Cuneiform Digital Library Journal
2009:4
ISSN 1540-8779
© Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative
 

CDLI Home
CDLI Publications
Editorial Notes
Abbreviations
Bibliography

PDF Version of this Article
Get Acrobat Reader
Download Cuneiform Font

 


The Smell of the Cage[1]

Robert K. Englund <englund@ucla.edu>
University of California, Los Angeles


Keywords
Mesopotamia, Late Uruk period, proto-cuneiform, slavery, personal names


for Slava Ivanov on the
occasion of his 80th birthday

 

§1.1. It may seem less than remarkable to many observers of the advancing civil rights movement in the United States that, in November of 2008, citizens of this country elected a black man to the office of President. Barack Obama is not personally descended from African slaves; still, his ascension to the highest elective US office, despite the lingering liability of his skin color, represents a true benchmark in a sordid history of abuse that is intimately related to the European pillage of the New World. The history of European enslavement of Africans for the purpose of forced labor in transatlantic colonies describes a cultural atrocity whose flames burned brightly in the American South, but, we might note, longest in Brazil, where, beginning in the 16th century, hard labor in sugar cane production and mining operations was transferred by the Portuguese from the deteriorating indigenous slave populations into the hands of imported Africans. Here as in other New World colonies, slavery well outlived its abolishment in Europe—in 1761 in Portugal,[2] or with the Slave Trade Act effectively frozen in the British Empire in 1807 until its eventual prohibition in 1834.[3]

 

§1.2. The US followed Britain in the abolition of the slave trade in the early 19th century,[4] but retained legal ownership of slaves, in the Confederate states until Lincoln’s famous Emancipation Proclamations of 22 September 1862 and 1 January 1863, finally banning all forms of slavery with adoption of the 13th Amendment in December of 1865. Approximately four million black slaves were freed by July of 1865,[5] but, as post-war federalism would play out, freed into the very uncertain future of Reconstruction that eventually failed them, and rewarded the intransigence of secessionist Southern states. By 1877, with the final withdrawal of federal troops in a kowtow by the US president, Hayes, to advocates of “states rights,” all Republican state governments were replaced by Democrats who instituted a system of segregation and poll taxing that effectively disenfranchised recently freed black men. This was, however, as the history of southern paramilitary organizations comprised of former Confederate soldiers demonstrated, not the most pressing existential distress of blacks in the post-war United States; still, poll taxes and other means of intimidating blacks, including the Jim Crow laws passed by the Democratic state legislatures, were an infection of the US body politic that held through the freedom marches of the 1960’s and beyond—the 24th Amendment, ratified in January of 1964, finally abolished poll taxes, and the Civil Rights Act was passed in July over the Senate filibuster led by Southern Democrats, one month before Obama’s third birthday. The best chronicler of the Southern experience with Reconstruction and the succeeding Confederate resurgence is William Faulkner, from whose Go Down, Moses this paper’s title is borrowed:

The Sam Fathers whom the boy knew was already sixty—a man not tall, squat rather, almost sedentary, flabby-looking though he actually was not, with hair like a horse’s mane which even at seventy showed no trace of white and a face which showed no age until he smiled, whose only visible trace of negro blood was a slight dullness of the hair and the fingernails, and something else which you did notice about the eyes, which you noticed because it was not always there, only in repose and not always then—something not in their shape nor pigment but in their expression, and the boy’s cousin McCaslin told him what that was: not the heritage of Ham, not the mark of servitude but of bondage; the knowledge that for a while that part of his blood had been the blood of slaves. “Like an old lion or a bear in a cage,” McCaslin said. “He was born in the cage and has been in it all his life; he knows nothing else. Then he smells something. It might be anything, any breeze blowing past anything and then into his nostrils. But there for a second was the hot sand or the cane-brake that he never even saw himself, might not even know it if he did see it and probably does know he couldn’t hold his own with it if he got back to it. But that’s not what he smells then. It was the cage he smelled. He hadn’t smelled the cage until that minute. Then the hot sand or the brake blew into his nostrils and blew away, and all he could smell was the cage. That’s what makes his eyes look like that.” [6]

§1.3. Many questions still surround Fathers’ almost mystical role in this classic novel. The reader is, though, informed of where he got his name. He was described as part Chickasaw (his biological father), part African and part European (his quadroon mother), but his name derived from “Sam (Had-Two‑)Fathers,” since his mother had been married off to a black slave before his birth. Such personal name etymologies (“anthroponomastics”) can form a vital part of social and linguistic research where source material is scarce. Genealogical research has always enjoyed a high degree of interest among informal learners in the United States, in particular of late among descendents of more recent European immigrants whose family records, though now much better searchable online, often end with the Ellis Island Online Database of New York passenger lists.[7] With increasing digitization and networking of birth, marriage and death records from foreign organizations, including most importantly churches, we may expect in the near future to enjoy the capability of tracing, from our home computers, the lives of ancestors reaching back several centuries, and thus add dimensions to our family histories we had imagined long lost. Onomastic resources that might assist in charting the history of the African slaves imported into the Americas, however, are very meager indeed, and not likely to ever be recovered in substantial form. For another indignity imposed on slaves arriving in the harbors of the New World was the stripping of their names, and the assigning of new ones by their masters. Recent research conducted on ship rosters has shown us that transatlantic slaves’ names were not included, but rather just numbers, age, and gender of individuals, much as we might expect in the stock car transportation of cattle to market.[8]

 

§1.4. And in no less dehumanizing a fashion, slaves sold into the chattel possession of plantation owners of the South were renamed willy-nilly, with no reference to practice in their African homeland (as fragile as this practice may have already been in African communities, where names often changed following important events in the individuals’ lives). Many black Americans thus today carry the European names of or assigned by their ancestors’ owners, their plantation trades, or of any of a number of other associations from their past in the Americas, including new names chosen by emancipated slaves, but very rarely the names of their African past.[9] Aside from the educational and social value a full reckoning of displaced Africans in the Americas would represent to the descendents of slaves, it is not difficult to imagine the geo-linguistic value such rosters would bring to research on the African diaspora.

 

§1.5. The destinies of slaves and the recording of slave names can be followed back much further in recorded history than many would suspect. While debates among historians concering the role of slavery in classical Greece and Rome can grow uncomfortably heated (see conveniently the survey of research in McKeown 2007), more sober discussions of early state development in 3rd millennium Mesopotamia led, in particular, by scholars from the former Soviet Union and its Eastern European allies, helped to build a theoretical foundation for a longue durée analysis of this abuse and its effects on social progress.[10] I am honored, as a sign of my gratitude for his intellectual generosity and his genuine personal warmth, to dedicate my paper to a close colleague of those discussants, Vyacheslav Ivanov, whom I discovered at UCLA later than I would have wished, but to whom I have stuck like glue since. Slava celebrates his 80th birthday on the 21st of August of this year. While the two of us have had occasion to discuss Babylonian onomastics, I have never compiled for his consideration a list of designations of slaves from early Mesopotamian texts. I hope that the personal names offered here, while, at least to my understanding, not credibly to be connected to any known Babylonian languages, will serve as a basis for further discussions with him.

 

§2.1. It is understandable that earlier research on slavery in ancient Mesopotamia has concentrated on those periods best reflected in the inscriptional record. While most popular histories cite references to slaves and slave prices culled from the famous Babylonian law codes, certainly it is the documentation from legal contracts on the one hand, and from administrative accounts on the other, that offers the best evidence of the day-to-day existence of slave populations and their overlords. Historians are not entirely clear as to what constitutes chattel slave property, nor in many cases what the social, political or military environments were within, and beyond Babylonian borders that led to the enslavement of often large numbers of individuals. I would like to present here what little I have been able to gather from recent work on what I believe are personal names of slaves in proto-cuneiform documents dating to the Late Uruk period, ca. 3350-3000 BC, many of which derive from irregular excavations and are thus unprovenienced. Indeed, without the rich resources of the Norwegian Schøyen Collection made readily available for study by its owner, our current harvest of, at minimum, 440 personal names, would be reduced to a statistically insignificant 38.[11]

 

§2.2. We should be clear that much that has been proposed in the identification of laborers in the eras prior to the fully historical Early Dynastic IIIb period (pre-Sargonic Lagash, ca. 2500-2340 BC) is highly speculative, necessarily based as it is on analogies drawn from later periods. Thus it seemed reasonable, in the absence of countervailing evidence, to attach the semantic field of “slave” or “dependent laborer” to graphic precursors of characters know from Ur III and ED IIIb accounts to represent slaves or dependent laborers. The sign geme2 (“female slave”) appears in ED IIIa texts (Fara period, ca. 2600 BC) in a form slightly different from that known in the pre-Sargonic Lagash texts (“SAL×KUR” vs. SAL with the three Winkelhakens of the KUR sign spread out to its corners; see figure 2), itself the precursor of our conventional form of geme2 composed of the element SAL followed by KUR.[12] This component KUR of the compound sign has in all discussion of geme2 been considered a geographical qualifier, thus literally “mountain-woman,” where, with ample textual justification, the chattel slaves of early Babylonia were believed to have been purchased, or taken, by force or threat of force, from the mountains, or more generally foreign lands, to the east or north of the Mesopotamian alluvium. The corresponding male designation ARAD2 derived from the grapheme representing males (NITA) in combination with the same KUR sign.[13]

 

Figure 1: Map of Mesopotamia, early settlements

 

§2.3. Successive publications of excavated text artifacts attesting to earlier and earlier phases of cuneiform led, in the mid-1920’s, to the most ancient examples of the writing system. Conventionally known as “proto-cuneiform,” the sign forms found on texts from Jemdet Nasr and Uruk invited comparison, both graphic and semantic, with characters found on later texts. Included with these earliest cuneiform signs was the sign combination SAL.KURa interpreted by Langdon, and following him all other Assyriologists who dealt with these texts, to represent the precursor of geme2 and thus “female slaves.”

 

§2.4. As with so much of note in researching early Mesopotamian administration, the first systematic discussion of 4th millennium slave designations was published by the Russian scholar A. Vaiman. In a 1974 article, Vaiman reviewed the then available textual evidence and concluded, correctly, that SAL and KURa (KURb-d are graphic variants of this sign) in the archaic texts in fact represented female and male humans, respectively, and that these were recorded much as were the stock of herding accounts, including, in the case of Uruk IV period texts, the qualification of children with a special numerical sign that was otherwise employed to designate fractions of some whole unit.[14] The next discussion of proto-cuneiform designations of archaic laborers was offered by Englund and Damerow in an edition of proto-Elamite texts from Tepe Yahya,[15] followed by a re-interpretation of texts from the Langdon Jemdet Nasr publications by Englund/Grégoire, and by Nissen, Damerow and Englund in a catalogue prepared for an exhibition in Berlin’s Charlottenburg Palace in 1990.[16] Englund provides an overview of previous research on this matter in a 1998 publication.[17] As this research has shown, the accounting for apparent slaves in the Late Uruk period reflected the same degrading abuse of fellow humans as was the defining flaw of the American South, but it collaterally resulted in lists of personal names, names that, in the tradition of Mesopotamia, should bear much linguistic, or at least orthographic information. With the infusion of large numbers of recently available proto-cuneiform texts, we have been able to add very substantially to the list of clear personal names ascribed to humans in the Late Uruk period, and can begin to investigate these names for elements that may support, or by their absence tend to hamper an identification of the language of our earliest cuneiform scribes.

 

Figure 2: Paleography of geme2

 

§2.5. The discussion about the “Sumerian question,” that addresses the linguistic affiliation of these archaic scribes, continues, at least in my mind, and has taken a rough edge of late, the more so with publication of the 2003 Leiden Rencontre volume that made no credible advances in the now fairly stale list of “proofs” that Sumerian phoneticisms, or even number words, were a clear element in Late Uruk documents.[18] The lines of sign analysis that have accompanied this research are fairly straightforward. In the first instance, a rebus use of discrete signs (for instance, the words for “arrow” and “life” are homophones in Sumerian, where as in the example below, if correct, the arrow pictogram is more likely to represent “life” than “arrow” or some other homophonic word). There are precious few proposed pairs in this vein of attack, although we would hope that, with improved access to all Late Uruk texts, interested scholars would perform more systematic searches.[19] Second, we might expect to discover the use of phonetic rather than semantic values of signs (see the instance of “sux-pa” below). Third, and most often seen, specialists will attempt to isolate use of phonetic glosses attached to logograms in some way (best known are instances of such phonetic glosses inscribed within sign frames, but also simply near to the sign of reference). This strategy considers the possible combinations in complex graphemes to include semantic element + semantic element (uninteresting for language identification), semantic element + phonetic element (interesting but difficult to identify), or phonetic element + phonetic element (very interesting, and very difficult to identify). I list below a selection of the multivalency proposals made heretofore on Sumerian phonetic signs,[20] together with possible instances of iteration common to Sumerian orthography, and the proposal of M. Powell[21] that the uniquely sexagesimal structure of Sumerian number words offers proof that Sumerians invented proto-cuneiform, where sexagesimal notations are amply attested in the earliest texts. In this regard, we should note the examples of multivalent sign use cited from the other pristine writing systems, Egyptian (with its key example of proposed b3-st for the place name (per)-bastet, “(house) of the goddess Bastet”[22]), Chinese and Mayan. I have set off in bold those candidates for Sumerian in the archaic texts that appear strong, although of these only the very poorly attested šabu carries real conviction.

 

1) Multivalence?
archaic sign(s) proposed Sumerian interpretation
EN-E2-TI en-lil2-ti, “Enlil (gives) life” (Langdon 1928: VII; Falkenstein 1936: 37-38; etc.)
PA-NAM2-RAD/ZA(A) nam2-sux-pa, /nam-sipa(d)/ (van Dijk 1989: 446)
DARA4/PIRIG+MA alima with MA = /ma/ (Green in Nissen and Green 1987 s.v.)
GA2×AN ama with AN = /am/ (Green, op. cit., and see above, n. 18)
GA2×EN men with EN = /en/ or / men/ (Green, op. cit.)
EN-ME-MU endub, with /en/ of EN (Krebernik 2007: 43)
EN-ME-GI engiz suggests /en/ of EN and / gi/ of GI (Krebernik 2007: 43)
E2-BAHAR2b-NUNUZ zilulu with NUNUZ = /za/ (Krebernik 2007: 43)
GIR2-SU gir2-su (Krebernik 2007: 43)
ZI // SI4 with both = /si/ (Englund 1994: 38, W 9123,a1)
PIRIG+NUNUZ az(a) with NUNUZ = /za/ (Green, op. cit.)
URI3-NA nanna with NA = /na/ (passim)
GI gi (gi4) “return” (Vaiman 1974b: 16)
NUN-ME abgal among “gal-words” in the Lu2 A list, with GAL = /gal/ (see above, n. 18)
ŠA3-BU ša3-bu // ED LAK50/ša-bu-nun, OAkk ša-ab-bu-nu-um (Krebernik 2007: 43)[23]
2) Possible Sumerian verbal iteration?
     ŠU+ŠU, GI+GI
3) Sumerian sexagesimal system?

As is evident from this list, classical graphotactics have played only a minor role in such research, based on strong, though by no means overwhelming evidence that sign sequences in this largely logographic, or even saccades-based[24] ancient orthography were fluid, and not dependable indicators of word or phoneme flow within textual sub-units (“words,” cases or lines).

 

§3.1. To this discussion I would like to add some material concerning Late Uruk personal names that have often been cited in literature generated by the Berlin based project “Archaic Texts from Uruk,” but never gathered systematically, and that I have only ordered in a preliminary way. The major difficulty in isolating clear instances of personal names, where we must expect that the accounts and perhaps sections of the lexical lists were replete with such designations, is that the text formats do not explicitly identify what is what once you leave the realm of numerical notations, object designations and signs or sign combinations of thematic meaning derived from the lexical lists. Of course, we have been unable to identify, nor should we expect to find, any semantic glosses of personal names—aside from the simple number sign representing “one unit,” these were a millennium off. Frankly, one of the more dissatisfying discussions that I had with Peter Damerow and Hans Nissen in preparation of the Berlin Erlenmeyer exhibition catalogue[25] was in fact having to admit that we could not state whether the sign combination “KU ŠIM,” central though it was to understanding the archival meaning of the core texts in this collection, referred to a human, to a profession, or to a household. We agreed to an individual “human” (brewery foreman), but only as an expedient convention.[26]

 

§3.2. The same frustrations can be applied down the line to any number of signs or sign combinations that can, due to considerations of tablet format, or as part of a procedure that eliminates from consideration other spatially associated signs whose semantics are identifiable, be isolated. Since we cannot know how many variables are at play in these residual sign combinations, it would be less than prudent to simply assign to them all the role of personal names. There may be though other strategies to increase the likelihood that we are looking at names of specific persons. For instance, you can imagine an automatic text parser that searches all instances of sign combinations from the lexical lists “Professions” (Lu2 A) and “Officials” from all sign strings found in discrete tablet cases (corresponding to “lines”), removes from the resulting list first these lexical notations, then eventual identifiable signs or sign combinations (numerical notations, object designations and so on) from the remainder, and writes a list of all still remaining signs and sign combinations. Aside from possible functional terms, including for instance verbal forms, we would anticipate that these entries represent the personal names of cited household officials. We might also look for parallels in the text formats that isolate distinct personal names for us—for instance, some designation of personnel inventories as was well known in later periods, or, say, a format like later table accounts with some global qualification followed by strings of individual cases, each with signs or sign combinations with no further qualifications.

 

§3.3. Isolating these names would help to satisfy our curiosity about the conceptual organization of its members that archaic household accountants imposed on their books, but more importantly, since cultural continuity is regularly cited as one of the lynch pins of Sumero-Babylonian civilization, and since personal names as a conservative cultural trait should be discoverable in texts that code, or are coded by Sumerians, this prosopographic material from the Late Uruk texts could play a prominent role in discussions of archaic linguistics. For despite all the caveats offered by specialists in early cuneiform, it has, since my time as a student in Dietz Edzard’s seminars in Munich, reading 3rd millennium texts and examining, as was his wont, earliest sign etymologies, seemed to me curious that if these should be texts written by Sumerians, we did not immediately recognize a substantial number of forms that could at least plausibly be interpreted to represent elements of the Sumerian language—quite aside from the seemingly missing references to the Sumerian pantheon. And in the first instance, I would have expected language, or if you wish, culture-specific patterns to show up in personal names. Still, neither the list Lu2 A, nor the socalled list of officials, gave any clear indication of sign patterns that would comport with later, often predicative formulations in personal names such as “servant of Enlil,” “he is my lord,” or “lady of Inanna.”

 

§3.4. It turns out that the Late Uruk accounts of herds of animals led us to the sorts of texts that clearly included personal names.[27] Records of such herds, first edited by M. Green,[28] contained data much like that known to specialists working on texts from later periods, including numbers and designations of animals, of their ages and gender, as well of course as identification of their owners, herders, and whereabouts, and the real or anticipated dairy and textile products associated with these animals. As is the case with other types of accounts, these texts detail conceptually important terminological categorizations, for instance qualifying x ewes (sign U8) and y rams (UDUNITA) as x+y small cattle (UDU). Just as with small and large cattle, and, as we are seeing with a substantial recent influx of archaic herding accounts, with donkeys,[29] pig herds were also differentiated according to animal age and use, in the case of cattle also according to gender. The text W 23948[30] records the distribution of animals from a large herd of 95 pigs into two groups of adults associated with large household units in Uruk, and a third comprised of juvenile animals. The juveniles were qualified with a designation borrowed from time accounting metrology to represent animals that had reached the age of one year; one porker, together with ten mature animals, were then, according to this text, possibly slaughtered for the household kitchen.[31]

 

Figure 3: W 9827 contains an apparent account of a number of groups of male and female laborers, listed individually on the obverse (23+ in the first column, 22+ in the second) and totaled on the reverse (preserved is a notation representing in the sexagesimal system 211+ female and male laborers, in proto-cuneiform SAL KURa).

 

§3.5.1. During our work on the Uruk III period texts from Jemdet Nasr, Grégoire, Damerow and I noticed that a similar terminology and syntactically motivated text format were visible in accounts of what were, in totals of the texts, qualified as SAL KURa ERIMa and SAL KURa SAG×MA, that is, what we speculated to be “yoked” and “noosed” female and male slaves, following Vaiman’s interpretation of SAL and KURa.[32] With the series of three Jemdet Nasr texts MSVO 1, 212-214, we were able to demonstrate several things. First, that the numbers of individuals qualified as SAL or KURa in archaic texts were not large—at most 211+ recorded on the reverse of the account W 9827, doubtless representing the summation of smaller groups recorded on the obverse (see figure 3).[33] Second, we saw that the accounting procedure of text consolidation, so well attested for later periods of Mesopotamian history, was employed already by household bookkeepers at the dawn of writing. MSVO 1, 213 and 214, were in fact entered, sign for sign, into the larger account MSVO 1, 212. But then third and most significantly, we could see that the accounting format of these texts was very complex, but foresaw the division of individual records into sub-cases with formal differentiations. The first sub-case of one entry contained a numerical notation, an object designation (as we believe, “slave of quality x”) and one or more signs apparently referring to persons or offices. There followed one or more sub-cases, with one exception[34] never with a numerical notation, containing signs that we interpreted to represent the personal names of the designated slaves. Where the initial numerical notation was 1, there were one or two such associated sub-cases; where 2, there were at least two.

 

§3.5.2. Thus the initial entries of MSVO 1, 212, are (reconstructions according to MSVO 1, 213 obv. i):


1a 1N1 ˹SAL KURa˺ SAG×MA ŠA E2a MUŠEN×2N57
1b1  ˹ZATU751a˺ ERIMa
1b2  [...] X
2a [1N1] ˹SAL KURa SAG×MA ŠA˺ [...]
2b1  ˹DUR2 3N57 ZATU751a˺
2b2  [ABa TUR? N2] KU3a
3a 1N1 KURa E2a ŠA ˹MUŠEN×2N57˺
3b1  SI ˹MA? ENa˺ X
3b2  [GI×KUb1 BAR]
4a 1N1 ˹KURa MUŠEN×2N57˺ [E2a ŠA]
4b1  1N14 ˹UDUa˺
4b2  1N1 [KIŠ KURa]
4b3  ˹AMAa˺ ERIMa MUŠEN MAŠ
5a [1N1 SAG×MA GEŠTUc5 MUŠEN×2N57 ]
5b1  [GI ŠA E2a AMAa]
5b2  [TAK4a NIa] ˹SAG ERIMa˺ [MUŠ3a UR2 DUR2]

and the summation of all entries on the reverse:


col. ii
1 1N14 7N1 SAL KURa SAG×MA
2 1N14 SAL KURa ERIMa X [...]
col. iii
1 [2N14] ˹7N1 SAL KURa˺ UB ˹PAa ? SAG×MA SANGAa X ENa˺ N4

 

§3.5.3. Unfortunately, the complexity of the individual entries in this account makes it very difficult to understand the syntactical relationships among those entities represented by individual sub-cases, and the text would furthermore appear to contradict, with its combination in initial sub-cases of SAL, KURa and 1N1, our belief that SAL denotes a single female, and KURa a single male. I have no convincing explanation for this seeming contradiction. Similar accounts from Uruk with less complex accounting format, however, do help to fill out this picture with terminology more reflective of that known from herding accounts. Where herding texts recorded domesticated animals according to species, gender and age of breeding significance—we expect also qualifying the males as to whether and when they had been castrated—the archaic accounts of groups of humans added new levels of qualification, with clearer differentiation of the terms SAL and KURa, and with designations of slaves that contained greater terminological texture.

 

§3.6.1 The two Uruk texts in figure 4 are good examples of this accounting procedure. Each has in the left column a total, eight individuals in both texts, corresponding to numerical entries to the right. Clearly enough, the first text[35] lists 1 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 for a total of 8, while the second has (4+1=) 5 + (1+2=) 3 = 8. The latter text demonstrates that SAL and KURa qualify different objects, probably female and male slaves, that are themselves in the accounting terminology further divided into apparent age qualifications. Thus, in the former text we have, viewed syntactically, the qualifications AL, ENa TUR, 1N57×U4 TUR, BULUG3, U2a A and ŠU; in the second text, SAL, KURa and ŠA3a TUR. Several of these designations are terms well known to Sumerologists. TUR (a presumed pictogram of human breasts) representing young children (Sumerian dumu), 1N57×U4 representing “one year,”[36] and AL (picture of a type of hoe) representing “adult” (with later Sumerian reading mah2, this sign usually qualifies sexually mature domestic animals, but is also possibly an element of two personal names in the ED IIIa period, and is even a qualifier of the capacity unit gur [WF 76 rev. x 3]). Finally, ŠU will be associated by some with later šu(-gi4), “old one,” found in many herding accounts and laborer inventories.

 

Figure 4: The Uruk texts W 20274,2 and W 23999,1 (reverse surfaces are not inscribed)

[Download vector graphic copies of these tablets]

 

§3.6.2. The most compelling accounting practice that emerged from the analysis of these two proto-cuneiform accounts from Uruk was the clear practice of associating numerical notations and general slave designations with sub-cases of signs and sign combinations that corresponded exactly to the numerical notations. Thus, in the first text of figure 4, 1 AL (i 1a) is followed by one sub-case with nonnumerical signs; 2 1N57×U4 TUR (i 3a) by two subcases, each with non-numerical signs. The case with 4 SAL in the second text (i 1b1a is followed by four subcases, each, again, with non-numerical signs. It appears reasonable to conclude that these sub-cases contain personal names associated with individuals recorded in numerical sub-totals to their left (leaving aside a discussion of the true orientation of the proto-cuneiform texts), and that signs or sign combinations associated with these sub-totals qualified the named individuals in very much the same way as herding and dairy accountants recorded gender and age-specific sub-goups of agricultural units.

 

§4.1. This format was then the “tracer” to locate further instances of the same phenomenon, which differs from accounting formats of herding accounts chiefly in the inclusion of these non-numerical sub-cases.[37] Due in part to the poor state of preservation of most Uruk texts, only about a dozen comparable accounts have been isolated among the more than 5000 tablets and tablet fragments unearthed there in regular excavations, and some few others from other sites.[38] These numbers have been significantly increased with nearly 40 new reference texts that form part of the Norwegian Schøyen collection.[39] One of these artifacts, first observed in Brussels by Philippe Talon, who recognized its significance and kindly posted to me his carefully done copy and transliteration before it entered the Oslo collection with the manuscript no. MS 3035 (figures 5-6), is of particular note.[40]

 

§4.2. The large account exhibits the same correspondence between cases with numerical notations and associated sub-cases with non-numerical notations that we have seen in smaller texts above. For instance, the section in the lower left of the tablet’s obverse surface (figure 5) contains a numerical notation representing “12” in the sexagesimal system, qualified by 3N57×U4 TUR, probably “three-year-old children.” Exactly 12 sub-cases follow, each with one or more signs representing as many personal names of the individuals summarized in the left-most case.

 

Figure 5: The section in the lower left of the obverse of the Schøyen text MS 3035 (figure 6) demonstrates the numerical relationship between the initial notation (sexagesimal “12” qualifying a notation that may be interpreted to mean “three-year-old children”) and the number of sub-cases to the right with ideograms that in all likelihood represent personal names. Note the occurence of the same names in sub-cases 2 and 7 (as well as 1b7 of the same column), and the possibility that sub-case 10 is to be interpreted as (KURx. ZA7=) “ZAGINx” = “Lapis,” “Blue(-eyed one).”

 

§4.3. The account at a higher structural level employs procedures that are well known from the grain accounting office of Jemdet Nasr.[41] The double dividing line down the middle of the text indicates that it is the compilation of two still quite significant accounts, each beginning with the most valuable objects (here AL, presumably adult slaves) and continuing through numbers of less valuable items. The first sub-account appears to be globally qualified by the sign 2N57 MUNa1, the second 1N57 MUNa1. This MUNa1 is likely to represent some sort of accounting (rationing?) period, possibly connected to the sign combination PAPa SUa discussed below, note 43.

 



Figure 6: MS 3035, a complex account in the Schøyen collection, contains notations representing numbers of apparent slaves qualified according to age, though not (visibly) gender.

[Download vector graphic copy of this tablet]

 

Transliteration of MS 3035:

obverse i
1a 3N14 2N1 AL 2N57 MUNa15a 1N14 2N1 U4×3N1 TUR
1b1 PAa5b1 SIG7 MUŠEN
1b2 KAŠc DAa5b2 ENa U2b DU
1b3 SUKUDgunûd NIa5b3 ZATU659
1b4 U4 ŠU5b4 GI ŠA3a1
1b5 ZATU6595b5 SAG×GEŠTUb GIŠ
1b6 BUa ŠEa ŠUBUR5b6 GU4 SAL ENa
1b7 ENa U2b DU5b7 ENa U2b DU
1b8 EZINUa ENa5b8 GIR3gunûc ENa
1b9 ZATU6595b9 E2a BUa
1b10 ZATU6595b10 3N57 NUNUZc
1b11 ŠU ŠU5b11 E2b GIR3c
1b12 BUa GI5b12 SI ADa? AN
1b13 ŠU2 PAPaobverse ii
1b14 3N57 SAL1a 1N14 1N1 AL
1b15 3N57 A1b1 ŠEa MUŠEN
1b16 BUa URa1b2 INb ENa
1b17 3N571b3 HAL PAPa
1b18 DIMa1b4 TUR3a 5N57
1b19 ENa GIŠ×ŠU2a1b5 PAPa
1b20 ŠU ŠU1b6 AN TE KI GALa
1b21 EZENb ENa1b7 ZIa E2a
1b22 ŠU2 SAL1b8 ZATU773a MAŠ KURa
1b23 ENa AMAR ŠU1b9 ENa AN E2a
1b24 E2a BUa1b10 BUa ŠEa
1b25 DIMa1b11 MUŠ3a NU11tenû
1b26 PAPa2a 2N1 ENa TUR
1b27 ŠA3a1 A TAK4a2b1 BAHAR2a BUa
1b28 NAM22b2 BUa DU
1b29 BAHAR2a ENa3a 3N1 U4×1N57 TUR
1b30 ENa U2b HI3b1 GA2a1 ENa GU
1b31 BAHAR2a 3N573b2 ŠU2 BUa
1b32 6N57 ˹U8˺3b3 1N57 A NEa
2a 9N1 ENa TUR4a 3N1 U4×2N57 TUR
2b1 PAa TUN3a4b1 GI/GI/GI ENa
2b2 SAG HI NIN4b2 NU (UDUa×TAR)a
2b3 SI BARA34b3 ENa ŠITAgunûa ABa
2b4 NIa GIR3c5a 4N1 U4×3N57 TUR
2b5 BUa+DU6a GUL5b1 3N57 DUR2 BUa+DU6a
2b6 DIMa5b2 ENa A
2b7 PAPa SAL DARa5b3 GUL SAG
2b8 KIDe NUNa ENa5b4 ZATU659
2b9 MAHb×NAa6 1N57 ˹MUNa1˺
3a 7N1 U4×2N57 TURreverse i
3b1 ŠU2 SAL1 4N14 3N1 AL
3b2 ŠUR2b2 1N14 1N1 ENa TUR
3b3 TI SUa ENa3 5N1 U4×1N57 TUR
3b4 DARb E2a4 1N14 U4×2N57 TUR
3b5 GIŠxŠU2a ENa5 1N14 6N1 U4×3N57 TUR
3b6 SI E2a MEareverse ii
3b7 3N57 SAL1 1N34 2N14 5N1 1N57 2N57 MUNa1
4a 2N1 U4×1N57 TURSUa PAPa 1N58BADa SI AN ADa
4b1 BUa GIGIRa
4b2 PAPa HAL

 

§5.1. Using this, and the 50 other accounts registering numbers of humans in this way, we may compile a list of general qualifications for what we interpret to be archaic slaves:


general terms
 KURamale
 SAL female
 SAG head, human[42]
 SAG×MA noosed head
 ERIMa yoked one
 PAPa SUa ?[43]
adults
 AL of working age (“hoer” ?)
youths
 ENa TUR four years old and older up to AL?
 KURa TUR boy, younger than ENa TUR?
 KURa ŠA3a1 boy, very young?
 SAL TUR girl, younger than ENa TUR?
 SAL ŠA3a1 girl, very young?
 ŠA3a1 TUR = KURa/SAL ŠA3
 3N57×U4 (TUR) three-year-old (or: child in 3rd year)
 2N57×U4 (TUR) two-year-old (or: child in 2nd year)
 1N57×U4 (TUR) one-year-old (or: child in 1st year)

 

§5.2. These then are the higher-level qualifications of persons in proto-cuneiform accounts, quite possibly chattel slaves, or humans in some form of servitude to Late Uruk households. While I must admit to some doubt about the interpretation of the complex signs including “U4” (“day,” but a general anchor for time metrology notations in this period), it may be relevant to mention the analyses by I. Gelb, H. Waetzoldt and others that children of state-dependent laborers will have been assigned full work loads by the age of six or shortly thereafter. If our designation ENa TUR encompasses a period of several years, AL might indeed qualify workers of an age that would appear young to us, but certainly not to many sweatshop owners around the world, and certainly not to the industrialized West prior to such legislation as the British Factory Act of 1833 aimed at curbing abusive child labor in British textile manufacturing. According to this at the time heralded advance in labor rights, children aged nine to thirteen could not be forced to work more than nine hours a day. Nevertheless, why did archaic accountants so exactingly record the ages of children from their first through their third years? This system of dating bears an uncanny resemblance to herding accounts of large cattle and of pigs of later periods, or even of the initial lines of the so-called archaic Pig List.[44] The age designations of domestic animals employed in those accounts are explicit tools known to any dairy or pig farmer; they track age to know when to wean the young, to judge weight gain, and to prepare sexually mature animals for breeding, or to train oxen for the plough. It is difficult to recognize a comparable need in accounting for young children, aside possibly from the intent of accountants to retain strict control of juveniles as they grew to working age. As slave laborers, after all, they would have represented a substantial chattel asset to ancient households.

 

§5.3. Doubtless, tagging all proto-cuneiform accounts that contain the format for personal names described above will result in a list that is, for a number of reasons, by no means complete. In the first place, H. J. Nissen and his research collaborators have stated again and again that we must understand the nature of the texts taken from Uruk excavations. To make historical, occasionally just aesthetic points, often the best preserved of those accounts are cited and put in illustrative graphics or on book jackets, but these are the tablets that survived more than 5000 years of deposition in Uruk, after having been rudely gathered and tipped, as detritus of a burgeoning administration, into construction projects of the ancients. Most artifacts could not survive such ill treatment intact.[45] Thus the very fragmentary nature of the great majority of our texts gives fair warning that we are missing much of the original depositions, certainly most of the original text material, and that those exemplars we do have are so incomplete as to make a measured judgment of their contents very difficult. In the second place, the state of decipherment of proto-cuneiform approached a natural barrier with publication, in ATU 2 (1987),[46] of the results of research conducted by H. J. Nissen and M. Green on the interpretation of non-numerical signs in the proto-cuneiform texts, and of research conducted by P. Damerow, R. K. Englund and J. Friberg on the numerical signs and sign systems. Advances in the understanding of Late Uruk texts from Mesopotamia have, since that publication, been modest.[47] Particularly the interpretation of much of the source material that is not directly associated with numerical notations, with counted or measured objects, or with signs or sign combinations found attested in the thematically ordered archaic lexical lists whose uninterrupted history of transmission resulted in sign-for-sign copies well into the 3rd millennium, and even into the Old Babylonian period, remains highly problematic. These remaining sets of signs will include personal names.[48]


§5.4. Nevertheless, the limited method of sign and sign string isolation used here has resulted in a list of ca. 450 discrete entries (see the appendix below), each with fair probability representing the given name of an individual. We may look at these personal names in a number of ways. The resolute decipherer will first just count and rank signs, always aware that the sample may be skewed, given that so much now derives from one private collection of inscriptions of unknown provenience. Persons whose names included the sign ENa, possibly the ruler of archaic communities or even of regions, should not surprise us, and this may be the correspondence to lugal in later Early Dynastic personal names. This sign is attested more than twice as often as the runner-up signs BUa (unclear meaning; pictographically “snake,” but its only contextually derived denotation points toward field surveying) and 3N57 (in some and possibly most instances an abstracted form of the sign KURa, “male slave” or perhaps after all also “mountain,” “foreign land”).

 

§5.5. For comparison, it may be helpful to list the number of attestations of highest frequency signs used in all discovered personal names (left), and the most frequent signs in the proto-cuneiform texts generally (right; excluding lexical list attestations):


ENa91ENa1470
BUa43AN811
3N57 40GALa783
PAPa33SAL683
AN31GI679
ŠU31BA662
E2a24PAPa623
DU21SANGAa545
ŠUBUR21NUNa519
MUŠEN19ŠU505
A17E2a463
HI17
SAL17
GI16
KAŠc16
SAG14
SI14
U2b14
GIR3c12
ZATU659 12

 

§5.6. Although I cannot make out a meaningful pattern in these numbers, at least we now have a basis for comparing the frequency of signs used in personal names versus those used in the texts as a whole; such frequency tables can serve, for instance, to test in Babylonian texts the hypothesis of Meriggi, Vallat and Dahl that proto-Elamite scribes developed a syllabary used exclusively to record proper nouns.[49] It might here be more instructive to consider the signs and sign combinations that are most often found in our list as those representing true names of individuals, and to compare these entries with the most frequently attested names in the texts from the “historical” ED IIIb (ca. 2400-2350 BC) and the Ur III (ca. 2050-2000 BC) periods.[50]


Late Uruk, ca. 3200 BC
 namestimes attested
 ZATU65910
 PAPa7
 ŠUBUR7
 BUa GI6
 DIMa5
 ENa PAPa4
 ENa U2b DU4
 EZENb ENa4
 NIa GIR3c4
 ŠU ŠU4
 3N57 SAL3
 E2a DAH3
 ENa GIŠ×ŠU2a3
 KASKAL ŠUBUR3
 UB ZIa3
 
ED IIIb, ca. 2400 BC
 names, mennames with this element
 dDN-… (in any position)210
 lugal-…190
 ur-…170
 en-… (excluding den-ki/den-lil2)82
 e2-…81
 a-…68
 amar-…32
 lu2-…27
 me-…24
 nam-…23
 sag-…20
 
 names, womennames with this element
 nin-…141
 geme2-…24
 ama-…24
 
Ur III, ca. 2000 BC
 names, mennames with this element
 dDN-… (in any position)1664
 ur-…683
 lu2-…589
 lugal-…585
 …-mu (some = muhaldim)368
 e2-…290
 du11/inim-…197
 dingir-…157
 ha/he2/hu-…150
 (en-…94)
 (amar-…32)
 
 names, womennames with this element
 nin-…320
 geme2-…201
 ama-…85

 

§5.7. Comparing the list of proto-cuneiform personal names with those of the most common personal names or name elements in the Early Dynastic and Ur III periods, we see quite substantial differences. First is, our archaic personal names contain no obvious theophoric elements. Indeed, in this list, there is not one instance of a name that might plausibly be interpreted to include a Sumerian divine element, whereas such names outnumber all other examples in both ED IIIb and Ur III texts. Then also, the common elements ur, amar, a (seed) are nearly unknown in the archaic texts, and those instances of ENa (in bold) that we might consider archaic correspondences to later lugal contain other elements that make no sense if interpreted to be Sumerian. Finally, the Sumerian names of women from later periods find no counterparts in the archaic texts.

 

§6.1. I have stated elsewhere[51] that this search for personal names among slaves might be skewed in another telling way. We might suspect that as in later periods, and as the designations SAG+MA and ERIMa, as well as seeming prisoner scenes on many Late Uruk seals might tend to support, the chattel slaves were above all taken from foreign populations, their names thus in some non-Babylonian language. But frankly, it would surprise me if the Uruk overlords did not rename their foreign slaves with terms comprehensible to the local population, much as did the buyers of African slaves shipped to the Americas, since it is difficult to imagine that those engaged in the exchange and exploitation of humans, of whole families judged as little better than local livestock, would have made an effort to retain their native names. I can offer only indirect evidence that this may have been true. Contracts of the sale of chattel slaves in the Ur III period followed a standard format that included the name of sold persons in the form “one (slave type), PN his/her name, his/her price n shekels of silver ... .”

 

§6.2. A quick search of available documents, restricting myself for the present to only those contracts and related court records that included the phrase “PN mu-ni-im,” “PN is his/her name,”[52] demonstrates that some of these names are clearly of foreign origin, or are Akkadian, but that the majority carried a plausible Sumerian pedigree.


In Nippur:
 sag nita nam-dumu mu-ni-im
  ur-lugal mu-ni-im
  lugal-ur2-ra-ni mu-ni-im
  ad-da-[…] mu-ni-im
  lu2-den-lil2-la2 mu-ni-im
  šar-ru-a mu-ni-im
  nu-hi-dingir mu-ni-im
  lu2-dsuen mu-ni-im
  guruš i-din-dda-gan mu-ni-im dumu a-bi-ša-ru-um
  sag munus maš-da2-gu-la mu-ni-im
  en-ni-dla-az mu-ni-im
  ni-za-ti-a mu-ni-im
  a-za-za mu-ni-im
  nin-mu-ba-zi-ge mu-ni-im
  geme2-e2-zi-da mu-ni-im
 
In Ur:
 sag nita2 šu-gu-bu-um mu-ni-im
  en-um-diškur mu-ni-im
  dnin-gir2-su-ka-i3-sa6 mu-ni-im
  dingir-ma-lik mu-ni-im
  sag munus ta-re-ša-am3 mu-ni-im
  i3-li2-bad3-re mu-ni-im
 
In Wilayah?:
  sag nita2 |PU3.ŠA|-ha-ia3 mu-ni-im
  sag munus na-an-na-a mu-ni-im
  a-ga-ti-ma mu-ni-im
  18-dar-um-mi mu-ni-im
 
In Umma:
 sag nita a-ba-in-da-an-e3 mu-ni-im
  dumu nita2 a-ba-a-in-da-an-e3 mu-ni-im
  sag munus dba-ba6-lu2-sa6-sa6 mu-ni-im
  nin-mu-ušurx(LAL2.TUG2)-mu mu-ni-im
  
In Girsu:
 sag nita a-lu2-du10 mu-ni-im
  sag munus geme2-aga mu-ni-im

 

§6.3. Isolating personal names in the proto-cuneiform texts represents an important beginning in our efforts to lemmatize all proto-cuneiform transliterations with an eye toward identifying the signs that we do understand, or that we believe we understand, and toward more broadly defining what the sign combinations represent that do not correspond to common entries in our lexical lists. I put these data up to underscore the lingering problems in determining the linguistic affiliation of the earliest Babylonian scribes. It may be debated whether the rough translation “male slave” and “female slave” are correct renderings of the proto-cuneiform signs SAL and KURa, but I think the unbiased observer will not reasonably doubt that most, perhaps all of the sign combinations discussed above in selection, and listed in the appendix below, do in fact represent personal names. They are directly, or by association categorized by Late Uruk scribes using terminology that ultimately points to SAL and KURa; they are found in a distinct text format that removes them from the realm of simple object designations; and they do not correspond to entries in the thematic lexical lists.

 

§6.4. The list of presumed slave names is by no means definitive, but I think a good indication of problems inherent in the archaic Sumerian postulate. Even under the assumption that the personal names in our texts were those of prisoners of war, or of slaves imported into Babylonian bondage from regions surrounding Mesopotamia, and thus were not of the “Uruk core,” sharing the language and culture of their overseers, it remains difficult to understand the absence of, among other linguistic clues, theophoric elements, Sumerian or otherwise. This reminds us of the fact that we have found no lexical god lists of the pantheistic form well attested in the ED IIIa period—it is in fact difficult to point to any clear evidence of anthropomorphic deities in the Late Uruk period at all, once the presumed depiction of Inanna on the Uruk Vase is put in doubt—and that such theophoric elements have not been identified in any other sign combinations that would be credible candidates for personal names. That would leave us with the common elements for males, lu2, lugal, nin, ur, and ARAD2, and for females nin, geme2 and ama—all exceedingly rare, or missing here. If we exchange SAL for geme2, and KURa or 3N57 or, for skeptics, even ŠUBUR for, say, ur, then the corresponding names in our list are not more reflective of expected early Sumerian forms. How much more agreeable this discussion would be if Langdon, now eighty years ago, had been right and not just en-lil2-ti, but other names in this vein had been uncovered in the proto-cuneiform archives!

 


 

Appendix. List of personal names in “slave” accounts
(signs of individual names have been force-sorted without regard to potential language-revealing sequences; an annotated archaic name glossary will appear in due time in the pages of the CDLI)

 

A AL MUNa1 TE E2a SI MEaKURa.E2a 3N57
A ENaE2a ŠUBURLA2? NA2a? X
A KI NEa [...]E2a ZIaLA2 SUG5
A NARE2a [...]LA2 SUMb
A NEa 1N57E2b BAR 3N57LA2 TE
A NUNUZa1E2b BUaLAMb X
A SAGE2b GIR3cLUGAL
A? SANGAa? [...]E2b KALAMaMA MA
A ŠA TAK4aE2b SI NAGAaMA SI
A ŠA3a1 TAK4aE2b 3N57MAHb×NAa
A TAK4aE2a 3N57 [...]MAŠ MUŠEN
A U2bE2b 3N58MAŠ2 1N57
A 3N57ENa EN2.E2bMEa? SAL SAL ZATU751a X
ABa ENa U2bENa EZENbMEa ŠU
ABa EZENb X [...]ENa EZINUaMEa ŠU X X
ABa KAKa?ENa GA2a1 GUMEa U8
ABa KU6aENa GA2a1? NUNUZa0?MEa X X
ABa 5N57ENa GA2a2MEa? [...]
ABb GU4 ENaENa GIŠ×ŠU2aMU TUR
ABb SANGAaENa GU4 SALMUD
ADa? AN SIENa HIMUD [...]
ADa XENa HI KAŠcMUŠ3a NU11tenû
ADc E2a SALENa HI RADaMUŠEN
ADc GI HIENa HI ŠA3a1MUŠEN RADa
AKa ENa GALaENa HI U2bMUŠEN RADa ŠUBUR
AMAa AN ENaENa HI UNUGaMUŠEN SIG7
AMAa AN MAENa IBaMUŠEN ŠEa
AMAa ERIMa MUŠEN MAŠENa INbMUŠEN ZATU659
AMAa GI KI MUŠEN MAŠ ZATU694cENa KIaNAa NIRa
AMAa ZATU628b N4ENa KIDe NUNaNAGAa
AMAR ENa ŠUENa NAa NIMb2NAMa KI
AN AN GARENa NAa UDUa XNAM2
MUŠEN×2N57 N24?ENa NIGIN TINAM2 X [...]
AN DU ZATU735a?ENa NIMb1 1N57?NAR
AN DUBa NINENa NUNUZcNAR ŠA3a1
AN DUR2 ENa HI 1N58ENa PAaNEa ŠU
AN Ea? MEa? [...]ENa PAPaNEa ZATU778
AN ENaENa PAPa XNIa SAc
AN ENa DUENa PAPa [...]NIa SAG TAK4a
AN ENa MUŠ3aENa PIRIGb1NIa SUKUDgunûd
AN ENa SAGENa SAG?NIa ŠU
AN ENa UMUN2ENa SAG ŠEaNIa ŠU ZATU811
AN ENa [...]ENa SAL TE 3N57NIa ŠU2 U4
AN EŠDAENa SARaNIa ZATU713
AN GIŠ ZATU773a?ENa SI ŠAGANNIa ZATU773a
AN GUMbENa SUa TINIMa
AN IMa KISALb1ENa ŠITAgunûa ABaNIMa U4
AN KAŠc MEa NAaENa ŠU2.E2bNIMGIR
AN KIENa TUa [...]NIRa ZATU773a
AN LU2 ZATU773aENa TURNU (UDUa×TAR)a
AN MUŠ3a SIGENa U4NU ŠUBUR
AN NIMGIRENa URUa1 2N57NUNUZa1 3N57
AN PIRIGb1 3N57ENa ZATU630NUNUZc 3N57
AN TAK4a U8?ENa ZATU697cPAa
AN TE KI GALaENa ZATU829PAa TUN3a
AN UB HIENa N4PAa? X
AN URUa1ENa XPAPa
AN ZIa?ENa X [...]PAPa SAL N2
ANŠEe DU DUR2 7N57ENa [...]PAPa SUa 3N57
APINbEN2.E2b 3N57PAPa ŠU
BA NESAG2bERIMa GI6 IPAPa ŠU2
BAHAR2a BUaERIMa KU6aPAPa ŠUBUR ZIa
BAHAR2a ENaERIMa SAG [...]PAPa 3N57
BAHAR2a? ENa ANERIMa ZATU751aPAPa X [...]
BAHAR2a 3N57ERIMa [...]PAPa [...]
BALAb TUR3aEZENa×SUa ZATU651×ENaPIRIGb1
BANb PAPaGA2a1×ENa NUNUZa1PIRIGb1 3N57 [...]
BAR? GUG2GA2a2 ŠURU
BAR X [...]GA2a2×3N57RU NAR
BARA2a TAK4aGALa PU2RU ŠUBUR
BARA3 DUGALa MU SANGAa ŠURU U2b
BARA3 SIGALa MU SANGAa ŠU ZATU651gunûRU 3N57
BU3 AGALa SILA3a×NIaRU [...]
BU3 A DUR2GAN2 HISAG U2b
BUa DUGAN2 3N57SAG X
BUa ENa KALb2 MAŠGAR IGb LAL3a?SAG [...]
BUa ENa MAŠGAR U2aSAG×MA
BUa ENa 1N57GI DIMaSAGŠU? GALa
BUa GIGI KAŠc MUŠENSAL SAL
BUa HAL ŠITAa3GI MUŠEN NAaSAL ŠU2
BUabGI MUNŠUBbSAL 3N57
BUa LAL2aGI NAa [...]SARa URUa1
BUa MAŠGI ŠA3a1SARa 3N57 [...]
BUa MUD NAaGI ŠU? [...]SI4a U4 X
BUa MUŠEN TURGI/GI PIRIGb1ŠU U4
BUa PAPaGI/GI 3N57ŠUBUR UB
BUa PAPa BUaGI/GI/GI ENaSI URa
BUa PAPa [...]GI×KUb1SI TUR3a ZATU773a
BUa SALGI4a ŠA3a1SI N1
BUa ŠA3a1GI4a ŠA3a1 [...]SI 5N57
BUa ŠEaGI6 KIŠIKa URI3aSI4a U4 X
BUa ŠEa ŠUBURGI6? LAMb ŠUSUa U2b
BUa ŠEa 3N57GIR3a NIaSUKKAL X
BUa ŠUGIR3cŠA X
BUa ŠU2GIR3c DUŠA ŠA TUMc
BUa ŠUR2bGIR3c NIaŠU ŠU
BUa TURGIR3c PAPaŠU TUR
BUa U2aGIR3c׊E3 NUNa [...]ŠU U4
BUa URaGIR3c N1ŠU ZIa
BUa+DU6aGIR3gunûb 3N57ŠU 3N57
BUa+DU6a BUa+DU6a EZINUa PAPaGIR3gunûc ENaŠU X
BUa+DU6a DI NABGIR3gunûc SUKKALŠU [...]
BUa+DU6a DUR2 3N57GIŠ SAG×GEŠTUbŠU2 URI3a
BUa+DU6a GULGIŠ×ŠU2a NIMGIRŠU2.N2
DAa E2a 3N57GIŠ×ŠU2a SAG ŠUŠUBUR
DAa KAŠcGIŠ3b URaŠUBUR X
DAa KAŠc ŠEa/ŠEaGU4gunû DINŠUBUR ŠUM
DAa KU6a [...]GUL KITIŠUBUR UB
DAHGUL SAGŠUR2a
DAH [...]HAL MEaŠUR2b
DANNA KURaHAL PAPaTAK4a U2b
DARa PAPa SALHI KASKALTE UNUGa
DARb E2aHI MUŠEN SAL UR5a ZATU628aTI ZIa? [...]
DARb E2b ŠAHI MUŠEN 1N57TItenû GIR3c
DARA3d×KAR2HI NAGAaTUb
DARA4a1 SIHI NIN SAGTUb UD5a?
DI NABHI ZATU832TUR
DI NAB NINHI×1N57 GI6TUR3a 5N57
DIMaHI×1N57/HI×1N57 ENaU2b [...]
DIMa DAaHIgunûbU8 6N57
DIMa XIL KI? XUB ZIa
DIN E2ab KAŠcUD5a
DU BA KIb ZATU832UNUGa ZATU773a
DU E2a PIRIGb1 3N57KA2×LAM GAa [...]UNUGa [...]
DU ENa KAaKALb2 NIMGIRURa?
DU ENa U2bKASKAL ŠUBURURa URa
DU HI TAcKASKAL [...]URa? URI3a
DU IBa X XKAŠb MUŠEN?UR3b2
DU KI 3N57KAŠc KAŠcURI3a [...]
DU KU6aKAŠc MUŠENURI3a ZATU773a
DU PAPa TUR3aKAŠc MUŠEN 6N57? XZATU659
DU TAdKAŠc ŠEa/ŠEaZATU795
DU TUR3a U2b?KAŠc TAK4aZATU811 3N57
DU? URI3a [...]KAŠc ZATU823ZATU819? X
DU N1? XKAŠc XN1 [...]
DU×DIŠ ERIMa LAGABbKAŠc [...]3N57
DU7 ZATU686bKI NU U43N57 X
DUGa? SI X XKIa ZATU629a3N57 X [...]
DUR2 DUR2KI X X3N57 [...]
DUR2 ERIMa MENa ZATU751aKIDb LAGABa
DUR2 ŠE3?KISALb1 PAPa SI
DUR2 ZATU751a 3N57 [...]KISALb1 X [...]
E2a BUaKISIMa KUb1 KU6a
E2a DAHKIŠIKa NAa ŠUBUR
E2a ENa ANKITI 3N57
E2a LAMb MUDKU3a [...]
E2a NEa PAPaKU6a RADa URa
E2a PIRIGb1? UDUaKU6a RADa 3N57
E2a SAG 3N57KU6a? TUMc X
E2a SALKURa MAŠ ZATU773a

 


Bibliography

 

Afanasieva, Veronika K., et al.
  1968 Fifty Years of Soviet Oriental Studies: Cuneiform Studies. Moscow: Nauka Publ. House
Alster, Bend
  2007 Sumerian Proverbs in the Schøyen Collection. CUSAS 2. MSCCT 2. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press
Ball, Edward
  1999 Slaves in the Family. New York: Ballantine Books
Bauer, Josef, Robert K. Englund, and Manfred Krebernik
  1998 Mesopotamien: Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit. OBO 160/1. Freiburg, Switzerland: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz
Berlin, Ira
  2003 Generations of Captivity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Blackburn, Robin
  1997 The Making of New World Slavery: From the Baroque to the Modern, 1492-1800. London & New York: Verso
Brentjes, Burchard
  1987 “Ein Nachwort zur ‘asiatischen Produktionsweise’.” Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte Sb. 1987, 175-180
Burnard, Trevor
  2001 “Slave Naming Patterns: Onomastics and the Taxonomy of Race in Eighteenth-Century Jamaica.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 31/3, 325-346
Cavigneaux, Antoine
  1991 “Die Texte der 33. Kampagne,” BagM 22, 33-123
Conrad, Robert E.
  1972 The Destruction of Brazilian Slavery, 1850-1888. Berkeley: University of California Press
Curtin, Philip D.
  1969 The Atlantic Slave Trade: a Census. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press
Dahl, Jacob L.
  2005a “Complex Graphemes in Proto-Elamite.” CDLJ 2005/3
  2005b “Animal Husbandry in Susa During the Proto-Elamite Period.” SMEA 47, 81-134
  nd “Early Writing in Iran: a Reappraisal.” forthcoming
Dalley, Stephanie
  2009 Babylonian Tablets from the First Sealand Dynasty in the Schøyen Collection. CUSAS 9. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press
Damerow, Peter and Robert K. Englund
  2003 The Proto-Elamite Texts from Tepe Yahya. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 39. 3rd edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Dandamaev, Muhammad A.
  1984 Slavery in Babylonia. From Nabopolassar to Alexander the Great (626-331 B.C.) (translated from the Russian by M. A. Powell). DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press
Diakonoff, Igor M.
  1969 “Main Features of the Economy in the Monarchies of Ancient Western Asia.” In J. Meuvret, ed, Troisième conférence internationale d’histoire économique: Munich 1965. Paris: Mouton, pp. 13-32
  1976 “Slaves, Helots and Serfs in Early Antiquity.” ActAnt 22 (1974), 45-78
Dreyer, Günter
  1998 Umm el-Qaab I, Das prädynastische Königsgrab U-j und seine frühen Schriftzeugnisse. AV 86. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern
Engbert, Ralf, André Longtin and Reinhold Kliegl
  2002 “A Dynamical Model of Saccade Generation in Reading based on Spatially Distributed Lexical Processing.” Vision Research 42/5, 621-636
Englund, Robert K.
  1988 “Administrative Timekeeping in Ancient Mesopotamia.” JESHO 31, 121-185
  1990 Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur III-Fischerei. BBVO 10. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag
  1991 “Hard Work: Where Will It Get You? Labor Management in Ur III Mesopotamia.” JNES 50, 255-280
  1994 Archaic Administrative Documents from Uruk: The Early Campaigns. ATU 5. Berlin: Gebrüder Mann Verlag
  1995 “Late Uruk Pigs and Other Herded Animals.” In U. Finkbeiner, R. Dittmann and H. Hauptmann, eds., Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Vorderasiens: Festschrift für Rainer Michael Boehmer. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, pp. 121-133
  2001 “Grain Accounting Practices in Archaic Mesopotamia.” In J. Høyrup and P. Damerow, eds., Changing Views on Ancient Near Eastern Mathematics. BBVO 19. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, pp. 1-35
  2005 Review of J.-J. Glassner, The Invention of Cuneiform: Writing in Sumer. JAOS 125, 113-116
Englund, Robert K. and Jean-Pierre Grégoire
  1991 The Proto-Cuneiform Texts from Jemdet Nasr. MSVO 1. Berlin: Gebrüder Mann Verlag
Englund, Robert K. and Hans J. Nissen
  1993 Die lexikalischen Listen der archaischen Texte aus Uruk. ATU 3. Berlin: Gebrüder Mann Verlag
Falkenstein, Adam
  1936 Archaische Texte aus Uruk. Berlin: Gebrüder Mann Verlag
Faulkner, William
  1955 Go Down, Moses. New York: The Modern Library (copyright William Faulkner 1940, Curtis Publishing 1942; renewed 1968-1970 by Estelle Faulkner and Jill Faulkner Summers)
Foner, Philip S.
  1975 History of Black Americans: From the Compromise of 1850 to the End of the Civil War. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group
Franklin, John H. and Alfred A. Moss
  1994 From Slavery to Freedom: a History of African Americans. 7th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill
Friberg, Jöran
  2005 “On the Alleged Counting with Sexagesimal Place Value Numbers in Mathematical Cuneiform Texts from the Third Millennium BC.” CDLJ 2005/2
  2007 A Remarkable Collection of Babylonian Mathematical Texts. MSCCT 1. New York & London: Springer
Gelb, Ignaz J.
  1965 “The Ancient Mesopotamian Ration System.” JNES 24, 230-243
  1967 “Approaches to the Study of Ancient Society.” JAOS 87. 1-8
  1969 “On the Alleged Temple and State Economies in Ancient Mesopotamia.” In Studi in Onore di Edoardo Volterra VI. Milan: A. Giuffrè, 137-154
  1972 “From Freedom to Slavery.” In D. O. Edzard, ed., Geschellschafts-klassen in Alten Zweistromland und in den angrenzenden Gebieten: XVIII Rencontre assyriologique internationale. Munich: Beck, pp. 81-92
  1973 “Prisoners of War in Early Mesopotamia.” JNES 32, 70-98
  1979 “Definition and Discussion of Slavery and Serfdom.” Ugarit-Forschungen 11, 283-297
  1982a “Terms for Slaves in Ancient Mesopotamia.” In M. A. Dandamayev, ed., Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honour of I. M. Diakonoff. Warminster: Aris and Phillips, pp. 81-98
  1982b “Sumerian and Akkadian Words for ‘String of Fruit’.” In G. van Driel, et al., eds., zikir šumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus. Leiden: EJ Brill, 67-82
George, Andrew
  2003 The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  2009 Babylonian Literary Texts in the Schøyen Collection. CUSAS 10. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press
Gerber, Erika, Konrad Ehlich and Jan-Dirk Müller, eds
  2002 Materialität und Medialität von Schrift. Bielefeld: Aisthesis Verlag
Glassner, Jean-Jacques
  2000 Ecrire à Sumer: l’invention du cunéiforme. Paris: Seuil
Green, Margaret W.
  1980 “Animal Husbandry at Uruk in the Archaic Period.” JNES 39. 1-35
Green, Margaret W. and Hans J. Nissen
  1987 Zeichenliste der Archaischen Texte aus Uruk. ATU 2. Berlin. Gebrüder Mann Verlag
Komoróczy, Géza
  1978 “Landed Property in Ancient Mesopotamia and the Theory of the So-called Asiatic Mode of Production.” Oikumene 2, 9-26
Koslova, Natalya
  2008 “Bezeichnungen der Arbeitskräfte in Umma der Ur-III-Zeit.” In S. J. Garfinkle and J. C. Johnson, eds., The Growth of an Early State in Mesopotamia: Studies in Ur III Administration. BPOA 5. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, pp. 149-206
Krebernik, Manfred
  2007 “Zur Entwicklung des Sprachbewusst seins im Alten Orient.” In C. Wilcke, ed., Das geistige Erfassen der Welt im Alten Orient. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 39-61
Langdon, Stephen H.
  1928 The Herbert Weld Collection in the Ashmolean Museum. OECT 7. Oxford: Clarendon Press
  1931 “A New Factor in the Problem of Sumerian Origins.” JRAS 1931, 593-596
McKeown, Niall
  2007 The Invention of Ancient Slavery? Duckworth Classical Essays. London: Duckworth
Melekišvili, Georgij A.
  1974 “Esclavage, féodalisme et mode de production asiatique dans l’Orient ancien.” In Sur le “Mode de production asiatique.” Paris: CERM, pp. 257-277
Meriggi, Piero
  1975 “Der Stand der Erforschung des Proto-Elamischen.” JRAS 1975, 105
Miller, Randall M. and John D. Smith, eds.
  1997 Dictionary of Afro-American Slavery. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group
Monaco, Salvatore
  2007 The Cornell University Archaic Tablets. CUSAS 1. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press
Nissen, Hans J., Peter Damerow, and Robert K. Englund
  1993 Archaic Bookkeeping. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
  2004 Frühe Schrift und Techniken der Wirtschaftsverwaltung im alten Vorderen Orient. 3rd edition. Hildesheim: Franzbecker
Nwokeji, G. Ugo and David Eltis
  2002 “The Roots of the African Diaspora: Methodological Considerations in the Analysis of Names in the Liberated African Registers of Sierra Leone and Havana.”History in Africa 29, 365-378
Olmstead, Frederick L.
  1862 The Cotton Kingdom: A Traveller’s Observations on Cotton & Slavery in the Slave States. New York: Mason Brothers
Owen, David I.
  2009 “Censoring Knowledge: The Case for the Publication of Unprovenanced Cuneiform Tablets.” In J. Cuno, ed., Whose Culture? The Promise of Museums and the Debate over Antiquities. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 125-142
Owen, David I. and Rudi H. Mayr
  2007 The Garšana Archives. CUSAS 3. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press
Pang, Eul-Soo
  1979 “Modernization and Slavocracy in Nineteenth-Century Brazil.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 9/4, 667–688
Pecírková, Jana
  1979 “Social and Economic Aspects of Mesopotamian History in the Work of Soviet Historians (Mesopotamia in the First Millennium B.C.).” ArOr 47, 111-122
Powell, Marvin A.
  1972 “Sumerian Area Measures and the Alleged Decimal Substratum.” ZA 62 (1972) 165-221
Rayner, Keith
  1998 “Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research.” Psychological Bulletin 124/3, 372-422
Reichle, Erik D., et al.
  1998 “Toward a model of eye-movement control in reading,” Psychological Review 105, 125-157
Schwartz, Stuart B.
  1996 Slaves, Peasants, and Rebels: Reconsidering Brazilian Slavery. Urbana & Chicago: The University of Illinois Press
Steinkeller, Piotr
  1990 “Threshing Implements in Ancient Mesopotamia, Cuneiform Sources.” Iraq 52, 19-24
Streck, Michael P. and Stefan Weninger, eds.
  2002 Altorientalische und semitische Onomastik. AOAT 296. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag
Struve, Vasilii V.
  1947 “Social Structure in Southern Mesopotamia during the 3rd Dynasty of Ur” (in Russian). Yubileinyi sbornik ... II. Moscow & Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 720-742
  1969 “Some New Data on the Organization of Labour and on Social Structure in Sumer during the Reign of the IIIrd Dynasty of Ur.” In I. M. Diakonoff, ed., Ancient Mesopotamia: Socio-Economic History. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 127-172
Studevent-Hickman, Benjamin
  2006 The Organization of Manual Labor in Ur III Babylonia. PhD thesis, Harvard University
Turner, Lorenzo Dow
  1949 Africanisms in the Gullah Dialect. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (republished Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 2002)
Vaiman, Aizik A.
  1974a “The Designations of Male and Female Slaves in the Proto-Sumerian Writing System” (in Russian). VDI 1974/2, 138-148
  1974b “Über die protosumerische Schrift.” ActAnt 22, 15-27
  1981 “On Deciphering the Proto-Sumerian Writing System” (in Russian). VDI 1981/4, 81-87
  1989 “Die Bezeichnung von Sklaven und Sklavinnen in der protosumerischen Schrift.” BagM 20, 121-133
  1990 “Zur Entzifferung der proto-sumerischen Schrift (vorläufige Mitteilung).” BagM 21, 116-123
Vallat, François
  1986 “The Most Ancient Scripts of Iran: the Current Situation.” World Archaeology 17/3, 335-347
van Dijk, Jan
  1989 “Ein spätaltbabylonischer Katalog einer Sammlung sumerischer Briefe.” OrNS 58, 441-452
van Soldt, Wilfred, ed.
  2005 Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia: Papers Read at the 48th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Leiden, 1-4 July 2002. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten
Westbrook, Raymond
  1995 “Slave and Master in Ancient Near Eastern Law.” Chicago-Kent Law Review 70, 1631-1676

 


Version: 21 August 2009