Cuneiform Clay Tablet, 2028 BCE
Clay
1.81 x 2.95
CT.045
Sumerian cuneiform is one of the earlies known forms of written expression. Firs appearing in the 4th millennium BC in wha is now Iraq, it was dubbed cuneifor (‘wedge-shaped’) because...
Sumerian cuneiform is one of the earlies known forms of written expression. Firs appearing in the 4th millennium BC in wha is now Iraq, it was dubbed cuneifor (‘wedge-shaped’) because of the distinctiv wedge form of the letters, created b pressing a reed stylus into wet clay. Earl Sumerian writings were essentiall pictograms, which became simplified in th early and mid 3rd millennium BC to a serie of strokes, along with a commensurat reduction in the number of discrete sign used (from c.1500 to 600). The scrip system had a very long life and was used b the Sumerians as well as numerous late groups – notably the Assyrians, Elamites,
Akkadians and Hittites – for around thre thousand years. Certain signs and phoneti standards live on in modern languages o the Middle and Far East, but the writin system is essentially extinct. It wa therefore cause for great excitement whe the ‘code’ of ancient cuneiform was cracke by a group of English, French and Germa Assyriologists and philologists in the mi 19th century AD. This opened up a vita source of information about these ancien groups that could not have been obtained i any other way.
Cuneiform was used on monument dedicated to heroic – and usually royal –
individuals, but perhaps its most importan function was that of record keeping. Th palace-based society at Ur and other larg urban centres was accompanied by remarkably complex and multifacete bureaucracy, which was run by professiona administrators and a priestly class, all o whom were answerable to central cour control. Most of what we know about th way the culture was run and administere comes from cuneiform tablets, which recor the everyday running of the temple an palace complexes in minute detail, as in th present case. The Barakat Gallery ha secured the services of Professor Lamber (University of Birmingham), a renowne expert in the decipherment and translatio of cuneiform, to examine and process th information on these tablets. The following i a transcription of his analysis of this tablet:
Clay tablet with 20 lines of Sumerian Cuneiform.
This is written in a large clear scribal hand, but there is some damage: on the obverse the ends of the first five lines are damaged, and the first two lines on the reverse are mostly lost, but a good general impression of the contents can be obtained, but first a translation:
(.)+15 gur, 240 sila of ….
(.)+2 gur, 270 sila of …..
4 gur, 90 sila of …….
2 gur, 45 sila of …….
1 gur, 87 sila of …….
258 sila of …….
645 talents of …… gras
645 “voyage” bird
347 “trees of the steppe”
20825 brick
..(…………)
..(………..)
419 talents of ……….
accumulated products of the garden-lan
received b
Ur-Dumuzi, the scrib
from the month Shugarr
to the month second of barley harvest: 13 month
Year: Ibbi-Sin, kin
This is thus a listing of all the produce of “the garden land” of some city received within one calendar year. The ywar was the first of Ibbi-Sin, lasat king of the Third Dynasty of Ur, c. 2028 B.C. It is interesting to note that this year was a leap year: an extra month was instered into the nomal twelve to keep the lunar months in line with the solar year and it’s inescapable seasons.
A sila was about .85 of a litre, and a gur was 300 sil
Akkadians and Hittites – for around thre thousand years. Certain signs and phoneti standards live on in modern languages o the Middle and Far East, but the writin system is essentially extinct. It wa therefore cause for great excitement whe the ‘code’ of ancient cuneiform was cracke by a group of English, French and Germa Assyriologists and philologists in the mi 19th century AD. This opened up a vita source of information about these ancien groups that could not have been obtained i any other way.
Cuneiform was used on monument dedicated to heroic – and usually royal –
individuals, but perhaps its most importan function was that of record keeping. Th palace-based society at Ur and other larg urban centres was accompanied by remarkably complex and multifacete bureaucracy, which was run by professiona administrators and a priestly class, all o whom were answerable to central cour control. Most of what we know about th way the culture was run and administere comes from cuneiform tablets, which recor the everyday running of the temple an palace complexes in minute detail, as in th present case. The Barakat Gallery ha secured the services of Professor Lamber (University of Birmingham), a renowne expert in the decipherment and translatio of cuneiform, to examine and process th information on these tablets. The following i a transcription of his analysis of this tablet:
Clay tablet with 20 lines of Sumerian Cuneiform.
This is written in a large clear scribal hand, but there is some damage: on the obverse the ends of the first five lines are damaged, and the first two lines on the reverse are mostly lost, but a good general impression of the contents can be obtained, but first a translation:
(.)+15 gur, 240 sila of ….
(.)+2 gur, 270 sila of …..
4 gur, 90 sila of …….
2 gur, 45 sila of …….
1 gur, 87 sila of …….
258 sila of …….
645 talents of …… gras
645 “voyage” bird
347 “trees of the steppe”
20825 brick
..(…………)
..(………..)
419 talents of ……….
accumulated products of the garden-lan
received b
Ur-Dumuzi, the scrib
from the month Shugarr
to the month second of barley harvest: 13 month
Year: Ibbi-Sin, kin
This is thus a listing of all the produce of “the garden land” of some city received within one calendar year. The ywar was the first of Ibbi-Sin, lasat king of the Third Dynasty of Ur, c. 2028 B.C. It is interesting to note that this year was a leap year: an extra month was instered into the nomal twelve to keep the lunar months in line with the solar year and it’s inescapable seasons.
A sila was about .85 of a litre, and a gur was 300 sil