Every beginning cuneiform student sets out on the seemingly impossible task of learning the hundreds of signs that make up the syllabaries.  There are many different ways in which people try to do this but lately I came across an interview that might be of help.  In the newsletter, “Damqatum,” Father Marcel Sigrist, who has done more than anyone else in the last quarter century to further the study of Neo-Sumerian, describes how he learned the signs:

Many people, when they start Assyriology, have a great problem with the signs. And to recognize the signs, to learn the signs, you have people who have a lot of little flashcards with the signs. I must say I had really very few problems to memorize the signs, and even to recognize the various shapes. Nothing is printed, but it is handwritten, it changes from one tablet to the other. The way to learn the signs was to put the signs as they are classified on one sheet of paper, and then to draw the sign and write the basic phonetic. So when you do this, and then you take a book -The Letters of Mari, which are very easy to read-you compare all the time the transliteration of the tablet with your chart. And when you have seen twenty times the same sign in a day, you know it. So there are easy ways to learn the signs.

This is pretty close to the way that I learned the signs as well.  However, I did start with flashcards to give myself a little foothold while reading.

Other resources you could try include a sign workbook by Daniel Snell:

Lastly, the Knowledge and Power website has a section that helps you learn 100 signs.

I found another must-have book for those interested in the Ur III period (all three of us):

On Ur III Times: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist edited by Piotr Michalowski

Here’s a rundown on the contributions:

• Franco d’Agostino and Elena Santagati, BM 106145: un nuovo testo da Ummache menziona personale del cantiere navale (m a r -s a )
• Lance Allred, Labor Assignments from the City of Girsu
• Farouk Al-Rawi, An Ur III Incantation in the British Museum
• Nicole Brisch, Messenger Texts in the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology at the University of Michigan
• Miguel Civil, An Agricultural Account from Umma
• Remco de Maaier, ulgi’s Jubilee: Where’s The Party?
• Douglas Frayne and W. W. Hallo, New Texts from the Reign of Ur-Namma
• Steven Garfinkle, Silver and Gold: Merchants and the Economy of the Ur III State
• Wolfgang Heimpel and Kent Hillard, Fact and Fiction in YBC 9819 and SET 188 as Sources for the Reality behind the Name of Year 9 of King Shu-Sin of Ur
• Jacob Klein, The Brockmon Collection Duplicate of the Sumerian Kinglist (BT 14)
• Bertrand Lafont, À propos des repas collectifs et banquets (naptanum) à l’époque d’Ur III
• Pietro Mander, Nuovi “Shepherd-Texts” da Lagash
• Piotr Michalowski, Observations on “Elam” and “Elamites” in Ur III Times
• Manuel Molina, New Ur III Court Records Concerning Slavery
• Francesco Pomponio, Ancora un bilancio neo-sumerico di orzo
• Seth Richardson, Ningirsu Returns to His Plow: Lagas and Girsu Take Leave of Ur
• Walther Sallaberger, Der Eid im Gerichtsverfahren im neusumerischen Umma
• Tonia Scharlach, Priestesses, Concubines, and the Daughters of Men: Disentangling the Meaning of the Word l u k u r in Ur III Times
• Piotr Steinkeller, Joys of Cooking in Ur III Babylonia
• Benjamin Studevent-Hickman, Quantitative Aspects of Land Tenure in Ur III Babylonia
• M. Such-Gutiérrez, Gesiegelte Urkunden aus der königlichen Viehverwaltung von Drehem und die Frage der Linienunterteilung und Siegelung dieser Tafeln
• Ozaki Tohru, Divine Statues in the Ur III Kingdom and Their “Ka Du8-Ha” Ceremony
• Niek Veldhuis, Orthography and Politics: a d d a , “carcass” and k u r 9, “to enter”
  
• Lorenzo Verderame, Rassam’s Activities at Tello (1879) and the Earliest Acquisition of Neo-Sumerian Tablets in the British Museum
• Hartmut Waetzoldt, Die Haltung der Schreiber von Umma zu König usuen
• Joan Goodnick Westenholz, The Memory of Sargonic Kings under the Third Dynasty of Ur
• Claus Wilcke, Der Kauf von Gütern durch den “staatlichen” Haushalt der Provinz Umma zur Zeit der III. Dynastie von Ur: Ein Beitrag zu “Markt und Arbeit im Alten Orient am Ende des 3. Jahrtausends vor Christus”
  
• Richard Zettler, Context and Text: Nippur Area TB IV and the Archive of Lama-Palil

I came across an interesting t-shirt design on cafepress; it read:

i can speak cuneiform. fluently.

Curiously, the shirt only came in women’s sizes.  Another curious feature–cuneiform is a writing style, not a language so no one ever, at any time, in any place spoke “cuneiform.”  Furthermore, modern scholars read but don’t really speak Akkadian, Hittite, Ugaritic, or much less Sumerian (except I have heard that several Israeli scholars do occasionally chat in Akkadian).

I assume that the shirt must be a joke and since I am a fan of obscure and good-natured humor if it came in men’s sizes I might be tempted to purchase one.

Thanks to Duane Smith I found out that the latest edition of ZA (Dec 2007) is online and all the articles are available as free downloads (all links are to the pdf’s that provide links to referenced articles that are available online). All the articles look really interesting; here they are:

“Grammatische Relationen im Sumerischen“ by Wolfgang Schulze, Walther Sallaberger

The present article discusses the foundations of Sumerian morphosyntax in the light of a strongly typological, and – in parts – cognitive perspective…We will argue that the Sumerian constructional patterns have started from a dichotomic way of distinguishing center and periphery in an ergative way. This constructional pattern had a ‘syntactic’ value, as it allowed diathesis in order to encode a non-punctional, durative aspect. This aspect construction showed up as an antipassive that later became grammaticalized as an expression of non-past constructions. This ‘tense-split’, typical for a number of adjacent linguistic areas, ended up in the grammaticalization of the antipassive as an accusative construction (‘marû-construction’), whereas the past domain remained strongly ergative (‘-construction’). The accusative pattern then again allowed a diathesis which now was a passive in nature.

“New Light on Å imaÅ¡ki and Its Rulers“ by Piotr Steinkeller

An examination of the data pertaining to the Å imaÅ¡kian Yabrat (Ebarat) reveals that this Iranian ruler controlled, during the later phase of the Ur III period, a powerful state in central Iran. It appears that Yabrat’s influence extended to the neighboring state of AnÅ¡an, which may even have been his political dependency. A close and dependent ally of the House of Ur until the reign of Ibbi-Suen, Yabrat subsequently became a major threat to Babylonia. The article seeks to reconstruct the history of the interactions between Yabrat and the Ur III state, and to provide an improved understanding of Å imaÅ¡ki as a political and geographic phenomenon. The question of the historicity of the so-called “ŠimaÅ¡- kian King List” is also considered.

“Akkadian Omens from HattuÅ¡a and Emar: The Å¡umma immeru and Å¡umma ālu Omens” by Yoram Cohen

This article presents editions of KBo. 36, 47 and KBo. 42, 116, both fragments of Akkadian omens found in Hattuša. KBo. 42, 116 is identified as a fragment of šumma immeru omens. KBo. 36, 47 obverse is demonstrated to be an Akkadian šumma immeru omen text almost identical to the Emar šumma immeru recension. Its reverse is proven to be an Akkadian recension of šumma ālu omens that can be identified with Tablet 41 of the canonical šumma ālu series. This invites us to discuss the textual history of these omen genres and their transmission to the so-called Western Periphery.

“A New Sargon II Cylinder Fragment from an Unknown Provenance“ by Kathleen Abraham, Jacob Klein

A new ‘barrel cylinder’ fragment of Sargon II, from an unknown provenance, is published herein. The fragment yields a summary report of events from Sargon’s reign up to his eleventh palû, in a geographical rather than in a chronological order. The 14 preserved lines are written in a NB ductus, closely resembling and partly overlapping those of the barrel cylinder fragment ND 3411 from Nimrud. The text of the new fragment is reconstructed and studied here with the help of the corresponding lines in the above Nimrud fragment, the Khorsabad cylinders and a cylinder fragment from Nineveh (K 1660).

“The Graeco-Babyloniaca Once Again“ by Aage Westenholz

In this article, collations of the 13 Graeco-Babyloniaca texts presently in the British Museum, as well as photographs of nine of these, are offered; the cultural Sitz im Leben of the Graeco-Babyloniaca is examined; a phonological analysis of Akkadian and Sumerian in Greek transcription is attempted; and M. Geller’s thesis of a survival of the cuneiform tradition into the third century A. D. is critically discussed. Thus, the debate about these texts in this journal is continued.

Yoram Cohen has a very helpful review of Cuneiform in Canaan in the February 2008 issue of BASOR (pages 83-86). Not only does he provide his own corrected and supplied readings to many of the texts included in the book, but he also gives his own views on the existence of scribal schools in ancient Canaan. Here are some juicy quotes:

In spite of the authors’ measured skepticism (p. 13), there is little doubt that within the city walls [MB Hazor] a scribal school for cuneiform flourished. Even if not exactly contemporary, the finds speak for themselves: the mathematical prism (Hazor 9) was an educational tool that taught the student how to deal with multiples; the fragment of the lexical list HAR-ra=hubullu, or Urra (Hazor 6) was a part of the training in the cuneiform writing system; and the inscribed liver models (Hazor 2-3), while primarily meant to assist the diviner in their profession, were products of the Mesopotamian world of learning…The lexical fragments from Late Bronze Age Aphek (nos. 1 and 3) and Ashqelon (no. 1) can be taken as evidence of similar schooling institutions, as can the celebrated Gilgamesh Epic fragment from Megiddo (no. 1).¹

Isolated finds from elsewhere–Beth Shean, Gezer, Hebron, Jericho, and Shechem–complete the picture by showing how widespread writing in cuneiform was at this period. Even if concrete proof of schooling activities is lacking, it is obvious that the faculty of writing was transmitted to these places by some means and put into practical purposes, as the letters, administrative documents, and inscribed personal seals demonstrate.²

Even though there are some mistakes in the book–such as photos reproduced upside down and backwards, and I have a some slightly different readings on a couple of the texts that I have collated from high-res photos–this is a really great volume that I recommend. It’s greatest contribution is rounding up all the texts and major bibliography into one handy volume:

Cuneiform in Canaan
Cuneiform Sources from the Land of Israel in Ancient Times

by Wayne Horowitz, Takayoshi Oshima, and Seth Sanders
Israel Exploration Society, 2006
239 pages, 171 illustrations, English
Cloth, 17 x 27 cm
ISBN: 9652210625
Your Price: $56.00
www.eisenbrauns.com/wconnect/wc.dll?ebGate~EIS~~I~HORCUNEIF

1. Page 83. [back]
2. Page 84. [back]

Cuneiform

The wedge sank five times into the clay,
and a word, which had been spoken in a breath,
lay still until the gods’ names were forgotten.
Then, when strangers took the tile in hand,
while stars sailed into the dark
beyond the world, the dead tongue
in the clay began to speak.

This poem appeared in The Atlantic Monthly, May 2008 edition. If you liked the poem, click through in order to encourage more of the same from the author and magazine.

I’m not sure which gods he had in mind that one could form with just five strikes of the stylus onto the clay–even “dinger utu” would probably require at least six strikes–three for “dinger” and three for “utu.” He may have meant “five times” in a looser sense to cover the writing of five names. In any case, anyone know of a deity that can be written at least somewhat properly (there is at times tremendous variation in the cuneiform orthography) in five strikes or less including the dinger sign?

Wow, this is really exciting.  Archaeologists uncovered a newly discovered Babylonian town.  On one hand it’s not surprising–there are many more to be found including, astoundingly, the capitol city of the Akkadian empire, Agade.

However, here comes the sad part:

He added that his team has come across several cuneiform tablets but “there is no one to read the ancient writing because Iraqi experts with the knowledge to decipher Mesopotamian script have fled the country.”

This is a terrible shame, however, I’ll volunteer to read some of them!  Let’s pray that the site doesn’t get destroyed by looters.

I was looking through ABZU this evening and I cam across a 2002 M.A. thesis completed at Texas A&M entitled “Ships and Shipbuilding in Ancient Mesopotamia (ca. 300-200 B.C.).”  This interested me not only because of the topic, but also because I did my undergraduate work at Texas A&M.   While I was there I took classes from Shelley Wachsmann and George F. Bass who were on the thesis committee.

The author of the thesis is Tommi Tapani Mäkelä and she included unpublished cuneiform shipbuilding texts given to her by Simo Parpola.  Here is the link to download a free copy of the thesis.  And here is a summary:

Mesopotamian cuneiform texts speak of a complex and well-organized trade on the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers where boats of wooden construction were employed. From the evidence it appears that Meluhhan and Dilmunite traders had an important role in the Arabian Gulf trade especially during the second half of the third millennium B.C. It is possible that the boat designs and techniques used in the third millennium are no longer present in traditional boats of present-day Iraq and those of oceangoing vessels sailing in the modern day Arabian Gulf. Based on iconographic evidence, it seems that Mesopotamian riverboats had flat bottoms and high curving ends, with a stem often ending in an elaborate design. Cultic vessels imitated the shape of a papyriform vessel. The riverine vessels in practical use described in texts, such as AO 5673, most probably had square ends. The use of bitumen might have allowed the Mesopotamian shipwrights to build hulls in which watertightness (before the application of a bitumen layer) was not the primary concern. Mesopotamian textual evidence from the third millennium B.C. does not provide conclusive evidence as to which edge-joining methods, if any, were used. Traditional modern-day Mesopotamian riverboats, some of which seem to be clear descendants of the ancient vessels depicted in seals and boat models, do not employ edge-joining methods. Instead, they are built according to a technique where the planking is nailed to the frames. In spite of textual references to “backbone” and “ribs,” it is unclear whether Mesopotamian ships had an elaborate internal framework connected toa keel. It is probable that these vessels had a keel plank or a flat floor similar to certain traditional modern-day riverboats. Structural elements evident from the texts are beams and longitudinal strengthening timbers or stringers. It also seems clear that there were floor timbers and probably frames giving extra support to the hull.

I just received the results from my bids for volumes of John Brinkman’s cuneiform collection.  I placed bids for seven volumes and ended up winning only three.  I gave higher than suggested prices for almost all of my bids–some prices were several increments higher–however there must have been some heavy bidding out there.

I was especially surprised that I did not win Marek Stepien’s Animal Husbandry in the Ancient Near East, 1996; I didn’t think that would have many bidders but I guessed wrong.

However, I did win Thompson’s The Sumerian Language for about $250 less than the volumes that John Halloran was holding hostage on his website a little while ago.  Furthermore, I won Thompson’s Zauberdiagnose und schwarze Magie in Mesopotamien and S.A. Picchioni’s Il poemetto di Adapa.  Not bad, but I’m going to have to do better on the next round.

Dominique Charpin outlines a new project dubbed ARCHIBAB which will compile an electronic corpus of Old Babylonian (2000-1600 BCE) texts.  Along with this database (which will include indexes, bibliography, and transcriptions), monographs and a print edition will flow out of the research as well.  I really like the Neo-Assyrian period, but I am very excited about this project–the older stuff really gets me going.  For a 13-page pdf summary of the project, check out Digital Orient.