Sumerian Cuneiform Tablet

Sumerian cuneiform is one of the earliest known forms of written expression. First appearing in the 4th millennium BC in what is now Iraq, it was dubbed cuneiform (‘wedge- shaped’) because of the distinctive wedge form of the letters, created by pressing a reed stylus into wet clay. Early Sumerian writings were essentially pictograms, which became simplified in the early and mid 3rd millennium BC to a series of strokes, along with a commensurate reduction in the number of discrete signs used (from c.1500 to 600). The script system had a very long life and was used by the Sumerians as well as numerous later groups – notably the Assyrians, Elamites, Akkadians and Hittites – for around three thousand years. Certain signs and phonetic standards live on in modern languages of the Middle and Far East, but the writing system is essentially extinct. It was therefore cause for great excitement when the ‘code’ of ancient cuneiform was cracked by a group of English, French and German Assyriologists and philologists in the mid 19th century AD. This opened up a vital source of information about these ancient groups that could not have been obtained in any other way.

Cuneiform was used on monuments dedicated to heroic – and usually royal – individuals, but perhaps its most important function was that of record keeping. The palace-based society at Ur and other large urban centres was accompanied by a remarkably complex and multifaceted bureaucracy, which was run by professional administrators and a priestly class, all of whom were answerable to central court control. Most of what we know about the way the culture was run and administered comes from cuneiform tablets, which record the everyday running of the temple and palace complexes in minute detail, as in the present case. The Barakat Gallery has secured the services of Professor Lambert (University of Birmingham), a renowned expert in the decipherment and translation of cuneiform, to examine and process the information on these tablets. The following is a transcription of his analysis of this tablet:

‘The tablet is an administrative document from the period of the Third Dynasty of Ur, not dated but clearly c. 2040-2020 B.C. It is a list of domestic animals under named shepherds. They were property of a major temple or the king, and were entrusted to shepherds who cared for them and were responsible for a certain increase in their numbers over a year, and if they produced more than specified in their contracts, the extra ones were th property (and payment) of the shepherds. This document merely records the numbers with each shepherd by type.

Translation (lines 1-18 too damaged for translation)

240 sheep, 60 ewes [……]: Ishar-.[…, shepherd]

360 sheep, 60 ewes [……]: Lulu, shepherd

600 sheep, 120 male sheep: Rish-ilim

300 sheep, 60 males goats: Qadashum

300 sheep, 60 male sheep: Errashum

900 sheep, 120 ewes, 60 males goats: Adallal, shepherd Shepherds of (the god) Nanna

220 goats, 60 billy goats: Abba-kalla, shepherd of Naram-ili

900 sheep, 60 ewes, 120 male sheep: Puzur- Mu’ati

60 sheep, 60 lambs: Imada, shepherd

300 sheep, 60 male sheep: Nanna-kam, shepherd

600 sheep, 120 male sheep: Apil-bitim, shepherd

Turn of the governor

Total: 10 ewes

Total: 21 male sheep

Total: 60 mature lambs

Total: 180 goats, 60 male goats

Total: 180 mature kids

Release […] Mr. Lu-…[…]

This is a confusing document. The summary omits the most common item in the listing: “sheep”. Then in the terms for the different kinds of animals, often “male” is omitted where it is clearly needed. Also the numbers are confusing, partly due to the ambiguity of the system, where “1” and “60” are the same. The ewes and male sheep in the summary are many too few. Perhaps some scribes were careless since only they could read and write!’ – (OF.289)