Proto-cuneiform

The proto-cuneiform writing system is defined with the help of which the archaic texts from the late Uruk period (i.e. Uruk IV and Uruk III) up to the beginning of the early dynastic period (fDyn I) were written, i.e. the writing of the Sumerian texts around approx 3200 BC Until approx. 2700 BC Thus, according to the current state of science, the proto-cuneiform script is the oldest writing system in the world. So far there are 5820 archaic texts known, mostly on clay , but also on stone and plaster tablets.

Locations of the proto-cuneiform texts

Uruk

The southern Mesopotamian Uruk, located on the Euphrates between Fara and Ur, is the main source of the proto-cuneiform texts. According to the counts of the Archaic Texts from Uruk project (Berlin-Los Angeles), 5410 copies of the proto-cuneiform texts come from Uruk. A good 5000 of them were found in the religious district (Eanna district). The excavations began in 1912, but were interrupted for a long time due to the First World War and only resumed in 1928, financed by the Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft .

The excavators immediately realized the meaning of these texts. Due to paleographic criteria, they appeared to be older than the Jemdet-Nasr texts recently published by Langdon, making them the oldest known written finds in Mesopotamia. The stratigraphic situation and the archaeological context of the finds are sometimes problematic.

Alien Nasr

Around 180 proto-cuneiform texts were found mainly by the excavators E. Mackay and S. Langdon in the years 1925–1928 near Jemdet Nasr (approx. 30–40 km N-NE of Babylon). The archaeological structure in which the tablets were found describes Langdon as the oldest known palace from the ancient Orient. Many of the tablets bear seal impressions and date to the Uruk III period. The exact find positions within the rooms were unfortunately not recorded. The rooms in which table finds were made were simply marked with a "T". The boards are known for the breadth of topics they cover. They deal with the management of fields, grain crops, storage and redistribution. But lists of persons are also known. It is noticeable that only very few documents deal with small and / or large livestock, in contrast to the tablets that are known from Uruk. One or two school texts were also unearthed, which bear witness to the fact that training centers for learning the proto-cuneiform script existed in Jemdet Nasr.

Uqair

Before the proto-cuneiform texts excavated for the first time in Jemdet Nasr, the first copies of this writing level came into the possession of the Berlin State Museum through the antique trade. However, these 35 tablets were quickly forgotten until A. Falkenstein was working on the more than 700 archaic tablets from Uruk in 1931 and P. Jensen made them aware of them. Due to the similarity of some seal impressions with the texts known from Jemdet Nasr, Falkenstein came to the conclusion that they must also come from Jemdet Nasr. Due to the character shapes and the format of the tablets, however, they were later attributed to the Uqair site by J. Friberg and MW Green, approx. 60 km south of Baghdad and 10–20 km N-NW from Jemdet Nasr. However, the texts hardly give any information about the prevailing economic system during the archaic settlement phase of Uqair. However, they cover the full range of economic documents (grain management, small livestock, fresh and dried fish, animal products, textiles and metal objects, slaves, etc.).

Larsa?

The origin of a group of 27 particularly well-preserved proto-cuneiform texts is not entirely clear. Without exception, they were obtained through the antique trade, i.e. illegally exported from the country. The earliest editors assigned them to the texts from Jemdet Nasr due to the titles and personal names that occur. However, Falkenstein believed they were stolen from Uruk, where he was digging at the time. However, one of the vendors claimed to have them from Larsa. Now you cannot trust the information from robbery graves, but Larsa was a very important center of that time and came third in the lexical lists, right after Ur and Nippur. We also know of lootings from this area during the excavations, which must have been so massive that the excavator at the time A. Parrot was happy to finish his work there. Larsa cannot therefore be ruled out as a possible location of proto-cuneiform texts.

Other

Tell Asmar in the Diyala area is another extra-Uruka site. Two smaller texts were found there which show that there was also an elite (scribes) in the Diyala area of ​​the late Uruk period. In addition, a further 85 examples are also known to be particularly well-preserved. These come from the earlier Erlenmeyer collection and mainly deal with brewing and beer production.

Predecessor of the proto-cuneiform script

It has occasionally been argued that the proto-cuneiform script, due to its already very standardized and highly developed writing system, must have had pictographic predecessors that either have not yet been excavated or have already been destroyed, as they may have been written on material that is not so durable like clay. This argumentum ex silencio must be rejected. It has been shown on various occasions that the forerunners of the proto-cuneiform script can be found in the stamps, cylinder seals, tokens, clay bulls, numerical and numero-ideographic boards and other administrative counting devices.

seal

The seals appear shortly before the first labeled panels. They replace the simple stamps that were used before these. Cylinder seals are cylinder-shaped artifacts made of stone or other "hard" materials that have a perforation along their vertical axis, through which a string has presumably been pulled. The engraved motifs on these seals range from simple geometric patterns to complex images of people and animals (e.g. depictions of wild boar hunts, captured enemies, etc.). Sealing was done in softer, malleable material such as B. Clay by unrolling the seal on the latter.

The act of sealing was an expression of the authority of a person or body over what was sealed. The sealing person or corporation (e.g. temple economy) thus assumes responsibility for a good or a transaction as long as the seal is intact. The seal therefore had to enable the person to be sealed to be clearly identified, which is why there were no two identical seals.

The sudden increase in the number of seals found in the late Uruk period indicates increased economic activity at this time.

Tokens

Seals store information about the agents of a transaction or the owner of a good, but they do not give any information about the good and its quantity itself. So-called tokens were used to save this information . These are small clay objects that can be found in all prehistoric archaeological sites. However, whether all objects called tokens performed the same task is a matter of dispute.

There are two different types of tokens, differentiated according to their appearance, not their function. (1) Plain tokens: In Mesopotamia, these can be proven in excavation layers that date back to 8000 BC. Can be backdated. As the name suggests, these are clay artifacts that have no drawing or design and the like. (2) Complex Tokens: Similar in shape to plain tokens, but easily distinguishable from the former by various scratches and perforations.

Many of the incisions on the decorated tokens are very similar to the first proto-cuneiform characters. It is therefore assumed by some researchers (D. Schmandt-Besserat) that these tokens are the direct, three-dimensional predecessors of the proto-cuneiform characters. This conviction was controversial in research, not least because the cited work leaves a lot to be desired methodologically, but it is more and more accepted. The archaeological context in which these tokens were found was seldom an administrative one, and it seems to exclude it from the outset (see Finds of Tokens in Children's Graves). Only the tokens found in Tonbullen (see next section) can be functionally uniquely determined.

Clay bulls

The first clay bulls can be found in the shifts directly before the Uruk IV period. These are lumps of clay, mostly in the form of hollow spheres, inside of which plain tokens have been enclosed. The surface was then sealed. These clay bulls were found in an administrative context, broken into and still locked. The main sites are Uruk and Susiana .

There is no question that they are counting devices. However, the nature of the counting system is still open. Whether this is the well-known sexagesimal system or the grain-measure system cannot be said at the present time.

Numerical tables

The numerical tables developed from the clay bulls. A preliminary stage is formed by clay bulls, on the surface of which one can find form impressions that represent the enclosed tokens in shape and number and were then sealed. This ensured additional control. The imprints were either made with the tokens themselves, with reed stems or with the fingers themselves. Over time one went over to this - u. U. for reasons of manageability - to flatten the clay lumps, dispensing with the tokens, and to provide them with a numerical notation. Then these were sealed.

It was only at this time that it was common to use the round end of the pen shaft to separate discrete notations. One quickly started to separate the columns and columns with the flat end of a pen.

Numero-ideographic panels

Numero-ideographic panels can be found in Uruk and Susiana. They have in common with the numerical tables that they are flattened lumps of clay, the surface of which is provided with a numerical notation. In contrast to the latter, however, they have one or at most two pictograms or groups of pictograms that indicate the specific object of the notation (e.g. beer, sheep, slaves).

At this time, however, the Urukean influence on the neighboring areas seemed to be in decline, which is expressed, among other things, by the fact that there are no numero-ideographic tables in the north (they were only imported there in the early dynasty III) and their own in the east that has not yet been deciphered Scripture, the Proto-Elamite, develops.

It is interesting to note in this context that the characters of the Proto-Elamite script are completely different from those of the Proto-Cuneiform script and that they have strong similarities with the so-called complex tokens, which incidentally also come from the Susiana come from. However, some signs of Proto-Elamic have a strong resemblance to their equivalents in the (later) Proto-Cuneiform and it seems to be justified that these were taken from Proto-Elamic. Proto-Elamic therefore offers the best indication of a limited transfer of complex token based characters into cuneiform.

Table formats of the proto-cuneiform texts

Single entry boards

Tokens, clay bulls and numeric or numero-ideographic boards each represent a self-contained information unit, ie for example a transaction. So it is no wonder that the first proto-cuneiform tablets also have this format. Each board has only one statement on its upper side (verso). The backs (recto) are not written on. They were probably intended for short-term notation of administrative data, as there is no date on them (unless this was noted on another material - cover made of reed / fabric? - and has therefore been lost to us).

Tags

Tags actually form a subgroup of the single-entry boards, but they are listed here because of their special features. They consist of pillow-shaped panels with a perforation made through their longitudinal axis, probably to secure them to goods. As a further special feature, they do not contain any numerical notation, but only ideograms (groups) and pictograms (groups). They designate corporations (e.g. temple inns) or specific persons - in these cases it is probably ideograms, since names could hardly be represented purely pictographically (especially no foreign names) - or the product itself (e.g. Beer, dairy products) - these are called pictograms.

An interesting fact is that, it seems, there are no toponyms on these. In complete contrast to the (ivory) tablets used around the same time, as can be proven for pre- or early dynastic Egypt (royal tombs in Abydos).

Complex Entry Boards

Complex Entry boards are characterized by the fact that they contain multiple entries. They can therefore be viewed as a combination of several single-entry boards. In order to visually separate the individual entries, the surface was divided into columns and rows. More precisely, each entry was framed after it was written. As a result, the table was gradually divided into registers. These registers then each represented a self-contained transaction. For a more detailed explanation, this register could be divided into sub-registers.

The back of these panels was provided with the summation of the numerical entries on the front. To this end, the clerk often divided these into registers in which he noted the subtotals. If there was not enough space on the front for all the entries, the clerk turned the board around its vertical axis and finished the entries on the back. Then he turned it around again and began adding up the individual entries. As usual, he noted the subtotals on the back, except this time he turned the board around its horizontal axis. It was therefore immediately visible whether and, if so, which part still belongs to the regular entries and which part represents the summation.

Characteristics of Proto-Cuneiform

Pictograms

The majority of the archaic inventory of symbols is made up of pictograms, ie symbols that represent a specific object. The simplified representation of a fish stands for the term fish. Usually the pictogram itself only represented a part of the object to be designated in the sense of the pars pro toto (Latin: a (characteristic) part stands for the whole). So people and animals were often represented by only one symbol that represented the head of the same . Women were represented by a symbolic feminine shame, fish often only by tail fin, etc. We still use pictograms today, e.g. B. in guidance systems such as traffic signs.

Ideograms

The ideograms (conceptual symbols) include symbols that do not denote what they represent (not even pars pro toto), but something that, in the eyes of the first writers, is semantically and culturally closely linked to them. So is z. B. the ration vessel (pictogram GAR, later sum. NINDA), at the same time the ideogram for food. The hand (ŠU) not only stands for this itself (pictogram), but also U. also for actions (verbs, nomina agentis) of the same, such as B. “give; Submission, award "u. Ä.

However, it is not always easy to decide whether a sign is a pictogram or rather an ideogram. The boundaries between the two are often blurred, despite supposedly precise linguistic, semiological definitions. Liquids are often represented by the containers (beer = beer mug, etc.). The symbol represents beer in the broadest sense - liquids in the real world are always in a "container" and do not float freely in the air - but specifically the container. While with actions like “give” you could well have thought up new, conventional signs, in the case of liquids it becomes difficult to abstract from their containers (in a pictorial font).

Numeric characters

In addition to the ideograms and pictograms, the proto-cuneiform inventory of characters consists of 60 number or number characters, divided into five different number systems (see section 6)

The Proto-Cuneiform Language and the Sumerian Question

Sumerians, the inventors of the proto-cuneiform?

At first glance, it seems to be a reasonable assumption to credit the Sumerians with the invention of (proto-) cuneiform writing. However, there is no positive evidence to support this assumption. The proto-cuneiform script is primarily a logogram or pictogram font. No specific language can be assigned to these a priori . A character sequence of the form:

  10 SCHAF JUNG PN,

where PN stands for a personal name, can be read, understood and spoken in any language as "10 young sheep for the PN". The objection seems justified that, due to the fact that e.g. B. the adjective follows the noun and that the "object", the person to whom the sheep were given, is inferior, conclusions can be drawn about the underlying language. But this is methodologically excluded for the following reason.

Most of the texts in proto-cuneiform (approx. 85%) are administrative documents with a very specific form (the rest are lexical lists, which are not very useful for determining the language; see Section 5). This is pure convention and does not have to be based on the language of the writer. Compare e.g. B. the form of a recipe with the German syntax. In cookbooks you can often read lists of how

  100 g Möhren, gehackt

This entry does not correspond to the German syntax either. The adjective precedes the reference word in German. Entries in the form “carrots: 100 g, chopped” would also be conceivable (disregard diacritical marks such as “:” and “,”). In such a case, the German syntax would have been completely thrown overboard and nevertheless the writer of this text was a German. For the same reason it is methodologically excluded to infer from the sequence “10 SHEEP JUNG PN” that in the language of the writers of these texts the adjective syntactically followed the reference word. The same applies to the "object", here a personal name.

Reduplication in the proto-cuneiform script

Sumerian marks some grammatical forms, e.g. B. the iterative, durative and plural, by reduplication of the corresponding character. There are some examples where the characters ŠU and GI are duplicated. Due to the position within the texts and the later cuneiform writing tradition, these could be administrative functions, perhaps verbs. The doubling could indicate Sumerian as the underlying language. But it should be remembered that the character BA, which is closely related to GI, never appears in the archaic texts in duplicate, as one would expect. The multiple placement of some characters can therefore not serve as an indication of Sumerian as the language of the archaic texts.

The string EN E2 TI

Langdon believed he could read the Sumerian name EN.LIL2.TI “May Enlil give life” from the string EN E2 TI in the Jemdet-Nasr texts . This reading would definitely correlate with the Sumerian naming. It refers to a deity and represents a grammatical sentence in itself. Yet, in the light of the evidence, this reading appears questionable, if not improbable.

The sign TI is attested about 50 times in the archaic texts. In none of these documents does TI appear in connection with the (presumed) name of a deity and in Uruk in only one case together with the character string EN E2. The characters EN E2 appear about 30 times, but only in nine texts from Jemdet Nasr together with TI and also there in different order. It happens

  3 mal EN E2 TI (MSVO 1, 196; 4, 13 und 4, 36)
  3 mal E2 EN TI (MSVO 1, 212; 1, 213 und 4, 13)
  2 mal EN TI E2 (MSVO 1, 212; 1, 213)
  1 mal E2 TI EN (MSVO 1, 212)

While EN E2 could mean more than just "master of the house", the reading EN LIL2 is highly unlikely for the god Enlil for the following reason. The name of God appears in the lexical lists as the spelling of the city of Nippur, which, according to later traditions, was written just like the god residing in it (later: EN.LIL2.KI). However, the second character in the name of the city of Nippur in the archaic lexical lists is KID, not E2.

The use and position of the character string EN E2 within the texts rather indicates a geographical name or a title. The pictogram TI is also often used in the Jemdet-Nasr texts in connection with countable objects (slaves are occupied). In short, the interpretation as a Sumerian name is not secured by the evidence. An interpretation has not yet been made.

The sign GI

A possible Sumerian rebus spelling could be based on the character GI (reed stalk). This often appears in contexts that exclude an interpretation as “reed stalks” and rather indicate an administrative significance. One might be tempted to return the phonological spelling of the Sumerian expression gi4 = “; Shipment "u. Ä. to see, the counterpart would then be according to Sumerian tradition BA as “output, distribution”. But if these administrative terms actually stand behind GI and BA, how do you understand the fact that both GI and BA appear in summations in the archaic texts and often also in terms of area measurements. The meaning of GI and BA in the archaic texts is not entirely clear.

The sexagesimal system

Furthermore, the conviction was expressed that the sexagesimal system, as it can be found in the proto-cuneiform texts and otherwise only known from Sumerian texts, indicates that the proto-cuneiform script must have been invented by the Sumerians (according to M. Powell, ZA 62: 172 (1972)). This theory can be refuted in two ways. On the one hand, because the Sumerian numerals, at least those over 60, can be traced back to the sexagesimal system and not the other way around. Compare:

 120 = geš2.min („Sechzig.Zwei = zwei Sechziger“)
 180 = geš2.eš („Sechzig.Drei = drei Sechziger“)
 …
 600 = geš'u („Sechzig.Zehn = zehn Sechziger“)

On the other hand, the Sumerians probably originally used the vigesimal system for numbers up to 60 (cf. M. Powell, op.cit .; IM Diakonoff , JAOS 103 (1983), 85ff.). The vigesimal system takes its name from the basic units 10 and 20, which seem to make up the Sumerian numerals for the next higher unit of ten:

  10 = u („Zehn“)
  20 = niš („Zwanzig“)
  30 = ušu (< *niš + u „Zwanzig + Zehn“; unter Verlust des initialen 'n' und dem Vokalwandel i → u aufgrund von Vokalharmonie)
  40 = nimin (< *niš.min „Zwanzig.Zwei = zwei Zwanziger“; Assimilation des 'š' an 'm')
  50 = ninnu (< *niš.min.u „Zwanzig.Zwei.Zehn = zwei Zwanziger, ein Zehner“; Dissimilation(!?) von 'š' und 'm' jeweils zu 'n')
  60 = geš2 (< *niš.eš „Zwanzig.Drei = drei Zwanziger“; mit haplologischer Reduktion [d. i. ‚iš‘ + ‚eš‘ wird zu einem ‚eš‘ verkürzt.])

Indications of unknown substrate language

All attempts to find a Sumerian reading in the archaic texts must be viewed as unsuccessful. However, there are increasing references to a foreign language substrate within the archaic text corpus. Remember that there are 600 years from the first archaic texts to the first clearly Sumerian spellings (Fara period). It should also be remembered that Sumerian spellings appear suddenly and then in large numbers, even exclusively. This appearance of Sumerian in the texts goes hand in hand with the appearance of the plano-convex bricks, so that the assumption is that the Sumerians moved into the southern Mesopotamian lowlands in the period between Uruk III and Fara and brought with them the typical brick shape. The Sumerian language cannot be clearly linked to a known language, but the latest considerations assume a relationship with Caucasian languages. So it is not unlikely that the Sumerians were not the autochthonous population of Mesopotamia. Other much discussed indications that the (proto-) cuneiform script was not developed by the Sumerians are the following:

Inadequacy of protocol cuneiform to reproduce Sumerian

On the one hand, there is the alleged inadequacy of cuneiform script for rendering Sumerian. There is evidence (even if Sumerian phonology is a highly controversial field) that the beginning and end of words in the Sumerian consonant cluster may have existed. However, the cuneiform syllabar and the readings of the characters are not able to represent them. One wonders why, if the Sumerians were the inventors of (proto-) cuneiform writing, they didn't use a system that was more appropriate to their language.

Personal names and place names

Another strong argument against the assumption that the Sumerians were the inventors of the script is found in the earliest personal names and toponyms. Sumerian names are grammatical sentences and so one should assume that if any references to Sumerian are found anywhere in the proto-cuneiform texts, they are probably in the lists of persons. However, it is precisely these strings that seem completely incompatible with Sumerian syntax and lexicals. Even the earliest place names cannot be etymologized in Sumerian. One example is the name of the city of Babylon, which appears in the early texts as Babilia , which cannot be interpreted in Sumerian. The later interpretation as bab ilim "Gate of God" (West Sem. Bab el> Babel) is folk etymology. The Sumerian spelling KA2.DINGIR.RA is the Sumerian translation of the Semitic interpretation "Gate of God".

Unusual readings

A cuneiform character usually has multiple readings. While much of this is easy to explain, on the other hand, there are alternative readings that pose a puzzle. The character BEER (-KRUG) becomes sum. KAŠ read. It also has the reading / bi /. An ad hoc explanation would be that / bi / in the archaic language (B. Landsberger: proto-euphratic) either meant "beer" or had something to do with beer production. This is how KAŠ could have got his phonetic reading / bi /.

The spelling for sum gives further puzzles. "Foot" on. This is written with the symbol giri3, the pictogram of an equine and not with the pictogram for foot, namely you. In the archaic, said equidae could have been called / giri / od. / Gri /, which the Sumerians as rebus for sum. Foot (also giri) could have used.

Englund (OBO 160/1) gives two examples, where he assumes with a relatively high probability that one could be dealing with vocabulary from the archaic. Both signs do not refer to what they represent. However, the argument should be treated with caution. The examples are as follows:

1. The sign AB: The sign can hardly represent a high temple on a terrace, since it was already occupied in the Uruk IV period, but is called sum. / eš / read “(temple) household”. However, it rather represents the Persian Gulf with the bordering Babylonian marshland and could probably be more with sum. AB = "the sea / ocean". Englund's proposal is now to add archaic / eš / for “sea”. The archaic reading / eš / "sea" was used as a rebus for sum. / eš / "household" is used.

Review: The fact that the AB symbol is supposed to represent the Persian Gulf with the Babylonian marshland appears problematic. When early characters depict geography in the form of pictograms, it is not from an abstract top view, but from the writer's first-person perspective. Of course, a pictogram for z. B. “River” to represent the river “from above” (ie with two parallel banks), but that corresponds to the perspective of a person who can overlook a river, especially when it is elevated. But keeping an eye on the Persian Gulf and the swampland surrounding it is more difficult. Even if AB does not represent the Persian Gulf, this only partially detracts from Englund's argument.

2. The sign GURUŠ: It is the image of a sleigh, but is used for sum. "Worker" used. Englund's proposed solution provides that archaic / guruš / = "sledge" to sum. / guruš / or / gruš / = "worker" has been reinterpreted.

Criticism: It should not be overlooked that the sledge was a work tool and could have been typical of the worker (or a certain type of worker). The character GURUŠ often appears in connection with SAL “slave girl” (were male slaves used to pull heavy sleds?). Think of the heraldry of the craft guilds in Europe, where the typical tools represent the entire guild of artisans. The sledge could also stand abstractly for “the worker”.

Conclusion

If one would like to draw a conclusion, then this: It cannot be proven that the language of the earliest writers was Sumerian. There is some evidence that the population of the late Uruk period were not Sumerians and that they did not immigrate to southern Mesopotamia until the beginning of the Fara period.

Lexical lists

Of the 5820 known archaic texts, 670 are so-called lexical lists. Texts that arrange characters and groups of characters according to semantic considerations are called lexical lists. For example, a list type leads to B. cattle, sorted by gender, age, color, etc. This sometimes went so far that, for the sake of completeness, entries that were not meaningful were also listed. Therefore, there are also entries with calves or young cattle with qualities like "old". These lists were always slavishly copied in later times and therefore also formed learning material for writing students.

Format of the lists

In terms of format, the lexical lists follow a strict format and are therefore immediately recognizable as such. The clay tablets on which they are written are often significantly larger than the copies known from the administrative documents. Due to their thickness and curvature, this could also be demonstrated in those copies of lists that have only survived in fragments.

The panels are divided into columns, which are labeled from left to right. Furthermore, the individual columns were divided horizontally again, so that a grid-like pattern resulted. Each of these subjects was described with a lexical entry. A distinguishing feature of the lexical lists is that each entry begins with the number sign N1. It serves roughly the same purpose as the bullets "•", "‣", "-" etc. used today. This is followed by the actual entry.

Decipherment

The lexical lists were a cornerstone in deciphering the meaning of the proto-cuneiform characters. Since, as already mentioned, they were also copied in Sumerian and / or Akkadian at a later time, it was possible to infer the meaning of the proto-cuneiform characters, assuming that the positioning within the list had not changed. In fact, it turned out that the lists were copied point by point even after some of them had lost their pragmatic relevance. From Fara (approx. 2600-2500 BC; thus between fDyn. II and. FDyn III) we know of exact copies of late primeval lists of persons that list job titles that cannot be identified in the simultaneous administrative documents from Fara . However, these are well documented in the Uruk III period from which these lists originate.

The numerical systems of the proto-cuneiform texts

Numerical sequences were pressed into clay using two round stylus pens. The scribe had a thin and a thick pen available. The stylus was either pressed diagonally into the clay so that a hoof-shaped imprint was created ("Huf"; names come from the author and are only used for better understanding. They are based on the names of the impressions of later epochs, whose appearance was compared to wedges , hence cuneiform.) or the stylus was held orthogonally to the board, so that a round imprint was created ("circle"). From a graphical point of view, one therefore had four character atoms (small circle, small hooves, large circle and large hooves). In the character list (e.g. ATU 2) they have the values ​​N1 (Numbersign 1), N14, N34 and N45. If an earlier section mentioned 60 numerical characters, the rest of the text means more complex characters made up of these four basic characters.

However, there are still variations of the four basic characters. So the hoof-shaped prints could be aligned on a horizontal axis or a vertical axis. The latter variant often denoted fractions of the basic sign (di 1). Or, the basic characters have been crossed out or dotted one or more times. This differentiated the various payment systems graphically, among other things.

The sexagesimal systems S and S '

General

The sexagesimal system (S) was one of the most important counting systems in Mesopotamia. With its help, discrete objects such as people, sheep, jugs, textiles, woods, dried (!) Fish and the like were counted. We are talking about sexagesimal systems because, in addition to the ordinary system, there is also a variant in which the characters are crossed out with a horizontal line. This system - denoted by S '- was used to count special objects, such as dead animals in a herd, but also certain (spoiled?) Liquids.

construction

In the sexagesimal system, the next higher units are alternating multiples of 6 and 10, or better, of 10 and 6. The symbol for 1 is an oblique, horizontal (right-facing) impression with the small pen (= small hooves). The next higher unit was ten times that, i.e. 10, represented by an orthogonal, ie circular imprint with the help of the small stylus (= small circle). The next higher unit was six times higher, i.e. 60. It was represented by an oblique, horizontally aligned imprint of the large pen (= large hooves). Then it went ten times away, so 600. The ten, a small circle, was written in the 60 (big hooves). Then came the sixfold of 600, i.e. 3,600, represented by the orthogonal imprint of the large stylus (large circle). The last and highest unit was again ten times that, i.e. 36,000. Again, the 10 (small circle, N14) was incorporated into the symbol for 3,600 (large circle, N45) to express the tenfold. We therefore get the sequence:

  1 → 10 (10 · 1) → 60 (6 · 10) → 600 (10 · 60) → 3.600 (6 · 600) → 36.000 (10 · 3.600)

However, the sexagesimal sequence (10-6-10-6 etc.) is broken at the fractions in this system. The sign for ½ is a small, vertically aligned hoof (N8). However, the unit ½ should not exist in a strictly sexagesimal system (see bisexagesimal system).

  ½ → 1 (2 · ½) → 10 (10 · 1) → 60 (6 · 10) …

But since the 2 only occurs once in the sequence and otherwise does not interfere with the sequence of whole numbers, this number series runs under this name. There are also indications that the character N8 may have represented a tenth in some cases. That is not clear. As a side note, it should be noted that traces of the Mesopotamian sexagesimal system can still be found today in the standardized time division (one minute = 60 seconds).

The bisexagesimal systems B and B *

General

The bisexagesimal system (B) was used to quantify discrete products such as grain products (not the grain itself; see ŠE measure of measure), cheese, fresh (!) Fish and other foods. It appears to be an older system, or one influenced by an older counting system, used to count the most important staple foods. The bisexagesimal system gets its name from the 2 → 10 → 6 sequence in order to get the next higher unit (10 → 6 = sexagesimal; 2 → 10 → 6 = bisexagesimal). The variant B * is characterized in that the number signs are crossed out four times horizontally or vertically.

construction

From 1 to 60 the numerals are the same as in the sexagesimal system, but the next higher unit is then twice that of 60, namely 120. The symbol for this consists of two large hooves, both of which are oriented vertically, but with the upper one pointing downwards "Looks" and the lower one upwards (N51). This symbol could also be called a doubling symbol within the bisexagesimal system (see above all the number symbol for 7200, N56). The next higher unit is then again ten times the last, i.e. 1200. A small circle (i.e. 10, N14) is pressed into the symbol for 120, which shows this ten-fold increase. The highest unit in the bisexagesimal system is 7200, six times 1200. The base of the sign is the orthogonal imprint of the large pen (large circle) into which the sign for 120 appears to be imprinted. But if you consider 120 or the symbol for it as "double 60" and abstracted further as a simple doubling, then the number symbol can be interpreted as double 3600 (= 7200). However, this is only a guess. The bisexagesimal sequence has the following form:

  ½ → 1 (2 · ½) → 10 (10 · 1) → 60 (6 · 10) → 120 (2 · 60) → 1.200 (10 · 120) → 7.200 (6 · 1.200)

The ŠE Grain Gauge System

General

The ŠE Grain Gauge System was used to measure grain. For this purpose, standardized vessels were most likely used, which formed a unit of this dry measure system. It is known that the GAR pictogram (later sum. NINDA) represents a standardized bowl of approx. 0.8 liters. That is exactly 1/30 of the basic unit of this measuring system. If, as is generally assumed, the daily ration of grain is 0.8 liters, then the basic unit represents the grain consumption in 30 days, i.e. in one administrative month.

There are several graphic variants of the characters in this system. Sometimes provided with an oblique line, sometimes with two lines and another time with many small lines or dots that are reminiscent of shot. In fact, a slightly different system was probably used for each type of grain. So we know a system 'for sprouted barley (malt), a system mer "for emmer and a system S * for ground barley.

Summary and conclusions

The development of proto-cuneiform can be divided into eight phases:

1st phase (tokens)

Time period: approx. 3400 BC Chr.

Simple clay shapes were used to count and manage discrete objects such as barley, livestock, and people. A collection of tokens presumably represented a transaction. These were probably kept in different leather pouches.

2nd phase (clay bulls)

Time period: approx. 3400-3300 BC Chr.

Tokens were enclosed in clay bulls and marked on the outside with impressions about the number and shape of the tokens in the bulls. These were sealed. There is insufficient information about the counting system used.

3rd phase (numerical tables I)

Time period: approx. 3300-3250 BC Chr.

The next logical step was to leave out the tokens inside the clay bulls and just press the number and type of goods into the surface and then seal them. This was done with the round pen. These impressions therefore represent numerical notations.

4th phase (numerical tables II)

Time period: approx. 3250–3200 BC Chr.

The panels were given a flat, rectangular shape and sealed. A strictly composed numerical system is recognizable. The end of this period saw the last direct contact between South and North Babylonia (Syria etc.) in archaic times.

5th phase (numero-ideographic panels)

Time period: approx. 3200 BC Chr.

The numerical information was supplemented and sealed by one or two ideograms during this time. The ideograms represented the specific subject of the respective transaction. This phase saw the last direct contact between Persia and South Babylonia in archaic times.

6th phase (early proto-cuneiform [Uruk IVa])

Period: approx. 3200-3100 BC Chr.

On rectangular, flat and unsealed clay tablets, numerical notations were made with the help of the pen. With the help of a wide range of pictograms (approx. 900 characters) the objects of the transaction as well as the persons or entities involved were indicated. The first lexical lists, which arranged the characters according to semantic categories, were compiled and schools were set up for learning to write.

7th phase (marriage of the proto-cuneiform script [Uruk III])

Period: approx. 3100-3000 BC Chr.

This phase is characterized by an abstraction and refinement of the proto-cuneiform characters. The number of lexical lists increased considerably. Ambiguity of the individual characters (e.g. for the phonetic reproduction of syllables or words) is possible, but cannot be proven. At the same time a separate and independent script developed in Persia (Elam and Susiana), Proto-Elamic.

8th phase (late proto-cuneiform writing [early dynastic I])

Time period: approx. 2800–2700 BC Chr.

The first verifiably phonetic spellings (mostly in Sumerian names) fall during this period. A somewhat simplified numerical counting system was used. The lexical lists were copied and circulated, but no new ones were added. The tablets of this time are generally clumsily made.

literature

• Pascal Attinger (Ed.): Mesopotamia . Volume 1: Josef Bauer, Robert K. Englund, Manfred Krebernik: Late Uruk period and early Dynastic period. Universitäts-Verlag et al., Freiburg et al. 1998, ISBN 3-7278-1166-8 , ( Orbis biblicus et orientalis 160, 1).
• Hans J. Nissen : History of ancient Near East . Oldenbourg, Munich 1999, ISBN 3-486-56373-4 , ( Oldenbourg floor plan of the story 25).