Barakat Gallery
Login | Register | User Services | Search | Newsletter Sign-up
Barakat Gallery
HOME : Near Eastern Art : Cuneiform Tablets : Sumerian Cuneiform Tablet
Click to view original image.
Sumerian Cuneiform Tablet - AM.0212
Origin: Eastern Mediterranean
Circa: 2035 BC
Dimensions: 4.84" (12.3cm) high x 3.03" (7.7cm) wide
Collection: Ancient Writings

£7,800.00
Location: Great Britain
Purchase
Currency Converter
Place On Hold
Ask a Question
Email to a Friend
Previous Item
Next Item
Photo Gallery
Click photo to change image.
Print image
Description
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:

‘It is an administrative document from the period of the Third Dynasty of Ur, dated to the 3rd year of Shu-Sin, fourth king of the dynasty, c.2035 B.C. It is a list of fields (plots of irrigated land) with areas, names, and names of the villages to which they were attached, with a total area given at the end:

Translation:

20 iku, field Sig-Sin, land of Giguna. 20 iku, field Sig-Malku: Zu….., foreman. 20 iku, [field] Sig-Sin. 10 iku, field….puzum. 15 iku Shashanum, land of Giguna. 20 iku field Sig- Malku, land of Malku: Sharrum-bani, foreman. 30 iku, Erra-beli. 10 iku, Shu- Mammetum, foreman, land of Malku. 20 iku, field Atakkalshun: Nur-ili, soldier. 26 iku, field…. 12 iku field Tibil: Sheshkalla, foreman, land of Giguna: Mr Tahish-atal. 60 iku, field Shadsheda….., land of Malku. 32 iku, field Sig-Shushi…..10 iku, field Atakkalshum. 10 iku, field Kurkurra….: Baya, date-grove supervisor, land of Giguna. 20 iku, field Sig-banda, land of Malku: Kalab- Baba, clerk: Babati, land of Gig[una]. 60 iku, field [………], land of [……..] (line too damaged for translation). 30 iku,…., land of ……clerk: Nir-idagal. 16 iku, field…..-beli, land of Giguna: Shar-ili, slaughterer, clerk: Ur- nigingar. Total: 419 iku: disbursements: Ur- Shara stretched (the tape). Via Ur-nigin, king’s surveyor. Year: Simanum was destroyed.

The iku was a measure of area: about 3530 square metres. The figures given are very difficult since the same signs have different numerical values according to a kind of place value notation, but the percentages are not completely sure. Thus the above is only a start. What seems to be clear is that these plots of irrigated land were in the charge of named villages, under government supervision. The document goes no further. Who cultivated the land and for what reward is not stated.’ - (AM.0212)

 

Home About Us Help Contact Us Services Publications Search
Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Security

Copyright (c) 2000-2020 by Barakat, Inc. All Rights Reserved

contact-form@barakatgallery.com - TEL 310.859.8408 - FAX 310.276.1346

coldfusion hosting