1 II iH-< n rsm 14 PH> s- > 15 16 a preliminary edition of the Lu; lisl,!!3 defended the theory that this list reflects in its internal structure the administrative hierarchy of orchaic Uruk. Accordingly, the firsl entry in the list NAMES DA should represent the highest-ranking official in I he administration of that city. While it is true that a much later lexical text offers a correspondence NAMESDA = Akkadian sorru, 'king',"" ihe designation NAMESDA cannot in the archaic lexfs be shown to have qualified a substantial office. Nonetheless, ihe first twenty entries of the list include sign combinations on the whole well attested in texts from Uruk. In particular the former Erlenmeyer collection contains extraordinarily well preserved accounts with clear evidence of the high rank enjoyed by those persons or MSI 12, pp. 4-8. ™ MSI 12, p. 93. 104 105 Tcxls from ihe Late Uruk Period Lexical Texts and Archaic Schools - Learning bookkeeping Uruk IV ca. 3200 Uruk III CO. 3000 EC III co 2400 oil co. 2003 Bobyicnion co. 1700 MfcJdh .Assyrian co. 1200 co 600 rwoning of Q'choic sign 1 Ä I ■SC, tffcf SAG >oad" V N'JNDA "ralic*' 1 €^ to OU/ "dlltXrlifrTHTnl" <> c AB? co*" hfl AHN ^ijw' <@> m are to the contrary lo be understood as simple voriations of o given account template and thai alt three are copying exercises.230 Two other school accounts may be cited as particularly involved ol the level of bookkeeping procedures. The firsl, MSVO 3, 2,wowill be dealt with below, section 6.3.4 (and see figure 77). The fact again that no ideograms in this text iden'ify ils purpose or ihe persons involved is evidence lhat ihe text served in the accounting office to record both accounting formats and important conversion values in dealing with grain products. The second text, "he reverse loce of W 10416,a (ATU 7, forthcoming; the tablet is currenlfy on display in the Museum fiir Vor- und Fruhgeschichle, Berlin-ChorloHenburg) rrighl represent a copy ol the inscription on its obverse face. It is impossible to say whether the known account duplicates W 20274,33-89 [see R.K. Enclund, BSA 8 j 1995] 41-42. and figure 57 below) are lo be ascribed lo bookkeeping procedures or to the copying >n schools of compfere accounts. Theie are numerous examples known Irom later pericds in Mesopotamia of account duplicates, and the purpose of such copies in an administrative atmosphere of distrust seems obvious, yet since we know that occoun's formed a normol pott of the school curriculum, these loo sliould be reconsidered as lo whether dup'icates really assumed the some function as, for example, copies retained of letters. '* The Utuk III period account from ihe antiquities markel is lo be provenienced lo Uruk or Jemdel Nasi. See obove, n. 51. 108 109 Texts [torn the Late Uruk Period Figure 36: Archaic accounting exercises W 19408,76M1 (below. Figure 85), represents a school exercise From ihe Uruk IV period. The poorly preserved tablet contains only numerical signs together with horizontal or vertical strokes, known to represent 'widths' and lengths' of measured fields.7A? The Four entries in two columns of both obverse and reverse oF the text contain notations of widths and lengths with but slight variation. The average of the two 'length' measures in the first column of each side (l200 ninda, ca. 7.2 km) multiplied by the average of the two 'width measu-es in the following column (900 ninda, ca. 5.4 km) results in an unrealistically large surlace area of 10sar2, or approximately 39 km2. The documentation oF two equally large fields must have resulted From taking an original artificial surface of 10 sar2 and manipulating the side measures which would define such an area.243 No other known texts from the Uruk IV period present such clear evidence of a playful use oF the new melhod of accounting. 741 The importance of this text was first recognized by P. Damercw during a collation trip we undertook jointly to Heidelberg in 1986 in preparation cf our Chopter 3 of the volume ATU 2 [see there p 155") li hos since been dealt with by us in Archaic Bookkeeping, 55 and 58, fig. 50. 24? The measure quantified in these notations with the sexagesimal counting system was itself in loiei cuneiform denoted with the sign GAR, with the reading 'nindo(n), representing a measure ol approximately 6 m The use of this sign with this meaning is not known in the archaic text corpus, yet is should be rn-npmberod that the sign may ilself have merely been a phonetic indicator of the reading ol the sign DU in this metrologicol context. The sign combination GAR.DU known from the Faro period on is thus probably lo be read ",r"IlJninda(n)>. 243 This procedure is hardly likely to have been a coincidence. Furthe'more, ihe lorgesi held otherwise attested in comparable texts from the Uruk IV period measures somewhat more that 20 bur, |W 20044 29 with obv. i 1-3: 6NM / 4N„ 6N, N„ / 2N,„ NM, leading to a calculation ((360 < 2(16) -';>] .' f 20 - 36,360 ia r, or 20[burj) 3.6(iku)[. The calculations evident in W 19408,76 demonn-a|c, by the way, that Ihe ancient scribe very well knew and used the later melhod ol rnulriplying the arithmetical means of the lengths of opposite sides of surfaces lo derive an area measure 6. Admin strative systems Despile the grave difficulties in deciphering ihe linguistic contents of the archaic texts, their numbers and consistent structure make them powerfully informative sources of socio-economical history. Both lexical lists and administrative accounts are in this regard important, since semantic categories sgnaled in the lexical material can be examined against the backdrop of the use of signs and sign combinations in administrative texts, whereas on the olher hand signs and sign combinations found in similar contexts in the administrative texts can be tested against corresponding entries from lexical lists. 6.1 NUMEBICAl sign svstfms Few Assyriologists like numbers. The treatment of early cuneiform texts has, as a result of a clear disregard lor the importance of numerical notations and structures in accounts making up (ul y 90% of all clay tablets From this period, often been less than professional. Fortunately, the excavation and publication oF the masses of administrate documents from the Ur III period, with iheir very involved bookkeeping formats and often impressively complex and precise calculations, have included some notable exceptions to an otherwise condescending approach of editors of administrative texts to the metro-malhemoticol basis of iheir material; the level of understanding of the accounting Sumerian recorded in those archives, of prosopography and of the administrative structures of which the accounts were evidence was as a consequence such that text analyses could be and were very successful. An initial ordering af the wiiften material excavated in archaic levels in Mesopotamia would not have been possible without reference to cuneiform from later periods, since onafyses ot proto-cuneiform signs proved lhat they were indeed linear precursors of abstracted cuneiform signs, and these latter signs were on the whole well understood. With this ordering, and since with few exceptions no sign sequences or even clusters seemed to correspond lo sequences of signs which in later texts represented a spoken Sumerian, the conlribution of early Assyriologisls to ihe decipherment of proto-cuneiform ended, it may surprise some lhat ihe most important recent advances in the decipherment of the prolo-cuneilorm documents have been mode by and in collaboration with malhemalicians with no fcmal training in Assyriology, J. Friberg and P. Damerow. But remembering that ihe great majority of archaic texts are administrative records of the collection and distribution of grain, inventories oF dairy Fats stored in jars of specific sizes, and so on, thai is, documents above all made lo record in time quantifiable objects, il is reasonable lo expeel that such documents would contoin, no less than the accounts of currenl institutions, evidence of mathematical procedures used in the archaic period and thot they would thus contain the seeds of the mathematical thinking which developed during the third millennium. Scholars acquainted with cccounling methods represented in documents from the third millennium were little impressed by the first archaic texts from excavations in southern Mesopotamia. With few exceptions, numerical signs corresponded both in form and in 1 10 ill lexis from the late Uruk Period Administrative Systems - Numerical sign systems apparent numerical meaning to deciphered signs From later lexis. These correspondences wete seen in 1) the form of signs impressed with styluses of different diameters. The numericol sign system best documented in the third millennium, the sexagesimal system (see figure 411. consisted of signs made by impressing the ends of two round styluses in'o the surface of clay tablets, either perpendicular to the surface, thus resulting in round impressions, or at an angle to the surface ranging from co. 45' to 30'. The oblique impression of the smaller ol ihe two styluses represented the basic unit ' 1'; the numerals ?-9 were inscribed by simply repeating the number of impressions representing " 1". A round impression made with the same stylus represented the bundling unit '10", and the units 20-50 weie in Ihe same way written by simply repealing the impressions representing '10'. The next step "60' was represented by an oblique impression of the larger of ihe two styluses, ilself repeated up lo 9 times to represent ihe number "54C'. The sign for "600" combined an oblique impression of the large stylus ("60") and a perpendicular imp-ession of the small stylus ("10"). This latter sign could be repealed up to five limes to tepiesent "3000', and ihe sexagesimal bundling unit '3600 , finally, was represented by o round impression of the large stylus. Exact correspondences lo the graphic forms of (hese signs were located in the archaic texts; moreover, correspondences were seen in 2 the consistent adherence to the sequence of numerical signs employed in a coherent notation, A sexagesimal notation representing, for example, 1382 distinct units, could in principle be written by inscribing two "600" signs, 3 '60" signs and two T signs in any order, since in ihe sexagesimal system each of these signs was distinct and possessed a specific numerical meaning. An analogous situation would be a means of accounting using physical counters, for example cloy balls, specific chotacterislics of which - size, form, color, (or instance - served lo represent ihe vorious bundling units of a numerical system. The unambiguous correspondence to specific members of a numerical system of such counters kept in a feather pouch would have to oe obvious to all persons using this system. But even in this situation, when the bolls were removed fiom the pouch ihe controller will doubtless have placed like counters together, both mentally and physically. Further, the meager evidence from impressions mode on clay bullae from Susa""1 not unexpectedly suggests thai these groups of like counters were also understood as forming a sequence beginning with forms of high to those of low numetical order. Whether ihe physical reality, that is, thai in all numericol notot ons beginning in ihe Late Uruk period and carrying on through the third millennium, the curvilinear, then the cuneilotm signs representing 'upper case' members oF numerical systems were impressed above those representing 'lower case members, reflects a practice of using calculating boaids or boxes so divided that counters of larger quantities were placed above those of smaller quanlilies, is of course not certain, but would be a reasonable assumption/'" Archaic See above, section 3. 2ii The Chinese obocus is a more modern example ol ihe physical reptesentalion of higher and lower quantities. Tne referent of the proto-cuneiform sign SANGA may be a tallying howd, wiih llnee co-nparimnnls in on upper, and ihree in o lower register, and to ihe lower lelt a box lo slam coimiw, scribes were very consistent in inscribing such nolalions, holding in the example ciled above to a system-specific sign sequence 2* "600" -+ 3» "60" + 2* "1". This numerical 'syntax' reflected the same sign sequence known from later texts. The correspondence of arclitiic numerical signs to signs known from later third millennium accounts lo be sexagesimal, finally, was seen and mathematically proven in 3j summations in aichuic accounts. Account format dictated thai totals were inscribed on the reverse face of a text, facilitating the isolation of such summations for study. The few instances in the earliest published archa;c texts, (rem the antiquities markel ond from Jemdel Nasr, ol sexagesimal summalions, or at least summations of a bisexagesimal system which bore ihe same numerical structure in Ihe signs representing "I', "10' and '60', were sufficient to demonstrate the respective values of the numerical signs attested, and the pool of these summations available fcr a demonstration of the existence of □ sexagesimal system in ihe archaic lexis was substantially increased with excavation and publication ol lexis from archaic levels of Uruk, Possiby influenced by the attempts of V. Scheil lo integrate into a 'unified decimal system' all numerical notalions found in the accounting tablets excavated in orchaic levels of Elamite Susa'*, S, langdon in his publication of the proto-cuneiform texts Irom Jemdet Nasr believed the texts clearly demonstrated Ihe existence in archaic Mesopotamia ol not only the sexagesimal system of counting and a complex melrological system used in notalions of area measures, but a'so a decimal-bosed system used lo ouolify grain measures.''17 The texts availcble to Langdon offered sufficient evidence to prove, orot leas' offered no evidence to disprove, a numerical and semantic correspondence between ihe former two numerical systems and those systems known from later periods lo qualify discrete objects ond surface measures, respeclively. However, the same text archive demonslrated that in fact no decimoi structure underlay the melrological grain capacity system. This was obvious enough ond partially understood by Langdon, and in 1937 well documented by Falkenstein (see below) insofar as the numerical signs were concerned which represented measures smaller than the basic unit N, (t ), and those which on the other hand represented a measure greater than thai recorded with the sign N„ (•), presumed by Langdon and Scheil to have been a measure 100 limes as large as that of ihe basic unit. The former units corresponded first with an oblique impression of the rounded end of a large stylus (—, Nm] to a measure one-fifth the size of the basic unit, then wilh more complex signs to a sequence of deceasing fractions '/„ of this measure, whereby V was determined by the number ol oblique impressions made by the rounded end of a ihin stylus around a central poinl in a specific sign. Thus'-'/, N]0, sv - '/, Nw, and so on. The lirsl sign of the latter units, N31, was shown lo stand foi a measure three limes as forge as that represented by the sign NJS, and laiger measures were represented using the next higher bundling sign in the sexagesimal system, N„. 7«* See P. Damerow and R.K. Englund, Tepe Yohya. pp. 18-19. "J longdon discussed in OECT 7, 63, Ihe ordinary" syslem believed by him lo be decimal in structure. He cited, however, iho addition 20 ' 20 ■> 20 on the obverse lace ol the lexl 108 [now - MSVO 1, 96). 112 113 Texts (rem Ihe Late Uruk Period Administrative Syster-is - Numerical sign systems W 20676,2 W15B07.cJl Figure 37: Dairy oil and barley accounts The lexl on Ihe leficontains on appoienl addition of 7Ni i 5Nt - Ni4 2Ni (disregarding Ihe Nu in Ihe titsi enlry and the total), resulting in the equation 10N| - N14. A substitution of ihis value in the account Id the -ight would be false, since there 12N| - 2Nu, or 6N1 r-. M^.This laller relationship remained hiddrtn from editors of archaic texts for 50 yeors, until the Swedish mathematician J, Friberg uncovered i while exa-mining grain accounts from the Jemcet Nasr period. The decimal structure of the archaic grain capacity system was consequently believed by Langdon to be restricted to the sequence of the three signs NJ5 (•;, N,„ (•) and N, (. ) jn the relationship Ni5= IOxNu,NM- ION,. This, as it turned out, fallacious identification formed the basis of all subsequent Assyriologicol publications of grain accounts - certainly the large majority of oil archaic texts - until the work of J. Friberg was published in the late 1970s. The Swedish mathematician fitsl became interested in Babylonian texts when he read the quadratic equation loble Plimpton 322 (MCT, text A] during a 1973-74 sabbatical in Milwaukee, and went on lo reod O. Neugebauer's MKT in Madison. Back in Göteborg, Friberg returned sporadically lo the question of early numbers, and in preparing for a Series of leekife^ on cuneiform mafhernofics D Bl t combinarion o( uni"s •••• :::: itimti ::::in tit ti •••• •••• tt o ••••• . •••••»I tt Figure 38: Archaic replacement rules for symbols representing grain measures A consolidation of all like measures is followed by ihe replacement of successive bundling units by a symbol representing the next highc unit according to the rules: at Chalmers Technical University he noticed that the traditional interpretation of the archaic grain capacity system, attested in a number of seemingly straightforward calculations in accounts from the Jemdet Nasi period found in scattered publications, was incorrect.2"8 His 7,8 See in porlicubi his cR3M I, pp. 7-10, and II, pp. 19-27, lo ihe lexts BIN 8, 3 and 5. 115 Texts from ihe late Uruk Period Administrative Systems - Numericol sign systems Figure 39: Detetminng numerical sign sequences The numerical sign sequences contained in archaic texts such ai lire Uiot IVp"n-*l *r r Prtml-. W '/ Nj4 > N28 (combining the notations af the obverse and the reverse ta-,'~... ll*- trl rf.i* i)»«i •.ysvin series N53 > Nu > N?j. strongest piece of evidence supporting o new interpretation o! lite dcttrt wa:. rtti nppcstonl grain account ediled by A. Falkenstein in 1937/'"' In a found well known in [icirliaihr horn accounts in thejemdet Nasr archive, the lexl records disc.rrrl'i nirinbrtrr. of rjirun products together witli the amounts of variously qualified grains neorlorl lor limit |MorliK:lir>ri, The products ihemselves could be designalea with numerical signs derived liom lh" iw-imlr ,r)lf-ci| system employed to quantify grain capacity units. For inslance, ihe firsl line contains ihe notalions lN,a IN,,, ; '7M , wfiir I- < r.ti \v< litm-Jof,^ "60 of the (grain ralions containing) — (of grain); (groin mvolvr.-rl:, 7 » nl t|imuirj IKnl<-y^ This calculation contradicts the assumed numerical relationship ION 11-1,,, Mm.. ri:J..-ii., <}!/ 40:1937: 404.405: II we do tho calculation In obverse i 1, for which the fraction is known, w •.....that 2') unit', nl tircim icsuli in only 60 bread leaves each with 1 , of the basic unil and ik>i, rr. ihe- rnli ii|(itn,>i v/ifliltl l.tjil us lo r:i|>-cl, 100 laovus. This difficulty is immediately solved if we irlal.-Ihe skik■■•,-■•,ol;' . ;of the basic unit] not to grain, but lo flour, and then reckon with a ii-ilurnl Vr.: il.n.i,, i,irnii rtnllinr) A low of 40", during milling of the gram is well wilhin reasonable limit*.. I'lilJi-.h.-l in AHI 7. |>)> 117166 V-i- now lor o thcoelicol considotalion of our results P. Damerow, Alr.ii.i' lun r.r,d t.'..(a,■■..'iiir.tiiM.. I r.viys on llv Culliirol Cvolution of Think™ iDoiclrecht Boston londori 1 la 117 Texls fram ihe Lofe Uruk Period Administrate Systems - Numerical sign systems Sexaguymol System S N» l^J Na Ns, Nn N, N, '30,000- -3.OC0' •oOff W 10- T 'Vj- -•'/« Sexogesimd System S' N)s N„ N> ■oo" 10- •!• Bisoxagesimat System 8 N.„ Nu Nj, Nu Nh Ni N, 'l.ICO- '^O' off try T '''2 S'isextjges mot System fi* Nw Nj, Nj, N„ N't, s •-- X ^- Bt> •— ^ 1,300" *I20" off "10" GANj System Njo Nu N» • • .JO. 1» SMtj BUKT. BUt] ESC, EN iiyslwn Nu N, N, - rr> j_ s Jfii - KU X U4 System . |0 U„xN, U1(N„ U.,N, Ny B N, / N,„ "•si?' ni, E lOdoyi I doy SysNnm mvtA tt> town* most disci*'** oln-Kb. ftx example, Ku-maniu'KJ animals, dairy and MP*hlf? produdi. IjsK. wooden n"rfj irorvs irnplerncrli^Oftd con- S/V**m dorvod from the «=ko-pcs'ir-o' system, uiod to couni c^Xrir ob|«ii, Ich cjiampl*-. dead gnimoli from tarris orxj |0«j o* «f*3>n types ol liquids Syťt?1* used toccx/ni discrete groin pindlKls, criM-S*:, ard Fosh fish, nil creels nol**d wim ihis system appear to Wony lo o fohcning system System dp'twd Itotn Irre bisewo-gesimcr! system, us^d 1o counf ro'ions c' on unrIryji no!ure. posvbly a h/pe ol furi Sutern iis^-d lo nufE arpg rrirviiufOi Iprn atnilr^j only ,n lh? > n/ unitod wilri uncertain uixjlmolo'i. poVj'bfy us^d la noto vj^ighl measures Syi'<-m t/yd ro noi-- lime and calendar unils [rwcl^m DDday monlhs lo o yrurt Figure 41: Numerical systems used in archaic texts often only be underelood in the light of an analysis oF the belter preserved accounts from Jemdel Ncisr and elsewhere. Thus the work of Friberg on the grain oopocity system, and that of the Russian scholar A.A. Vajman"2 on the two numerical systems used lo qualify discrete objects, namely, the sexagesimal and the so-called bisexogesimal systems, built a welcome starting point for our work on the Uruk material. We were in ihis effort able lo identify the use in the archaic petiod ol no less than five basic numerical systems, from which a number of systems were derived Ihrough the addition lo numerical notations of qualifying strokes and dots impressed with the stylus used lo inscribe S3! See ■protosumerischeMass-undZahisysleme,' BoAA2011 D89| 114-120(GermanIranslalionol Vojrnani Russian article published in Trudy XIII Meidunarod. Kongr. po Islorii nouki [ 1974 ] lll-IV, 6-11), and ihe comments of P. Damerow ond R.K. Englund, 'Bemerkungen zu den vorongehenden AulsoUcn von A.A. Vajman unter Berucksichh'gung der 1987 erschienenen Zeichenlisle ATU 2," BcM 20, 133-138. ■ IS 7/ Syirem usfld ro r©'e capacity meosurvs cl g'oi^. m parricufor barley, iheimdl units o'so used to devgrate biM»ogesima1ry ;cx-nted ce-reor pfoduds Syslem used Ito na^ capaci'y neawrescf a cr'toin qain, pfobobly oftimiroK-d bar'ey .rn^hl usee ifi bowing bw Sysleti uied to Crr-on q> T ■ r,. Mobcbly vůri-diís lines of em- Syslem uifxi Ilj note copoiity TWOSjrfi of U'aii, pfobot>rý 'tioitey yiüols used to mote Cerlam yiuin prorjucf; Sysfem uspd \o nolo capacity Tieoiurei dt cprkrin produce, n pellicula1 u milk prcdmcl, probabry dairy- Nv .to y SE Syuem 5 N it Šf SyiWnŠ #L -10 *- J- - » ^> igt \ © SE System S' N„ Nj! Mrs H, N4i -,0- f> -i- # Ja-»-*- e.» c EE System 5* Mb •S5 DUGt System N.^UGt NlSIIAj, I->C(> -iu-l=>> Tg ■2/ &* \ NM- Syslent uM*d to rav* capacity fnpanu-ťfs of c^ilain p'oducFs, probobty dairy- IqIí DUGC System N|.DUGr Ni.KU^ N? Mola'ioncl cc»eipondences of ncholc numeitcol jigtii, occordirg to ihe sign list ATU 2 N, 1 N, m Nu 4- Nj, N„ # N}) N, fc=- Nio B N,F N.1® N.» ■ ■ ■■■ ■ # Mm N, 1 v N-, i N» N„@ Mu # Nj, N, * - Nil B Njo N» IM„^ Nil N« N» e N.. 1 KV(J N„ »- N„ ijjl nm ;> Njr — N. Nl4 • N„ i* Nu 13* N,, N» # N» i N, >**y Nu • N,i it N» |§| N»0 Nu = Nsi 2 N» N, 77 Ni6-»- S N„ • ■-t» 1 19 t Texls from the lole Uuk Period ideograms. The formal graphic structure of the systems (see figures 39-40! and the consistency in the use of four of these systems in qualifying objects from specific semantic fields could then be exploited to isolate very short or only partially preserved notations in the fragmentary Uruk tablets which could be used in a statistical analysis of sign sequence prooabilities. In many cases, the likelihood that the numerical sign sequences known from clear notations and summations in preserved texts did not apply to the domaged Uiuk texts could be dismissed. In all others, few contradictions to the complete systems as documented above all in the Jemdet Nasr texts could be found. The numerical systems employed in the accounts of the orchaic period thus include the sexagesimal253 or the bisexcgesimol25" system, ihe grain jSE! capacity system, the area (GANj, 'field') system and the still unclear EN system (based on the use of the sign EN with a numerical sign characteristic of the system. N,; see figure 411. Derived systems with identical arithmetical structures, but diverging graphic representations as well as helds of application, complemented the basic systems. Further numerica sign syslems, for example a system used in timekeeping notations and one used in qualifying liquid treasures, combined both numerical and ideographic signs to emphasize special metrologiccl relationships. Despite difficulties in delineating the rules behind the choice of specific numerical systems to quality different objects, the fact that we now understand their foimal fields ol application has proven of some importance in our research on archaic administration. The sexagesimal and bisexagesimal syslems as well as their derivafves were used lor discrete, lhat is, countable objects. Scribes employed a strict differentiation of the systems; all animals and humans, animal products, dried fish, fruits, tools, stones, and pots were qualified with the sexagesimal, whereas all grain products, cheeses and, apparency, fresh fish, were qualified with the bisexagesimal system. These latter products are believed to derive from an archoic rationing system. Systems derived (ram ihese two were used for quite specific contexts. The S' system as o derivative of the sexagesimal system was apparently used exclusively either for the recording of slaughtered or perished cattle of a current accounting year or for denoting a sub-unit in a metrobgical system used to qualify amounts of dairy oil; the B' system as derivative of the bisexagesimal system might have qualified a certain type of fish product. The §E system and its various derivatives qualified exclusively capacity measures ol cereals, whereby each system most probably was used in connection with a specific type of grain -botanical in the case of S" representing emmet, or processed in the cose o"' S' for mall, and S* for crushed barley. The GANj system was used to record feld measures. ?53 The rationale behind ihe sexagesimal system has been widely discussed, unloilunately without issue The name is somelhing ol a misnomer, since the system really consists of bundling s'eps ol 10 end 6, leading to Vaiman's unsuccessful allempf (see the article cited in ihe previous rtate) to introduce ll'e termno'ogy 'ten-six counting system1' into ihe discussion. The divisibility by thirty and ihe lact that in the archaic period an ideal mcnth of thirty days was employed in administration suggests the possibility lhat the sexagesimal system was lied lo time calculations. 75a A.A. Vujman was the first lo differentiate between Ihe sexagesimal and bisexagesimal syslems, see the article cited above. He referred to a 'mocified ten-six cognling system"; we hove chosen the term bisexagesimal' lo make more explicit the use of a new sign ~, consisting ol two signs representing 60' in the sexagesimal system sel back to bock and roto'ed 90 degrees. Admi'iislrctivc Systems - Timekeeping s\ one s\ rwo years yeai ^-.J elc up fcj iS>J /A rmp /f\ rwomonlht £Fng) eighteen y monlh VI/ etc up to v!^*5 months one /\— days /^uB^S till' one roonlh oi«d Figure 42: Vopon's timekeeping system eight coys ó.2 TmFkeeping A glance at your wristwalch transports you back five ihousand years. The division of the hour into 60 minules [medieval Latin: (pars) minuta prima, "smallest part of the first order"), of the minute into 60 seconds ((pars) minula secunda, "smallest part of ihe second order'), reflects the sexagesimal sys'em of counting well developed at the incepTon of writing in Uruk toward the end of the dlh millennium B.C. This counting system, used much later by Babylonian astronomers in very involved lime/dislonce measuring calculations, fascinated classical thinkers, and was carried into ihe modern system of lime divisions first quantified and standardized by medieval clock builders. The sexagesimal system was used in the orchaic period lo counl discrete objects (above, section 6.1), end it may turn out to be on inleresling coincidence lhat ihis method of counting was a producl of a prelilerale device used to reckon lime - nol minutes and seconds, but months and days. For Ihe unevenness of a 29 '/?-day lunar cycle was probably corrected well before ihe Uruk III period, when calculations in accounts con be shown to be based on a 30-day morth, and a 360-doy year (ligure .41. U„ system). The fttsl Assyiiobgist lo devote serious attention to the formal make-up of archaic time notations was A.A. Vajman,''" who, based on later third rr.ilennium tradition and or-, a meosuie of intuition, reconstructed the system ol time notation for the Uruk period depicted in figure 42. :!i No serious attempt was made by live first editors ol the archaic corpora fram Jemdet Nasr and Uruk to anolyze the archaic lime notations, although both S. Longdon and A. Folkenslein were in agreemenl thai lime divisions were expressed by use of the sign U,,, 'doy(lighl,l'. langdon (commentary in OECT 7 lo the sign nos. 172-177), confusing NH (-) and N3ft) |—) as a aivision of N in gra-n notations, believed ihol ihe notalions o; Ihe form L1„' nN^ were daily grain rotions, ihe notations U4*nN, possibly day notations; finally, lo nN5/> U„ he remarked ihot a 'comparison of (these signs) with Ihe Sorgonic form REC 236 makes Ihe identification [with i I -month) certain'. Falkemtein indicated in ATU 1, p.48, his belief that the graph N,,;i U„ represented one day . R. lobal incorporated these errors irlo his signlistManuel d'epigraphie akkadienne, «<- See A.A Vajman, AclAnlH 22(1974) 19-20; id, BoM 20 (1989) 114-1 20. Vajmon erroneously refers loanolalioniU,-Nl)iN)J.4Ni,inlheiexiOECT7, no 84(nowMSVO I, 121, fig, 43 here), which cccoiding lo collotion and caniextuo! calculation must be read (U^-N^+S'N.. 120 121 Texts from Ihe Lute Uiuk Period Adminisirative Systems - Timekeeping The format characteristics of this system based on the sign U,, (considering the sign's later semantic range from dayflighl) to white to sunjgodl, generally assumed to hove been the representation of the sun rising among the mountains east ol Mesopotamia;, with horizontal strokes (nN57; to the left of U4 to count years, very likely sexagesimal number signs impressed with the rounded end of the stylus within the sign to count months, and finally likely sexagesimal number signs turned 90° to the right and impressed to the right of the sign to count days."' 6.2.1. Cardinal time notations The structure of the archaic timekeeping system described here has now been proven through analysis of grain calculations which turned out to have been based on units of time (figure 43). Once the relationship between the signs N, and N.,, of the grain capocify system had been established, the first step in the mathematical determination of the timekeeping system was possible, namely, the decipherment of the numerical meaning ol the sign TARa. This sign was shown to represent the addition of '/i0 to a given quantity in grain notations.''''8 Thus the text MSVO 1,121 (figure 43, top), can be reconstructed in the following way: obv. i lal [U>NH.8NB lNJ7T]laGlR3gt/nu a2 [U4+]NM.4N8 2N57 a3 [U,+]3Na 31% lb {U,xN,)+5NB lc 3N12T4WlNMSE0 Id N3QoN21N31)TAR0 le UNUG 2o [ ] MAMESDA JB days' (grain meosures) for the first [period, from?)] PN, 14 [days': (grain measures; lor the second, 3 [days ] (grain measures) for the third, [altogether) one month and 5 days, (makes) 35 N„ ol grain, '/„: 3 '/,(!?) N„ [for ?) U-uk. [...J For the NAMESDA, 257 SeeATU2, 145-146, and my 'Administrative Timekeeping in AncientMesopolomio,"JESHO 31 (1988) 121-185. We have now notations for up to I0NJ7+U4 (10[lh] year(s ? - cardinal and ordinal usoges of these lime notolions were not g'ophicolly differentiated]; W 14731 , in JESHO 31.139), up lo 1V3NU.7N, (37 months ; MSVO 3, 29, see below, fig. 69) and up lo UY>2NU (20 days■ W 20274,90, in JESHO 31, 139). few mixed notations of the type [u> xN,)r{yN,„.)zN, for x 'months" and (lOy+)z "days' are known, and none of the type (xN57-(Ua»yN|)| lor x years" and y "months"; instead, numerical notolions representing up lo 37 months were inscribed within ihe sign Urt (the only candidate for a mixed "year/month" notation known to me is the difficult 3MV«U4 SU o[ i [N, ... in MSVO 1, 90, discussed below, section 6.3.4). 258 The sign, in ATU 2 under TAR (and see here fig. 43 lo MSVO 1, 121), could in fad bo the cuneiform character corresponding to the sign N2., both - '/l0 of N, in grain notations (see here fig. 43 lo MSVO 1, 122). The meaning ol this additional measuie remains obscure, but might be related lo Ihe imposition of a tribe [Sumerian za3.10 and igi, 10.gal3, but also sog in the phrase sag bar iga, lor which see K.R. Veenhof, FS Birot {Paris 1985] 294-297; see Ft.K. Engluhd, JESHO 31 (19BB| 151.152?'] by temples and other administrative units in later Mesopalamian tradition. MSVO 1,12? Figure 43: Key texts lor ihe understanding of ihe archaic system of timekeeping The two texts obov».\ both tram Jemdet Nosr, were insllumen'o! in deciphering the s'ructure of the archoic division cl the year into 1 2 month; ol 30 dcrys eoch. Once it was known that ir certain contexts groin measures w;re increased Ijy o lenlh, such incwses qualilied wilh Ihe sign TAR,, the calculations behind a num-ber of in* could h* dneiphwid MSVO 1, 121, demonstrated in this way thai Ihe odmlnistralrve month consisted ol 30 days, MSVO 1, 127, thai ihe yeoi consisted of 360 days and thus 12 months 122 123 Texls from the late Urulc Pwiod Adminislraltve Systems - Timekeeping 2b 2c N,SEu 3a N14 N, UDUo PAPc.BUo.NAM2 3bl 4N, UDUoU4x2N, 3b2 7N, UDU U4*3N, N, of grain, C/10 is ?) NM 1 I sheep (for ?) PN, (comprised of] 4 sheep (for ?) Iwo months and 7 sheep (for ?} 3 morths. It seems that according to the lirsl case of the account the person designated Tl GIRjCjunu is responsible for the distribution of grain over a span of 18 + 14 + 3 = 35 days, represented by the mixed notation (UixN])+.5N6.M* These 35 days are translated into a corresponding measure of grain at NM (= '/,„ N() per day for a total of 3N, 2N,5<> NM , or 35 N?4 of grain. To this an amount equal to '/,„ was added,"0 qualified by the sign TAR . That a grain measure corresponding to the numerical sign NM was really the basis for this and other time/grain calculations,261 and that the addition of '/]0 was an implicit operation in consolidated accounts, can be demonstrated in the following text MSVO 1, 122. This text records in the second case of its obverse surface a lime notation 3NS7-Ufl equivalent to three years, followed by a grain notation corresponding to 1188 N3J. 960 N2J grain units from the (preceding) account (?), 3 years at N;s (per day) (Irom the official ?) EN PA, (totoling) 1 188 N.4 grain units. (Responsible*:; PAo G\R,gunu. (Altogether:) 2146 N,4 units of ob 2a 2d N4S6N,4 DUB SE0 N„ 3N„+U4 EN PA„ obv. i i rev. i N,i9Nli4N, 4ÍNU rPAoGIR3gi/r7ö"' Nu 5N144N,4N:ío ŠEo PAo GIR^unö SE grain, (responsible'':) PAGIR^unt? The now straightforward conversion in this account of the time into a grain notation is "/,„ - (3 x 360 * N,4 -) 1080 N?4 = 1188 NM, or: N4J9N,4 4N, 4N]e>1 to which the measure noted in the first cose is added for the total on the reverse.'0'' 2y> The first N» of 5N6 is clumsily impressed, as langdon also copied il in OECT 7. Vojman apparently read his(U4*N|)+N14,4NQframa photo, ond did not observe the connection with the Following gto:n notations, '/,„ should resull In N3Jb NJ4 N^Jl.e., 35NJ4 , '/ , 3 I/, Ni N39(, N,4 N28); Nj,0 N24 N3(. might hove resulted from the difficult calcu'alion of '/|r of 2I\I3, rounded off to 2N-, 2NKo >V10 - '/, N,0 - N2,. N„, unattested inJN. had to be cfia-ged to ged to eilho 141 Compare MSVO 1. 86 -OECT 7, 92-93) and MSVO 4. 10. *»' Compare MSVO 1, 89 (rev.: N4J 9N14 4N, 4N3,0 3NJ7+U„ '11 88 N„ grain units, 3 years'; this is presumably the account f-crn which the entry in the second cose of MSVO 1, 122, wos drown), and, calculating with a daily grain measure of N39 instead of N2., the accounts MSVO 1, 90(tMM9N,4 3N. 3N3a, NIGINj SN^+Llj, "1188 N3, grain units, total of 3 gears') ond 94 |,SI„.2N47.2N,n (?) SE„ 4N57+U4, "1560 groin units, 4 years", and 2N3 N41. 8N.4 SE0 6Ní7i U,. '2340 N ^IMS7-HJ4, ijw '-3, ■-, - j—'•ji-'-41- -,4 u„, tjuv im„ groin u-'ts, 6 veers'). T.-.e lime/g'oin notations of Ihe las! text, however, document an addition not of y]D, but of '/.,, for which no explana'ion can be offered, assuming intercalation wos not involved 6.2.2. Ordinal lime notations In addition to the proven cardinal use of the sign combinations representing days, months and years, several archaic texts demonstrate that the same combinations expressed ordinal meaning. All ore closely lied to rations, primarily in grain and groin products. For instance, the ordinal nature oF the time notations in the texls MSVO 1, 83-84, seems quite clear, jjdging from ihe uniform quantities of textile products (?) and dried fruits in the first text, of grain rations or products in the second. The first two columns of no. 84, for instance, record the disbursement of amounts of grain to two officials (?) during days one and Iwo of a five day period: obv obv [5N, j ZATU659 N, N8 N, N34 ZATU651+NINDA3Ni7AIB0 U4+N, 5 N ZATU659 N,N!4 5N, 5NS7 f GAR GABURRA ENa UR BA NUN, U4+2N, 5 units of the "grain product" ZATU659 1 '/, unils of N39o 1 unit of N„ (responsible*:) ... First day. 5 units of ZATU659 1 unit of N24 5 units of GAR ... Second day and so forth with the notations U413Ne, U4+4Ne and U4+5N„ following comparable quantities of (bisexagesimally coun'ed) grain units.3*3 Two texls from Uqair (?'(2M contain in parallel fashion ordinal notations for yeois, indeed, both texts record a period of eight years, and both arrive a I ihe same total of 660 of ihe unils N,. obv MSVO 4, 2N,. ON, N„ N„9N,a N„ 5N, 'IM, J i St 2NS 3N,. MSVO 4, 2 i 2N4J8N„ « 7N„ r+N„ 4N„+U 8N, 1N57+U4 2Ni7+U4] 3Ni7+Uj 4N57+U4] M3 J. Friberg has suggested in Scienlilic American 250/2 (Februory, 1984) 11 1 that the period recorded in MSVO 1,84, represented a week ol 5 doys; considering however thot the only other parallel text no. 83 records in like fashion a period ol 4 doys, and thot a reasonoble reconstruction of the absolute measures of the grain capacity system would, if ol oil, favor a week of 6 days (correspondng to the sign 1M3, -6N30 - 6 GAS; see bo'cwl. this proposal connol be sustained (a five-week monlh recalls the week-eponym /jomrrifums of Ihe Old Assyrian period!). See above, n. 29-30, and hg. 70 below. 124 125 Texts Irom the late Itruk Period obv. ii 6N,4 5N57+U, 7N57+U, 8N„+U, 5NU[... r5N,;... ii tV'SN.. 9N,, ... 3N,, 2N,t ŠE 5NS7+U,| [öN37tUj 7N57+U, 8N„ rev. I 3N„ 2N„ SEo GU7 8Ni7+U, Although difficulties remain with the calculations, it is clear from the size of the grain quantities that the entries of the obverse were totaled on the reverse of the tablets, therefore that the separate entries qualified with 1-8N57iU4 recorded amounts from individual years. On the basis of two parallel texts, any judgment about the meaning of an eight-year period would carry little conviction. 6.2.3. Grain and time notations The relationship between the grain capacity system and lime notations was such that they might in fact have reflected each other. Evidence is strong that, as HJ. Nissen has felt for many years,265 the Uruk period beve'ed-rim bowl with an average capacity of 0.8 liter served as the model for the piclogram GAR (later Sumerion ninda] and represented in general a worker's grain ration for one day. Further, the ideogram GAR can be shown to generally correspond to the numerical sign i the grain capacity system. In particular. the text MSVO 4, 27,264 proves that the quantity of grain represented by GAR // N: was a third measure employed as a general daily distribution in the archaic period. This N,ai is, as we know, l/x of the basic unit N„ and this N, is inscribed within the sign U,, lo represent one administrative month of 30 days. No administrative texts attest to a division of the day into sub-units, aside from the plausible interpretation of the signs U^cnd SIG as designations of 'morning' and 'evening', for inslonce, as qualifications of pobable cult activities at these limes, according to our sources centering around the cult of Inanna267; however, the lexical "Plant List"266 seems lo include in its section on likely time rotations evidence for the division of the day into four smaller units, dividing the day and the night into two parts each,2" 2« SocATU2, 153 154«°. 244 Below, (ig. 6B. The account was first correctly interpreted in JESHO 31, 162-164. The lirsl case rrvods 4NU SE„ UJx2Nu.4Nl GAR, '720 Nj,, groin units in 24 months: GAR(-ralionsr, Ihot is, 24 months . 30 days * Nw = 720 N30o (-4N,J. 267 Note the attestations of the oresumaWe morning and evenina Venus [honr.ai m such texts as ATU 5 pi 2 W5233,t>, pi. 5. W 6288; further, in W 20274,77 (unpublished) and in W 21671 (fig, 44 here) with ol once both notations. An administrative use of the designations of morning and evening might be attested in the text W 20274,1 (see below, fig. 50), which contains the summation col. i: NM 4N,. U CtSfenr) KAR + 9N3i SIG GI5tenfj KAR - 2Ni3 3N3„ UDU0 SANGA SIKKAL SA°„ PAP, SlJRiJPPAK hi! Ej^NUNj, that is: '840 (sheep inspected!?)) in the morning .... 540 (sheep inspected') in the evening",.,; altogether 1380 sheep (inspected by) the exchequer!?; SANGA) 268 See above, section 5, and compare the ED Ilia list SF 7, vi 19-23 (7- U,,?). 24 (U4.U<) and 25-27 {U4.N, ...) (unclear). 549 See JESHO 31. 164-168, following collation ol the final line of the witness W 20363. ED lib texts document the better known division of day and night into three parts each, altogether six, possibly corresponding to the Old Babybntan division of the night into 3 wolches Imossortu). Administrofive Systems - Timekeeping Figure 44: W 21671 This account of apparent disliibulians ol textiles contains possible evidence o; on archaic cultic cclendar. These artificial divisions of time can be documented in much the same form throughout the ihird millennium. First solid evidence of the cultic/agricultural calendar, which we should imagine predates by millennia the imposition of artificial timekeeping on an urban society, is found much later, beginning in the ED lllb (pre-Sargonic Lagash; period, Thejemdet Nasr texts characterized by colophons including the notation SU GIBIL (discussed below, section 6.3.4), however, may becited as possible evidence of a calendor beginning with a new growlh' festival ('leather' (sign SUj and 'month' might have been homophones in ihe uncertain archaic language ol Uruk). An account of textiles from Uruk, dating to the Uruk III period, might contain evidence of a cultic calendar in the south (figure 44). The account books entries of wool, cloth, etc., subscribed in lOt sections with notations which are in other contexts suspected to represent cultic festivols, including EZENb U,, AN MUS3= ('festival of the morning Inanna'), GIBIL NUN, ('New growth (leslival) of Enki'), EZENb SIG AN MUS^ ('festival ol Ihe evening Inonna'), ENo NAGARQ URlJ'Lord ... (festival) of Nanna'), and 5U„ NUN ('... (festival) of Enki'; all translations highly speculative). 126 127 ieyls fen he Lot? Uilk Period Administrative Systems - AdminiJt.'olive offices 6.3 Administrative offices Following c relatively secure identification ot a series of realio, deluding domesticated plants and animals, wooden objects, grain products ond textiles, proto-cuneiform texts can be divided inlo broadly formal categories often closely related lo the numerical systems used to quantify recorded objects.270 These include accounts dealing with archaic fisheries, with domeslicoled animals and animal products, with (presumably slave) labor, with grain and grain products, and with the cdministration of fields. 6.3.1. Fisheries271 There can be little doubt that next to grain products fish played a primary role in the diet of the earliest settlers of the alluvium,272 For whom the hunl in the alluvial plain promised no substantial source of protein, and whose access to meal and dairy products liom domesticoted animals was at all times severely limited.273 Fish, on the one none, grow rapidly, require little care and as a rule are not fed, and can be caught with simple technologies. From the perspective of dietary science, fish are, on the other, equal to meat and milk producls77'1 and ore, moreover, easily digestible. The modes! effort requisite lo iheir exploitation mokes fish an ideal meat substitute lor the often orotein-low diets of poor communities.271 The biotope 270 See ATU 2, pp. 117-156 ploles 54-60, and above, section 6.1. For lack ol textual sources which might make the production of metal, wooden, stone and day objecls more understandable, these products ore nol dea't with in the following. Note in particular the treatment ol such products in the commentary volume to the publico'ion of the archaic lexicol lists, ATU 3 [in preparation; K. Reilci, Berlin, is currently preparing a commentary to the 'Metal lisl with an edition of the Uruk odmmisliohvc texts dealing with metals). 271 See generally A. Salonen. Die Fischerei im alten Mesopo'amien [...], AASF B166 [Helsinki I 970), and for a more derailed description ol the organization of fisheries in ihc third millennium my Ur lll-fisclierei. 272 This belief derives no' only from our understanding of ihc exploilo'ion o1 the waters o( southern Babylonia documented in administrative orchives from later periods, bul also from studies o' developing countries whose technology and environment in many ways reflects thol of archaic Babylonia. The basic problems of fish exploitation, in particular in aeveloping countries, were last dealt with a! the World Conference of Fisheries Manaacnenl and Development in Rome sponsored the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization ollhe United Nations! from 27June through 6 July 1984, Cf. FAO News Feo'uie WFC/NF/84/2. 273 For a general introduction into these early developments see D. and J. Oales, The Rise of Civilization (Oxford 1976), in particular pp. 1 1-18, 96109, and the bibliogrophy after p, 136; HJ. Nissen, Grundzüge einer Geschichte der Frühzei! des Vorderen Orients IDormsladl I983| 18-70. The one-sidedness ol groin diets (see K. Butz, "[ondwirtschoft,' in RIA 6 [ 1980-83J 471-486, with extensive literature) could only be alleviated by consumption of fish, m FAO WFC/NF/84/2, p. 1:'Fish contains some 18 to 22 percent easily-digested p'Oleinondin common with other animal proteins, essential omtno acids that the human body connot manufacture' Compare B. Watt and A. Merrill, Composition of Foods, Agricultural Handbook No. 8 (Washington, DC, 1975) jp. 6-67, table 1. R. Ellison, 'Die! In Mesopotamia [...],' Iraq 43 (1981) 35-45 land again in Iraq 45 1983] 146-150), has pointed to the lack o! the vitamins A and C in the Babylonian diet, luh liver ij lowever, a powerful source of vitamin A; fish contain also some amounts of ascorbic acid. Ncfnum is of course contained in lish in high levels, particularly when it has been salted after the catch. 774 And nafuraliy of the great majority of ancient Babylonians, foi whom meal was in all periods only seen on feslfve occasions. Pre-war Iraq still ottered a dieta-y structure in its non-urban regions comparable to thai of ihird millennium Mesopotamia. According to the FAO Food and Nutrition Caper 1 /?: Review ol Food Consumption Surveys (Household Food Consumption by Economic Groups; Rome 1979) 18 I. lo fig. 52 stretching from the Persian gulf inlo the swamps, lokes and canals of Sumer offered an extraordinary polenlicl in fish, crabs and turtles.270 A major problem in the exploitation of fish resources resls, however, in ihe fact that they easily spoil. In arid regions, this means thai lish cannot be transported over great distances, and of course cannot be stored, without being preserved in some form. Thus together with fish exploitation, arcnaic fishermen must have developed a technology of preservation - parallel to the necessity of new storage technologies which piesupposed the expanded exploitation of dairy products discussed below, seclion 6.3.2. While written documents from ihe archaic period offer but very spcring information, material finds from orchaeological excavations, hislorical reports777 and ethnographic studies do act to bridge some gaps in our knowledge about the nature of this exploitation. the poorest Iraqis on overage consumed just 570g ol lish ond 430g ol meal, while Ihe richest consumed 930g fish end 2,Bkg ol meal, that >s, marginally more fish, but more lhan six times as much meat. 270 Trcvel reports Iron ihe 19th century olieady mode this point, fo' example "Aus einem Briefe des Dr. Sodn an Prof. Nöldecke, 29 April 1870. An Bord des 'Mosul' auf dem Tigris,' 2DMG 24 (1870) 471: "Fish o,pc so obundanl in lie Euphra'es, that rhese onimals cost reorly nothing; while I was underway to Ihe Munleiic comp, a 2'/-, - 3 loot lone binni, that is, a fish of the highest quolity, jumped of itsell into the boat,' Most recent ovcilable data on fishing in the inland waters o: Iraq (see A. al-Hadilhi, Optimal Utilization of the Water Resouices o' the Euphrates River of Iroc [Diss. University of Arizona, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor 1979] 120) eslimale a yeaily cotch of 20,500 Ions: Water Ffammar Lake Schatrc Lake Ahu-Dibbis 'ecies ca'W by the Iraqis bizz (flarfaus esocinvs), but also by some the 'ass fish' (see D. de Rivoyre, les vrais Arobos el lews pays (...) 132 underslocd as a represenlction of a fish which hos been split, headed2"2 and gulled, and dried, before it was delivered lo urban administrators who drew up the accounts in archaic Uruk (figure 46).203 Whereas the objects designated SUHUR as well as all other probable designations of fish and fish containers were qualified with the sexagesimal system (figure 47),291 ihe object [Paris 1884] 193: The river dwellers are want to call it the 'fish of the donkey', because, placed ocross t.-e back of a donkey of normal size, its head ond toil should touch the ground on boii sides of ihe animal'; see lurthei the depiclion ol ihe brzz in F. Delitzsch, Handel urid Wandel in Ailbabylonien [Stuttgort 1910] 8). later designations of split and dried fish were simply ku6 or suhur dar.ro (dar -tetu, to split', cut in holf; see, for example, ihe pre-Sargonic Girsu texts DP 303 iv: 390 suhur ku6 dar.ro gol.gal; DP 328 i: 170didli.bt suhur ku6 dar.ta, etc.; cf. M. Civil, OrAnl 21 [1982] 24 to gitj ku0 dar uruda, "knife for splitting fish', in the Kish witness of ihe ED metal list ond compare the entry GlRj KU^ in the archaic Fish list I. 90 [ATU 3, p. 971). In the pre-Sargonic lagash period, suhui were delivered arimorily by fishermen active on inland waters: sukuM gu2.edin.na, o.dul0, and GAN2 fietdncme, 'fishermen of the Guedina", 'of the sweet woler' ond "of the field so-and-so', so tha' the releren' carp of the sign is likely. A comparable lexical development can be followed in Ihe Akkadian nunu, 'fish,' which in Arabic means 'large fish', whole" (Arab, fish is samot). 252 Note that head bones Iron- lish have very rarely been recovered From Mcsopotomran oxcavatians. 293 Same praclical considerations, however, might question the feasibility of drying easily spoiled fish in the hot and often humid climate of the southern Mescpofamian Torshlonds and the Persian Gulf. Reports on fish dry.ng come primarily from countries wilh temperate climates, for example, from Canada ond Norway. Although according lo these reports the idea! lenrperoluro for ihis method of preservations is ca. 27° Celsius wilh low humidity, 'ecenl experiments in Brazil and Combodkr have proven lhat very good results con be hod wilh well cleaned and lean fish at temperatures of 40" and a humidity of 70% ()- Waterman, The Production of Dried fish, FAO Fisheries Technical Poper Nr. 160 [Rome 1976] 8-14; 18-32). A reduction ol ihe woler content ol o typical fsh (ram 80 to 25% eliminates further bacterial aclion, ond al 1 5% water con'enl ir'or pickled dsn 40%] fungal growth cease*. See njiliter O. Wil'ie. Hondbuch de-Fischkonsetvierung (Hamburg 1949; German production); J. Smith, Historical Observations on the Conditions of the Fisheries Among Ancient Greeks and Romons, ond on Their Mode of Soiling and Pickling Fish, U.S. Commission on Fish and Fistieries, Reporl of Ihe Commissioner for 1873-4 and 1874-5 (Washington 1 B76); J. Bottero, 'Konservierung,' RIA 6 (1980-83) 191-97; C. Culling, Fish Serving: A History of Fish Processing from Ancient to Modern Times (tondon 1955). For oncient Egyplion practice see R. Forbes. Studies in Ancient Technology III (leiden 1955) 193-194 (p. 193: The large stoves shown in piclures of oncient houses and ihe feci lhat Wen-Amon ond others tell us of export of cured fish lo Syria go to prove the ellicacy of ihe process [of preservation]'; R. Forbes, op.cit. 194, fig. 37, contains an Egyptian relief of prepo-ation for fish preservation wilh a depiction of the fish denoted HI+SUHUR in the archoic fish Its! ard colled now iisiih, prepared by modern Egyptians by rubbing salt into ihe gills, mouth ond scoles of fish which had olreody been gutted and cleaned); lurtherj. Dumonl, "lo peche dons le Foyoum hellenislique ,..,]." Chtonique d'Egypte 52 (1977) 1 25-142. The ptocess of drying can be facilitated by lirsi plac ng tha gutted lish in a saline solution, os o result of which a par} of the water content is d'awn off by Ihe salt; when ihe fish oie then laid out or hurg uotodry, they lose 62-67% of their waler wilhin a daylWateiman, ibid. 15-17; 25), The fish designated MUN in the fish list, 1.50 (ATU 3. p. 96; ptobobly the precursor ol LAK 56, nol 55 |DIM-SE]) mighl refer lo Ihe practice af sailing fish in this way (for Ihe salt containers and iouices tn the ancient Near Host see D, ?oHs, "On Soil and Salt Gothefing in Ancient Mesopotamia." JESHO 27 [ 1984] 258-267; K. Bulz, JESHO 27, 272-316), Fatly fish are nol amenable lo drying in hot climoles due to higher susceptibility to rancidity. The herrina Hilso itisha, a well attested lind in Mesopotamia! excavolions, loi example, hos o lal content of ca. 20% ond so cannol be successfully dried This fish musl therefore have either been consumed fresh, or more probably hove been converted lo lish oil or lo a souce like classicol garum (ot Thai nuoc-mom) fot use 20/1 The notation N,, SUHUR, ' 1 70 SUHUR'. in the Utuk IV period texi W 7227,b obv. i 4 (ATU 5 pi 26) refers to o probable groin product ration given an olficial designated SUHUR (possibly 'fishery worker' see below to GAl SUHURl. ' 133 Texte from tlie Lala Uruk Peiicy Administrative Systems - Administrative offices ¥••• ' "' 1......I . dirt l e—-^_[_( I j. damage Figure 46: Dried fish ( i/**^ ^ modern repressnSation of dnec lisn, corresponding J^L , . j T1 la the archaic pictogram SUHUP [after ]. Wo'erman ^ l^fe^- The Predionof SWd F.sh.p. 43. lig 10',. represented by the sign KU^ (the simple pictogram 'fish') was apparently qualified with the bisexagesimal system. Although very few administrative notations including KU^ contain numbers which would make clear the numerical system used, this fact seems sufficiently demonstrated by the entry sequence SUHUR, KU^ and ZATU75.94 KU^ in the account W 21107 obv. i 3-6 (see figure 47), in which only KU^ is recorded with a bisexagesimal notation.2''5 Since the use of the bisexagesimal syslem to qualify above all grain and dairy products suggests it was an administrative means of controlling the distribution ol rations, we may surmise that KU^ represented a rationed fish. Whether this was a fresh or a processed fish cannot be determined with the texts presently available, although it should be noted that the container represented by the sign ZATU759 may have corresponded io the later Sumeria n sa ZlxZl.a used exclusively in the delivery to pre-Sargonic temple households of freshwater, and thus more likely of fresh fish, and that only the sign KU^ or derivatives of this sign were inscribed within the sign ZATU759 (see below). Similarly, signs derived from the sign KUto through a simple rotation (KU^tetw, conventionally tiansliteroted SUKUD), through a doubling of ihe basic sign form [KU^-KU^, SUKUD-i SUKUD) or through the addition of stokes to the fish's dorsal section (GIR^06) are a tie sled in the archaic text corpus with some frequency, but as a rule in low numbers, making difficull a determination of the numerical system which was used olhet than that il musl have been either sexagesimal or bisexagesimal. Al least two Utuk IV period alteslalions of a gunified form of SUKUD with clear bisexagesimal notations2" support their inclusion in the rationing system with KUto. The bisexagesimal notation qualifying fish represented by the sign GIRo in an ED I period text should also be noted in this regard.2'8 295 A similar use of the bisexagesimal system with KUj,, in the texts W 21 375,2 (unpubl.), MSVO 3,43, Qnd MSVO 4, 72, lead to the conclusion that all numerical notations qualifying KU(ti are to be considered bisexagesimat (and that the questionable reference la a sexage&'mol notation together with KU^ in the text W 17879,e obv. ii 2, made in ATU 2, 152"*, is to be disregarded). 200 Pre-Sargonic Girsu fishery documents record with greolesl frequency the fish called gir and UBI (=SE+SUHUR), which without exception derived from the sea (ab.ba) or hor (3 - a.DUN, 'lagoon'), »7 The Iragmenls W 6705.C (ATU 5, pi. 12) with Ihe notation [ ) 4N SA]t SUKUDounu and W 9656,bt (ATU 5, pi. 95) with N„, 2NM [ ) 2N5? SUKUDounrJt may refer lo quantities of fish, bul (heir poor state of preservation leaves room for doubt. The numericol sign NJ;, hctc proven to be a borrowing from the sexagesimal system probably representing 6- NJfl - '7200" 12-3600) and in lhe Uruk III period replaced by the sign form N„. is also bund in the Uruk IV period notation N.s N3o X SUKUD in the lex! W 9655,z (ATU 5, p!, 8 vf; the notation 9N,„, erased on the smoil tablet before N N was 'written, however, suggests that ihe notation was intended lo be sexagesimal, 208 UET 2, 19 obv. ii 7: 5NS) GIR0. Although Ihe administrative documents from Jemdet Nasr contain no identifiable records of a fishery unit of that household, a series of presumable rationing lexis contain, in a standardized sequence of oroducts, entries representing as many as 120 units of ihe fish SUHUR. In nearly all of these lexis, the following entry contains a numerical notalion drawn from the derived bisexagesimal syslem.200 This numerical syslem mighl then hove replaced in Jemdet Nasr bookkeeping bisexagesimal notations representing numbers of KU& in texts from Uruk.300 There is a possibility that the discrete' numbers qualifying these fish are only discrete on ihe surface, that is, thai the basic unil N. in each ol the notations represents some measure or convenlional number of (possibly processed) fish. This might seem mosl obvious in the cose of 'double-fish' signs, since the pictogram would correspond lo the common practice of binding ihe tails of paired fish and hanging them over horizontal poles to dry. Considering, further, the relative equivalence values of fish in ihe later ihird millennium in Babylonia, the correspondence ol 1 DUGt vessel of dairy fal and 12 SUHUR attested in the Uruk III period texl W 20494,1 [see figure 471 suggests lhal SUHUR mighl have represented some number of dried fish, since ihe estimaled eighl liters o! dairy oil believed lo have been held by the vessel DUGt should have been value equivalent to some hundreds of fish.301 Evidence from Jemdel Nasr seems lo suggest thai the SUHUR was divided into 1C sub-units of fish.302 Some melrological division must be assumed in the case of the numerous containers of fish recorded in the Utuk documents, wilhout exception qualified with the sexagesimal syslem. These containers are represented by the signs GA?o ond ZATU759, which according to the texl W 19408,40 formed a semont:c category together with the sign AK, an apparent pictogram of a container made a! matted reeds.303 m See section 6.1 above, the texts include MSVO 1, 93, 103, 108, 109, 1 11 (sic l), 160, 179 (unclear due lo a break, bul see the nurncical noto'ion in the first case of the tablet's ihkd column]: mole the inversion of ihis sequence m the text MSVO 4, 14, possibly from Uqair. Only the receipl MSVO 1, 116, con be excluded from this list, the small numbers of SUHUR (altogether 7) suggesl all the same lhal the tablet represents partial tcccipts o' goods which when consolidated in an ccccunl could well have included objects represented by a B notalion. 3X The Uruk III period account W 17679.e obv. ii 4 contains the only clear notation of this syslem together with a probable object designation, the unidentified sign ZATU676n. 301 Confe* Ur lll-Fischeiei, p. 192. table 20, assuming an approximate relationship of 10 liters of butter oil per shekel silver. Foi ihe identification of containers used for butler oil, see below, section 6.3.2. 302 I am tefening here lo the parallel ond possibly duplicate accounts MSVO 1, 146 and 150, the entries rev, ii 2b and 3b. respectively, ol which contain the notation 5N, SUHUR. All evidence suggests that when the division of the basic unil N, represented by the numerical sign N8 (-, N, lOlaled 90' clockwise) did not refer obviously to leilhei in number or, in the cose of young animals, in rough value), then il refeired to '/,„ (see mosl recently my remarks in N.A.B.U. 1995:38) and thus that the nololion 5N, SUHUR should ie(ei to V,„ ol the meliotogical unil SUHUR (note ihot this enlry follows ond is followed by entries including the fish signs W^ - K\Jtn and SUKUD* SUKUC^, which may have explained ihe source and lunclion of the recorded SUHUR). 303 The standardization ol such containers into sizes compatible with the capacity system used to qualify measures ol gram and liquids was documented in lalei periods by the use in fisheries administration ol both baskets ol undt-islood capacity and the grain capacity system to record deliveries and Ironslers ol fish [see Ur lll-f isclinrci, 142-155). The besi attested fish documented in this melrological syslem was qualified sejNE). meaning either cooked' or 'smoked" (op.cil. 217-219). The some designation mighl be ollesled in line 14 ol ihe orchoic fish list (ATU 3, p. 94) and in ihe account W 21864 (ATU 7. forthcoming: Ihe only other administrative attestation of the sign combinolion KU NE is found in the grain oceounl W 11897,c21 [above, lig, 37| obv. i 4, there probably not referring tofish). 134 135 lexis- Írom ihc Lote Ufuk Peiiod AdmiTiistroiive Sys'ems - Adrnmisríoiive offices Figure -47: Adminislrolive docu mental ion of llie orcŕiofc iiihori';:. The taxis ihown ll-SIO end on ihe lallowjncf page? rekord tľo deliver in; of {irr híJn fr-lt^iyr rjl-F.-r.— -r-.rpri'rJinri qF lhe splii- and dfied fish SUtfUM^ ), oí fresh fish KU^, ( ^ ] omrJ ("OrilniriiT-, |]if.\iini(r!ily frr-.1i fi-.|( GA&itKUtj,, GA-joH-UU [EJ . [ßLtI. and of ptrxiiiub reptcVBili'ii li/ ílu- -.K|ii IkJ ]p (,|./jlily ,„,^| mulí. The relalion o( 1? SUHUE per DUGt (o eonlainci ol dairy lul] (l-)-:iirn. r.l.^l „ r},,. rr..,| w WiA'iA i nn page I li B it undent. 1 36 Texts from trie late Uruk Period Adninisirotive Systems - Administrative offices W 2049/1,1 The former sign GAJo represent a type of basket, in all likelihood also made of reed31"; signs rep'esenling fish inscribed in the sign thus indicated, as is generally true of the pattern sign within sign', that these baskets contained fish of the quality indicated by the fish sign employed. Nearly ali known fish piclograms are found within the sigr GA^, including that of the dred fish, SUHUR, but in larger numbers with the signs Kll^, GIR0 and SUKUD. Beyond sign combinations of GA,o and fish piclograms, signs which moy have some abstract meaning bulwhich are probably designations of processed fish were inscribed within GAj,. These include U„ {'sun', 'day', while'305) ond HI I?306] and are found in accounting contexts which secure their identification as fisheries products.307 The meaning of the sign ZATU728, also found exclusively in a context of fishery deliveries but nol attested lexically, is unclear, but i's referent is likely to hove been some kind of container.-1156 The sign ZAÍIJ759, counted sexagesimal^, was written with and withoul an inscribed sign KU^, but always in connection wilh fish.300 Despite the dangers inherent in purely graphical identifications, it seems difficult to imagine that this sign is not related to the sa ZI»ZI.A, the presumed fish traps of the accounts ol pre-Sa-'gonic Girsu3'0 which were apparently used lo 3:>il The sign is then also the roluro! precursor of fhe baskets represented by the signs pisan (goj) and pi s a nx (GAj'Gl) recorded in fislieries accounts of the pre-Sargonic Girsu period, which according to such texts as DP 291 |ii 3-4r 1 pisan, 0; 1,0 mgn kuft / 1 pisan, 0; 1,0 kuft GAR,KI| and V5 14, 143 (i 3: 1 pisan C;1,0 mun ku^l hod a copacity of one Old Sumerion borig (36 silo3, CO. 54 liters], 3=5 The sequence SU0 KU U4 KUta. 2N„.U„ KU^ in the list witness W 20266,49 (ATI) 3, pp. 97-98) places the sign in a clear context of time reckoning. 2N57-tU4 represents 'two years' or 'second yeor' labove, section 6.2|. and SU, seems GAM, ond suhur TUR.TUP were delivered in ihe so ZIiouga2, OIF 53 (Chicago 1940) 55-56 with figs, 53-55; R.McC. Adams and H.J Ni^en, The U.-uk Countryside [...] (Chicago 1972] 213; F. Safar, Sumer ó (1950) 79-30 (late Uboid); J. Joidan, UVB 3 (Berlin 1932) 31 and pi. 20d (Ubaid, together with many herring icmoini,: V. Christian, Altetturnskunde des ZweistfOmlaxJes [...] I (Leipzig 1940) 120, 158. 205-6, 225. Remains of bindings which will hove been fastened to nets ond traps were lound attached to some ol ihese sinkers. 3.7 See above, soclion 5. and ATU 3, 71 lo Lu, A 71-72 (for the Early Dyncslic version, see E. Arcori, la lislo di prolcssione 'Eorly Dynastic lit A' [...], 23). 3,6 The sign combination GAl SUHUR is attested in but few administrolive documents. In the Uruk IV period lexl W 9578,m (AIU 5. pf 60) ihe combination occurs obv. ii 2 in a context suggestive of on inventory ol personnel, iheie following an entry including the combination GEŠTUb SUHUR GESTUb is itself attested in the list Olhcials, line 13 (s ATU 3. p. 20; ED correspondence amo.l[arj.|me), and in ihe lu, A forerunner W 9656,1ti togellier wilh the signs UKKI.M0. GA5and KISAl^,. in all cases indicating thai ihe former sign like GAl, r-pie:,->iiled a liieiarch.col designation in professional nomes, GAL GA , olso (I. 20). is. in loci, also aites'ed in Ihe account W9578,m obv°iii 2°GAl accounts VV 21086 (unpubl.) obv. i 2, W 22118,5 (ATU 7, forthcoming' 2 ;r) in unclear context. ' GAl,, known from itio list tll; A SUHUR is luill^r nllested in ihr obv., 1 (and W 74008.12 ÍOaM 22. B9|obv" !J0 141 Texts from tie ;.ale Jruk Period Administrotive Systems - Admlnistrolive offices SANGA 5UHUR an administrator or bookkeeper of the fisheries.3" Other designations of persons or institutions found in administrative documents dealing primarily with fish apparently include only those referring to receiving agerts; indeed, the one account which lists probable fish traps and transportation containers, W 19408,40 (unpublished;, hos no apparent personal designations. Judging from loter tradition as well as from ostea-archaeological remains, the fishermen will have exploited both the inland waters of southern Babylonia, and the rich marine resources of the near Persian Gulf (Sumerian a.ab.ba),320 returning to their administrative units with their catch including Fish, mollusks,321 birds3", wild pigs3" and, probably, lurlles3". We 3" Only attested in the accounts W9656,ep (ATU 5, pi. 103; unclear whether SANGAo forms a sign combination with SUHUR) and WISVO 4, 10 obj. i I, in the latter text immediately preceding an entry including the possible 'fish tithe collecto:' ZA3 (later Sumerian enku, s. M.W. Green, JCS 36 [ 1984] 93-95) SUHUR. Both attestations include sexagesimal note lions which would cr leasi no' exclude I he countinq of SUHÜR. 320 Finds of both bones of saltwater Fish and of shells of gulf crustaceans make clear that ihe fishing grounds were not limited lo inland waters (to be noted to H. Waetzoldl, 'Zu den Slrondverschiebungen am Persischen Golf und den Bezeichnungen der Hörs,' in: J. Schäler, W. Simon [eds.j, Slrondverschiebungen in ihrer Bedeuluno für Geowissenschaffen und A-chaologie, Ruperlo Carola Sonderheft 1981 Heidelberg, 159-81). 521 See for example K. Mudar, JNES 41 (19821 33-34 (excavations of al-Hibba. 121 shells of molluscs, 104 of them from sail water varieties); J.G. Evans, The exploitation of molluscs,' in: PJ. Uckoand G.W. Dimb^by, The domesticotion and exploitation of plan's ana animals(london 1969) 479-484.; M. Tosi Catalogue to the exhibition of the Museo Nozionale d orte Orientale, 14.5-19.7.1981: Conchiglie, it commercio e la lavorazione delle conchiglie marine nel medio Oriente dal IV al II millennia a.C.,' with shells from Girsu, Mari, and Suso, among other sites; ?. Delougaz. OIP 53 (1940) 54, 96 IKhofajo); F. Safar, Sumer 6 (1950| 29: 'Great quantities of ihe shells of freshwater molluscs were found on the floor' [ot the 5/H building; Eridu). J22 The account W 21005 stands with its entries including ZATU759-I KU SUKUD • SUKUD, and NAM , art Hie beginning of a long documented tradition of the delivery and distribution of fish together with birds] balh deriving from the same Fishing grounds. Similar archaic fish/bird accounts are found in the texts tVTSVO 4, 11, and UET 2, 19 (photo pi. B); see ihe late Old Akkadian text G Cros, N?T 1 84 for the delivery of fish by hird-troppers. 323 W 12015 (ATU 6, Forthcoming) end 20572,2 iunpjbl.) conclude with entries ol SUHUR ond SUBUR ('pig') and so recall the p-e-Scrgonic Girsu account J. Anarzahn, VS 25, 42, which contains, lollowing a notation representing 60 turtles, an entry recording delivery by a fisherman al 2 boars (sa h7 ."''g i), probably deriving from ihe marsh (see, for archaic depictions of probable fishermen hunting wild pigs above, fig. 10, and below, fig. 62; further br Ur III references Ur HI-Fischerei, 176-177'iw]. 32f- Although not explicitly identifiable in the archaic texts, later textual references and physical remains from excavations indicate that turtles were at all times brought in b/ fishermen (compare K.T. Khalol, Reptiles of Iraq (...) [Baghdad 1959] 83-86). Third millennium Sumerion ond Akkadian occounl entries of Ihe turtles called ba+quolification, ba.oi.gi and nig, .bunj.na (see Ur lll-Fischerei. 222-224 and the literalure cited ihere) will have referred to the following osteo-archaeologically identified onimals: 1) Euphrates soft-shell turtle, Trionyx euphralicus, see R.W. Redding, in: KT. Wright (ed.), An EaityTown on the Deh luran Plain [...], Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University al Michigan no 1 3 (Ann Arbor 1981) 236 (Uruk 111 period, but possib'y loler entries); J. Boessneck, in: McG, Gibson el al.. Excavations al Nippur; Twellh Season, OIC 23 (Chicago 197B) 162 (Old Babylonian; 'the meat from Ihese large river turtles is considered tasty"); id., in: B. Hrouda, Isinlson Bahriydl I [.,.] (Munich 1977) 127(Old Babylonian); id. andM. Kokobi, in: B, Hrouda, Isin-lian Bahriyol II [...](Munich 1981) 149 (neo-Babylonian, as a burial good?). 2] Caspian water turtle, Ctemmyx caspica, seej. Boessneck, in: McG. Gibson el al.. OIC 23, 162 (Old Babylonian Nippur; 'today common in the canals surrounding Nippur']; F. Hole et al. (eds.). Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Deh Luran Plain [...], Memoirs ol Ihe Museum ol Anlhiopo'ogy. University have very limited information about the types of boats they used.325 6.3.2. Domesticated animals and animal products It is likely thai from the archaic period throughout the third millennium Iwo sectors always enjoyed a dominant position in Babylonicn household economies. Clearly the most important resource available to the archaic stale was the agricultural land surrounding growing cilies, from which sufficient grain was harvested to supply the basis for urban development. The second most imporlanl tesource was that of domestic onimals, and above all of the small cattle sheep and goals, followed by large cattle and pigs.326 Sheep and goals [UD'jJ3"" Large numbers of medium-sized herds of sheep and goats were exploited for their wool and heir, for their dairy products,328 and for their meal.329 We may assume that according to traditional practice, the herds moved seasonally between the summer pasture bnds bcated in the Zac'os mountains and winter pasture lands, but above all the administrative con'roi, and shearing centers, of she Mesopolamian alluvium. The demand for textiles (torn non- o: Michigan no. 1 (Ann Arbor 1969) 325 lea. 7000-6000 B.C.); J. Boessneck. in: B. Hrouda, Unison Bahnyal I|.. ), 127 (Old Babylonian). 3) Torloise. Tcslutfa gioeco rbero, see J. Boessneck and M. Kokobi, op. cil. 149-S50, shell from on Achoemenid giave, wil'i symmetrically drilled holes suggesting its use as lute (compare lalin tosnjoo «= rurrle and lu'e), probab'y impaired from Ihe north (according to Boessneck; sec however R J. Braldwood, SAOC 31 (I960) 48, Jarmo co. 6750+250 B.C., and 59, Palegawra co. 10.000 B.C.; further P.F. lurnbull ond CA. Reed. Fieldiono Anthropology 63/3 (1974) 81-146, fauna from Palegawra). 4) Caspian Icriapine, A4ou/o-nv3 cospico, see R.W. Redding, op. cil., 236(s. lig. 64, p. 237);]. Boessneck ond M. Kokab: op. cil. 149 (Kassite). The very spotty recovery ol the remains of small animals may exp'ain the missing evidence For sail water turlles, of which over 4000 bones were unearthed in excavolions ol Umm on-Nar (third millennium, see E. Hoch, 'Reflections on Prehistoric life ot Umm on-Nar [...]", in: M. Taddei[ed], South Asian Archaeology 1977, vol. 1 [Naples 1979] 601-606). All bo ol the pre-Saigonic Giisu fishery accounls were apparently delivered by the gulf lishetmen suku, abba. 325 See A. Solgnen, fischeiei 71-72 ond" p'ls. 5-8, 12; id., Die Wcssertahrzeuge in Babybnien [...], SlOr 8/4 [Helsinki 1939); id., Nautica Babyloniaco [...), SlOr 11/1 (Helsinki 1942); M.-C. de Graeve, The Ships of the Ancienl Near Easl jc. 2000-500 B.C.), OlA 7(leuven 1981); C. Ouolls, Earfy shipping in Mesopotamia I UColumba dissertation, New Yotk 1981). Compare ihe pre-Sargonic fishing boot logs DP 334 and DP 344-6 321 No texts ore known from the archaic corpus which document the breeding ond exploitation of equids; the signs which presumably represented ihese animals, ANSE ond possibly KIS, ate found Only in isolatec context of possible inventories. 327 The organizaho-n and administration of small cattle In the archaic period was first adequately treated by M.W. Green. JNES 39 (1980) 1-35; cl. A-chaic Bookkeeping, pp. 89-93. 328 The primary dairy products bullei oil and cheese ote dealt with separately below. 32' Animals represented by the sign UDU formed a standard entry of lisls of possibly sociificiol offerings in accounts (or the archaic period, bes' documented in the lexis from Jemdet Nasr dealt with by the author in J. Hoyrup and P. Damerow feds), Changing Views on Ancienl Near Eastern Mathematics (Berlin, forthcoming). Note also fines 67-6B of ihe lexical tisl Melal (see above, section 5, ond ATU 3, pp. 139-140) w tfi Ihe entries GIR, UD'J, ond AN GIR;„ UDUD, balh representing a 'sheep and goal knife' used in bulchering ond Haying lire onimals. Corresponding entties follow, recording butcher's knives For brge cattle, end gutting and filleting knives lot fish (It. 69-72). 142 143 Texts from trie late UriA Period Acfministtolws Systems - Administrative offices 2 COWS - birth of (reran- cclrti-1 i1ruch?d] 1 hdFci cal: lor col; 2 COWll ^ designa-Kcm o-J delivery Calf os 'yeurnirig' ■ / dairy For' 2 'yearling Colv(?l> J COW3 f [ti- B / / ll / W 202711.63 Figure 49; Uruk 111 occounls o( herds of milk cows ond sheep The two lewis above contain accounts of small herds of cows (3-6 animals). Summcrljons of adjlr ond irrvenik? animals, and □ natation presenting delivery duties of dairy lal crjlculaled according la the number ol rtsilk-producrng cows in ihe herd, were inscribed on Ihe reverse foce ol iho accounts Two comryntibln accounts or herds of sheen ore found on page 145. Note thai in both cases the rrjjponsible shepherds wrre to deliver one KlSIWk, of dairy fal per twenty ewes (IZi = ' 1', 1J - 1 l/j"). 25 iLini lrj.r:'ji :!=■■ g no-lion cl \ombi oi yearlings W 2027i.U 10 f-on-ale 55 odd-!! □rilmalr. delivery 'dairy Frjf W 20274,55 Texts (torn the lots Uruk Period Administrative Systems - Adminis'rative oHices agricultural populations in cities was almost exclusively mel by textiles woven from wool, to a lesser exlenl from goat hair. Wool also constituted the most heavily traded commodity in the commercial exchange with the periphery of Mesopotamia. Dairy products loo may have entered this interregional trade market.330 Although we hove no recourse to a lexical compendium listing the signs tepresenling small caltle,3?l the administrative texts are sufficently infotmotive and consistent in iheir terminology to allow us to construct a typology of signs which differentiates between age, sex, and possibly also race of the sheep and goats they represent. A group of some 30 Uruk III period accounts, all from Uruk, are the main sources fot ihe idenlifications mode in figure 51 below.33'2 Nearly all of these texts represent inventory accounts drawn up once each year to assess the size of the herds, the number of offspring, and the amount of presumable butter oil333 the herders were expected to deliver as a norm based on the number of ewes or nanny goals in their herds. For instance, the two texts W 20274,15 and 55, displayed in figure 49, offer o very representative view of the herd sizes and text formats involved. Both of the accounts consist c! incividur.il entries inscribed over two columns of the obverse face, and summalions of those entries in the left column of the reverse. The first column ol she obverse of each contains notations recording the numbers of ewes and tarns belonging lo each flock. In the following, ihitd case, the responsible shepherd is named. It seems likely thai the sign combination SEo+NAM: at the bottom of this case is a ptofessional name designaling a leeder Js). In the second column the lambs were separately tegisleied according to their sex. The qualification of both male and female lambs with the notation 1 N,,7+U, BAR {-; literally 'one year, outside",334 indicates that the animals were born and survived inlo viability during the accounting yeor.335 It is thus likely that these accounts were made al ihe lime ol year when the herds were driven down to winter pasture in Babylonia, and so unconnected with the shearing season. -30 See ihe discussion, oelow of possible hade ;n dairy oil into Syria and dawn the Persian gull, 331 The lexical list denoted Tribute' does include severe' entries deoling wilh sheep and goals (see above section 5, and ATU 3, pp. 25-28 and 113-117). Aside Irom Ihe isolo'ed entry I. 9 (//37j with the notation NyGUKKAL (possibly '10 fat-tailed sheep'), II. 22-25 record in a four line seauenee the two couplets '10 ewes / 1 ram' ond 10 nannies / 1 billy goal'. Although the meaning ol this lexical list is unclear, the ratio of 10:1 is suggestive of tFe service ratio for beginning herds of small collie. » Most were discussed in M.W. Green, JNES 39(1980) 1-35. ™ I have attempted together the perlinenl textual matejio! from the third millennium bearing an the question ol the products being delivered by herders to stale ogenls in three articles: Archaic Dairy Mel ology," Iron 53 (1991) 101-4. "Late Uruk Period Cattle and Dairy Products: Evidence from Prolo-Cuneifo'm Sources " BSA 8 (1995) 33-48, and 'Regulating Dairy Productivity in the Ur III Period,' OrtsIS 64 (1995) 377. 429. See above, section 6.2, for a detailed discussion of time notations in archaic lexis I N.„,-U,, represented on administrative 36&dayyear. BAR might instead relet to (how juveniles weaned fiorn thou mothers or culled from the herd and given over to ihe official SE„J NAM,. See the following not'.' 33i We learn in these texls Ihol ihe number of lambs recorded in the accounting yr-ar corresponded to approximately one third of the ewes. Since the accounls represent herd inventories with normed delivery expectations of butter oil (see below), it is impossible lo soy whol precisely this relationship means. It seems most likely thai the lambs registered are ihose which had to ly_. delivered lo the herds owners (eilher physically delivered to the owners, or simply added to ihe accounts and thus Iwcornmg, on paper adult members ol Ihe flocks in the following year, lor which the herders (■oiihrisw-d lo b-nicill responsibility)' 146 W 20274.1 w 1.5785.010 figure 50: Accounts of large sheep herds W 20274,1 -nigh: represcri the accounting of two large herds of sheep, together totaling 1380 animals (note the inclusion in the second column of signs represenling dairy fat and woo). The poorly preserved cccounl W 15785,a 10 recordi in g reverse corner o nofo'ion representing 1413, and thus Ine largesl number of shnep known from the archaic texts. The reverse of the texls contains summations of both adult and juvenile animals followed by an enlry which records an apparent amount of a daily producl. We have, based on later tradition in Babylonia, interpreted the prctographic sign KISIMo ife>), a cloy vessel, lo represent a standord amounl of butler oil which that vessel held. The less well preserved second text contains an entirely parallel accounl of a herd of sheep. Note that in bolh lexis and in a number of others ihe vessels KISIMn stood in an even relationship lo ihe ewes respectively recorded, namely, in a relationship of one KISIMo lo 20 ewes. These nice numbers' ate as a rule always to be understood as an indication of administrative norms and not as records of real deliveries. In this case, l/„ KISIM would I r i ''TOo then represent the amount ol butter oil, derived from sheep milk, which the herders in these two accounls were expected to deliver to ihe real owners of the sheep, reckoned per yeor and bearing ewe.330 In 0 precisely parallel fashion, the accounts of goatherds record numbers of nannies and male goals together with yeatlings on iheir obverse, summaries on their reverse foces, the 33° To be noted 10 M Stol. BSA 7 [ 1993| 100, and RIA 8/3-4 (1994) 194. Butter oil Irom ewes was not recorded in accounts from the later ihird millennium; ij.nun (pre-Sargonic Girsu and Old Akkadian) and ^ Sex Age ~ ^ Females Afalcs Adult, AB? GUi Juveniles AMAR 3>E> SAi AMAR KUtjAMAS <45> Figure 51: Archaic signs for large and small cattle and for pigs The figure above provides on overview of the signs found in lexical and adminis'rolive lexis representing large cattleTa series o: signs in the saTe cose presents paleographicol development, will* Uruk !V period signs to ihe left, Uruk III period signs to the right;, juveniles were differentiated according to sex with ihe signs SA'. ([>) and fCURa (d^j), originally designations of female and male laborers On page 1 49 is a (able with corresponding signs for ihe smdl cattle sheep and goats, and for pigs. only difference being the use of the sign KISIM^, to qualify the container of apparent dairy fat to be delivered to central offices by the herders,337 This 'gunifred' form of KISIMo presumably serves to differentiate the rwo lypes of oil, but may also reflect some physical characteristic of the jars used, such as incisions or coloring stokes on their outer surface. Summarizing accounts covering o certain accounting period ore particularly informative concerning the general features of economic organization in theorchaic period. Unfortunately, such texts are extremely rare. Two tablets from Uruk (W 15785,a'0 and W 20274,1, figure 50) nevertheless provide a good glimpse of ihe scale of the flocks controlled by the slate. These accounts record a total of 1,418 and 1,380 sheep, respectively. The signs which in these cccounls represented sheep and goats had no apparent piclographic, but rather an abstract character (figure 51), They have certain common features: the cross, the circle and the lozenge barred by a diagonal line (as a qualification of male animals). Again, young animals are specified by adding cerla'n qualifying strokes or complete signs to the basic signs representing the species referred lo. Because ol their abstract form, D. Schmandt-Besseral has understood the signs to be two-dimensional representations of three dimensional complex tokens (see above, section 3), that is, of small clay objects inscribed with the design - a cross with possibly further qualifying dots and strokes - that in 317 The delivery norms for nanny goats may hove been five lo ten limes os much os that of - between 3 and 3 2/3 goals per vessel KISIAA^, recorded in ihe texts W 17879,ad, 20274.41, 65 ond 148 IjNES 39, 28-29, nos. 22-25). For comparison, goatherds in ihe U- III period were expected lo deliver between V3 and '/2 sila3 (liter) of butler oil per nanny goal (see R.K. Englund, OrNS 64 11995) 398-399"). SMAIl CATTIE SFEEF Aral; GOA1S UOU 6B« • -EB' Sex Aoe\_ t f n-j'es ■Male* Wool Sheep Aduti © m U8 UOUNITA (J^<^> b Juveniles SIA4 (Oh KIR 1 r ^ (O) SIIANI7A (o)<3> FntlniM Sheep j?) ^L, 0 Fiqure 52: Simple leceipls for collie The upper seiies o( tablets contains opporenl notations representing receipts tor onp cow jsign (> ; ond one or two bulls (sign ), the lower series notations representing reee:pts for one call (sifjnjC- ) and for mixed cattle (?; sign combination )g> C> ). Cattle {rows, buffs, oxen; AB? GUJ3S6 Cattle, in lite general sense of the lerm including bulls, oxen, cows and calves, were summarized under the sign combination AB2+GU4 ((> 3S>; figure 51). The signs were cleorly pictographic: the sign GU, was the representation of the head ol the bull or ox with horns uolu-ned357, the sign AB2 was the representation of a domesticated female Bos with down-turned horns, and the sign AMAR was the representation of a head of a hornless calf with ears held upright.355 The age and the function of an anima! was expressed by adding to these ideograms specific qualifying signs. The signs designating the gender ol young animals AMAR, namely KURo (t|l and SAl ((>), might represent the male and femole sexual organs.35' Later third millennium accounts record large cattle used as draft animals and as producers of meot ond dairy fats. Several proto-cuneiform accounts register together the existence of both ihe plow represented by the sign APINo and oxen represented by the sign GU„, and ihus offer meager evidence of the former use of cattle.360 Meat, loo, is poorly attested, or at least poorly recognizoble in this period.361 As sources of dairy fats and cheese, however, cows were clearly prized and closely controlled. Accounts document cattle herd sizes ol between 50 in the Uruk IV period and possibly 100-200 in the Uruk III period.3" The earliest texts record numbeis of cattle apparently assigned named officials or institutions, to the near exclusion of records of dairy produce, whereas among the texts dating to the Uruk III period, exceedingly few accounts ol groups ol cottle are found, but large numbers of records of dairy fats ond cheeses, complemented with the existence of an involved metrological system seemingly developed lo afford greater control of these products. 351 See R.K. Englund, BSA 8 (1995) 33-48, ond cl. Archaic Bookkeeping, pp. 89-93. 357 No graph c differentiation is obvious between breeding bulls ond castrated oxen, both apparently =- GU4 (the lew bulls kept for breeding in pre-Sorgonic Girsu were colled simply gu4 cb3l 'bull of the cow'), 3SB A. f'alkentstein noted in ATU 1, p. 52'i-53'1, the poleocraphic development, beginning in the Uruk IV period, ol the signs ABj, GU„ ond AMAR. There is some resemblance between the sign GU4 and several tokens found in context with clay envelopes: see above, n. 101. 350 See a sa gbove, section 5, to the lists 'Cottle' and 'Tribute". In the latter composition, cows ond oxen or bulls were recorded in a relationship o' 10:1; if GU4 here represented bull, the numbers might represent an ideal service ratio employed in archaic cattle breeding. 360 See, lo- example, the two texts ATU 5, pi. 86, W 9656,1, ond pi. 100, W 9656,dr, with counted APIN GU„ opporenlly assigned lo temple households. The inscription of the loiter lex' is djplicoied in ihe second column ol the obverse of Ihe lormer. See generally F.R. Krous, Sloolliche Viehhollung im all-bobylonischen londe lorso (Amsterdam 1966); K. Bulz, 'Zur Terminologie der Viehwirtschoft in den Texten ous Eblo," in: L Ccgni (ed.), La lingua dr Eblo [Naples 1981) 321-353, to large herds ol sheep ond cottle owned by palace economies in Mesopotamia. 311 The very roecger bone remains from Uruk of Bos lautus idenlified byj. Boessneck, A. von den Driesch and U. Sieger, BoM 15(1984) 170-172. were olmosl entirely of odult animals. Allhough the outhors believed tie crushed remains indicated Ihe exploitation of collie lot meal, the numbers of bones - only 30 of ihe 73 specimens were from lole Uruk levels - permit no more than speculation os to whether the animals were selected lor meat or were simply butchered in old age ot after having died from some olher cause. 117 The former number is derived from the Uruk IV period occounts, the latter extrapolated Irom an eslimolion ol the absolute sue of the delivery norms recorded in the dairy accounts in fig. 49 obove transposed lo Ihe presumed year account W 20274,97 in fig. 55. 154 155 Texls from ihe lůhe UjiA Period AdminiSrorive Sysierm - AdminuiralK^ offices 157 Texts from the lote Uruk Pe-iod Administrative Systems - Administrative offices Cattle as discrete objects were as a rule registered in prolo-cuneilorm text; in the sexagesimal system.303 Small, characteristically cushion-shaped Uruk IV period tablets record the receipt by a named individual of one or as many as several head of cattle (figure 52). Inscriptions in these accounts consist of numerical notations, one or more signs representing heads of cattle and one or more signs to designate receiving individuals or officials. Reverse faces of the receipts' remained uninscribed. With up to five columns on their obverse face, larger accounts in a format represented by the two tablets W 9656,ev and W 7227,a in figure 533M contained thirty and more individual entries, each of which corresponded to one of the simple receipts. The r.umericci total of the cattle recorded in these entries was entered on the reverse face of the account (rotating the tablet around its 'horizontal' axis). Complete herds of odull and young cattle, probably separated according to the function of the individual animals, were recorded in other accounts (figure 53, W 9656,ex). In accounts from the Uruk IV period, the calves could, just os is true of lambs and the children of dependent laborers who were probably too young to be put to wort, be qualified using the sign N8 (-) which in sexagesimal notations generally designated ■'/,' of a discrete unit.365 Thus the fourth case of the text's second obverse column contains a notation N, Ns representing one cow and one calf.3,yj Uruk III period accounts of herds of large cattle are very rate and register only modest numbers of onimals. The preserved sections of the text W 14275 in figure 53 contain natations representing just 8 head. The age of animals was recorded in same accounts; the text W 14361 (figure 53, bottom right) registers in three cases of its second column notations representing oxen in their fifth, fourth and second years, respectively [sign combinations 5Ni7+U„ 4N„+U, and 2N57+U4 GUj.34? Related herding accounts from the Uruk III period, of which only two are preserved well enough to permit a reconstruction of their contents [above, figure 49/,365 record small numbers of cows together with their offspring, qualified SAL+AMAR and KURo( AMAR ('heifer calf' and 'bull calf) from the accounting year of the text. Both texts record a tatio of two adult cows per recorded calf.3*" 363 The exceptional use of the sign Na p| in the Uruk iv period to designate imrncluic animals is discussed below, 3M The largest attested lotai of adult animals is '54' contained on ihe reverse ol W 7227,o. 345 See A.A. Vajman, 'Die Bezeichnung von Sklaven und Sklavinnen in der protosumerischen Scfiii;l,' BaM 20 (1989'j 121-1 33, and the comments of P. Damerow and R.K. Englund, BaM 20, 137-138,' 346 "the latter animal was included on the text rev. I 3 among a group of four animals qualified as AMAR. 347 For a descri pti on of orchaic desig nations of yeats see above, section6.2.Thestandaidagesequence(or Ur III bulls/oxen attested, for example, in the theoretical account TCL 2, 5499 (l.J. Gelb, JCS 21 [ 1967] 64-69; see Archaic Bookkeeping, 97-102), was gu, amar.ga, gu^ mu. i |aS, sign - ), mu.2, mu.3, guj gal, 'milk bull-calf, one-year bull, two-year bull, three-year bull, lorge [full-grown! bull." 348 W 20274,12 and 63 were first published by M.W. Green, JNES 39 (19B0) 32. nos. 35-36; see now Archaic Bookkeeping, 89-93 with fig. 71. 3« Based on just Iwo small accounts, it is impossible to derive a rule ol telum' for ihe atchaic period similar to the ratio 2:1 known from ihe Ur iii dairying manual discussed obove, n. 367. Figure 54: Containers of doiry products in the Lole Uruk ond Eorly Dynastic Periods Above: the Uktid Fneze (alter. P. Gomn, Iraq 55 [1993] 136-137). Below: ceramic jors depicted in the Uboid Itieze (the scale is merely on opproxi morion based on the humans ond animals found in the frieze) ana possible prcno-cunoiloim correspondences. 158 15<3 Icxts From ihe lo'e Uruk Period MmimsJralWe Systems - AHminisrrotive oHices W20?74,O7 ObverHi 2 i 7.200 3 i l.?00 I x 120 - IB, 120 mu d g Figure 55: Accounts of dairy products Simple accounts of dairy products from the Uiuk IV period (above) and a Icrrcjp account from lhr> Uruk III period (below [reverse vninscribed); see ATU 2, pi. 55, end Archaic Bookkeeping, p 04] os product* from animal hnshandry, induding the signs for daily fat (DUGiJ and cheese (GA"ARal). 5 units >sta CO i-Tonctordízod rtSícJ SRAsb wiíi cul 0.6 líkrt COpOC ř) first dairy produC' 5 .nils ^ second dairy pfodud relations beWeen file sfondnrdusd vetssftls: 5 ESSE** '«* TSÍiť -lC0 Figure 56: Metro'ogical reiolionship between SILAj^ and DUG,, Deity products The two dairy cattle accounls depicted in figure 49 book in the totals on their reverse faces one jar of dairy fat370 (sign DUG j per two [W 20274,1?) or four (W 20274,63) milk cows, that is, of possibly 2-5 liters per animal. The first eight lines of the archaic lexical list 'Vessels' in fact consist of entries with the signs DUGb57', KISIMo/b and other signs which represent conta-ners of fats used in the administration of archaic dairies.3'2 These signs, including Nl„, DUGc and UKKIN^'N^,373 are often found inscribed together in administrative documents 370 Third millennium accounting tradition and technical considerations make ihis identification relotivety secure. See the articles cited above, n. 333, 371 The sign DUGb, representing a ceramic jar wilhoul o spoul, was consistently distinguished from ihe sign DLG0 including Ihe representation of o spoul. This foci ond the contextual usage of bcWi signs suggest thai ihe former jar will most likely have contained semi-liquids, ihe latter liquids, above oil beers. A large number o; signs were impressed in DUGb in archaic leyicol lexis, to a lesser exlenl attested in odntlnistro-live texts, to specify the producl contained in the jar represented by the sign, including among others SEU [barley). NAGAo( on alkaline planl' ?), Tl [?), MAS [mate goal), KUR„ [a plant related to Ihe grapevine ?), GIS ('wood;, KU^ (fish) and SAHj (pig1;. See II. 21-61 of the archaic lexical list Vessels', fig. 29 above. 3" See below, fig. 61. 373 See below, fig, 60. lor o table of the pertinent signs in the pe'iods Uruk IV-III. Ol the ptoto-euneiform signs representing ceramic vessels, only Nla may have been o two-dimensional depiction of cloy objects found in the pie-lilerate clay envelopes: see above, section 3. The 'oil tokens,' believed themselves to have represented concrete containers, have been found in cloy envelopes from Uruk and from Habuba Kabiro in Syrio. It may be noted in passing that few chemical analyses on the innet surloces of late Uruk pottery vessels hove been performed and thus little hord ev'dence is avoilable which would either support or lelute the functional typology implied in fig. 60, The methods used to recognize organic elements, in the cose of milk products arr.ir.o-acids typical of animal proteins, ate lime-consuming and expensive [see generally Rhcinisclies Landesmuseum Bonn led.). Proceedings ol the 18th International Symposium on Archaeomelty and Archaeological Prospeclion, Bonn 14-17 March 1978, Archooo-Physika 10, 1978 [Cologne 1979]; M. Frangipane has recoiled some preliminary identifications of these elements in shards from .ate Uruk levels ol Arslonlepe (persona1 communication]]. '60 iúl Texts From the Lete Uruk Period AcTiiniilrcfiv? Systems - Administrative o'tices W 2027A ň Figure 57: Accounts concerning dairy fat stored in the jor DUGt The obverse of the accojnl shown above coitoins three entries recording numbers of conto:nets of dairy fo)' assuming the notation N] KU3a [o^i represents one-half of the bcslc unit, the addition is: 7 'A + 4 '/2+5= 17 DUGC- The two accounts on page 103 contain similar odd lions ircljd i rig notations representing one-half tor; they ore rare examples cl duplicate cdwin st-ative texts from the rjrenaic period. beginning in the Uruk IV period, and may Find correspondences in the famous Early Dynastic Ubaid Frieze (see figure 54). The association of the sign N1o with DUGb in such texts as W 9206,c and W 9579,ah, and of Nl, in the same case with AB, and with DUG[ in the text VV 9656,eq (all figure 55), demonstrates that this sign should represent a container of dairy fol from its first use in the Uruk IV period.n?J Only indirectly associated with the sign representing dairy (at, DUGb, is on the other hand the sign GA'AR in such texts as W 20274,97 (ligure 55). This sign, bund as a general object designation in a section of the archaic vessels lisl lollowing a long section on containers of fats and olher products,373 is, as a clea' precursor of the Fara and pre-Sargontc Lagash sign i/UC490- itself replaced in Ur III documents by the sign combination go UAR/UPgu/irj - , posited to represent a unit of cheese. Wheteas oil vessels were counted with the sexagesimal system, cheese was reckoned in discrete units using the bisexagesimal system and so may be associated with the objects represented by GAR (dry grain products) and KU^ [fresh1 Fish) as another product central to the archaic rationing system. 374 The sign, the real referent of which is unknown, is in bier cuneilorm documents Ihe general designation of oils of oil hinds. 375 See above, section 5 with fig. 29. «»374.33 W 20274,69 Iď: 163 Texts frcvn ihe Lqt-s? U'uk Period Adrninis'iaiive Syslems - Adminislrative offices reconduction ol rt>e lurmrafion: obv. 11 ' III 2 d Di 3 d| .1 d d| ii 1 ■ d d| 2 1 IB d| 3 d f ; ^ f í X j *f 2d "B — * ^3 rev.il l#»f> w 20274.35 inehcJogicul iebli-LTii. Figure 58: Account concerning dairy fat stored in the jar DUGe This portiaHy reconstructed account ol dairy lot stored in jcrs demonstrates the -nettologicul rctorions in the system DUGC. 164 Containers of dairy oil and other (semi-iliquids were not only as discrete objects counted in the Late Uruk period using the sexagesimal system, but were also as members of a liquid capacity melrologiccl system divided into smaller units using one of three numerical conventions (below, figure 6l). In the firsl p.ace, the sign NB (-] discussed above as a des:gnation of -mmoture cattle in the sexagesimal system cs a rule qualified '/, of some discrete unit, above all the contents of vesses and baskets.37* Notations in a number of Uruk IV period texts suggest that the sign NB in the sexagesimal system could clso represent a smaller fraction than '/2 of an object, probably '/K; the ob;ects so qualified in these notations are, unfortunately, not always clear, although DUG( seems attested in at least two of the accounts.377 A second means of designating fractions of oil jars is fully documented in the Uruk 111 account W 2'682 (figure 5o}. The texl contains on itsobvetse lace two columns with 5 enlries, each of which consists cf she numerical sign N, together with the sign combinations SILA^-GARA^ or SILA;!t+GAo - ihe former378 explicilly written in ihe firsl four cases of the fitst column, the latter3"1 probably only in the lost (irst case ol the second column - representing units of a dairy product, the sign SI (meaning unknown) and further ideograms probably representing receiving individuals. The reverse face of Ihe tablet contains in ihe right column subtotals of each of the obverse columns, numerical notations representing five units qualified by the sign combinations SILAj+GARA^ and SILA^+GA^, in the second column the final total N, DUGb qualified with SI and the sign GU7, ration'.390 SILAfc can thus be idenlified as a piclographic representation of the mass-produced 'Blumentopf which followed and tor some time in Late 37t ATU 2. 128 c. 377 W 19466.0 and W 20652 (both unpubl.). The notation 3IM, 9N0 in ATU 5, pi. Ill, W9656,gl (ciled ATU 2, 129 d. as ATU I, no. 490) refers to on object not preserved in ihe second case ol the tablet, ond this and the preceding two natations could in principle derive homo number ol other numerical systems. Clearly sexagesimal, however, is the notolion 1r3N}i 2N^ [ ] r4Ns in ATU 5, pi. 64, V/ 9579,u rev. I Idled ATU 2, 1 29 d, as ATU 1, no. 352); 'he oppo'enl object represented by the sign combination SUHUR KASb, literally 'jar of dried fish meal oil,' must at least be odmilted as o weak reference for the jse of N( ■- '/ in a sexagesimal notolion ol oil jors. 37! A cunlfied variant of the sign DUG rs attested in the archoic Ui (ED l-ll) version al the lexical list lu2 A, I. 20. as o variant of GA in the combination GAL0 GARAjc, 'head ol GAPAj,', and representing a product among natations lof domestic animals and other agricultural poducts in ihe list Tubule'. See ATU 3, pp. 73 and 114-116, respectively; in 'Tribute" followed by a notation of '10 cows'. 375 The UruV. IV period form GA is apparently the representation of a flat basket, the inner surface of which was probably coaled with bitumen to be used In ihe milking of dairy animals. 3B3 The sign combination SAG t GAR GU7 is extremely common in archaic texts from Jemdet Nosr and Uruk. While SAG seems, pars pro loto, to tep'esenl a human in general and not, as in bter usage, a chattel slave, its use together with o number of qualifying signs or simply (so-called aunú-j strokes apparently served to create abstract concepts. This must be the cose with GU7, since it is in no woy obvious that this sign designated "rationed persons,' but rather rationing in the abstract. A differentiation between this sign and the common BA is not obvious in texts known to me; they were, however, not interchangeable, since only objects quoliliod with BA and not those qualified with GU7 could be subsumed in a total wilh objects qualilred wilh Gl 163 Texti from rtie Idle UriA Period Figure 59: W 20274,39 The largesl odminislio'ive document in ihe archoic sources Írom Uruk contains on involved account of rhe deliveries oi dairy fals to □ temple household denoted by the sign .rnNf^]. Uruk levels coexisted with use of the beveled-rim bowl GAR; it represented a measure equal to v|0 of the omount of liquids or semi-liquids contoined in the vessel DUG^.™' The third, Uruk III period convention used in qualifying measures ol dairy fals seems on its surface substantially more complex than the first Iwo, yet shares the basic structure of l/? and of ihe unit 'jar'. A large number of accounts, including the largest of the orchaic Uruk corpus (figure 59), contain notations in ihis metrological system which exhibits the structure 381 The lextW 20274,72(unpubl.) seems tocontainan odditionr2M,1[ ) + r2N, SILA^'GAÍA,^ - IN. _ IN, DUG^ implying that, as mighl be expected, NB also served in this system to represent both V7 ol a basic unit ond 5x N, SILA-^. Administrative Systems - Ad mini sire tive offices mm ( 111 lxN, vessel (DUG/UKKlNb+NlJ = 2,Nl+KU3o (figure 57),382 N.+KU^ = 5*N; (corresponding to the basic unit N, crossed by a horizontal stroke; see figures 58, 61 )3B3. The f jll structure of this metrological system (figure 58) may represent a development from the Uruk IV system with, dependent on context, NB equal both to N, KU3o and to N,. The meaning of KUJa in 'his connection is, aside from the fact that it indicated a half measure, not obvious.38'' 383 W 20274,6 in lig. 57 offers o simple summation of three entries with numbers ol o container of fals represented by the sign DUG,. The only known duplicate administrative texts from the archoic text corpus, W 20274,33 end W 20274,89 (figure 57). certain somewhat more involved accounts, yet the reckoning s'eps exhibited by both ore cosily recognizable as simple additions of whole numbers ond Fractions fiom the same melrobgico1 sysiem. Including only ihe 3 unils qualified os 8A Kl0 in the second subcase ol ihe first cose of each text s obverse face, ihe addilion is: 3 + I'/, + %+ 1 + 2 + 3 + 2 » 13 (DUG ), 363 No doiry cccounis known lo me contain o notation with five or more N2, in compliance with ihe expected replacement of 5N?wilh IN, KUj . 3M I mighl draw attention lo the (act lhal tokens often related lo this sign hove been found in clear association with sealed clay envelopes in Uruk and possibly within still complete envelopes from Susa (see above, seel ion 3). 166 16? Texls Írom ihe Lote Uruk Period ujrv mil '9""" mronirg Lfnt'tľV f-Zi nor-* DUGU *#> or^mj> KASfc dairy fai roix^d wirli mushed rurtilpy? KASe H£ii> d-3 ry 'a1 mixed wifh crjJied boiley3 KtSlMfc butter lal from sKeep's m:lk butrer fcl rVom goat) milk O 0 NU r;-,i,y Ful í oo DLÍGb cfairy fc1 1 EEtet. SAa m: k ľ DUGC dairy lal a® UKKltvfc -Nl0 dairy lal o GARA?0 ci cam ? Figure 60: Probable archaic emigrations o: liquid and semi-liquid products N: Cľ5 N8 JO nb N u Ni uUS./UKKINd-iNI;, Ni KUj0 Ol -J;- Nm • - N r t>jGt Ni SlUVjg Figure 61: Metrological systems employed in dairy notations The application of the upper system with dairy piodjcts is not proven, the lower two systems are only known the Uruk III petiod. Administrative Systems - Administrative offices The numerical and metrological systems used to quality measures of dairy products mirrored in their complexity the pictograms designating the different products themselves (figure 60). According to data derived from excavations, above oil measurements conducted on the masses of beveled-rim bowls found in Late Uruk settlements, and in accordance with textual analysis, the most olausible current working hypothesis of the absolute capacities of these vcrious units is the following:-"'85 GAR - 1N, )?; Uruk IV) = SllAta = 1N2 = ca. % liter !Ne= IN, KU3c = ca. 4 liters IN, DUGb,c etc. - ca. 8 liters figs (SAH,a, SUBUR)-86 That pigs represented on important facet in the social and economic lives of archaic Mesopotamia is obvious from archaeological and textual evidence. Of the former, seals dated to Uruk IVb-o present the best evidence, consisting of various depictions of the hunting of boars both by apparent professionals and by administrative elites.387 Similar hunting scenes are known from a relief on a stone bowl ftom the late Uiuk period, and from incised and painted depictions on Early Dynastic ceramic vessels frorr the Diyala region as well as ftom a small alabaster relief from Ur (figure 62388). Although archaic cylinder seals and reliefs depicted only wild pigs, osteo-archceological identifications38' as well as proto-cuneiform tablets demonstrate that ihe exploitation of 385 Cp. ATU 2, I5360; see also R.K. Englund JESHO 31 (1988) 16037, ond P. Domerow and R.K. Englund, Tepe Yohya, 24-27. 3« See R.K. Englund, 'late Uruk Pigs and Olher Herded Animals," FS Bcehmer (Mainz 1995) 121-133. 3I' See above, fig. 10 Impression 10c depicts two boars standing or running amongst conventionally drawn reed thickets, confronted by what may be the vaunted ruler of Uruk ('Stodtfurst'j accompanied by two cogs. Accoiding to loter sources, pigs were delivered by fishermen, certc'nty from then fishing grounds in the marshlands of southern Babylonia. See Ur lll-Fischerei. 174-177 + 177SM. 3,6 62a: H.R. Hall, la sculpture babylonicnne et assyrienne ou British Museum, Ars Asiatica 11 [Paris-Brussels 1928) pi. 1, no. 2. BM 1 18466, and id., The British Museum Quarterly 211927-1928] 12-14 -t pi. VI (probably from Uruk); 62b; P. Delougaz. Pottery from the Diyala Region, OIP 63 (Chicago 1952) pi. 80c ,from Khofo[e; kindly drawn to my attention by U. Moorlgct-Corrcns). In Iheir habitat in the reed thickets of ihe southern marshes, wild pigs were parliculorly menacing and certainly no easy bog for ruler oi professional hunler. Aggravated boors, feared for their slrenglh ond phenomenal charging power, or d'Sturbed sows protecting young, con easily bring men to the ground end with violent bites or a whipping oclion of their lusks inflict grave ond, unless rendered harmless, fatal injuries lo internal organs. Wild pigs trapped on islands curing the Hooding season, on the olher hand, were eosily killed by spear front boats once the animals were forced into ihewoler. See W. Thesiger, The Marsh Arobs (London 1964) 34-43, 167-169; A. Blum, A pilgrimage lo Ncjd (.. ), vol. I (London 1881) 122-128; R.T. Halt, The Mammals of liaq. University of Michigcn. Museum of Zoology. Miscellaneous Publications no. 106 (Ann Arbor 1959) 57-59; D.L Harrison, The Mammals of Arabia, vol. 2 (London 1968) 372-375. 3!0 See R.J, Matthews. The World's First Pig Formers.' Pig Forming 33 (Morch 1985) 51-55; K.V. Flannory, 'Early Pig Domcslicalion in the Feilile Crescenl: A Relrospeclive look,' FS Braictwocd, SACC 36 (Chiccn go 1983) 163-1 88; P. Chorvol, 'Pig. or, on Ethnicity in Aichaeology,' ArOi 62 (1994) 1-6; and most recenlly my conlribulion lo the Festschrifl Boehme.' (cited above, n. 386). 163 169 Texts from Ihe Late Uruk Period "administrative Systems - Administrative offices domesticated races, and probably as later also of wild animals kept for purposes of breeding, was closely controlled by the early administration. Indeed, the importance ol pigs and pigherding to archaic bookkeepers is mosl clearly underscored by a lexical composition described above, section 5, of 58 designations of pigs enc their keepers. All entries in this unique Uruk III period list from Uruk (W 12139, figure 63) include the sign SUBUR ;&=■), 'pig',390 and, with the exception of the first entry, one or more ideograms representing apparent qualifications of this animal such os age, color or provenience. Since P. Steinkeller has stated that "this source is hardly a "swine' list,"3" it may be worthwhile to review the reosons behind ihe identification SUBUR = 'pig' made by P. Damerow, H.J. Nissen and rnysell. Not only ihe clear graphic relation of this sign lo the sign SAH,a - it is the same sign minus the gunification of the back of the depicted animal's neck, i.e., its b-istly mane - but above oil the sequence SUBUR, I N,7+SUBUR and 2NS^SUBUR (=h ol the first three cases of the text392 present a clear correspondence to the age qualifications of pigs attested in later periods. The identification of this list with designations of pigs seems justified, moreover, by a number of qualifications of the sign SUBUR in the lexl which would be incompatible with other interpretations, for instance, SU8UR - 'dog'.3'3 The lines rev. i 2-3 and 7-8 with AB? SUBUR, NEo SUBUR and Gl6 SUBUR, U„ SUBUR, i.e., "cow'/reddish SUBUR" and "black/white SUBUR", for example, contain adjectival pairs particularly characteristic in lexical lists and administrative texts dealing with livestock, namely, wilh large and small cattle. A furthet excmple is the entry rev. iii 5 wilh SE3 SUBUR; the sign I seems lo represent a product delivered by herders, best attested together with sheep and goats - possibly dung, a highly desirous fuel used in cooking and healing in antiquity.3*J The entries iii 6-7 wilh SEo SUBUR and GURUSDA SUBUR also provide hard evidence, since it would be difficult to imagine the purpose of fattening a dog (assuming a correspondence of SEc SUBUR lo later sah; niga) or of a fattener (gurusda) of dogs-or of humans for that matter.3'5 Finally, it may be ™ A. Falkenstein mentioned ihe text in ATLI 1, pp. 45-46, equating the sign 'SUBUR' wilh UR - 'dog'; he did not, however, stale lhal the lexl contained o list of designations of dogs, rather "a list of animal names ... comparable to ab2, "cow*, gud, 'steer", and amar, "calf" in ihe Faro tablet VAT 12806 (*--SF 81)." The improbable idenlificalion of the text as o dog lisl neve-lheless was assumed in M. W, Green's signlist of ATU 2 s.v. SUBUR, and has since been corrected in ATU 2, 15670; ATU 3, 22-23 and 100-103 + pi. IV, and my "Late Uruk Pigs [...],' FS Boehmer, pp. 121-133. 301 In his review of ATU 3 in AfO 42/43 [ 1995-96) 212. 3.2 The entry 3N57+SUBUR in rev. iii 4 « line 54 (fig. 63) may or may not belong lo this progression; Ihe sign 3N57 is known in other combinations to be a graphic variant of the sign KUR0 (•■'$, designating o mole onimo! or possibly an animal from the eastern mountains. 3.3 An interpretation SUBUR = 'human' was considered and rejected by A. Falkenstein, In ATU 1. 46, reoding UR, since no parallels from Sumerian prosopogtaphy to the sign combinations in W I 21 39 were known to him; UR is, moreover, a different sign, which in its ED I-11 form - UET 2, sign no. 284 -assumes precisely the expected furtclicn in personal nomes. The interpretation SUBUR - 'humon' seems further excluded by the proboble age qualifications in the lexl noted above. See Archaic Bookkeeping, p. 93. 3,3 The qualification in the list of SUBUR wilh loponyms, for examp'e, ADAB (ii 8 and see W 20497 iii 1, ATU 3 p. 101,1 18; the sign combination is also found in the administrative lexts MSVO 4, 54, obv, i Reconstructed depictions of boa-s being hunted with a spear from ski-is in tne marshes, m one cose o relief en o stone bowl frorn tht? Jemdel Nosr period (a; note the use of o hunting dog), in ihe other on incised dravcing on lht> shoulder ol a cloy |or horn the Diyolo region, doted lo ED Nlo (b; pig together wilh the other major food resources of Tie marshes, birds and fishi (after original drawings by U. Moortgot-Corrons; scale; co- 1:4). noted that the archaic entry GALo SUBUR ol line 7 of the lexical lisl ED Lu2 A is apparently in all witnesses ftom later periods, beginning wilh the witness from ED l-ll Ur, replaced by GAlo SAH^.3"' It is thus probable that the two signs coalesced during the hiotus between ihe late Uruk and the Early Dynastic periods. While evidence for a so involved terminology of pigs and organization of pig herding as would seem to be implied by ihe existence ol a lexicol pig list including 58 entries is nol known from later periods,3W still ihe nalure of archoic lexical lists as often fanciful paradigmatic 4, and 58, obv. i 2bl, i 5 and re-/, i l) or UB (ii 10), does not assist in identifying the meaning of ihe sign, but would certainly nol exclude the meoning pig'. Cp., for instance, MSL8/2|Rome 1962) p. 20, II. 165-166: sah; Mo,.gon.nol,sigj.gaj. '(fine (possibly in the senseaf unlattened]) Mogan-pig' (ond see the Old Babylonian correspondence in SIT 51 v 2); I. 171: sahj Si.mur.ro, '5imum>pig'. s*0 See below, n. 399, 3 in the ED grain list {SF 1 5-16, MEE 3, nos, 48j-49, and see the Old Akkadian vetsion AADP 27, 196) corresponding to I. D5 of the archaic version (ATU 3, p. 144; probably 'po-k on a Hook'). Ob. SUBUR i BAyAR2o ŠUBUR INí?.Šl!Btlt ŠUBUR AB; 2N57+ŠUBUR 'ŠUBUR NE„' u/lNjrt ŠUBUR' 'SUBUR'[ ] 'KAB^ [ŠUBUR] SUBUR BU0->DU6 Mfc„ 'GARA^-SilA;,/ ŠUBUR ÍUBUR LAGABa RADguni ŠUBUR ŠUBUR Gíb 'KUj,'1 SUBUR rĚUBUR' u4 ZAIUoSo,, bu0 ŠUBUR ŠUBUR ».la BU„ ŠUBUR uri3o ŠUBUR X 'M'JSEN ŠUBUR1 íl KALfc, ŠUBUR PAV ŠUBUR' 1N57ŠL8UR UHj,' "SUBUR' ŠUBUR KiJto 'no' NUN^ŠUBUR ŠUBURV KA5KAL ŠUBUR 'ŠUBLR bt-V IA\\ ŠUBUR ŠUBUR SJHUR 'KA„!" S'JBU? ŠUBUR MU ACAB' ŠUBUR NAß ŠUBUR 'SILA^1' ŠUBUR ZATU758 ŠUBUR ub SUBUR 'GAhj ŠUBUR1 MUSEN ŠUBUR li BAHAR^, ŠUBUR 'Urvi0 ŠUBUÍ AN ŠUBUR Gl INJ7i ŠUBUR ŠUBUR GR^ URq šueur SNjy.ŠUeuR SAJ,, ŠUBUR SEj'1 ] ŠUBUR GAN, SUBLR 'NlrV\,"| ŠUBUR] 'ŠE,,' ŠUBUR ŠUBUR X GURUŠDA^ SUBUR ŠUBUR MA*Ja A ŠUBUR SAGÍJ ŠU3JR logo 5NU BN, Figure 63: The presumable pig lisl W 12139 Note the lirsl ihree erlries of the obverse with the progression ŠUBUR, IN57<ŠU8UR and 2N57+ŠUBUR ["pig", "pig (in its) firs' (year)", 'pig (in its) second (year)'). The left edge of the toblet contains a numerical notation recording the tool number of entries in the lisl (58). 172 173 Teds from Id? Lote Uruk Period Figure 64; Pig-herding account The copy and transliteration of the archaic Uruk text W 23948 follow A. Covigneau*. BoM 22 [ 1991) 57 (small differences between Ihe drawing here and lhal ol Cavigneaux result Iro-n my collation mode in Baghdad in April 1986). The lower drawing contains a secure rcconsriuc'ion of ihe totals on the reverse of the loblel, 174 Admiristtotrve Systems - Admrmsirctive offices account (figure 64) does, however, offer a good general outline of pigherding in ihe archaic period. The text apparently records the distribution of animals from a large herd of 95 pigs into two groups of adults assigned temple units in Uruk and a third comprised of juvenile animals. Despite the fact lhal the obverse of the text is almost entirely destroyed, its preserved traces of deeply impressed numerical signs confirm the assumption (hot this side of the tablet contained specific information about numbers of animals subsumed in lolols on the tablet reverse. Il is ihus possible to recognize three columns on the obverse which likely correspond to the three main entries of the first column on the reverse face.4™ The reverse of the partially destroyed account can be completely reconstructed. The first of three columns (counting from the right) consists ol three entries, of which the first and third are further divided into two sub-cases to the right and one case to the left lhal contained a subtotal of animals listed in the sub-cases. Individual entries of numbers of pigs were qualified with the sign conventionally read BA [$-}, distributed' / 'inspected"401 or through the addition to their corresponding numerical notation of horizontal strokes (system S'), apparently designating slaughtered animals402 The two qualifications BA and the numerical system S' are employed la form ihe second subtotals in the second column ol the reverse of the occount, comprising 84 BA animals and 11 counted using system S'; the addition of these two entries results in the final total of animals, qualified in the last (left) column of the reverse as'altogether (LAGABb/niginj) 95 grain(-fed, SEj pigs'. The animals are also qualified in the text according to their age; young pigs in their first year denoted 1 NJ7+SAH!o (-ftp)403 were not assigned one of ihe two households recorded in the first two cases of the reverse.404 0 The closest parallel to ihis lent known to me was pub'ished by M.W. Green, JNES 39, 33, no. 39 -W 1772°,gi (photo: UVB 1 I [ 1940) pi. 3Bb), an account of □ herd of 77 sheep. 11 The sign. In subsequent periods used to denote the distribution of rations to dependent workers and animals, seems best translated in archaic sources with 'inspected' ('and found lo be available, piclogrom 'eye'), roughly corresponding to later Sumerian gub or gal3, or possibly gurum, (IGI+GAR). See P. Steinkeller, 'On the Reading andrVieaning of igi-karond gutum(lGI.GAR),'AS) 4 (1982) 149-151. " First discussed by M.W. Green, JNE5 39 (1980) 8, and interpreted as □ qualification of sacrificial animals. A.A. Vojmon, VDI 1981/4, 81-82 (see Ihe German translation in BaM 21 (1990) 116-117), subsequently proposed a translation 'staug^tered', which seems to make better sense in context, connecting the sicn semantically and graphically to lotei BAD. :3 The horizontal stroks belore the sign SAH3o is fully parallel lo the sign combination U4+1NJ7 BAR used in the herding accounts discussed above, fig. 49, to auolify or.imo's born in the accounting year of ihe text whereby the first sign is known lo represent 'one' or the 'first" year (cp. R.K. Englund, JESHO 31 [ 198BJ 156-162]. Old Sumerian accounts record the following corresponding qualifications of pigs: sob; u2 SAl/nito 5a3.HI for piglets/shoals, Jab, Uj SAl/nilo mu. 2-3 for pigs in iheir 2nd and 3rd years (in oil likelihood including gilts, sows and borrows), ond sohj.s'rgi for breeding hogs, possibly boors ("reed thicket' pigs; cp. A. Deimel, Ot 20 [1926] 57-59; R.K. Englund, JESHO 31, 141-147). u The institutions were signo'ed oy the signs TUR. (**<1| and ZATU648 f*9), comprised of a simplified lorm of ihe sign DU^, o piclogrom of a reed hut, ana a sign representing a cultic standard or emblem attached to a pole which stood at the from of and was possibly a struclutgl pari of the hut. These are two of the pictograms which represented presumable temple households in Uruk (see fig. 31 above). '75 ■ L Texts from the Laie Uruk Period : Administrative Systems - Administrate offices 6.3.3. Labor organization The type of accounting format we have seen employed in recording household herds, including sheep and goats, cafileand pigs, during the archaic period toward the end of the 4lh millennium b.c., and the administrative structures which must be assumed to underlie this format, in particular the goal of maximizing control and regulating production of the animals, was not restricted to domesticated beasts. Prolo-cuneilarm documents seem also to reward us wilh intriguing, albeit obscure information about the organization and exploitation of men and women, whose labor ond low maintenance created the economic surpluses requisite for a growing urban elite; for the same archaic administrative interest in recording, as an example, the age of herded animals may be demonstrated in the organization of dependent labor. Individually named laborers are commonly found in archaic accounts, in which persons involved are totaled and specified by the signs SAL and KURo ;i.|). Both signs are probably pictographic representations of human genitalia, the first sign designating the female and the second the male laborer. The compound sign called GEME, [p-ifi in the sign list AT U 2 represented both male and female laborers in the same way as the sign combination (^J>> (ABj+GU,, 'cow+bull', see above) denoted 'cattle' in dairy accounts. The text w 23999, 1 depicted in figure 65 contains an account of eight humans designated in the summa'ion SAl+KURa {fXjl-J05 SAL and KUR, are here, just as in occounts recording herds of small and large cattle and, in the case of w 23948, pigs, booked separately according to sex and age: a group of five females consists of four women and one girl, a group of three males of one man and 2 boys.''06 The only difference between the method of accounting for herded animals and for ihis group of humans, possibly slaves, lies in the fact 'hat Following entries of numbers of each sex and age category individual cases record the names of the persons involved.*7 These accounts thus give a strong impression not of being an early census, but rather of being an account of a "herded" family of name-cognizant humans, 405 This compositum was first recognized by A.A. Vajman, 'Die Bezeichnung von Skbven und Sklavinnen in der protosumerischen Schiifl,' BaM 20 [1939) i 21-133 (German translation o( Ins Russian article in VD! 1974/2, 138-148; seealso td„ VD1 1981/4, 81-87 - BaM 21 11990) 1 16-1 23), to represent male and temale humans; the stril seen reading geme? of ihe composilum in archaic lexis is to be rejected. See now the treatment of the signs in proto-cuneiform and proto-Elamite texts in P. Damerow ond R.K. Englund Tope Yahya, 24 and 53-57. 404 Based on this account, it has been possible to identify a number of other archaic texts of like formol and parallel contents, including the second accounr in fig. 65 (and cp. thejemdel Kasr accounts MSVO 1 212-214 [see also Archaic Bookkeeping, 72-75). Nate ihe clear correspondence in the boolkeepinai of Ihe children qualified SA3 TUR in W 23999,1 (cf. ihe entry obv. ii 3a; 2N, ; 1 N^+U^ TUR in W 20274,2 as a possible further correspondence; the qualification n lolet periods was so,.HI [for children and juvenile animals!]) and Ihe animals quolilled 1 N^'kJ, ond I N5.,r SAH?„ for large and small cattle and p;gs, respectively. This is not to say that llie designation SA)(| TUR will have qualified infants in their first year, but rather probably children which weie 'non-exploitable', i.e., loo young to be set to some task. H. Wcelzofdt estimated in 'Die Situation der Frauen und Kinder anha.nd ihrer Einkommensverhdllnis-se zur Zeit der III. Dynaslie von Ur,' AoF 15 (1988) 40, ihol children wil! hove been employed during ihe Ur III period beginning al iho age of 5 or 6. i0? These together with fu't'ner sign combinations in comparable lexis should, as inconl'oveilible designatiens of individual persons, play a role in any attempt ot language decipherment of iho archaic lexis see above, section 4). It must be kept in mind, however, thai, as is known from historic periods, dependent laborers ond slaves often bore foreign names. 176 io M\ . SAl Ibis 4N| , SAL Iblbl 'NAB^H'BUo+DUtT Iblb2 r3„! AN" Iblb3 ANStt 7Nj7 CUSz DU IbIM GAR ßfc Ib2c IN) ;5A3„l TUR Ib2b TUb 2a '3N,1. KUH, "2b lo 1N| , KUR« 2Mb See P. Domerow ond R.K. Englund, ATU 2, 153-15460, and add MSVO 1, 140, ob/. i 1 a, with an explicit N30j qualifying c GAR reconstructed accotding lo Ihe parallel text MSVO 1, 13 B, and Archaic Bookkeeping, p. 42, Fig. 38, obv. ii 5o(co. 1N„ pe- unil), and R.K. Englund, JE5HO 31, 162-164. For a comprehensive list of further qualifications of the producls GAR wilh metrological and ideographic signs, see the appendix to my article 'Groin Accounting Praclices in Archoic Mesopotamia,' in: J, Hayrup and P. Domerow (eds.), Changing Views on Ancient Neot Eastern Mathematics (Be-lin. forthcoming). Adrrinisliclive System* - Administrative olfices • 1 MSVO 4, 17 Figure 68: Daily bread Our best evidence surjejests that the beveled-rim bowl was an instrument of the archaic raiioning system, equivalent to a doily ration of about 0.S1. The grain no'otion in the first case cf the text MSVO 4, 27, represents a measure equal lo 24 x 30 x M3yo. thai is. 24 30-day months at one-thiitieth N, per day. This one-lhirlicth ol the basic measure t>],, represented by the sign N30d, is known to correspond to the sign GAR inscribed immediately after the tirnekeepina notation and th s piclogram represents ihe beveierj-rim bowl. The notation 2N, 2Nj * N, (remembering that 4NM = 24N,), or exactly 1 N30o of grain per day. This is precisely the amount we would expect to correspond to GAR and, as was discussed obove, section 6.2, implies a close relationship between the archaic system of administrative timekeeping ard the giain capacity system, namely, that GAR grain' equals one day, and lhal'lN, GAR grain' equals one month. The absolute size of the beveled-rim bowl shows a variance of between aboul0.5 and 1 liter,'1" and so is fully consistent with the amounts of grain distributed daily to dependent workers in later third millennium administrative centers. 6.3.4. Grair and grain products The major activity of loborers al all times in Mesopotomian history consisted of the tending ol fields. Third millennium accounts recorded ihe plowing and sowing of individually surveyed fields, the necessary irrigation and 'ending of the crops, ond the lobor-intensive harvest and storage ol the grain. Legendary yields of 50:1 and better were documented, and even the norm of 30:1 according lo which cereol harvests were predicted and rents and interest calculated in the Ur III period would have appeared fabulous to medieval farmers in Europe."*'' 4M Edited in JESHO 31, 162-164.; see above, n. 266. 431 See slil ATU 2, 153-154«, ord Ihe literature cited above, n. 385. 177 See K. Butz. Tandwirlschall,' in RIA 6 (19B0-B3) 470-486, K. Bui?, ond ?. Schröder, 'Zu Getreideer-Ircgen in Mesopotamien und dem Millelmeergebiel,* BoM 16(19B5) 165-209, andMA Powell, 'Salt. Seed, ond Yields in Surr.erion Agriculture. A Critique of the Theory of Progressive Solinization,' ZA 75 (1985) 7-38. B. Hruška hos published on excellent survey cl current knowledge of Mesopotomian agricultural p-oclices in ihe preprint series of the Mox Planck Institute for ihe History of Science, Berlin, entitled Sumerion Agriculture: New Findings (no. 26, Berlin 1995). 180 181 Texts from ihe Lore Uruk Period Administrative Systems - Administrative offices figure69:MSV0 3. 79 the single enliy probably represents u consolidation of an account corilairrcd or: ano'hrrr loblet, including notation u' u targe amcunt ol grain inn 135,OX liters;, on accounting period of 37 months, and the responsible ollice KU SIM". It is thus not unexpected that I he majority of crchoic accounts ore concerned with cereals. However, texts currently available to us seem to document with very few exceptions exclusively the storage and distribution of grain. Such accounts can be recognized above all through the inclusion, usually in ihe key position of colophons, ol ihe sign SEn , a pictogrum of a barley spike}, of a numerical notation using the grcin capacity system, or of an ideogram which denotes a grain product, often collectively qualified with the sign GAR |JJ>, a piccgran of a beveled-rim bowl probably used to hold a daily ration of grain) or DUG (c£>, a pictogram of a clay jar with spoul) representing dry groin pioducls and beer, respectively. For example, the account MSVO 3, 79 [figure 69;/" contains a atge grain capacity system notation'124 corresponding, il our interpretation of ihe absoljle si?e of 'he measures represented by the individual members of the grain capacity system are correel, lo approximately 135,000 liters of grain. The nolation is qualified with the object designation SEo and the largest monlh nolation known from the archaic lexl corpus, namely, a notation representing 37 months.'"5 Even though we are not in a position to interpret the firal neaping of the ideographic notation cccompanying these signs,''"' ihe size ol ihe groin measuie recorded in this text remains an important indication of the size and probable camp'exily of household economies active in the Late Uruk period. A pair of Uruk III period grain accounts, bolli possibly from Uqaii, reco'd in eigh- cases amounts of grain again qualified with ihe sign SEo and with sign combinations representing 451 The text idenlilicolion refers to the archaic tablels ol ihe Erlcnmeyer collodion [sec above, n. 49), to be edited forlhcoming by P. Damcrcw and myself in the volume MSVO 3. JJJ Recognizable in ihe final sign N J5a t—; the repetition of the sign NIit six limes would also exclude both ihe sexagesimal arid bi sexagesimal syslerns Irom consideration). J'5 Thai is, Ihiee years plus one monlh. Whelher litis in any way reflects an archaic inkiicolotion in o three year cycle, as was common in later administrations, is a matter ol speculation 43ft They mighl reflect an exchange transaction account consolidating lite gram tr.ed in the brewing ofiice of the official 'KU SIM' (see Archaic Bookkeeping, pp. 36-37; dunng ihis period o! 37 inonlli. To put ihe amounl in perspective: 135,000 liters ol groin would be sullicicnt rations la Ined a crew of I 50 workmen for o period of three yeors. MSVO 4, ? Figure /0: l.ight-yeoi giotn accounts MSVO 4, 1-2 'he fitsl ihiough the eighlh year of an uncleor adminisltative period (figure 70).''" Although the individual grain measures aie furlher qualified according lo the apparent field connccled with the gra n, the pu-pose of this connection is unclear, since the grain would appear to have neilhet served as sued nor have been ihe harvesl of the named fields'128 '■'J? 1 -8NW ■ wli'-i"!)y in in second 'ex! 8N,i7. U, is replaced by lire simplified 8NW inscribed with two rows ol four slrok'ts nrich. Sire cjbovo, section 6.2. This type of account with ordinally reckoned years is comparable lo IN- lim" notation:, ovd summations in the artificial 10-yeor Ur III occcr.nl TCL 2, 5499, for which see Archaic Ronll.r-opmg. pp. 97-102, "* Tlx? apparent tjitificiol calcutalions ol giom rotion dislnbutions (signaled by notations represenling round numbers and Ijy th" sign GU. i SAG ■ GAR| in no. 1, rev. i 1) and Ihe loci Ihol both totals ore equal to a lorgo measure t*quivolr-nt lo 660 of ihe Ixisic giom mcosure units N, (represenling a measure of appronnxjtfly 7ti ItiTs cjnd :o cittogelner co. 16.500 liters oi 10 tons of gram) ol least suggest Ihol the lexis might ri'pn.'ynt picxluclion or cost norms. IMS 183 Texts From the Late Uruk Period Administrate Systems - Administrative oHices Grain distribution Aside from such accounts of larger amounts of grain measured in the capacity system, numerous archaic accounts record the distribution of grain in the form of dry grain products and beer. The Uruk III period text presented in figure 71 is a good example of these types of accounts. The first case of ihe text's obverse contains two sub-cases. In the first, o bisexagesimal notation tepresenting 598 discrete units is qualified by the sign GAR, so denoting grain rations. In the second, a sexagesimal420 notation representing 59 units is qualified by the sign DUG,., denoting jars of bee\"x The function of the text seems indicated on its reverse face. The sign BA (*r) inscribed alone in the final column to the tight must represent a global qualificalion of the grain products and beer recorded on the obverse; the often close relationship of this sign with notations including the sign GAR seems to suggest that is had □ meaning similar to the later tradition of distribute . This qualification 'distribution' was particularly common in ihe archaic texts and was used to represent the transfer of goods to lower- and to higher-level stale dependents. A BA transaction concerning high-level officials is recorded in the texts MSVO 3, 64 and 58 (figure 72;. The obverse of ihe former tablet has 4 entries, each recording a specific amount o: grain in the capacity system, and each including the title of an official. The first, second end fourth entries include professional designations which are fouid bolh in the lexical list Lu; A and in many administrative accounts. The sign combination ENc SAl of the third entry is not found in ihe professions list; it is, however, very common in accounts, particularly in this form in accounts from Jemdel Nasr, where it probable describes the wife of the ruler, ENc. The reverse side of ihe tablet contains the usual sum of the entries, qualified by the signs SEo and BA (presumably "grain distribution'), and further sign combinations "KU SlM" and 'Nl SA", which stand for two persons or offices; these are probably co-signers lor the transfer of the grain. A similar account is MSVO 3, 58. Numerical notations representing relatively large measures of grain are booked into entries quolified with sign combinations designating persons, including here the same 1KU SIM" and 'Nl SA' who in the first account signed the grair out. The receiving persons in this account, however, are not known from the professions list. A working hypothesis lo explain both accounts would be that the named individuals were heads of rather large households who received grain distributions from communal storage facilities."3' 41v We know this notation, which in another context might be bisexagesimal, is from the sexagesimal system, since all archaic notations ot vessels which cross the ' 120 barrier' continue with the r60' (t" -) and not with the 'l 20 (Hi signs characteristic of the bisexcgesimal system 430 Note the close approximation of a 10; l reialionship between dry grain products and jars of beer, which may themselves have hod a capacity of ca. eight l:ters. If the beer was brewed at the rale of l; l (one measure of grain per measure of finished beer] - the brewing ratio of the common man in later periods -ond if ihe sign GAR represented the standard measure equal lo that represented by the sign N30a (see above, seclion 6.3.3), these sizes would imply that the two notations of GAR and DUG0 were roughly value-equivalent. 431 Bolh texts also offer straightforward evidence of calculations in the capacity system. In AASVO 3, 64, the addition consisls of 2 units of -he size("->, i 2 units of ihe size •. + 22 units of ihe size«, + I unit of the size n=. The lotol con be seen to be fully consistent with the replacement rules ol the capacity system i 3^ discussed above, section 6.1, of N3„ = 3N,j, and NJ; ION, Figure 71: An account of 'bread and beer' 184 '85 Texrs from fhe Late Uruk Period AdminpHioilrvcr' Srystemi - Ad minimi ulive offices ••• •UP/ IS F) msvo 3. sa Obverse F?of,r- Tigure 72: AASVO 3, 64 and 58 These two consolidated accounts contain noiaiions on their obverse faces icpjraoniing gram dislnbuf-ons (sign BA f on obve;se ond revei&e) to ntgh officials, and a oumma'inn or- il-p u?vnim. Tlte office "KU SIM' cppiirenlfy signed the norc with Nl SA' in (he upper account; note Ihol hoifi offices were tliems5rw?s beneficiaries ordisfrrbutions recorded in foe lower accounL I Bo J •B • • -• • > • • — *8\ • • — as;* 1*1 • # j v- • :r \^' '- #■ eg! M5V0 3.51 Figure 73 MSV0 3. 57 and 51 The Nvo tablets. Inscribed only on tlx? obverse, represent presumably consolidated nccounis of beer prccuc-Han drown From separata tablets. In tlx* first cose, natations representing amounls ol barley grools ond mall were subsumed .n a total qualified as 'BA, distribution"; ihe account is o functional duplicate of the led half o1 'lie second tablet, which inducer] oddil oini'y. ml- es recording distribution to two separate offices (?'l t'NAGA i ij» I ontl "DUE" :c|gl)). The graphics to the right indicate the indwduol summanda of the respective- texts 137 Texts (torn the lote UrtA Period Adnnnistrolive Systems - Administrative offices Another pair of accounls from the Erlenmeyer collection, MSVO 3, 52 and 51 [figu-e 73) offer more explicit information about the function of the official 'KU SIM'. Since these two and a series of further accounts identify KU SIM" as an official responsible for the processing and distribution of large meosures of cracked grain or grocts on the one hand (represented by notations in the derived capacity system S*], and of malted barley on the other (represented by notations in the derived capacity system S'), we have concluded that he is responsible for a brewery directly related la an archaic central administration,^ Although only noted on the former, we can assume lhat both accounts dealt with distributions [sign BA) of the brewing ingredients - these being the expenditure journals of the office of "KU SIM". Like the accounts discussed above, these texts offer fine examples of the complexity of a-choic grain accounls. The same sort of complexify, however lo a somewhat higher degree and centered on the use of the global qualifier Gl instead of BA, is found in ihe unprovenienced accounls MSVO 4, 45 and 43 in figure 74. Both lexis register on the obverse face, in two sections separated by a double dividing line, measures ol giain qualified as either barley (by ihe sign SEo and numerical notations in the basic capacity system) and/or emmet wheat (numerical notations in the derived system S")433 together with an ideographic notation whicli must represent individuals who either received or delivered the measures of grain recorded in the same coses, dependent on our understanding of the sign Gl. If ihis sign has o semantic function similar to that of later Sumertan gi/gi4, that is, qualifying ihe movement of goods into a central administrative authority, ihe individuals would be delivering agents. Grain calculations Archaic accountants recorded the movement of grain measures from one office to the next, but also were responsible for overseeing the use of groin in the production process. We have seen that barley and emmer were above all ground and processed into dry grain products, probably a mixture of breads and simple ralioning measures, and into barley beer, ledgers recording the amounts of grain in various stages of processing needed lo produce bread and beer belong lo the most numerous ol oil archaic texts. The tablet depicted in figure 75434 is in Fact nol one of those accounts; it is, instead, one of bul several archaic administrative exercises, as is obvious by ihe very large and round numbers represented in its individual cases, and by the fact thai no petsons and no designalions of the purpose of the text are recorded. 432 The loiter of the two texts is only on its surface more complex. Trie left upper half ol the account can be seen to parallel the entire account ol the former text. To the right, more detailed information was included concerning presumable condiments (NAGA0 and DUB ) Gdded to the brews. 433 Barley (six-rowed, Hotdeum hexastichum, and emmer wheat I Tfiticum d/coccum! are in tact the two major cereals which have been paleabolanically idenlifiea in archaic levels ol Uruk; see W. Nogel, RIA 3 (1957-71) 316, ondJ.M. Renfrew, BSA 1 (19B4i 32-44. Thederved capacity system was created by simply adding two short strokes lo eilher side of signs from [he basic system, occasionally simplified to two long strokes drawn through the whole sign. See A. A. Vojman, "Liber die p'olosurnerische Schrift," ActAilH 22(1974) 21-22. 434 MSVO 4, 66; see above, section 6.2, and the first successful treatment of the text in J, Fribetg, ERBM II 33-43, in copy in id., Mothemalik,' RLA 7/7-8 (l 990) 539. According lo Ihe dealer who sold il to the Iraqi department of antiquities in 1933, ihe lablel came from larsa. The first column of MSVO 4, 66, records numbers of dry grain products counted with the bisexagesimal system, followed in each case with the amount of groin used in their production. In the firs" case, the production of 60 units of 'he product rr {= '/5 • --) required 60 x '/j o -12)-.; (and since 6i = 1 • in the groin capacity system) = 2 ». The same kind of calculations are made in the following coses with ever larger numbers of ever smaller grain products,435 ending not with a memljer of the capacity numerical system, bul with its ideographic equivalent, ihe sign GAR+6NJ7, which as we have seen was the pictographic representation of the beveled-rim rationing bowl supplemented with a varying number of strokes and which had ils correspondence in the capacity system with ihe sign N30o (iSl) representing Vx of the basic unit N, ji ). The second column of the obve.-se face of this lexl records in like fashion jars of beer, using 'he sexagesimal system, and in an accompanying sub-case ihe arnounl of barley grools used in their brewing.436 These clear calculations thus demonstrate the close relationship between numerical systems employed in archaic occounts to qualify discrete objects and the capacity" system used to quclity measures ol grain: obv. i 1 2NM 2 INS,; 1NM 3 [IN j 1N!6 4 r2N5; 1NM; 1NM 2N;o3Ns 5 5N5,; 6 r5N^ ; GAR~6N57 1N3? 3^2^ ii 1 2N„ ; DUG.+U,. r5N2;iN„ lNJ5o 2 3ISL ; DUG+AS 6N20 3 5N3„ ; KASQ 3N:o 2N5 rev. i 1 1N;,; BA GAR 2 5NH ; GAR+5N57 \N373NK 2N, 3 1N„;DUG0KAS0 1N„ 4Nffl 3NäliM42o ii 1 IN* 2N„7 QN^, 4N5 1 N„o 2 8N„4N51NW The£ rain calculations:437 obv. i 1 60 x '/j. ■• H " 12xr-- 2 120 x1/,,,. (S) =12X1.-- 2x. Eacr o: ihe products is in foct well represented as such ir, the archaic text corpus, in all cases emptoying the bisexagesimal counting system. As with ihe dry grain producls, the type of beer recorded in ihe First entry required more grain for its production, the lollcwing two types progressively less, due probably lo the fact that higher beer qualities lequired moie barley in the brewing process than did the beer of the 'common man'. The sign DUG0 is according to ihis text ihe denoter ol o beer vessel of a particular si^e, KASa the c'enalerof ihe liquid itself, The differentiation between DJG0 and DUG,, (cO and d>) wos In the archaic sources very strict. The latter sign lacking Ihe representation ol a spout referred without exception lo vessels containing different kinds of fcls, for Ihe most par' animal fots such as ghee, lard and the like. The results are shown in the basic capacity system. All calculated groin 'costs1 are in fad in the derived system S* (see above, lig. 41). 1 08 189 Texrs Ifom fho Laic Uruk Period • ••so •••5 •• (Sä • >^ m \b '• -rr>- .•Iii : t; pi s MSVO 4. 45 MSVO 4, A3 Figure 74: A comparison of the ccidilions in the Iwo groin occounls MSVÜ 4r 45 and 43 3 4 5 rev. i 1 120 x (w) - 8x. 300 x ['"') - 15xi 600 x '/„■ ■ - 24x. 1200 Ix • 2x I 2x. 3xi 4x« lx« I x • 5x I The first column of the reverse o! MSVO 4, 66, contains the tola Is of ihe dry grain prcducls and of the beet vessels, in each case with a nolalion of the tola! atr-ounl ol grain used in iheir produclion, added together for a grand Idol of borley g-oals in lite second column to Administrative Syslems - Administrative t-TfiLes Rev ill Cj-ond IcM ol boric, «nd cmn-e- wheal totals o) ;■"/■■. ord e-^r-er hvhprrl Ov i lbl-2ond 2bl-2: Totals ol bailey und emmei wheol fftr ihu olficicils PA„ AM MAE, and BU„ PAfVj NAM; ?ev I Id ond ?o: ice's ol grorli im the ofiicinls PA^ AN AnAFt0 grid BUt, PAf„ NAM; 5C§ -XR1- t 4!» «1 4)r "Or 3» m m the left. A final nolalion below litis grand total represents, as we know from complete accounts of atchaic brewing offices, the anounl of mall added to ihe beer during ils processing.'"" The quantity ol moll added varies occording to the sort of beer (figures 76-77); in the cose of MSVO 4, 66, the molt was added to all three sorts at an average rale of 3 measures ol mall to 5 cf barley groals. "3B The oblique slrohe adVJed lo lite signs of ihe system 5' is ptesumably ihe pictographic representation of the sprout Irom the individual kernels, jnsl os ihe dotted impressions of the system S * are suggestive of cracked or ioi,g'"-grounr] bar!f?y g-ocit:. I go 191 Texts from the late Uruk Fericd The account recorded on the tablet MSVO 3, 11 (figure 76), offers more exact calculations. The entries on the obverse of the text consist of varying numbers of numerical notations qualified by the signs S£Nb, SENjenO and DUGQ (o(J>, and 5f>i designating types of beer, and followed by an ideographic notation representing a temple household or a high officio!. The reverse of the tablet catries the sum of the jars for each beer type together with the ornount of barley ond malt needed for iheir ptoduction.'"' The same sequence of entries representing a delivery to one office, recorded in the middle column of the obverse ol MSVO 3, 1 1, is found in another account, MSVO 3, 6 (figure 76). It may be that the latter text merely records a different deliver/ of the some measures of beer; however, we suspect that the oblique stroke added to the sign Gl in the large account1^0 acted as an accounting check-off that the entry had been successfully carried over. A veritable manual of grain calculations was inscribed on one tablet from the Erlenmeyer collection [figure 77). Eleven different ceteaI products ard five kinds of beet wete compiled in a form which, giver subscripts indicating the purpose of the account and for whom if wos drawn up, would have been ascribed So a normal account ng office, lacking ihese ideographic qualifications, the text is, like MSVO 4, 66 (ligure 75), lo be considered a school exercise, AsinMSVOd,66, five different numerical systems were used in theoccount: the bisexocjesimol system For the cereal products, the sexagesmal system lor the beer containers, and three different systems lor the measures of cereals The grain calculations in MSVO 3, 2; obv. i 1 10 x 7> & = 5x — Ixt: 2 10 x = 3 '/,x- 3 20 x ■■/- (*! = 5x-< Ixi: /. 30 x M = 6xrr = Ixt.-. Ix- 5 20 y = 4x- 6 60 x '/> - IOx-t - 2x obv. it 2 30 x (an*) - 5x-. = Ixt- 3x-J" 30 x '/10- km -3x-= Beers qualified SENl were brewed with ihe addilion of mall at l'ne rate of 1:1 For boih types GAL ond TUR. The beer qualified 511110}/ DJG^ was supplemented wilh mall at [he rote of 2:3. 4J0 Note the same check mork added lo Ihc sign L4 at 'he boltorn oF the firal column, and lo Gl in ihe fourth cose of the ihird column oF ihe text. The basic system was used for rhe specification of (he quantities of I he ceieal ingredients contained in the products; tfie other t\ro are ihcse de-ived systems used b qualify barley groafi and malt. 412 Differentamounts oFrougrvground barley were requred in the production of the respective units SAgvnO (x) ond [y]. In the first ca« {obv. ii 2[, 30 x o-.d 30 y required the equivolenl of 8N30 grain, or on average per unit; in the second (obv. m 2), I 20 of ihe former and 60 of Ihe latter products required the equivalent of ?6N~. Since trie replaeemert of x and y with the Factor V1; would in rhe sccorid case result in (180 x 2/Xi =} 24 instead of ihe recorded 26 Nao, ihe solution which fits both equations 30* + 30y « SN5„ and 12Cx + 60y ^ 26MJ? will require x ^ y. This solution, which also harmonizes with what we '(now from other ottestalfons ol the prodjds concerned, requires thol x ^ 1/ and y - V]0 (solving far y; 120x = 32NW - 120y and \ 20x - 26NOT - 60yp or 60y = 6NW# or y -_- »/lC N3?r with, directly, x = 76 N3J. Anminisrroiive Systems - Administrative offices • IBM k---—L, ».-^\ \ ■i> •». •1 1 11 • • II II • • • 11 11 D '.5» & AS 1 •f i - 51? Fiyur^75: MSVO 4, 66 The text piciured above represents one of onty several admin'slralive eKcrcr^c !ab(c1s from ihe archaic corpus. Firsl putJishod and porholly understood by A. Fcltprtsfeir,, MSVO 4# 66, was o key reirl in jcron Fhbeigs correci icenli^ical on 0' rhe itruclme ol the crcticic metroLac|ical sys'ent used lo counl grain measuieSj in poiti-cuiar the leFationship of 1:6 between 'he two signi Nh ond Ni ea;liei believed to be 1:10. 5 1800 x1/,- {[>) = 360x- = lx» 2x-4J3 obv. iii 2 120 x Vt- jgfJP"; = 20x — 5X I- lXTT44" 60 x '/10- =6x-Knowledge ol the calculations of archaic groin processing evident in the artificial texts discussed above substantially eases the task of understanding the meaning of large numbers of real grain accounts, ond even aids in reconstructing ail or pari of damaged texts. The preserved text end a nearly complete reconstruction ol a grain account from Jemdet Nosi4Ji offered in figure 76 ore good examples of this process. Note the deviation from the norm olGAR -= Vj„ N, JJJ See above, n. 442. Mi Cereal grains found inside pots at Jemde' Nosr were discussed by H. Field. "Ancient Wheal and Baticy Iran Kish, Mesopotamia,' American Anthropologist 34 (1032) 303-309. M,J See the detailed Itoolmenl of this text in my 'Grain Accounting Practices in Archaic Mesopotamia,' in: J. Heyr-jp ond P. Domerow ;eds.}, Changing ViEws on Ancient Near Eastern Mathematics (Berlin, Forthcoming] 192 193 Texts from the late Uiuk Pynod Administrative Systems - Administrative offices ilF-1 • ~>^Y flitfe? —--^ ^(Kh I •5IU • -v ••••• NIL ffW.9 1 boo' djlr Lui on lo l'i" '.w MÖVCJ a, 6 ob«., Figure 76: MSVO 3. I I otid 6 The large account on pntjn l°»l ir-piescnrs tic consolidation of at least live texts, one cl which is depicted above (note purlicukjily lire nltlrqir"" srrolr (Hr.lwtfi e sign Gl j ] in 'he lormer loxl. missing in rl-.» lallni, it p:<-'.wr,nU'/ irdir.crlrd tlxit llic rrsprxtiv*' *.>ntry had boon checked lor occuracy). The counted measure: o! beei l|ug-., p'olxibh; '>! vulioia MZes and/a representing beer sorts ol dillerenl strengths) recorded on the obverv ol WfiVO 3, II, win m the reverse ol t'rir- accojnl lotalud and quablied with the amount of the gram ptrelrcfc Ixrrlr-y cjluotl find trait required lor then brewing Ihc entire account was siqncd bv the re ^wl*' ■ 60 (r»oted in ihc bisexogesimai system} - grain product = omnutft of bňrlfty tl> gtoD's necessary for 60 rWl Figure 77: MSVO 3, 2 the text seems lo have served as a school s * 5 - laigi» (w 'tor al big [moh''l - [on cl u coriam type ol botu amount al neeciiory bcufcy groats ^\J~"^T • amount ot wxciwty maní ; in rjdminislrolive bookkeeping. The obverse face of the tablet contains three discrete sections. The first presents o number of grain products 'ogether with the amount of grain necessary for their production, clearly parallel to the format seen in figures 75 and 77 above. These objects are quantified using the bisexagesimal system for dry grain products and the sexagesimal for jugs of beer, and the measures of grain needed are, as seen before, qualified with notations from the derived capacity systems designating groats and, in the case of beer, malt.447 A double dividing line below the last grain notation in obv. ii 3 seporctes this section from a second section with entries recording non-cereal objects. These include animals and animal products (dried fish [SUHUR, see above, secti o n 6.3.1 ], shee p a nd goats [ U Dll^, see above, section6,3.2j, containers ol animal fats, textile goods) ana dried vuits4"9. With the exception of the still poorly understood notation N52 from the derived bisexagesimal system B* in ihe case ii 6440, all notations derive from the sexegesima! system. The final, ideographic section describes the function o: the text. This notation seems to include a toponym Nlo+RU (possibly the archaic desigration o:Jemdel Nasr4S0), a time notation 2N57 SUo GIBII.45' and a qualification of all the recorded products, GIL, which may be translated "rations".4" 447 The total of the amount of barley groats used in its brewing, recorded on ihe reverse of the tablet, allows us to confidently reconstruct the first of he two oeer no'olions as 20 beer iugs iDUG0 KASJ, requiring (2N, N30NJ) 5 4 '/> 6 10 7 40 '/, 9 = 4 — = 3 - - v/2 - = 23 TT i !'/, - = 5 4 i: 2'/, - MSVO 1, 93, is one of a number of examples of rationing texts Irom Jemdel Nasr which exhibit parallel Formats and contenls. The besl currently known pcrallel text, MSVO 1, 108 (figure 79, page 200 lop), records ir its first section numbers of dry grain products logelher wilh the barley greats necessary for their production, followed by a second recording quantities of beer together with both measures of groats ond malt. The third column of the obverse contains a section of non-grain products in the same sequence as thai recorded in MSVO 1, 93. The reverse face of MSVO 1, i08, also closely parallels that of no. 93 in both summalions and subscript. The text MSVO 1, 107 [figure 79, page 200 bottom] represents a shortened form of the two accounts MSVO 1,93 and 108, merely recording the lota Is of a separate ledger/53 The text includes all the elements of full accounts, i.e., notations representing barley groats (and malt) used in the production of dry and liquid grain rations (first column), notations representing o total both of numbers of dry grain rations (GAR) and of jars of beer together with their respective grain (and mall) equivalents (second column) and notations representing non-grain products, including both small cattle and dried fruits. The IwoJemdel Nasr accounts MSVO 1, 95-96 (figure 79, page 201), represent ihe highest level of grain accounting known to us from thct site. Each column of the obverse of these texts contains a consolidated account of the type discussed above, cleansed of all details. The first entries in each column represent relatively large measures of milled grain (and malt] used in the production of dry grain products and beer151 - neither of which is mentioned at this level of accounting - and are followed by entries concerned wilh the same types of non-grain goods, including sheep and goals, fishery products (?; system B*) and with products from the textile manufactories.''-5 The apparent delivering agents [?) 0f the goods listed aro high officials of the central administration of Jemdet Nasr/56 These accounts offer a wealth of information concerning the processing of grain and the constitution of beer, bread and other cereal producls - as is obvious from a perusal of JS3 Few examples of individual receipts or journals which were copied into larger accounts (see above, fig. 76) have been identified, although the accounts con scarcely be explained otherwise. 454 We can assume that only those columns which include o notation representing c measure of mall (in MSVO 1, 95, cols, i, ii and iv; in 96, cols, i and 11) derived from accounts including beer processing. ai Including, however, a number of undeciphered ideograms, omong them in MSVO 1, 96 obv. i 4; MAR i 5: KIDb, i 6: ML) and ii 9: W^gunB. «0 See below, with figs, 83 and 87. DRY CEREAL PRODUCTS AND RATIONS: GENERAL DESIGNATIONS B> I m> 4> O i> 3-6N57.GAK DRY CEREAL PRODUCTS AND RATIONS: NUMERICAL SIGNS IN IDFOGRAPHIC USE s a & £ * f f ® ® ® ® ix ,§j "81 IS N3vVb N2.i N20 N28 Nyj, Ny*. N30o N30d N31 NjJ N33 DRY CEREAL PRODUCTS AND RATIONS: COMBINATIONS OF NUMERICAL SIGNS AND IDEOGRAMS =3L « <« 4 Kl id . wikjm. N'NDAo NISOA? NINDAj IMINDA2 7AIU6SO ZATWiW 7ATU650 DRY CEREAL PRODUCTS AND RATIONS: IDEOGRAMS GUG;„ * 011«, DU& CUfc OUecginu1^^ "Jjjf- m> ^ ^ *> 9 11 SA J*i* Ji*- SAu"™ »t 2hlS8 ZATU72cy- ZATU72cvj ZATU727 ZATU68I ZATU625 trSlgwririjg +Hfrpunui) 9 LIQUID PRODUCTS CONTAINING CEREALS: BEERS so SO i..',i ii 11,1 h ...J 11 o aj> C: K> DUG„ CUCo KA5» *U3o DUG GAlc SEN:: SENb TUR SENtlenll ZATU710 SEMI-LIQUID PRODUCTS CONTAINING CEREALS: DAIRY FATS (?) IMN lr l1 W W4, Figure B0: Designations of cereal products and ta I ions in ihe archaic texls 202 203 lex's From the Laie Uruk Period Administrativ« Systems - Administrative offices figure 80 - which fed the archaic communities of Mesopotamia. More importantly, the accounts formed pari of a complex system of victualing bo'h at tne high, ond of course at the lower level cf organization. Some, as J. friberg has suggested, might also reflect o specific aspect of the temple household organization known from the Icter third millennium in which provisions, known as sa7.dun rations, for deities or revered elites were registered. These included, in a striking parallel, bread and beer, sheep, fish, dairy products and fruits, often in this order. 6.3.5. Fields Of course the grain registered in the majority of archaic accounts rep-esented the yield of difficult work in the fields (proto-cuneiform sign GAN„, JML45'') surrounding documented settlements. Few texts combine notations both from the grain capacity and from the area measures systems,458 thus probably implying lhal seed or harvesl grain from fields was being recorded. One of the best known examples of this combination is found in the Uruk III period account W 19726,a in figure 81. The 'obverse' face of this tablet45'1 preserves one numerical notation representing, in later Sumerian tradition, 40 bur3, or about 6'10 acres.410 To the left of this notation are two damaged signs, one of which is certainly the piclogram GAN?. The 'reverse' contains a grain notatioi, indeed one which represents far and away the largest capacity measure in the archaic texl corpus, corresponding to ca. 550 tons of emmer.461 457 The sign presumably represent irrigated fields defined on a long axis by two parolle canals, with feeder canals running between rirem; compare the hypolhelrcal plots calculated in the lex" MSVO 1,2, presented in fig, 83. An unusually involved numerical sign system was used in the archaic period to qua lily the size of fields, for which sen the table in fig. 41 above. In no instance has it been possible to isolate an occurrence of an area measurement which could be interp'eted to be a qualif calior. of a city lot. We might expect such a notation to consist of c small fraction of on ik u, represented In archaic lexis with the sign N,, However, the only likely candidate for such a division is ihe sign Nfl (-) found in several texts From Jemdel Nasi a nd probably representi ng 1 / ,0 N, f see here f i g. 8 3 a nd ny re marks i n N. A. B ,U. '995:38); these all refer to divisions of o fie'd. The ideogram SAf£u as precursor of the later sign s or, representing 1 ninda' or ,/loa iku, seems in all notations cf suiface measures to qualify, .1 anything, the type of produce grown on fields concerned, and in no case can disctelely counted SARfl be confidently interpreted to represent surface measures and thus measures ol gardens or vacant or developed lots, as was the case in later periods. 41s See above, fig. 41, for fac'or diagrams representing these systems. 459 As is the case with many such text Iragments, it is difficult to recognize a diffcrcce between obverse and reverse. Assuming lhal W 19726,a represents o harvesl account led necessarily to ihe recording lirsl ol field measures ond including on Ihe reverse the groin measures representing ihe harvest. 440 The sexagesimal ond ihe field measurement systems were ihe two most conservative numerical systems in Ihird millennium Mesopotamia, and were presumably linked by a system of lengths which, ihougli not evident, is certainly implicit in ihe archaic lexts, in particular in the calculation of field areas. In order lo establish the size of o field surface, two diFferen! slondcrds were employed, the linear measure based on a metrological unit approximately equivalent lo 6 meters ijatcr Sumerian 'ninda'], and the surface measure 'garden' (plot; Sumerian 'šar'), ihe equivalent of one square nirda. Allhough units ol length were sexogesimally based, field measurements lollowed an irregular system probably derived Irom trodilional methods of sowing arid harvest. 441 The notation in fact represents an amount live times as large os the next largest measure, lhal recorded in W 17729,ou(unpubl.). Note lhat assuming our interpretation of this text is carrecl (see A*U 2, 140), ihe Figure 81: W 19726,o According b yie ds known from later texts, the har-ves' fiom the ficfd surface recorded in the preserved notation on the cbverse of Ihis occoun' (4 bur'u, ca, rMO ceres) would be cbout 220 Ions of gram. Ihe preserved par' of the notal.on on the reverse corresponds 'o an amcunt ry abou' 550 Ions o: emmer. Figure 82: MSVO 1, 10 Th;s is the only archaic text which implies a standard relation between field arid groin measures ot 15N|, or, according to our calculations, ca. 360 I per bur. This would be in mjgh accordance with seed ond feed rates pel bur known from later 3rd millennium lexis. Based on the Ur III normed yield of 30 gur (9000 liters) per bu r3, Ihis amount of grain would correspond lo somewhal more than twice os much os would be expected from the field recorded on the obverse of the occounl, suggesting thai that nolalion was one of two or more which registered grain fields surrounding Uruk. A second, complete occourt, presumably but not certainly fromjemdet Nasr (figure 82], seems to bear evidence of an archaic norm for sowing groin. There, ihe grain notation on one face of the tablet stands in a -elation lo an area meosure on its reverse face of 15N, grain per Nu (bur3),4t>5 Using our hypolhelical absolute values of GAR = - */s liter, sign N4i would have served in the derived capacity system S' to represent both o measure 10 as large as that represented by Nl<3, and o meosure 1800 as 'arge (see above, lie. 41). Mot onf/ would the connection wilh Field measures on the obverse of the account speak lor Ihis interpretation, but the use o: KL6 to represeni a rnjltiple of Nrifl would find a good analogy in ihe use of Nde lo represent a multiple of N34 in the basic groin system, both based on the sequence N45 > Na8 > N3J in ihe sexagesimal system (the sexagesimal system served to record larget grain measures in later grain capacity systems as well). It may be noted thai ihis laige measu'e al emmer wheal would provide over a million rations of the size distributed in ihe archaic period lo deaendenl laborers (ca. i/i liter); thol would correspond to yearly rations far 3000 workers. 465 The area oil 'bur'u' ( • - 10 bu i3) on the reverse corresponding to an amount of 25 * of groin on the obverse. Relative to ihe orea, Ihis would equal 25 0 ('GAR units') per iku. 204 205 Texts From the Late UriA Pwiod Administrative Systems - Administrative offices 1st field 2nd field 3rd field 4lh field 5tfi lield p S ft® •0; JBL»»| MSVO 1. 7 reconstruction Calculation of Ihe first Field: length 2°0 (ninda) X width 100 (ninda ml 1 d 'V; field a » 1 nindn fca. 6 ml 60 ninda • = 10 ninda surface -neaiuies; riguro83: MSVO 1, 2 IrocoFisiiuchjdl u - Thif. accounf i*> cl ci group oi lovlj recording the divi- sion ol iieldj HnKMnrj rnjjK oJficitili in jbmdcl Nasr, in- D - 1 ileu t_j 0.9 acre dudinrj ihn i;lor 'fjN If-Mtjllr. ;ind vs/id'hs of indivi- ft ilaj dual fiuldi rnrotrktl foycilw-r wild calculated >• 1 eie - rn 5.2 cere J sufaco innoujro^on |fi" obvwv? Tlie liypohSchcal fJci!:. dofjtcV'd on jjwg'f 20/ orr* on tiHr-nipl to undur • - 1 bur 3 dse ca 15.6 acres aland fiOW l]ie ufcukllt-d hrJds rmgrnr flaw been jilViaf'-d olctiy u wti^wsiy, Note ibn' llir- umuunl 0 ) bur'u lObur ca 1 56 aa« of agricultural loud Md try lin- rul'-r IN ond his [i-pj'.iffiahl^ v^ii*- SAI iN wfi-. (ippitj/irncilcly • 1 *>r - 6 bur'u ca. 936 acres oi the field', riK.aidt'd in ih^v- accounts Field c; the EN Fin'd 1 5 Field l-i FWd of hoirsehc ds cf officials Field I =%ld 2 Field 3 Field A J] Freld 5 1 wcjle-AQj ) rVteandering wrjlenvay ct a distance ol co. 1300 m. Fields 1-5 of the olficlals Field 5 (SAL EN) Field ol Ihe EN 206 207 Text* from ihe tote Uruk Period Administrative Sys'ems - Adninistrative offices 15N, would represent 360 liters of grain, an amoun' which would be fully in line with the amount of grain expended in sowing a plot of 1 bur3 in the Ur III period, reckoning either with 360 sila3 seed + 180 sila3 fodder for the draft oxen for a total of 540, or with 240 + 120 for a total of 360 si la3.463 How field areas were calculated in the archaic period is clear, at least on the surface, based on a series of texts fromjemdet Nasr.4*4 The best-preserved ol these tablets, MSVO 1,2 (figure 83),445 contains entries relating to length measurements and the areas of five fields (one in each of the five horizontal columns, or lines, an the obverse of the tablet). The first two sub-cases of each line record the linear measurements of a field assigned a high official in Jemdet Nasr, named in the first subcase.442 Qualilied by the horizontal stroke NJ7, the first numerical notation, a sexagesimal notation qualifying units of linear measurement equal to later 'ninda', represents the length of the fields and so corresponds to later Sumerian us2, 'side. The second sexagesimal notation is qualified by the vertical stroke NM, representing the width of the fields and so corresponding to later Sumerian sag, head'.447 The exact method according to which the ancient surveyors derived the fields' area from these two linear measures is not known; for us the multiplication is straightforward, 290 (nin da) 100 (ninda) = 29,000 (sar) = 290 (iku), and finally 16 bur3 2 iku. In this and other field texts, a large section of the calculated field was entered in the third sub-case and qualified as GAN2, that is, irrigated and arable land, and often a small remainder appended in a fourth sub-case and qualified with the sign BAR. This small parcel is presumably border land, possibly wooded to protect the fields against wind erosion or simply planted with producing dale palms or some other trees or shrubs.4*8 All GANj measures are added to a total of arable land denoted Klo BUa, probably the same as land called ki g i d (a) 2, 'measured land', in later third millennium texts. The notation representing this total is entered in the second case of the first column on the reverse of the 463 This would then 'end to support those absolute values, with the warning that the g'oin is not qualified as seed groin and thol such nice numbers' can derive (torn artificial ca'culalions. "M MSVO 1, 2-6. 405 The text was (irsl understood and edited by F.-M. A'lotle de la Fuye, RA 27 (', 930| 65-71, and has since been the object o: regular inleres'. See A.A. Vojmcn, Peiedneazio'skij sbornik 1966, 13-15 [German Ironslation in BaM 21 [1990] 101-103); P. Steinkeller, Johrbuch fijr Wirlschoflsgeschichle 1987, 1 3; Archaic Bookkeeping, 55-57; and most recently, J. Friberg, AfO {forthcoming). JK: 'Tie persons cesrgnoled GAL0 SA3=, PAo CK-jgunu^. MAM; Dl, ME , and ENt SAL we'e presumably officials ranking immediately below the city ruler in status. Of these five officials, two - NAM, Dl and GAL SABQ - ore attested in lines 3 and 25 respe:lively of the iisi Lu3 A, and at leas! three are welfat-ested os persons of high status who delivered grain p-oducts, animals and other goods to central ou'horities in Jemdet Nasr, os was tecorded ir accounts such as MSVO 1, 95-96, in fig. 79 ohove. d67 These wete almost certainly averages of opposing sides, since the resulting otea measures are in three of the five cases split into apparently arable fields ond 'GIS KI BAR', 'wooded border1', that is, areas outside the measured and exploded surface. This irregularity of ihe fields was gene'ally the cose in liold calculations in third millennium Mesopotamia and is clearly attested already in ihe Uruk IV period, see for one example below, fig 85. J48 The small parcels added logolher on ihe reverse ol Ihe tablet were quolified GIS Klc BAR (see preceding n.). The collated copy of the first BAR crea of MSVO 1,2, shows 2 es e 3 (w) insieod of the expected 2 iku|.4 tablet above the total of BAR land. The first case of this column contains exactly twice the total of the 'measured land' of the five officials calculated on the obverse, and is qualiied GAN. EN,, arable land of/for the EN'. The EN is in all likelihood Ihe chief administrator of the large building excavated in the 1920s in Jemdet Nasr (see above, section 2) and represented by the sign AB . Indeed, the sign combination ABa NN-RU which qualifies the grand total of lond divided among the EN and his high officials - apparently including his own wife (ENc SAL, who was assigned the largest plot or those recorded on the account's obverse440) - can be reasonably interpreted to mean 'household of NIRIT, whereby NIRU might represent Jemdet Nasr itself.470 Based on the hypothetical yied of 30; 1 and a seeding rote of 15N, per bur3 (see above, Figure 82), the pcrcels of the high officials registered in this account would, on overage, support a working household of ca. 500471 dependents, and thus that of the EN a household of 2500. Of course, the variables in such calculations, for example, the likelihood thai livestock, trade and elite luxuries will have commanded a large portion of such harvests, warn us to be cautious. Only one fragment from Uruk offers evidence of the same type of field accounts in the much larger urban center of the Late Uruk period (figure 84). Nonetheless, other texts prove the existence of comparably large agricultural households, and ihe greater antiquity of field surveying there. The oldest evidence known of the calculation of field areas is found in a group of texts from the Uruk IV period, of which W 19408,76 (figure 85), unearthed by P. Damerow in the Uruk collection of tie German Archaeological Institute in Heidelberg, is certainly the most important. The fragmented Uruk IV period tablet contains only numerical signs and the ideograms we have seen above denoting the lerglh and width of measured fields. Both obverse and reverse contain notations representing imaginary fieids whose opposing sides averaged 1200 and 900 ninda in length, respectively. The multiplication of these average lengths results in ihe highly regular and unrealistically large field of 10 sar2, or 600 bur3 (the largest otherwise attested field notation is of a little more than 334 bur3; see below, Figure 87). Since, moreover, no further ideograms qualify the purpose of this account, it is certain that the text represents another school exercise/73 the oldest accounting exercise known to us, containing 'difficult" exercises on surface calculation. Another field account from Uruk (figure 86) bears some resemblance to the texts MSVO 1, 2-6 discussed above. Porcels ranging from 45 down to just 8 bur3 are registered in the middle and right columns of this text, together with ideographic notations which probably represent officials whom the parcels were assigned. These parcels are totaled in the first case of the left column - of the reconstructed total of 150 bur3, 141 are at least partially 44' Note iho- taken together the plots of the EN and his wife accounted for approximately V4 of all arable lond regisleied in MSVO 1, 2. j 470 Sec above, n. 450. I con offer no explanation for the final sign combination at ihe bottom of this left column. 471 As a very rough basis lor estimation: 15 (burj > 15N, (seed/bun,) * 30 (:1 yield) » 30(GAJV'N ) ■r 3601days per yeor) = 562.5. 471 See above, seclion 5 lo Learning bookkeeping', ond ligs. 75 and 77. 203 209 Te>te from the Late Uruk Period Figurea4:W15772.k The occounl rep-esenfj fhe only recovered -exr from Urut wfiieh parallels in farmer fhe field calculation te«rs V£VQ 1. 2-6, kncwn fram J^mdet Nosr. Accordingly, ihe first Iwo ^n-ii^-i ol :hc upper linn would rBp'Bianf ihe lenglh ord widlh, lespcclively. ihs bsr en'rv fhe crea of a field (i'us perhaps r10O\82(nindo) = 32 iKu[4 bur [l eie 4 iku] J. W 19408,76 obverse: ohvprsi? 1,200 + 1,200 930 i 870 1,200 X vOO(ninda) - 10,800 iku - lOidr 990+ 1,410 ,280 + 520 >- 1,200 x 9DO (ninda) 10,800 iku - 10 sar 2 2 Figure 85: W 19403,76 The text depicted above represents the earliest known accounting sshool text. The unrealistic pracNce exercises on both locesof the tablet, based an slight variations of a multipliedian ol 1200 x 90n nirrdo, result In an implicit field area of approximately 39km!, ar about 11,500 acres. P. Damerow was the first to recognize the importance of this text. Administrative Systems - Administrative ofiices Figure 86:W20551,1 The 150 burj or ca. 2340 ceres recorded in ihis account [H leverse bee is uninscribsd) represenl one of the larger such parcel* found in the archaic texts from Uruk. Assuming the lex! documents agricultural lond in productionh the fields would piuduce enough barley to sustain □ household of co. 5000 individuals. The pooily preserved texts W 1772^ a+■ and ,be jbolli unpublished) contained notations re-presenling, substantially larger fields. preserved in the individually registered parcels - and qualified in lwo following cases with ideographic notations. The sign combinalion S!lAJa-i-DUGa En fhe second case has been cited as evidence that this lexf belongs to a group of stone documents registering ihe sale of agricultural land in the archaic periods Tne largest account of fields from Jemdet Nasr, depicted in figure &7H exhibits a unique formal, but also records the activities of acquaintances met in other texts from that settlement. MSVO 1,1, records an its reverse face a totol of over 334 bur3 of land qualified as LAGAB GAISL BU Kl NI+RUAB APIN , 'total of measured arable tand, (from) the plowing office of the household of NIRU', This land is comprised of three types of parcels: ihose qualified cs SEo+SEo BA, as GURU5Q SAL, and os GAN2 Kl„ A, and in each of the first five cases of the obverse face the parcels so qualified ore assigned to the same Five officials, including the wife of the EN, as were Fields in ihe account MSVO 1,2 (figure 83). Unfortunately, all three field qualifications are peculiar to this text, but the other field accounts fromjemdet Nasi, and known farmland utilization practice from later periods, con help to make an informed judgment about the meaning of ihese notations. In ihe firsl place, the accounts MSVO 1, 2-6, register fields ronging from on overage of 6 [MSVO 1, 3-4) to an average of 35 (MSVO 1, 5) bur3 per official. This would accord rather well with the average of ca. 22 burq per oFficial of SEo+SEo fields in MSVO 1,1, and suggest that these parcels were really 'distributed as grain-growing plols' (SE^+SE, BA). We might further imagine lhal group of workmen were assigned to each plot and ot the same lime themselves given subsistence I.J. Gelb, P. Steinkellei and R.M. Whiting, OIF 104 (19911 28. 210 211 Texts from Ihe Lola Uruk Period Conclusions Figure 87: MSVO 1. 1 The rotal area of 5 '/^ iw recorded on the reverse represents ogiicullurol fields of more thon 5 203 acres fields, ranging from 2 bur3 jobv. i 1-2, ii ?) io 4 (obv. i 3) per leom. Fields of this size could he expected to support a crew of, roughly estimated, between 20 and 100 persons, male and female (G'JRUSo SAL), presumably enough to manage the doily tending ol the fields in grain. Finally, there is good evidence that farmers understood the need ol rotating follow and producing fields in later third millennium agriculture; this may be the meaning ol the qualification GANj K\a A, which literally Iranslaled according to later sign meanings would result in 'arable land, wetland'."74 7. CutNausONS Of the four best documented early indigenous writing systems, namely Babylonian cuneiform, Egyptian hieroglyphics, pi clog raphe Chinese end Meso-American, cuneiform assumes perforce a dominant role in any discussion of the development of scripl. From ihe period of its explosive development toward ihe end of the 4th millennium B.C., cuneiform texts document a continuous reccrc of transmission through more than three millennia. A number of historical developments have been posited os causal, or at leosl in the aggregate extant, in periods immediately preceding the Inception a* writing. The first seems to be the development of an early state form, so far removed from trioal association; as to suppo;l a hierarchical division of labor and the omassing ol those surpluses which can result in less dependence on farming for primary livelihood. The administration ol the goods and services circulating in 'his system required involved methods of bookkeeping, including calculation aids and, ultimately, writing. Yet thai this development is not a necessary precondition of writing can be demonstrated not only by reference to those cultures which have flourished without the aid of writing, but also with the uneven use af bookkeeping during the archaic period in mind. Whereas the level of communal activity and thus the best indicator of state strength in Uruk during the periods Uruk V-IVa was intensive, monumental building apparently came to an abrupt holt in the succeeding Uruk III /' Jem del Nasr period, precisely when administrative documentation became its most impressive, both in numbers of documents and in the quantities ol goods and services recorded in the accounts. Assuming that we do have a roughly representative group of accounts from both periods, the size of economic activity reflected in Uruk III texts, in particular insofar as il concerns agricultural production, musl have been on the order of ten limes or more as large as that of the earlier period. Indeed, nearly everything ol substance which con be culled from ihe archaic lexis, from cancnicily and breadth of lexical compendia, to methods of timekeeping and complexity and Fields of application of numerical sign systems, derives ultimately from the Uruk 111 period; whether these elements o; writing were also in use during ihe Uruk IV period a hundred years earlier but not visible to us is a matter of speculation. At the same time, we can see that the very rapid development of all the basic tools inherent in pioto-cuneiform concluded in the i7i One rnighl speculate that the sign A reflects waler being drawn off ihe Fields, ihat is, bnds being drained to leach cut sails. 212 213 Texts from the Lote Uruk Period Conclusions Uruk IV period, and a text such as the artificial field calculation found in figure B5 above makes us wonder at the already playful use of the script, and makes us ask ourselves haw much we are missing in the texts available to us, and in those that are not. Available evidence can be interpreted in different ways, as certainly the debate between D. Schmandl-Besserat and her critics has shown. Based on what has been presented in this paper, the development of proto-cuneiform can be sketched in the following manner: }. Period ol early tokens Prior to ca. 3400 B.C., simply formed geometric clay counters were used in ar, ad hoc fashion to record simple deliveries of goods, primarily grain anc animal products of local economies. Distinct transactions represented by an assembloge of counters were presumably contained in bags of leather or some other perishable material. These counters qualifying discrete objects (animals, humans, jars, e!c] probably rep-esenled traditional forms of tallying with one-to-one correspondence between counted object and counter; larger counters qualifying measures stood for lorger containers and so only apparently represented a metrological structure. 2. Period of day envelopes Co. 3400-3300 B.C., geometric clay counters with some further ideographic differentiations, representing the derived numerical signs of the archaic period, were enclosed in clay envelopes, and these envelopes wete coveted with impressions from cylinder seals. Each clay envelope and its contents represented a discrete transaction concerning primarily grain and animal products of local economies. The oule- surfaces of some envelopes were impressed with counters in o one-lo-one correspondence to the enclosed pieces. There is insufficient evidence la determine whelher with statistically relevant probability numerical systems with bundling steps had formed. 3. Period of early numerical tablets Ca. 3300-3250 B.C., Hal and rounded clay tablets, sealed and unsealed, were impressed with counters or wilh styli cut and shaped to imitate counters, thus representing numerical notations. In some cases it is evident that a standardized numero-metrofogical structure with set bundling steps was not employed. The end of this phase saw the lost direct contact belween the north (Syria and northern Mesopotamia) and southern Babylonia. 4. Period of late numerical tablets Ca. 3250-3200 B.C., flal and rectangulat-shaped, sealed day tablets were impressed with styli to record numerical notations. A standardized numero-melrologicat structure with set bundling steps was employed. Njmerical sign sequence and seals of officials attached to specific administrative units such as herding or grain storage signaled the type of numerical system used and thus the objects) of the transaction. 5. Period of numero-ideographic tablets Ca. 3200 B.C., flat and reclangulor-shaped, sealed day tablets were impressed wilh styli to record numerical notations and one or at mosl two ideograms. All ideograms represented the objects of the transaction, including sheep ond goats and products derived from them (texliles, dairy oils]. Numerical sign sequence and seals of officials signaled the type of other numerical (melrological] systems used ond thus the objedfs) of such transactions, including fieds and groin. This phase saw the last direct contacl between Persia and southern Babylonia. 6. Period of early proto-cuneiform Ca. 3200-3100 B.C. (Uruk IVo.l, flal and rectangulat-shaped, as a rule unsealed clay tablets were impressed wilh styli to recorc numerical notations and a full anay of pictograms. Piclograms represented the objects of the Iransaclion, and pidograms in ideographic use the persons and offices, and the type of transaction involved. A co. TOO picto-ideogrom reperloty and a developed means of reckoning employing five basic numerical sign systems were developed in the first years of this period; there was a coterminous developmenl of lexical lists, of which only the professions list was canonized. Multivalency is likely but nol demonstrable with available texts and knowlecge of third millennium Babylonian languages. Tie early phase of this ideographic writing system is only ot*ested at southern Babylonian Uruk. 7. Period of developed proto-cuneiform Ca. 3100-3000 B.C. (Uruk III), this period is characterized by the refinement and abstraction of early pralocuneiform, with ihe oddilion of an involved system of timekeeping and a syslemalizolion both of complex accounts and of more than a dozen lexical lists dealing with oil facets of archaic adminislralion and including the first use of writing to record literatu-e. Multivalency is likely but nol demonstrable. Developed proto-cuneiform, serving the accounting needs of a complex administration including offices of ihe fisheries, of herded animals and animal products, of field management, grain production and processing, and of labor, is altested ihroughout Babylonia and is coterminous with a native system of writing In Persia called prolo-Elamite. 8. Period of late protcKuneiforrn Ca. 2800-2700 B.C. [Early Dynastic l), this period is characterized by the earliest apparenlly multivalent use of proto-cuneiform to write Sumerton words in personal names. The archaic numerical systems were used, but in simplified forms, and the lexical lists were copied and transmitted, but no new lists were added. Tablets were as a rule clumsily formed and inscribed, 214 215 Texfc from the Lq'q Uru'i Period List c( figures fig-fi» r.g. Fig, F'3-Fig. r'S Fg. Fig-Fig. 11: Fig. 12: Fig. 13: Fig. 14: Fig. 15: Fig. 16: Fig. 17: Fig. 18: Fig. 19: Fig. 20: Fig- 21: Fig. 22: Fig- 23: Fig. 24: Fig- 25: Fig. 26: Fig. 27: Fig- 28: Fig. 29: Fig. 30: Fig. 31: Fig. 32: Fig. 33: Fig. 34: Fig. 35: Fig. 36; F