Proto-cuneiform

Last updated
Proto-cuneiform
Tableta con trillo.png
Kish tablet
Script type
Period
c. 3350–3000 BC
DirectionDiverse
LanguagesUnknown, possibly Sumerian
Related scripts
Child systems
Cuneiform
ISO 15924
ISO 15924 Pcun(015),​Proto-Cuneiform

The proto-cuneiform script was a system of proto-writing that emerged in Mesopotamia ca. 3350-3200 BC (during the Uruk period), eventually developing into the early cuneiform script used in the region's Early Dynastic I period.

Contents

It arose from the token-based system that had already been in use across the region in preceding millennia. Other precursors of this system include clay bullae containing tokens, and numerical tablets using only numeral signs. Those devices where used in the institutions of Mesopotamia and western Iran during the 4th millennium BC, in order to record administrative operations. The proto-cuneiform subsquently appeared in southern Mesopotamia, during the 34th century BC. This system is documented by around 5000 clay tablets coming from various sites, dating from ca. 3350 BC to 3000 BC.

This invention is related to the complexification of administrative practices, itself a consequence of the formation of more complex social and political entities, considered to be the first cities and states. Those evolutions are especially visible at Uruk, the site where most of the proto-cuneiform texts were found.

Proto-cuneiform is a writing or proto-writing system, based on a set of numerical signs, related to various metrological systems, used according to what was quantified (discrete objects, surfaces, volumes, duration), and logographic signs (a sign = a word) which for many have a pictographic origin (drawings of the thing designated). The texts are essentially administrative in nature. They record movements of goods entering or leaving the stores of the institutions, quantifying them and indicating the people and offices involved in these operations. Other tablets are inventories of signs organized thematically, ancestors of the lexical lists typical of the Mesopotamian literary traditions.

While it is known definitively that later cuneiform was used to write the Sumerian language, it is still uncertain what the underlying language of proto-cuneiform texts was, given that they are not intended to transcribe a language and contain almost no clues about the language spoken by those who wrote them.

History and context

Precursors of writing

Research on the origins of writing in the ancient Near East has identified a set of non-linguistic administrative instruments that it considers to be "precursors" of writing [1] { [2] [3] [4] , during so-called "pre-writing" periods ca. 8500-3500 BC [5] , testifying to a broader context of development of information technologies. [6]

The oldest by far, possibly as early as the middle to late 9th millennium BC, is a token-based accounting system came into use in various parts of the ancient Near East. However, it is unlikely that all the tokens excavated in prehistoric sites were used in accounting practices, since many of them were excavated outside of administrative contexts, especially children's graves. But at least some of them seem to be accounting devices, in use as soon as Neolithic periods (for instance at Tell Sabi Abyad) [7] [8] For tokens from the Uruk period (4th millennium BC), the accounting use and the link with the first written tablets seem obvious. Tokens remain in use during later periods of Near Eastern history, up to the first half of the 1st millennium BC. [9]

The token system was later completed by clay envelopes or bullae, "spherical, hollow, clay balls that contain a certain number of the aforementioned tokens, which were also impressed on the sealed outside surface of the balls." [10] Many of them also have seal impressions and numerical marks on their surfaces. The oldest date back to the middle of the 4th millennium BC (Uruk phases VI/V), in contexts directly preceding the appearance of writing. Their use is again generally interpreted as accounting, since they must serve to accompany the transfer of goods: by breaking the bubble in order to examine its contents, it is verified that no goods were lost during the transfer. They also remained in use for several millennia. [11] [12] [13]

The earliest clay tablets found date from the Uruk V period, ca. 3500-3350 BC [14] , and are of a 'numerical' character, that is to say that they are inscribed with numbers, but do not contain yet any of the logographic signs that are found in the proto-cuneiform system. They were excavated in several sites such as Uruk, Habuba Kabira, Jebel Aruda, Mari, Nineveh, Khafajah, Chogha Mish, Susa, etc. Numerical tablets differ from bullae in that they do not contain tokens, but are flattened pieces of clay on which tokens are printed or numerical signs are inscribed, often accompanied by seal impressions. These same signs are found on clay bullae, making the link between the two difficult to dispute, and it is accepted that the numerical signs derive from the tokens impressed on the bullae-envelopes, at least some numerical signs having been made by impressing tokens in clay. The signs made with styluses are circles or notches of varying thickness and elongation, which indicates that they refer to different number systems, obviously the ancestors of those of the proto-cuneiform system. But they are poorly understood, each site seeming to have its own variants [15] [16] . At Uruk and in western Iran (Susa, Godin Tepe, Tepe Sialk), a few tablets were found containing numerical signs accompanied by one or two ideographic (logographic) signs. They were labelled by Englund "numero-ideographic" tablets. The pictograms represent discrete objects, therefore products (and not people or institutions): sheep, jars, fruits, textile products. This would be an evolution of numerical tablets, and the missing link between them and the first written tablets. [17] [16]

Studies based mainly on the evidence from Susa and Uruk, especially those of Denise Schmandt-Besserat (drawing on earlier works by M. Lambert and P. Amiet), have linked all these accounting devices, establishing a filiation from accounting tokens to proto-cuneiform tablets. Althought they have been debated and criticized, it became clear that tokens, bullae and numerical tablets represent the precursors of writing in Mesopotamia, and therefore that cuneiform began with numerical signs. [19] [20] [21] According to this widely accepted historical recontruction, bullae are first used for counting using tokens, then people start printing tokens and signs on them, and then the tokens disappear, the bulla is flattened to become a tablet containing numerical signs. These numerical tablets themselves constitute an intermediate stage between the accounting systems preceding writing and the first proto-cuneiform tablets. This evolutionary chain is probably to be completed by integrating the few "numerico-ideographic" tablets which seem to directly precede the appearance of proto-cuneiform. [16]

It has also been suggested that the development of Proto-cuneiform signs was influenced by symbols (motifs) found on earlier cylinder seals. Stamp seals were not considered. [22] Cylinder seals imagery and proto-cuneifom signs both participate in the same desire to record information, and to imagine a way of representing things, including the abstract and the intangible. [23] [24] [25]

Chronology of proto-cuneiform

Proto-cuneiform tablet recording the allocation of beer Pictographs Recording the Allocation of Beer (London, England).jpg
Proto-cuneiform tablet recording the allocation of beer
Location of the main sites in southern Mesopotamia in the Uruk and Jemdet Nasr periods. Basse Mesopotamie Uruk.png
Location of the main sites in southern Mesopotamia in the Uruk and Jemdet Nasr periods.

Although, by convention, the date of 3200 BC used to be commonly accepted as the date of the invention of proto-cuneiform, recent analyses in the dating of the Uruk levels suggest that it should be dated further back in time [26] . Dating proposals also depend on the definition given to writing. Englund (in 2015) proposes a date around 3350 BC for the appearance of non-numerical signs marking the birth of proto-cuneiform [27] , Nissen (in 2016) around 3300 BC [28] , Glassner (in 2020) an invention of writing during the 34th century BC. [29]

The various proto-cuneiform tablets are divided into two main categories, following the classification made in 1936 by A. Falkenstein based on paleographic criteria. They are named according to the general archaeological phases of the Eanna of Uruk to which they correspond. Two phases of proto-cuneiform writing are thus commonly accepted [30] [31] [32] :

With the advent of the Early Dynastic, from c. 3000-2900 BC onwards, the standard cuneiform script used to write the Sumerian language emerged, though only about 400 tablets have been recovered from the first part of this period (ca. 2900-2700 BC); these are mainly from Ur, with a few from Uruk. [36]

Historical context

The invention of proto-cuneiform occurs during the Late Uruk period, ca. 3500-3200 BC. This period is rich in changes, often grouped under the expression "urban revolution" or "state formation." It is a phase characterized by the emergence of more complex political structures than in the past (the "state"), and of biggers settlements (the "city"), with an urban or "proto-urban" character. [37] It is also a period of technological innovations and economic developments: the development of irrigated agriculture, the plow, wheeled carts, wool crafts, ceramics with the introduction of the potter's wheel, new architectural processes, etc. [38] According to G. Selz: [39]

The Uruk phenomenon has received much attention as an early example of an emergent state. To what extent this state is seen as a fully centralized organization controlling bureaucratic, legal, military, and religious institutions is largely a matter of interpretation. The emergence of statehood in southern Mesopotamia was clearly intertwined with the process of urbanization and the development of Uruk as a center that functioned as the administrative and political hub from which other settlements depended hierarchically. This coincides with progressive specialization and division of labor, as best evidenced by the proto-cuneiform records of the Late Uruk period.

The invention of proto-cuneiform, seen as the invention of writing, is commonly considered to mark the transition from prehistory to history. This can be tempered by the observation that it is one innovation among others that occurred during the era of the “urban revolution”, but nonetheless one of the most significant. According to Mario Liverani: [40]

The origin of writing has also been considered to mark the beginning of true and proper history, because of the old-fashioned idea that there is no history before the availability of written sources. But now that such an idea is considered simplistic or wrong, we still can consider writing the most evident and symbolic culmination of the entire process.

Proto-cuneiform obviously reflects this context rich in creativity, and the fact that it is primarily documented in Uruk, the main settlement of the period (often labelled "the first city"), is no coincidence. Chronologically, the proto-cuneiform tablets appear near the end of this phenomenon. The oldest are dated in part to the Uruk IV phase, ca. 3350-3200 BC, thus the last part of the Late Uruk period. The most recent, and the majority of them, date from the Uruk III phase, corresponding to the archaeological period known as Jemdet Nasr, ca. 3200-3000 BC. This phase saw a decline in Uruk influence, after significant changes affecting the architecture of the Eanna district of Uruk, site abandonment, and various developments in material culture. All this indicates a period of change, if not structural crisis. [41] [42]

Proto-cuneiform tablets also provide information on the society of their time: they are of little use for the knowing the political organization of the period, but the lists of professions and offices allow to identify a social hierarchy and the presence of figures supervising the economy of the time [43] ; they attest to the presence of a developing economic administration, with managers, the first scribes, and specialized offices [44] ; Administrative documents also provide information on religious worship, notably through the presence of the sign of Inanna, the tutelary goddess of Uruk, in the tablets of this city. [45]

Linguistic context

There is a longstanding debate in the academic community regarding when the Sumerian people arrived in Mesopotamia. Partly spurred by linguistic arguments and evidence, overall it is generally clear that a number of fundamental changes occurred in Mesopotamia—such as the use of the plano-convex brick—at the same time the first definitive evidence of the Sumerian language appeared during the Early Dynastic I period (ca. 2700 BC). Proto-cuneiform offers no clear clues as to what spoken language it encoded, leading to much speculation, though Sumerian is often assumed. [46] [47] [48] [49]

Causes and functions

Since it was proven that proto-cuneiform originates in bookkeeping and administrative precursors such as tokens, bullae and numerical tablets, it became obvious that its origins are to be looked for in the accounting and administrative practices of the Uruk period. This system is born from numeracy, developed from systems that were established before its invention and which improved their capacity to record information until gradually leading to the establishment of a new, more efficient system. The objective is therefore to constitute an administrative tool able to meet the needs of the institutions that developed during the Uruk period and managed a social and economic organization that was much more complex than in the past. [50] [51] [52] It is ultimately a response to problems brought about by the fact that society has become more "complex." [53]

Reflecting this context and purpose, the majority of proto-cuneiform texts are administrative in nature, recording goods movements and indicating the identity of people or administrative offices, while lexical lists provide inventories of these same goods to the administrators who wrote the administrative records. [54] Moreover, the formal structure and semantics of this writing clearly derive from its origin and administrative uses. [55] It is possible that its invention, the culmination of previous managing innovations, was not perceived at the time as a revolution. [50] However, its potential to record more information than others was quickly understood, as evidenced by the fact that increasingly complex administrative documents were developed from the earliest times. [56]

This invention is also, in many ways, political. The development of bookkeeping instruments and accounting techniques such as proto-cuneiform in Mesopotamia was accompanied by that of instruments for dividing up time, weights and measures, prices, and therefore various practices of standardization and even planning, formalizing economic relationships, and establishing a "technology of social control" enabling Urukean institutions to better coordinate the use of their resources. [57] In seeking to analyze the intentions of the actors of the time, according to G. Algaze, we can see in the way in which the Urukean administrators treated the servile workers they employed (considered in the accounting documents in much the same way as the livestock of the institutions) a desire for the "domestication of human labor," and more generally the attempt of the elites of the time to consolidate their hold on society and its resources: [58]

In short, by the end of the Uruk period, cumulative innovations in the ways knowledge was gathered, processed, and transmitted through time and space provided southern Mesopotamian decision makers and the urban institutions they worked for with a flow of varied and reliable economic data of the sort that is necessary for the formation, maintenance, and effective expansion of large-scale economies and social groups. More important, these data allowed Uruk elites to deploy available labor and goods where they were needed most in order to maximize their revenues, extend their power, and shore up the stability of the social system they were in the process of transforming.

At any rate, the invention of writing is not generally seen as the culmination of an attempt to represent human language graphically, by means of pictograms representing words. This old interpretation is now obsolete because the characteristics of proto-cuneiform do not support it. [59] [60]

Alternative views have been proposed, in particular by J.-J. Glassner, who criticizes both the hypothesis of the pictographic origin and also that of the accounting origin of writing, and considers that the latter is not totally independent of the spoken language from the earliest times. [61] Without gaining support from specialists of proto-cuneiform [62] , this type of critique of the dominant approach helps to highlight the fact that proto-cuneiform cannot be reduced to its accounting aspect. It quickly developed other functions and implications, visible especially in lexical lists, and was a major cognitive evolution. [63]

Proto-cuneiform and Proto-elamite

During the late 4th millennium BC (ca. 3100-2900 BC according to the range adopted by the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative [64] ), another type of early writing developed in southwestern Iran: Proto-Elamite. This is also the name given to the culture that developed during this period, so named because it seems to be an antecedent of the civilization of Elam which occupied these same regions later (Proto-Elamite civilization). This system is primarily documented by tablets unearthed at Susa (phase III), which are also the most complex, but others have been found on sites in Iran (Tell-e Malyan, Tepe Yahya, Tepe Sialk, Tepe Sofalin, Shahr-e Sokhta, etc.). It is a completely administrative system (two tablets could be of a metrological or mathematical nature), mainly concerning agricultural activities and products, including numerical signs, pictographic signs representing objects, and abstract signs, the value of the signs being often enigmatic. Susa provided crucial documentation for understanding the precursors of writing (complex tokens, bullae, numerical tablets and numero-ideographic tablets), but no example of a proto-cuneiform tablet. This site would therefore have followed a similar evolution to Uruk, but without the decisive step. The general opinion is that the proto-elamite system was inspired by proto-cuneiform, which would therefore be at least slightly older. But this remains controversial, because beyond the numerical signs and a few ideograms, the two systems are very different. It is therefore possible that the two are "sister scripts" that each appeared separately, constituting two different evolutions from the numerical and numero-ideographic tablets. However it may be, proto-elamite was only used for a short period, and disappeared without apparent posterity, even though it is a possible precursor to Linear Elamite [65] [66] .

Corpus

Proto-cuneiform administrative account concerning malt and barley groats (MET_DP293245) Cuneiform tablet- administrative account with entries concerning malt and barley groats MET DP293245.jpg
Proto-cuneiform administrative account concerning malt and barley groats (MET_DP293245)

About 170 similar tablets from Uruk V (c. 3500 BC), Susa, and other Iranian sites like Tepe Sialk, are considered to be pre-Proto-Elamite, though bearing similarities to proto-cuneiform. [67] Sign lists and transliterations are less clear for this category. [68]

Like Proto-Elamite, the system's propagation was relatively limited. The vast majority of the proto-cuneiform texts found, about 5000, have been located in archaic Uruk (190 Uruk V, 1776 Uruk IV, 3094 Uruk III), though also in secondary contexts within the Eanna district. Many of the tablets were themselves later used as foundation fill during the construction of the Uruk III Eanna temple complex. [69] It appears that the records were considered to be of transient utility or interest, and were quickly disposed of. The difficult stratigraphy has brought about a change from referring to tablets based on excavation layer to one of calling them script phase IV and III. Similarly to the tablets, clay seals previously used to secure vessels and doors ended up in the fill after being removed. [70] The sites and analysis of sealing has led to suggestions that the tablets originated elsewhere and ended up at Uruk, where they were discarded. [71]

A smaller number of tablets were found in Jemdet Nasr (2 Uruk V, 236 Uruk III), Umma (398 Uruk III), Eshnunna (2 Uruk III), Larsa (23 Uruk III), Kish (5 Uruk III), and Tell Uqair (39 Uruk III). [72] [73] [74] They tend to be less fragmentary and are sometimes found in stratified contexts. Some have made their way into various private and public collections: the provenance for some can be determined from internal clues, but for some the origin city is unknown. [75] [76] For example, in 1988 ninety complete well-preserved tablets from the Swiss Erlenmeyer Collection in Basel were auctioned off with most ending up in public collections. The majority, fifty eight, were purchased by the State of Berlin and transferred to the Vorderasiatisches Museum as a permanent loan. A few others ended up at the British Museum and Louvre Museum. [77] [78]

A notable exemplar was found by Langdon during his excavation in the 1920s, often called the "Kish tablet". A plaster-cast of the artifact is presently held in the collection of the Ashmolean Museum, with the original at the Baghdad Museum. Its date of origin is unclear. [79]

Some tablets were sealed using a cylindrical seal. [80] Two Uruk period clay sealings found at Ur had a single proto-cuneiform sign, ŠAM2. [81]

Sealed Proto-cuneiform Tablet - administrative account of barley distribution with cylinder seal impression of a male figure, hunting dogs, and boars (5.4 x 6 x 4.1 cm) (MET_DT847) Cuneiform tablet- administrative account of barley distribution with cylinder seal impression of a male figure, hunting dogs, and boars MET DT847.jpg
Sealed Proto-cuneiform Tablet – administrative account of barley distribution with cylinder seal impression of a male figure, hunting dogs, and boars (5.4 × 6 × 4.1 cm) (MET_DT847)

Discovery and studies

History of studies

The proto-cuneiform tablets were first discovered on the antiquities market, coming from clandestine excavations. Probably excavated in the site of Jemdet Nasr, they were acquired by German excavators active at the site of Fara (Shuruppak) in 1903 and then in 1915. Other tablets from illegal excavations were acquired by the antiquities dealer J. E. Géjou in 1915, sold to other antiquities dealers, to the Louvre Museum as well as to the British Museum. [82] The first tablets from regular excavations come from the site of Jemdet Nasr, excavated by an English team in 1925 and were first studied by S. Langdon. [83] From 1928 onwards, after other scattered discoveries, German excavations of the site of Warka, ancient Uruk, brought to light thousands of tablets from the Uruk period, contemporary with those found in Jemdet Nasr, and others older. These tablets were first studied by Adam Falkenstein, who began their publication in Archaische Texte aus Uruk (1936). [84]

One of Falkenstein's students, Hans J. Nissen, began in the 1970s a project to edit and re-edit the Uruk proto-cuneiform tablets, in a series that took the name Archaische Texte aus Uruk (ATU), while texts from other locations appeared in the series Materialen zu den Frühen Schriftzeugnissen der Voderen Oriens (MVSO). This collective work, involving in particular (in addition to Nissen) R. K. Englund, P. Damerow, J. Friberg, M. Green and J.-P. Grégoire, considerably advanced the understanding of these early testimonies of writing in Mesopotamia, although many gray areas still remain. [85] [86] [87] [88]

State of decipherment

Archaic cuneiform tablet E.A. Hoffman Archaic cuneiform tablet E.A. Hoffman.jpg
Archaic cuneiform tablet E.A. Hoffman

To decipher an unknown, fully functional writing system, scholars usually need some knowledge of the underlying spoken language, some bilingual texts, and a large corpus. Proto-cuneiform was not accessible in any of these ways, but decipherment was possible because it was not a full writing system, but a specialized notation for economic administration. Its texts were stereotyped and concrete, such as lists of items. [89] [90]

Already in 1928 with the first publication of texts, a numerical sign list had been developed, based on similarity to the signs of Fara, the earliest cuneiform texts which were the immediate successors of Proto-cuneiform. The sexagesimal numerals and area numbers were also essentially the same. [91] The mathematical system of proto-cuneiform and Proto-Elamite was largely deciphered over a few decades beginning in the 1970s. [92] [93] [94] [95] Some details remain obscure, and several generally agreed-upon details remain contested. For example, the (ŠE system E) is thought to be a capacity measure, but this has been challenged because it is only found in the Uruk IV layers, not the later Uruk III, and it lacks the markers of a capacity measure. [96] [97]

As an example of the current partial state of decipherment, a small tablet found at Uruk (The Kushim referenced may be an individual or title): [98]

3(N48) 1(N34) 6(N14) 1(N01) 1(N39a) , U4x(3(N14).7(N01)) SZEa DUBa LAGABbxLAGABb (KUb1 SZIMa)a SZAm2 - Transliteration
5617 1/5 N1's, exchange barley, 37 months, Kushim's final account. ca. 135,000 liters - Translation

Signs

Inventory

Currently there are about 2000 known proto-cuneiform signs: about 350 numerical, 1100 individual ideographic, and 600 complex (combinations of individual signs). [99] The non-numerical signs are attested in about 40,000 occurrences. There was a high degree of heterogeneity in sign usage: about 530 signs are only attested once, about 610 two to ten times, 370 attested 11 to 100 times, and about 104 signs attested more than 100 times. [90] Many signs have been identified including those for barley and emmer wheat. [100] The most common signs are ENa, GALa, and ŠEa. [101]

Typical Proto-cuneiform signs (Uruk III)
DU7SALSUH3NIGINERINKU6DINBULUGNI2
Proto-Cuneiform Sign DU7.svg Proto-Cuneiform Sign SAL.svg Proto-Cuneiform Sign SUH3.svg Proto-Cuneiform Sign NIGIN.svg Proto-Cuneiform Sign ERIN.svg Proto-Cuneiform Sign KU6.svg Proto-Cuneiform Sign DIN.svg Proto-Cuneiform Sign BULUG.svg Proto-Cuneiform Sign NI2.svg
IGITIDNUMGU2U4DAMRIILALKAK
Proto-Cuneiform Sign IGI.svg Proto-Cuneiform Sign TIDNUM.svg Proto-Cuneiform Sign GU2.svg Proto-Cuneiform Sign U4.svg Proto-Cuneiform Sign DAM.svg Proto-Cuneiform Sign RI.svg Proto-Cuneiform Sign IL.svg Proto-Cuneiform Sign AL.svg Proto-Cuneiform Sign KAK.svg
MASZ2DISHUBURAHISIKILTEBADAMA
Proto-Cuneiform Sign MASZ2.svg Proto-Cuneiform Sign DI.svg Proto-Cuneiform Sign SHUBUR.svg Proto-Cuneiform Sign A.svg Proto-Cuneiform Sign HI.svg Proto-Cuneiform Sign SIKIL.svg Proto-Cuneiform Sign TE.svg Proto-Cuneiform Sign BAD.svg Proto-Cuneiform Sign AMA.svg

Numbers

Some of the proto-cuneiform signs are of numerical and metrological type. They are easily identifiable by their rounded (curviform) shape, consisting of circles or semicircles of varying sizes. As Englund describes: [102]

These were impressed deep in the clay surface with the butt ends of two round styli of different diameters. As a rule, impressions of the larger stylus represent larger numbers or measures, those of the smaller styli numbers and measures from the lower scale of the numerical systems they represented.

The underlying numeric base of the Proto-cuneiform, like later cuneiform, is sexagesimal (base 60). [103] [104] Earlier researchers believed that this system rose out of an earlier decimal (base 10) substratum but that idea has now lost currency. [105]

Proto-cuneiform sexagesimal type Sa.svg

Different products used different measurement systems, which could change with the context. In a single tablet the (Bisexagesimal System B) could be used for grain rations, (ŠE system Š) for barley, and (ŠE system Š") for emmer wheat. Another was (ŠE system C) for capacity, typically of grain. [106] There were thirteen numerical systems in total (Sexagesimal, Sexagesimal S', Bisexagesimal, Bisexagesimal B*, GAN2, EN, U4, ŠE, ŠE', ŠE", ŠE*, DUGb, DUGc) of which the contemporary Proto-Elamite writing system used only seven, and only half of the sixty proto-cuneiform numerical signs. [107] [108]

Logograms

Some proto-cuneiform logographic signs with meaning, examples, Uruk III shapes (drawings by R. Englund.). Proto cuneiforme exemple de signes-en.svg
Some proto-cuneiform logographic signs with meaning, examples, Uruk III shapes (drawings by R. Englund.).
Administrative tablet from Tell Asmar, Uruk III phase. Oriental Institute Museum, Chicago. In particular visible in the case at the top right are the pictograms of the barley SE (in the shape of an ear) and the temple E2 (partly on the edge); the reed GI is visible in the case at the bottom left. The sign repeated in the cases at the top left and bottom right consisting of an elongated quadrangular shape with stripes, SANGA, designates an administrator, and could represent, according to Englund, a calculation instrument used by Urukean accountants. Proto cuneiform tablet OIM A12259.jpg
Administrative tablet from Tell Asmar, Uruk III phase. Oriental Institute Museum, Chicago. In particular visible in the case at the top right are the pictograms of the barley ŠE (in the shape of an ear) and the temple E2 (partly on the edge); the reed GI is visible in the case at the bottom left. The sign repeated in the cases at the top left and bottom right consisting of an elongated quadrangular shape with stripes, SANGA, designates an administrator, and could represent, according to Englund, a calculation instrument used by Urukean accountants.

The emergence of writing is characterized by the appearance of non-numerical signs, which are fundamentally logograms, signs that indicate a word. Thus, a sign can designate a tangible thing, for example barley, reeds, fish, a mountain, the mouth, and also an intangible thing such as speech or the voice, or an action, such as taking, going, or speaking. [110]

Proto-cuneiform writers used more than 1500 non-numerical signs [111] , but very unevenly: more than 500 are used only once, another 600 less than ten times, and about 100 signs are used more than ten times, two of which (ENa and GALa, names of people or offices) appear more than 1000 times each. [112] Significant developments took place between the period of Uruk IV and that of Uruk III: the number of signs in the repertoire exploded, which demonstrates a great capacity for innovation and a desire to record operations in greater detail. [113] .

The meaning of the proto-cuneiform signs is often understood through knowledge of the later cuneiform system, when it is possible to identify a proto-cuneiform sign as the ancestor of a cuneiform sign. In particular, the fact that the sign lists developed in the Uruk period were copied and transmitted during the following centuries allows for correspondences to be made. But the meaning of many signs still remains obscure. [114]

A religious symbol becomes a proto-cuneiform sign: the divine standard of the goddess Inanna, which became the logogram MUS3 designating the goddess. From left to right: on the Warka Vase; on a cylinder seal; copy after a tablet from the Uruk IV phase; copy after a tablet from the Uruk III phase. MUSZ3 proto cuneiform.png
A religious symbol becomes a proto-cuneiform sign: the divine standard of the goddess Inanna, which became the logogram MUŠ3 designating the goddess. From left to right: on the Warka Vase; on a cylinder seal; copy after a tablet from the Uruk IV phase; copy after a tablet from the Uruk III phase.

The origin of the signs is also debated. For Englund, the majority of signs have a pictographic origin: they are originally figurative signs, drawings representing and designating real things. This seems to be the case at least for the Uruk IV phase. It is possible to distinguish different types of pictographic signs. Some represent the object in its entirety, other only a part of it. The latter type will nevertheless signify the totality (pars pro toto) of the object: for example, an animal's head to designate an animal. A pictogram can also represent an action, for example the hand represents the action of giving or receiving, a container (jar, vase or basket) can designate its contents (milk, butter, cereals or even a ration). [115] [116] But quite quickly, and at least in the Uruk III phase, a significant number of signs are totally abstract. Nissen identifies 98 of them. He also emphasizes that few pictorial signs are naturalistic, but are already very abstract. This leads him to consider that proto-cuneiform is not pictographic and draws on pre-existing graphic codes. [117] Indeed, the origin or at least the inspiration of several proto-cuneiform signs could be identified in other administrative instruments or figurative representations from the Uruk period: tokens, seals, motifs appearing on cylinder seals and other bas-reliefs, notably representations of divine emblems. [118]

Most of the corpus consists of signs derived from previous ones. Indeed, rather than inventing new forms, Urukean administrators favored creation, by modifying existing forms. This is done in particular by combining two signs: for example, the association of the head (SAG) and the bowl (GUR), which is equivalent to "ration," gives the meaning of "payment/spending (of ration)" (GU7). Another example: the sign designating the city of Larsa, city of the Sun God, is the combination of the sign of the sun (U4 or UD) and the sign designating a cult installation (AB), which clearly refers to the tutelary deity of the city and its cult. The creation of new signs can also be done by graphic differentiation from a single sign, in particular by means of hatching, doubling, mirror representation, etc.; thus the sign of the head hatched at the mouth will refer to this part of the body, and the sign of the sheep with hatches will designate a lamb. A whole set of signs is derived from that signifying the jar (DUG), to designate things that it could contain in the stores of the institutions. This demonstrates that writing is quickly the subject of a process of abstraction and new inventions, all of this being largely determined by the search for signs more easily traceable in clay. [117] [119] [120] Proto-cuneiform system is based on a group of basic signs, frequently used, which serve as a model for creating derived signs. These may be used only very rarely and have no posterity. This reflects the fact that writing habits seem to vary between offices, which explains why certain signs are commonly used in texts written in the same place, but never or almost never elsewhere. [121]

Phonetism?

As to whether the proto-cuneiform system had some phonetic signs (phonograms), that is signs that refers directly to spoken word, or not, it is also a matter of debate, related to the "Sumerian question" and the language(s) spoken by the inventors of proto-cuneiform.

Logographic signs can potentially be used according to the principle of the rebus, so as to refer the reader to a homonymous term for which there is no sign, notably abstractions. Thus, in the later cuneiform system, the garden sign SAR is used to designate the action of writing, sar in Sumerian. This allows an evolution towards the constitution of a set of phonetic signs, called "syllabograms" since they represent a syllable. Thus the water sign A is also used for the syllable [a]. [122]

Determining whether this aspect of cuneiform writing is already present in proto-cuneiform is problematic and has been the subject of much discussion, particularly because it brings us back to the question of whether the language spoken by the scribes of the Uruk IV and III periods was Sumerian or not. Indeed, to understand the sound derived from a sign, it is necessary to know in which language it is pronounced. Most specialists consider, on the basis of a limited number of examples, that the principle of the rebus based on a Sumerian reading of certain signs is present in proto-cuneiform texts. But even if this is the case, these occurrences are very rare, and the proto-cuneiform system is considered essentially non-phonetic. It is generally accepted that its aim (or main aim) is not to transcribe a spoken language and to reproduce sentences. [2] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127]

Shape

Comparison of the writing of two proto-cuneiform signs, UDU "sheep" (left) and KAS "beer" (right), on tablets from both phases: above, Uruk IV phase with rounded shapes; below, Uruk III phase with reduced curves and more straight-line sections. Graphie Uruk IV III.png
Comparison of the writing of two proto-cuneiform signs, UDU "sheep" (left) and KAŠ "beer" (right), on tablets from both phases: above, Uruk IV phase with rounded shapes; below, Uruk III phase with reduced curves and more straight-line sections.

A significant graphic evolution occurs, modificating the shape of the proto-cuneiform logographic signs, between the Uruk IV and Uruk III phases. The way in which scribes imprint their reed styluses into the fresh clay in order to trace the signs evolves, in order to write more efficiently. This method tends to eliminate rounded shapes in favor of straight lines, which are quicker to draw. [128] As Nissen explains: [129]

Characteristic of the Level IV texts is that after making an oblique imprint into the surface of the tablet the stylus then is drawn out enabling the scribe to produce curved lines in addition to straight ones. The technique changes to the following stage of Archaic Level III as the stylus is imprinted in a way that only straight lines can be produced dissolving the former curved lines into series of straight ones. This gives the signs the abstract shape anticipating the look of later cuneiform.

This evolution, which continued in subsequent periods, resulted in a "loss of iconicity": the signs of Mesopotamian writing gradually lost their pictographic aspect. They became more schematic, consisting only of straight lines, constituting short segments, before subsequently taking on their cuneiform aspect characterized by the triangular-shaped mark (or "wedge") made when the tip of the reed stylus, cut at an angle, is planted in the clay. As a result, when observing the signs of later cuneiform writing, it is no longer possible to identify their pictographic proto-cuneiform origin, when they have one. [130] [131]

Texts

Materials and media

In order to write the first texts (as well as for the precursors of writing such as tokens and bullae), the administrators of southern Mesopotamia primarily used the most abundant materials in their region: clay and reed.

Clay was used to make writing media, mainly in the form of tablets. Although clay was by far the most common material, some texts were written on stone tablets, and it is also possible that other perishable materials were used. The choice of clay, a durable material, is responsible for the large amount of documentation preserved in proto-cuneiform, compared to the earliest writing systems from other parts of the world. [132]

The instrument used to trace the signs in fresh clay was made from a carved reed stalk: stylus. As writing developed, the shapes of these styluses undoubtedly diversified. Two types eventually became dominant: styluses with a bevelled tip that made wedge-shaped marks for non-numerical signs, and those with a rounded tip that made circular or semi-circular marks for numerical signs. [133]

The oldest proto-cuneiform tablets clearly derive from numerical tablets and have a simple format: they are small, written on one side only, and contain a limited amount of information. Transaction receipts preserve this simple form. Later, during Uruk III period, larger and more complex tablets appeared, divided into several cases and sub-cases organized in rows or columns, written on both sides. [134]

Other clay tablets are much simpler: labels, so called because they are pierced with a hole, indicating that they were attached by a string to a container. [135] Inscriptions on vases have also been discovered.

Administrative

The vast majority of proto-cuneiform texts, approximately 85% of the total (about 2000 from the Uruk IV period and 3600 from Uruk III), are administrative, bookkeeping records. [136] As explained by Englund: "As an accounting system, proto-cuneiform served above all to communicate and store administrative data." [59]

The accounting tablets from the Uruk IV period, similar to earlier numerical tablets, are generally small and written on one side only, containing limited information and being concise. They often combine a few numerical signs with pictograms. The aim is to identify a transaction with the product, the quantity, and the person or administrative office receiving or shipping the goods. However, from the Uruk IV period onwards, more complex tablets appeared: divided into cases and columns, they recorded several transactions, one per section. Some included numerical notes on the reverse side summarizing the quantities recorded on the front, with the identification of the products and the offices responsible. The Uruk III period saw an increase in the complexity of this type of tablet, with more developed summaries. Tablets tended to become larger, written in several columns and on both sides. Labels (attested for both phases), that were probably attached to products (or to the bags, or to the boxes, containing those products), are unique in that they do not include any numerical signs, but only logograms indicating the content or the office responsible for the goods to which they are attached. [137]

Proto-cuneiform administrative tablets are used to record product movements, varying in complexity. According to Nissen: [140]

The texts deal with deliveries to a central store and the distribution of agricultural products of all kinds, i.e., foodstuffs in the broad sense and other raw materials, as well as personnel and labor management. In some cases, it is possible to identify the recipients as high-ranking officials [...]. At present, we know nothing about those who delivered the foodstuffs, although this would be of great interest for reconstructing the economic system.

These accounts appear to have been produced by offices, sections of the administration responsible for a specific task, such as a grain store. They may record totals over long periods of time, to be used for monitoring the situation, and perhaps for forecasting purposes, for example to determine how much grain to set aside for the next sowing season. [141]

These bookkeeping documents ultimately serve purposes similar to those of their predecessors (tokens, envelopes, numerical tablets), namely to facilitate the management of the uninterrupted and ever-increasing flow of products handled by the stores and administrative offices of Uruk institutions. But they clearly do so in a more comprehensive manner. Administrative tablets do not seem to document other concerns, which explains why they do not provide much information about the administrative structure of their time. [142]

Lexical

Proto-cuneiform non-administrative tablets are called "sign lists" or "lexical lists". They constitute approximately

As their name suggests, these texts are lists or rather inventories of signs, enumerated one after the other, following a thematic principle, as they are linked by semantic connections. [141] [144] These lists can be grouped into several general categories according to their theme, which are often known from several examples: lists of places/cities, lists of animals, lists of plants and manufactured goods, and lists of people/professions [145] . This results in tablets that are easily identifiable by their external characteristics: they are made up of small cases arranged in columns, each containing a sign or a group of signs, accompanied by the basic numerical sign of the sexagesimal system S (N01). [146]

Lists of individuals compile professions and administrative offices, which could be organized according to a hierarchical principle: the first position listed, NÁM.EŠDA, is, according to Nissen, the title worn by the most important figure of the time. Next come other individuals whose job titles begin with the sign NÁM, meaning “chief,” those responsible for areas related to administration, who seem to be listed one after the other according to their importance. These lists could therefore be lists of officials, providing clues about the administrative organization of the time, which would already be imposing and diversified. [144]

These lists often include signs that are not attested in administrative tablets, which could reflect a taste for scholarly speculation. If so, some of the signs found there are somewhat fictional. But this point is debated. [151] They seem to focus on the environment of the time and its economic practices. They were probably used to teach writing and its signs, for the drafting of administrative tablets. But they undoubtedly served other purposes as well. [152] It has been observed that the signs are not arranged randomly one after the other, but according to a specific classification principle. For example, a hierarchical/honorific order seems to exist in certain cases (lists of people, lists of cities). This suggests that the order in which the signs are written in these lists was carefully thought out in advance. [141] [113] In 1936, W. von Soden proposed that they were used to record and organize the world, an idea that convinced some specialists, but not all. In any case, they are at the origin of a type of lexicographical work characteristic of the Mesopotamian literary tradition, several of whose canonical compositions derive from the lists of the Uruk period. [141]

One of these texts stands out: the “Tribute List” (or “Word List C”), which combines various types of signs (numbers, animals, products). It has been interpreted as either the oldest known literary work [153] or, more simply, a quick reference guide summarizing the most commonly used signs in the proto-cuneiform system. [154]

At least, the existence of lexical proto-cuneiform texts means that this system was already more than just a bookkeeping system. As highlighted in the work of Jack Goody, the invention of writing carried the seeds of significant cognitive developments, an intellectual revolution, visible in particular in the lists of signs [63] . According to B. Lafont: [155]

The consequences of writing on cognitive processes, its potential to deploy new means of communication, have caused a change in the perception of the world among those who invented it. It has allowed the development of a different system of thought and has gradually given its users new ways, not only to project themselves into time and space, but also to undertake a reflection on the world and its organization.

Layout

Administrative texts describe economic operations concisely. They are organized around numerical signs accompanied by logograms. They identify the object of the transaction (e.g., "5 jars of beer," "10 sheep," "a field (with an area) of 16 bùr," etc.) as well as the person or office involved.

Regarding their "layout," tablets from the Uruk IV period are generally simple, often containing a single entry, but row and column separations also appear. They are rarely written on both sides. In contrast, there are almost no tablets with a single entry by the Uruk III period, during which processes developed to include as much information as possible on a tablet, particularly for writing summary documents. This involves various processes leading to a more complex compartmentalization of the tablets, following a wide variety of modalities. Each of the different entries is isolated in a case, and the cases are organized into rows or columns; some cases are divided in sub-cases so as to add information. The majority of the tablets include more than three of these rows of boxes, and they are often written on both sides. When there are summaries, these are arranged on the reverse, after the individual operations they add up. There are differences between the sites, since the tablets found in Uruk are more complex than those from Jemdet-Nasr. [156] Different types of situations and therefore layouts are observed, depending on the complexity of the administrative document, ranging from basic data processing recording small movements of goods to a synthetic document listing several transactions and ending with totals. [157]

As for the direction of writing and reading, it does not seem to be standardized either. Nissen notes that the orientation of the pictograms would indicate that within the cases the signs are preferentially read vertically, from top to bottom. [158] Each case forms a coherent unit that provides complete information. The whole combines numerical signs and logograms: the numerical signs are written first (at the top), while the logograms can be placed arbitrarily, although the signs representing the things being counted tend to be written just after the numerical signs counting them. [159] [160] Very often, the sequence of writing and reading the aligned boxes is from right to left, and one passes from one row to another from top to bottom. [158] But there is no unity and the arrangements of the boxes and the reading directions are variable. [161] As for the lexical lists, they have a specific layout that is quickly identifiable, notably by their aligned, elongated boxes beginning with the number 1. [162] They have a uniform reading direction, with the passage from one box to the next occurring from right to left and from top to bottom. [163]

In modern publications and museums, the habits of specialists have often led them to represent the tablets in a different orientation from that in which they were originally read, which explains why the pictograms appear "upside down" (the head sign with the face upwards rather than to the right): to find their original meaning, they must often be rotated 90° clockwise. [164]

Writing or proto-writing?

Since the signs in the proto-cuneiform system are often arranged randomly and there are no (or almost no) phonetic signs, there is not syntax per se [165] [166] It is not possible to transfer the principles of the cuneiform system to its proto-cuneiform ancestor, because many changes occurred between the two. [114]

The proto-cuneiform documents are certainly more effective instruments for recording information than the precursors of writing such as tokens and numerical tablets, notably because of their ability to report several pieces of information at the same time. However, it is still necessary to have knowledge of their writing context to fully understand their content. [167] The rarity of verbal roots and the absence (with one possible exception) of narrative text in the corpus means that the proto-cuneiform system has often been described as a memory aid (aide-mémoire). A text in this system requires the readers to already know the broad outlines of the information they are going to read. This explains the difficulties encountered in understanding proto-cuneiform texts once these contextual elements have been forgotten. [168] [169]

According to N. Veldhuis: [125]

The archaic (i.e. proto-cuneiform) signs are capable of recording commodities, professional titles, and a variety of metrological systems. The texts do not record administrative events in a narrative fashion but use the layout of the tablet (columns, obverse and reverse) to indicate the relationships among items, totals, and persons involved. In this respect, archaic cuneiform (at least in the more complex accounts) is more like a modern spreadsheet than a modern writing system.

The definition of writing is debated, with two extremes: on the one hand, a view that it is a system of conventional signs for intercommunication between humans, and on the other, a view that only a system seeking to reproduce language and speech, i.e., a spoken sentence, deserves this term. If we stick to the first meaning, proto-cuneiform is without a doubt a form of writing. [2] But if we stick to the other approach, given that the links between proto-cuneiform and language are tenuous at best, this would lead us to question its status as writing strictly speaking, as long as the principle of the rebus, which allows the passage from the sign that indicates a word to the sign that indicates (also) a sound, is not identified with certainty. For this reason, P. Damerow considers proto-cuneiform as a "proto-writing". According to him, writing only came into being later, in the course of the first centuries of the 3rd millennium BC, with the development of phonetic signs in the cuneiform system. [3]

Publications

The proto-cuneiform texts from Uruk were published in a series of books (ATU)

And from other sites (MSVO)

Unicode

A Unicode block encoding proto-cuneiform (Uruk III and Uruk IV) was initially proposed in 2020. [99] but has not yet been formally accepted by the consortium, though character encoding for later forms of cuneiform have been formalized. [170] [171] [172] [173] [174]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Nissen 1997, p. 27.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Englund 1998, p. 42.
  3. 1 2 Damerow 2006, p. 7-8.
  4. ↑ Woods 2010, p. 45.
  5. ↑ CDLI contributors. 2025. “Pre-Writing (ca. 8500-3500 BC) - Periods.” Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative. September 15, 2025. https://cdli.earth/periods/1.
  6. ↑ Nissen 2016, p. 43-44.
  7. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 46-47.
  8. ↑ Bennison-Chapman, Lucy E. (2019). "Reconsidering 'Tokens': The Neolithic Origins of Accounting or Multifunctional, Utilitarian Tools". Cambridge Archaeological Journal. 29 (2): 233–259. doi:10.1017/S0959774318000513..
  9. ↑ Selz 2020, p. 194-195.
  10. ↑ Selz 2020, p. 196.
  11. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 48-49.
  12. ↑ Woods 2010, p. 46.
  13. ↑ Selz 2020, p. 196-197.
  14. ↑ CDLI contributors. 2025. “Uruk V (ca. 3500-3350 BC) - Periods.” Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative. September 15, 2025. https://cdli.earth/periods/2.
  15. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 50-51.
  16. 1 2 3 Woods 2010, p. 49.
  17. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 51 and 53.
  18. ↑ “Fouilles de Sialk I, Pl. 92, Sialk 1631 Artifact Entry.” 2001. Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI). December 4, 2001. https://cdli.earth/P009520.
  19. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 53-55.
  20. ↑ Woods 2010, p. 46-49.
  21. ↑ Englund 2011, p. 33.
  22. ↑ Kelley K, Cartolano M, Ferrara S., "Seals and signs: tracing the origins of writing in ancient South-west Asia", Antiquity, pp. 1-19, 2024 doi:10.15184/aqy.2024.165
  23. ↑ Pittman, Holly (1994). "Towards an Understanding of the Role of Glyptic Imagery in the Administrative Systems of Proto-literate Greater Mesopotamia". In Piera Ferioli; Enrica Fiandra; Gian Giacomo Fissore; Marcella Frangipane (eds.). Archives Before Writing. Rome: Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali. pp. 177–210..
  24. ↑ Bahrani, Zainab (2003). The Graven Image: Representation in Babylonia and Assyria. Philadelphie: University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 96–120..
  25. ↑ Ross, Jennifer C. (2013). "Art's Role in the Origins of Writing: The Seal-Carver, the Scribe, and the Earliest Lexical Texts". In Brian A. Brown and Marian H. Feldman (ed.). Critical Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art. Berlin et Boston: De Gruyter. pp. 295–317..
  26. ↑ Woods 2010, p. 34.
  27. ↑ Englund, Robert K. (2015). "Uruk. A. Philologisch. 4.-3. Jahrtausend". Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Vol. XIV. p. 448.
  28. ↑ Nissen 2016, p. 34.
  29. ↑ Glassner, Jean-Jacques (2020). "The Invention of Writing: The Use of Mythology". In Ilya Arkhipov, Leonid Kogan and Natalia Koslova (ed.). The Third Millennium: Studies in Early Mesopotamia and Syria in Honor of Walter Sommerfeld and Manfred Krebernik (in French). Leiden: Brill. p. 299.
  30. ↑ Nissen 1997, p. 22.
  31. ↑ Nissen 2016, p. 36-37.
  32. ↑ Woods 2020, p. 32.
  33. ↑ Selz 2020, p. 164.
  34. ↑ CDLI contributors. 2025. “Uruk IV (ca. 3350-3200 BC) - Periods.” Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative. January 9, 2025. https://cdli.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/periods/3.
  35. ↑ CDLI contributors. 2025. “Uruk V (ca. 3500-3350 BC) - Periods.” Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative. January 9, 2025. https://cdli.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/periods/2..
  36. ↑ Lecompte, Camille, "Observations on Diplomatics, Tablet Layout and Cultural Evolution of the Early Third Millennium: The Archaic Texts from Ur", in Materiality of Writing in Early Mesopotamia, edited by Thomas E. Balke and Christina Tsouparopoulou, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 133–164, 2016
  37. ↑ Lafont 2017, p. 59-61 et 82-83.
  38. ↑ Lafont 2017, p. 61-66.
  39. ↑ Selz 2020, p. 218.
  40. ↑ Liverani, Mario (2005). "Historical Overview". In Daniel C. Snell (ed.). A companion to the ancient Near East. Malden et Oxford: Blackwell. p. 5.
  41. ↑ Lafont 2017, p. 102-103.
  42. ↑ Selz 2020, p. 219-220.
  43. ↑ Selz 2020, p. 214-215.
  44. ↑ Selz 2020, p. 199.
  45. ↑ Selz 2020, p. 208-209.
  46. ↑ Monaco, Salvatore F., "Proto-cuneiform And Sumerians", Rivista Degli Studi Orientali, vol. 87, no. 1/4, pp. 277–82, 2014
  47. ↑ Monaco, Salvatore F., "Loan and Interest in the Archaic Texts", Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie, vol. 102, no. 2, pp. 165–178, 2013
  48. ↑ Selz 2020, p. 203-205.
  49. ↑ Woods 2020, p. 43.
  50. 1 2 Nissen 2016, p. 46-47.
  51. ↑ Lafont 2017, p. 71-72.
  52. ↑ Woods 2020, p. 29-30.
  53. ↑ Cooper 2004, p. 94.
  54. ↑ Veldhuis 2012, p. 5.
  55. ↑ Damerow 2006, p. 7.
  56. ↑ Taylor 2013, p. 291-292.
  57. ↑ Hudson, Michael (2004). "The Role of Accounting in Civilization's Economic Takeoff". In Michael Hudson; Cornelia Wunsch (eds.). Creating Economic Order: Record-keeping, Money and the Development of Accounting in the Ancient Near East. Bethesda: CDL. pp. 1–22..
  58. ↑ Algaze, Guillermo (2001). "Initial Social Complexity in Southwestern Asia: The Mesopotamian Advantage". Current Anthropology. 42 (2): 212–213. JSTOR   320005..
  59. 1 2 Englund 1998, p. 29.
  60. ↑ Damerow 2006, p. 4.
  61. ↑ Glassner 2000, p. 279-293.
  62. ↑ Englund, Robert K. (2005). "Compte-rendu de Jean-Jacques Glassner (trad. Zainab Bahrani et Marc Van De Mieroop), The Invention of Cuneiform: Writing in Sumer, 2003". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 125 (1): 113–116..
  63. 1 2 Lafont 2017, p. 76-77.
  64. ↑ CDLI contributors. 2025. “Proto-Elamite (ca. 3100-2900 BC) - Periods.” Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative. January 9, 2025. https://cdli.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/periods/5.
  65. ↑ Dahl, Jacob L. (2013). "Early Writing in Iran". In Daniel T. Potts (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 233–262.
  66. ↑ Desset, François (2016). "Proto-Elamite Writing in Iran". Archéo-Nil. Journal of the Society for the Study of Prepharaonic Cultures of the Nile Valley. 26 (Birth of the State, Birth of the Administration: The Role of Writing in Egypt, the Near East and China / Emergence of the State and Development of the Administration: The Role of Writing in Egypt, the Near East and China): 69–70.
  67. ↑ Dittman, R., "Seals, Sealings and Tablets. Thoughts on the changing pattern of administrative control from the Late-Uruk to the Proto-Elamite period at Susa", pp. 332–66 in Gamdat Nasr. Period or Regional Style? ed. U. Finkbeiner and R. Röllig. TAVO B/62. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1986
  68. ↑ Overmann, Karenleigh A., "Numerical Notations And Writing", in The Material Origin of Numbers: Insights from the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Piscataway, NJ, USA: Gorgias Press, pp. 179–206, 2019
  69. ↑ Matthews, Roger, and Amy Richardson, "Cultic resilience and inter-city engagement at the dawn of urban history: protohistoric Mesopotamia and the 'city seals', 3200–2750 BC", World Archaeology 50.5, pp. 723-747, 2018
  70. ↑ Stratford, Edward, "Archives and the Deformation of Time", Volume 1 A Year of Vengeance, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 316–332, 2017
  71. ↑ Charvát, Petr., "Early Texts and Sealings: 'Divine Journeys' in the Uruk IV Period?", Altorientalische Forschungen, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 30–33, 1995
  72. ↑ Matthews, Roger J., "Jemdet Nasr: The Site and the Period", The Biblical Archaeologist, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 196–203, 1992
  73. ↑ R. J. Matthews, "Defining the Style of the Period: Jemdet Nasr 1926–28", Iraq, vol. 54, pp. 1–34, 1992
  74. ↑ Lloyd, Seton, et al., "Tell Uqair: Excavations by the Iraq Government Directorate of Antiquities in 1940 and 1941", Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 131–58, 1943
  75. ↑ Robert K. Englund, "Archaic Dairy Metrology", Iraq 53, pp. 101–104, 1991
  76. ↑ Falkenstein, Adam, "Archaische texte des Iraq-Museums in Baghdad", Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 40/7, pp. 401–410, 1937
  77. ↑ Robert K. Englund, "Grain Accounting Practices in Archaic Mesopotamia", in: J. Høyrup and Peter Damerow, eds., Changing Views on Ancient Near Eastern Mathematics, BBVO 19; Berlin, 1–35, 2001
  78. ↑ Monaco, Salvatore F., "Unusual accounting practices in archaic Mesopotamian tablets", Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2005.1, 2005
  79. ↑ S. Langdon, "Excavations at Kish Volume 1 Expedition to Mesopotamia", Paul Geuthner, Paris, 1924
  80. ↑ Goff, Beatrice L., and Briggs Buchanan, "A Tablet of the Uruk Period in the Goucher College Collection", Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 231–35, 1956
  81. ↑ Charvát, Petr, "Signs from Silence: Ur of the First Sumerians (Late Uruk Through ED I)", Ur in the Twenty-First Century CE: Proceedings of the 62nd Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Philadelphia, July 11–15, 2016, pp. 195-204, 2021
  82. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 23-24.
  83. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 24 and 26.
  84. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 32-34 and 38-39.
  85. ↑ Nissen 1997, p. 22-23.
  86. ↑ Nissen, Damerow & Englund 1993, p. ix-x.
  87. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 16-17.
  88. ↑ Englund 2015, p. 448.
  89. ↑ I. J. Gelb, "A Study of Writing", Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963
  90. 1 2 Damerow, Peter, "The origins of writing as a problem of historical epistemology", Cuneiform Digital Library Journal, CDLJ 2006:1, 2006
  91. ↑ Langdon, Stephen Herbert, "Pictographic Inscriptions from Jemdet Nasr excavated by the Oxford and Field Museum Expedition", Oxford editions of cuneiform texts 7, Oxford University Press, 1928
  92. ↑ Friberg, Jöran, "The Third Millennium Roots of Babylonian Mathematics.1. A Method for the Decipherment, through Mathematical and Metrological Analysis of Proto-Sumerian and Proto-Elamite Semi-pictographic Inscriptions", Göteborg: Chalmers University of Technology and the University of Göteborg, 1978–1979
  93. ↑ Friberg, Jöran, "The Early Roots of Mathematics: II. Metrological Relations in a Group of Semi-Pictographic Tablets of the Jemdet Nasr Type, Probably from Uruk Warka, Göteborg, Sweden:Chalmers University of Technology and the University of Götebor, 1979
  94. ↑ Friberg, Jöran, "Counting and Accounting in the Proto-Literate Middle East: Examples from Two New Volumes of Proto-cuneiform Texts", Journal of Cuneiform Studies, vol. 51, pp. 107–37, 1999
  95. ↑ Friberg, Jöran, "Round and Almost Round Numbers in Proto-Literate Metro-Mathematical Field Texts", Archiv Für Orientforschung, vol. 44/45, pp. 1–58, 1997
  96. ↑ Bartash, Vitali, "Approaching the topic", in Establishing Value: Weight Measures in Early Mesopotamia, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 1–15, 2019
  97. ↑ Vaiman, Aizik A., "Protosumerische Mass- und Zählsysteme", Baghdader Mitteilungen 20, pp. 114–120, 1989
  98. ↑ "MSVO 3, 29 Artifact Entry", (2002) 2024. Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI). July 22, 2024
  99. 1 2 Anshuman Pandey, "Preliminary proposal to encode ProtoCuneiform in Unicode", L2/20193, September 21, 2020
  100. ↑ Woods, Christopher, "Contingency Tables and Economic Forecasting in the Earliest Texts from Mesopotamia", Texts and Contexts: The Circulation and Transmission of Cuneiform Texts in Social Space, edited by Paul Delnero and Jacob Lauinger, Berlin, München, Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 121–142, 2015
  101. ↑ Born, Logan, and Kathryn Kelley, "A Quantitative Analysis of proto-cuneiform Sign Use in Archaic Tribute", Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin, 2021
  102. ↑ Englund 2011, p. 38.
  103. ↑ Friberg, Jöran, "The Early Roots of Babylonian Mathematics: II. Metrological Relations in a Group of Semi-Pictographic Tablets of the Jemdet Nasr Type, Probably from Uruk-Warka", Research Report, 1979-15; University of Göteborg, Department of Mathematics, Chalmers, 1978–79
  104. ↑ Friberg, Jöran, "Three Thousand Years of Sexagesimal Numbers in Mesopotamian Mathematical Texts", Archive for History of Exact Sciences, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 183–216, 2019
  105. ↑ Powell, Marvin A. Jr., "Sumerian Area Measures and the Alleged Decimal Substratum", vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 165–221, 1972
  106. ↑ Nathan, David L., "A 'New' Proto-Cuneiform Tablet", Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 4, 2003
  107. ↑ Englund, Robert K., "Proto-cuneiform account-books and journals." Creating Economic Order: Recordkeeping, Standardization and the Development of Accounting in the Ancient Near East, Michael Hudson and Cornelia Wunsch [eds.], Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press, pp. 23–46, 2004
  108. ↑ Dahl, Jacob L., "The Proto-Elamite writing system", in The Elamite World, pp. 383–396, 2018
  109. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 112 n.245.
  110. ↑ Woods 2020, p. 36.
  111. ↑ List of signs in the proto-cuneiform repertoire on the CDLI website: https://cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html.
  112. ↑ Damerow 2006, p. 6.
  113. 1 2 Taylor 2013, p. 295.
  114. 1 2 Taylor 2013, p. 292.
  115. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 71.
  116. ↑ Woods 2020, p. 32-33 and 36-37.
  117. 1 2 Nissen 2016, p. 44-45.
  118. ↑ Glassner 2000, p. 217-229.
  119. ↑ Woods 2020, p. 33 et 37-38.
  120. ↑ Glassner 2000, p. 168-177.
  121. ↑ Damerow 2006, p. 6-7.
  122. ↑ Woods 2020, p. 39-40.
  123. ↑ Cooper 2004, p. 89.
  124. ↑ Damerow 2006, p. 1-2 and 5-6.
  125. 1 2 Veldhuis 2012, p. 4.
  126. ↑ Woods 2020, p. 41.
  127. ↑ Selz 2020, p. 204.
  128. ↑ Nissen 1997, p. 28-29.
  129. ↑ Nissen 2016, p. 37.
  130. ↑ Cooper 2004, p. 85-86.
  131. ↑ Woods 2020, p. 33-35.
  132. ↑ Cooper 2004, p. 72.
  133. ↑ Glassner 2000, p. 157-159.
  134. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 57-59.
  135. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 57.
  136. 1 2 Englund 2011, p. 35.
  137. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 57-63.
  138. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 115 fig. 38.
  139. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 206-207.
  140. ↑ Nissen 1997, p. 23.
  141. 1 2 3 4 Nissen 1997, p. 24.
  142. ↑ Nissen 2016, p. 37-38 and 40.
  143. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 86-88.
  144. 1 2 Nissen 2016, p. 39-40.
  145. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 90.
  146. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 82-84.
  147. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 92.
  148. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 94.
  149. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 95 and 98.
  150. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 104 fig. 32.
  151. ↑ Taylor 2013, p. 296-297.
  152. ↑ Selz 2020, p. 200-202.
  153. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 99.
  154. ↑ Selz 2020, p. 203.
  155. ↑ Lafont 2017, p. 77.
  156. ↑ Green, M. W. (1981). "The Construction and Implementation of the Cuneiform Writing System". Visible Language. 15 (4): 349–356..
  157. ↑ Nissen 2016, p. 40.
  158. 1 2 Nissen, Damerow & Englund 1993, p. 119-120.
  159. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 57 n. 112.
  160. ↑ Cooper 2004, p. 81.
  161. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 58-59 fig. 17:2-3.
  162. ↑ Green 1981, p. 353-354.
  163. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 82.
  164. ↑ Englund 1998, p. 18 n.1 and 72.
  165. ↑ Cooper 2004, p. 80-81.
  166. ↑ Damerow 2006, p. 4-6.
  167. ↑ Nissen 2016, p. 42.
  168. ↑ Taylor 2013, p. 292-293.
  169. ↑ Woods 2020, p. 43-44.
  170. ↑ Anshuman Pandey, "proto-cuneiform: Comparison of Sign Images and Glyphs", L2/21-184, August 31, 2021
  171. ↑ Anshuman Pandey, "Revised proposal to encode proto-cuneiform in Unicode", L2/22-239, October 10, 2022
  172. ↑ Anshuman Pandey, "Revised proposal to encode proto-cuneiform in Unicode", L2/23-190, July 11, 2023
  173. ↑ Steve Tinney, "Comments on L2/23-190 Revised proposal to encode Proto-Cuneiform in Unicode", L2/24-211, 2024-04-14
  174. ↑ Robin Leroy, Anshuman Pandey, and Steve Tinney, "Archaic cuneiform numerals", L2/24-210R, 2024-10-23

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.