Incubator escapee wiki

Cuneiform

Article Discussion

Template:Short description {{#invoke:other uses|otheruses}} Template:Cleanup lang Template:Use mdy dates Template:Infobox writing system Template:Contains special characters

CuneiformTemplate:NoteTag is a logo-syllabic writing system that was used to write several languages of the Ancient Near East.<ref>Template:Cite thesis</ref> The script was in active use from the early Bronze Age until the beginning of the Common Era.<ref name="auto1">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Cuneiform scripts are marked by and named for the characteristic wedge-shaped impressions (Latin: Template:Wikt-lang) which form their signs. Cuneiform is the earliest known writing system<ref name=":12">Template:Cite book</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> and was originally developed to write the Sumerian language of southern Mesopotamia (modern Iraq).

Over the course of its history, cuneiform was adapted to write a number of languages in addition to Sumerian. Akkadian texts are attested from the 24th century BC onward and make up the bulk of the cuneiform record.<ref name="auto1" /><ref>Template:Cite book</ref> Akkadian cuneiform was itself adapted to write the Hittite language in the early second millennium BC.<ref name="auto1" /><ref>Template:Cite book</ref> The other languages with significant cuneiform corpora are Eblaite, Elamite, Hurrian, Luwian, and Urartian. The Old Persian and Ugaritic alphabets feature cuneiform-style signs; however, they are unrelated to the cuneiform logo-syllabary proper. The latest known cuneiform tablet, an astronomical almanac from Uruk, dates to AD 79/80.<ref name="Hunger2014" />

Cuneiform was rediscovered in modern times in the early 17th century with the publication of the trilingual Achaemenid royal inscriptions at Persepolis; these were first deciphered in the early 19th century. The modern study of cuneiform belongs to the ambiguously named<ref>Template:Cite book
Template:Cite book
Template:Cite book
Template:Cite book</ref> field of Assyriology, as the earliest excavations of cuneiform libraries – in the mid-19th century – were in the area of ancient Assyria.<ref name=":12" /> An estimated half a million tablets are held in museums across the world, but comparatively few of these are published. The largest collections belong to the British Museum (Template:Abbr 130,000 tablets), the Vorderasiatisches Museum Berlin, the Louvre, the Istanbul Archaeology Museums, the National Museum of Iraq, the Yale Babylonian Collection (Template:Abbr 40,000 tablets), and the Penn Museum.<ref name="BAR"/><ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

HistoryEdit

Template:See also Template:Multiple image

File:Cuneiform evolution from archaic script.jpg
A table illustrating the progressive simplification of cuneiform signs from archaic (vertical) script to Assyrian

Writing began after pottery was invented, during the Neolithic, when clay tokens were used to record specific amounts of livestock or commodities.<ref name="ANE25"/> In recent years a contrarian view has arisen on the tokens being the precursor of writing.<ref>[1] Bennison-Chapman, Lucy E. "Reconsidering 'Tokens': The Neolithic Origins of Accounting or Multifunctional, Utilitarian Tools?." Cambridge Archaeological Journal 29.2 (2019): 233–259.</ref> These tokens were initially impressed on the surface of round clay envelopes (clay bullae) and then stored in them.<ref name="ANE25"/> The tokens were then progressively replaced by flat tablets, on which signs were recorded with a stylus. Writing is first recorded in Uruk, at the end of the 4th millennium BC, and soon after in various parts of the Near-East.<ref name="ANE25">"Beginning in the pottery-phase of the Neolithic, clay tokens are widely attested as a system of counting and identifying specific amounts of specified livestock or commodities. The tokens, enclosed in clay envelopes after being impressed on their rounded surface, were gradually replaced by impressions on flat or plano-convex tablets, and these in turn by more or less conventionalized pictures of the tokens incised on the clay with a reed stylus. The transition to writing was complete Template:Cite book</ref>

An ancient Mesopotamian poem gives the first known story of the invention of writing:

<templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />

Because the messenger's mouth was heavy and he couldn't repeat [the message], the Lord of Kulaba patted some clay and put words on it, like a tablet. Until then, there had been no putting words on clay.{{#if:|{{#if:|}}

— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries

}}

{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}

The cuneiform writing system was in use for more than three millennia, through several stages of development, from the 31st century BC down to the second century AD.<ref>Adkins 2003, p. 47.</ref> The latest firmly dateable tablet, from Uruk, dates to 79/80 AD.<ref name="Hunger2014" >Hunger, Hermann, and Teije de Jong, "Almanac W22340a from Uruk: The latest datable cuneiform tablet.", Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 104.2, pp. 182–194, 2014</ref> Ultimately, it was completely replaced by alphabetic writing, in the general sense, in the course of the Roman era, and there are no cuneiform systems in current use. It had to be deciphered as a completely unknown writing system in 19th-century Assyriology. It was successfully deciphered by 1857.

The cuneiform script changed considerably over more than 2,000 years. The image below shows the development of the sign SAĜ "head" (Borger nr. 184, U+12295 Template:Cuneiform).

Evolution of the cuneiform sign SAG "head", 3000–1000 BC

Stages:

  1. shows the pictogram as it was drawn around 3000 BC
  2. shows the rotated pictogram as written from Template:Circa–2600 BC
  3. shows the abstracted glyph in archaic monumental inscriptions, from Template:Circa
  4. is the sign as written in clay, contemporary with stage 3
  5. represents the late 3rd millennium BC
  6. represents Old Assyrian ductus of the early 2nd millennium BC, as adopted into Hittite
  7. is the simplified sign as written by Assyrian scribes in the early 1st millennium BC and until the script's extinction.

Sumerian pictographs (c. 3300 BC)Edit

Template:See also

File:P1150884 Louvre Uruk III tablette écriture précunéiforme AO19936 rwk.jpg
A tablet with proto-cuneiform pictographic characters, end of 4th millennium BC, Uruk III. This is thought to be a list of slaves' names, the hand in the upper left corner representing the owner.<ref name=":12" />

The cuneiform script was developed from pictographic proto-writing in the late 4th millennium BC, stemming from the near eastern token system used for accounting. The meaning and usage of these tokens is still a matter of debate.<ref>Overmann, Karenleigh A. The Material Origin of Numbers: Insights from the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Piscataway, New Jersey, US: Gorgias Press, 2019</ref> These tokens were in use from the 9th millennium BC and remained in occasional use into the late 2nd millennium BC.<ref>Denise Schmandt-Besserat, "An Archaic Recording System and the Origin of Writing." Syro Mesopotamian Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–32, 1977</ref> Early tokens with pictographic shapes of animals, associated with numbers, were discovered in Tell Brak, and date to the mid-4th millennium BC.<ref name="auto3">Template:Cite book</ref> It has been suggested that the token shapes were the original basis for some of the Sumerian pictographs.<ref>Denise Schmandt-Besserat, An Archaic Recording System in the Uruk-Jemdet Nasr Period, American Journal of Archaeology, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 19–48, (Jan. 1979)</ref>

Mesopotamia's "proto-literate" period spans roughly the 35th to 32nd centuries BC. The first unequivocal written documents start with the Uruk IV period, from c. 3300 BC, followed by tablets found in Uruk III, Jemdet Nasr, Early Dynastic I Ur and Susa (in Proto-Elamite) dating to the period until c. 2900 BC.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

Originally, pictographs were either drawn on clay tablets in vertical columns with a sharpened reed stylus or incised in stone. This early style lacked the characteristic wedge shape of the strokes.<ref name="auto3" /> Most Proto-Cuneiform records from this period were of an accounting nature.<ref>[2] Robert K. Englund, "Proto-Cuneiform Account-Books and Journals", in Michael Hudson and Cornelia Wunsch, eds., Creating Economic Order: Record-keeping, Standardization and the Development of Accounting in the Ancient Near East (CDL Press: Bethesda, Maryland, USA) pp. 23–46, 2004</ref> The proto-cuneiform sign list has grown, as new texts are discovered, and shrunk, as variant signs are combined. The current sign list is 705 elements long with 42 being numeric and four considered pre-proto-Elamite.<ref>Green, M. and H. J. Nissen (1987). Zeichenliste der Archaischen Texte aus Uruk. ATU 2. Berlin</ref><ref>Englund, R. K. (1998). "Texts from the Late Uruk Period". In: Mesopotamien: Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdy- nastische Zeit (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/1). Ed. by P. Attinger and M. Wäfler. Fribourg, Switzerland / Göttingen, 15–217</ref><ref>[3] Born, L., & Kelley, K. (2021). A Quantitative Analysis of Proto-Cuneiform Sign Use in Archaic Tribute. Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin, 006</ref>

Certain signs to indicate names of gods, countries, cities, vessels, birds, trees, etc., are known as determinatives and were the Sumerian signs of the terms in question, added as a guide for the reader. Proper names continued to be usually written in purely "logographic" fashion.

Archaic cuneiform (c. 2900 BC)Edit

Template:Further

File:Cuneiform pictographic signs (vertical).jpg
Early pictographic signs in archaic cuneiform, used vertically before Template:Cx.<ref name="auto4">Template:Cite book</ref>

The first inscribed tablets were purely pictographic, which makes it technically difficult to know in which language they were written. Different languages have been proposed, though usually Sumerian is assumed.<ref>Monaco, Salvatore F. "PROTO-CUNEIFORM AND SUMERIANS." Rivista Degli Studi Orientali, vol. 87, no. 1/4, 2014, pp. 277–282</ref> Later tablets dating after Template:Cx start to use syllabic elements, which clearly show a language structure typical of the agglutinative Sumerian language.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> The first tablets using syllabic elements date to the Early Dynastic I–II periods Template:Cx, and they are agreed to be clearly in Sumerian.<ref name="CW11">Template:Cite book</ref>

This is the time when some pictographic element started to be used for their phonetic value, permitting the recording of abstract ideas or personal names.<ref name="CW11"/> Many pictographs began to lose their original function, and a given sign could have various meanings depending on context. The sign inventory was reduced from some 1,500 signs to some 600 signs, and writing became increasingly phonological. Determinative signs were re-introduced to avoid ambiguity. Cuneiform writing proper thus arises from the more primitive system of pictographs at about that time, labeled the Early Bronze Age II epoch by historians.

The earliest known Sumerian king, whose name appears on contemporary cuneiform tablets, is Enmebaragesi of Kish (fl. Template:Cx).<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> Surviving records became less fragmentary for following reigns and by the arrival of Sargon, it had become standard practice for each major city-state to date documents by year-names, commemorating the exploits of its king.

  • Precuneiform tablet-AO 29561-IMG 9151-gradient.jpg

    A proto-cuneiform tablet, end of the 4th millennium BC

  • Archaic cuneiform tablet E.A. Hoffman.jpg

    A proto-cuneiform tablet, Jemdet Nasr period, Template:Cx

  • Cuneiform tablet- administrative account of barley distribution with cylinder seal impression of a male figure, hunting dogs, and boars MET DT847.jpg

    CitationClass=web }}</ref>

  • Blau Monument British Museum 86260.jpg

    The Blau Monuments combine proto-cuneiform characters and illustrations, 3100–2700 BC. British Museum.

  • Tablet V of the Epic of Gilgamesh.jpg

    The newly discovered Tablet V of the Epic of Gilgamesh. It dates back to the old Babylonian period, 2003–1595 BC, and is currently housed in the Sulaymaniyah Museum, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.

Cuneiforms and hieroglyphsEdit

Geoffrey Sampson stated that Egyptian hieroglyphs "came into existence a little after Sumerian script, and, probably, [were] invented under the influence of the latter",<ref name=":12" /> and that it is "probable that the general idea of expressing words of a language in writing was brought to Egypt from Sumerian Mesopotamia".<ref name=":12" /><ref>Iorwerth Eiddon Stephen Edwards, et al., The Cambridge Ancient History (3rd ed. 1970) pp. 43–44.</ref> There are many instances of Egypt-Mesopotamia relations at the time of the invention of writing, and standard reconstructions of the development of writing generally place the development of the Sumerian proto-cuneiform script before the development of Egyptian hieroglyphs, with the suggestion the former influenced the latter.<ref name="The Times Atlas of World History">Template:Cite book</ref> Given the lack of direct evidence for the transfer of writing, "no definitive determination has been made as to the origin of hieroglyphics in ancient Egypt".<ref name=":12" />

Early Dynastic cuneiform (c. 2500 BC)Edit

Template:Further

File:Sumerian 26th c Adab.jpg
A Sumerian inscription in monumental archaic style, c. 26th century BC

Early cuneiform inscriptions were made by using a pointed stylus, sometimes called "linear cuneiform".<ref name=":12" /> Many of the early dynastic inscriptions, particularly those made on stone, continued to use the linear style as late as c. 2000 BC.<ref name=":12" />

In the mid-3rd millennium BC, a new wedge-tipped stylus was introduced which was pushed into the clay, producing wedge-shaped cuneiform. This development made writing quicker and easier, especially when writing on soft clay. By adjusting the relative position of the stylus to the tablet, the writer could use a single tool to make a variety of impressions. For numbers, a round-tipped stylus was initially used, until the wedge-tipped stylus was generalized. The direction of writing was from top-to-bottom and right-to-left. Cuneiform clay tablets could be fired in kilns to bake them hard, and so provide a permanent record, or they could be left moist and recycled if permanence was not needed. Most surviving cuneiform tablets were of the latter kind, accidentally preserved when fires destroyed the tablets' storage place and effectively baked them, unintentionally ensuring their longevity.<ref name=":12" />

Template:Multiple image The script was widely used on commemorative stelae and carved reliefs to record the achievements of the ruler in whose honor the monument had been erected. The spoken language included many homophones and near-homophones, and in the beginning, similar-sounding words such as "life" [til] and "arrow" [ti] were written with the same symbol (𒋾). As a result, many signs gradually changed from being logograms to also functioning as syllabograms, so that for example, the sign for the word "arrow" would become the sign for the sound "ti".<ref name="auto">Template:Cite book</ref>

Syllabograms were used in Sumerian writing especially to express grammatical elements, and their use was further developed and modified in the writing of the Akkadian language to express its sounds.<ref name="auto"/> Often, words that had a similar meaning but very different sounds were written with the same symbol. For instance the Sumerian words 'tooth' [zu], 'mouth' [ka] and 'voice' [gu] were all written with the original pictogram for mouth (𒅗).

File:Sales contract Shuruppak Louvre AO3766.jpg
A contract for the sale of a field and a house, in the wedge-shaped cuneiform adapted for clay tablets, Shuruppak, c. 2600 BC

Words that sounded alike would have different signs; for instance, the syllable [ɡu] had fourteen different symbols.

The inventory of signs was expanded by the combination of existing signs into compound signs. They could either derive their meaning from a combination of the meanings of both original signs (e.g. 𒅗 ka 'mouth' and 𒀀 a 'water' were combined to form the sign for 𒅘 nag̃ 'drink', formally KA×A; cf. Chinese compound ideographs), or one sign could suggest the meaning and the other the pronunciation (e.g. 𒅗 ka 'mouth' was combined with the sign 𒉣 nun 'prince' to express the word 𒅻 nundum, meaning 'lip', formally KA×NUN; cf. Chinese phono-semantic compounds).<ref name="auto" />

Another way of expressing words that had no sign of their own was by so-called 'Diri compounds' – sign sequences that have, in combination, a reading different from the sum of the individual constituent signs (for example, the compound IGI.A (𒅆𒀀) – "eye" + "water" – has the reading imhur, meaning "foam").<ref name="auto" />

Several symbols had too many meanings to permit clarity. Therefore, symbols were put together to indicate both the sound and the meaning of a symbol. For instance, the word 'raven' (UGA) had the same logogram (𒉀) as the word 'soap' (NAGA), the name of a city (EREŠ), and the patron goddess of Eresh (NISABA). To disambiguate and identify the word more precisely, two phonetic complements were added – Ú (𒌑) for the syllable [u] in front of the symbol and GA (𒂵) for the syllable [ga] behind. Finally, the symbol for 'bird', MUŠEN (𒄷) was added to ensure proper interpretation. As a result, the whole word could be spelt 𒌑𒉀𒂵𒄷, i.e. Ú.NAGA.GAmušen (among the many variant spellings that the word could have).

For unknown reasons, cuneiform pictographs, until then written vertically, were rotated 90° counterclockwise, in effect putting them on their side. This change first occurred slightly before the Akkadian period, at the time of the Uruk ruler Lugalzagesi (r. c. 2294–2270 BC).<ref name="auto4" /><ref name=":12" /> The vertical style remained for monumental purposes on stone stelas until the middle of the 2nd millennium.<ref name=":12" />

Written Sumerian was used as a scribal language until the 1st century AD. The spoken language died out between c. 2100 and 1700 BC.

Template:Anchor

Sumero-Akkadian cuneiformEdit

Template:Further Template:Multiple image The archaic cuneiform script was adopted by the Akkadian Empire from the 23rd century BC (short chronology). The Akkadian language being East Semitic, its structure was completely different from Sumerian.<ref name="auto3" /> The Akkadians found a practical solution in writing their language phonetically, using the corresponding Sumerian phonetic signs.<ref name="auto3" /> Still, many of the Sumerian characters were retained for their logographic value as well: for example the character for "sheep" was retained, but was now pronounced Template:Tlit, rather than the Sumerian Template:Tlit.<ref name="auto3" /> Such retained individual signs or, sometimes, entire sign combinations with logographic value are known as Sumerograms, a type of heterogram.

The East Semitic languages employed equivalents for many signs that were distorted or abbreviated to represent new values because the syllabic nature of the script as refined by the Sumerians was not intuitive to Semitic speakers.<ref name="auto3" /> From the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (20th century BC), the script evolved to accommodate the various dialects of Akkadian: Old Akkadian, Babylonian and Assyrian.<ref name="auto3" /> At this stage, the former pictograms were reduced to a high level of abstraction, and were composed of only five basic wedge shapes: horizontal, vertical, two diagonals and the Winkelhaken impressed vertically by the tip of the stylus. The signs exemplary of these basic wedges are:

Template:Multiple image Except for the Winkelhaken, which has no tail, the length of the wedges' tails could vary as required for sign composition.

Signs tilted by about 45 degrees are called tenû in Akkadian, thus DIŠ is a vertical wedge and DIŠ tenû a diagonal one. If a sign is modified with additional wedges, this is called gunû or "gunification"; if signs are cross-hatched with additional Winkelhaken, they are called šešig; if signs are modified by the removal of a wedge or wedges, they are called nutillu.

"Typical" signs have about five to ten wedges, while complex ligatures can consist of twenty or more (although it is not always clear if a ligature should be considered a single sign or two collated, but distinct signs); the ligature KAxGUR7 consists of 31 strokes.

Most later adaptations of Sumerian cuneiform preserved at least some aspects of the Sumerian script. Written Akkadian included phonetic symbols from the Sumerian syllabary, together with logograms that were read as whole words. Many signs in the script were polyvalent, having both a syllabic and logographic meaning. The complexity of the system bears a resemblance to Old Japanese, written in a Chinese-derived script, where some of these Sinograms were used as logograms and others as phonetic characters.

This "mixed" method of writing continued through the end of the Babylonian and Assyrian empires, although there were periods when "purism" was in fashion and there was a more marked tendency to spell out the words laboriously, in preference to using signs with a phonetic complement.Template:Clarify Yet even in those days, the Babylonian syllabary remained a mixture of logographic and phonemic writing.

Elamite cuneiformEdit

{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}} Elamite cuneiform was a simplified form of the Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform, used to write the Elamite language in the area that corresponds to modern Iran between the 3rd millennium and 4th century BC. Elamite cuneiform at times competed with other local scripts, Proto-Elamite and Linear Elamite. The earliest known Elamite cuneiform text is a treaty between Akkadians and the Elamites that dates back to 2200 BC.<ref name="MK1">Template:Cite book</ref> Some believe it might have been in use since 2500 BC.<ref name=daniels>Peter Daniels and William Bright (1996)</ref> The tablets are poorly preserved, so only limited parts can be read, but it is understood that the text is a treaty between the Akkad king Nāramsîn and Elamite ruler Hita, as indicated by frequent references like "Nāramsîn's friend is my friend, Nāramsîn's enemy is my enemy".<ref name="MK1"/>

The most famous Elamite scriptures and the ones that ultimately led to its decipherment are the ones found in the trilingual Behistun inscriptions, commissioned by the Achaemenid kings.<ref name=reiner>Reiner, Erica (2005)</ref> The inscriptions, similar to that of the Rosetta Stone's, were written in three different writing systems. The first was Old Persian, which was deciphered in 1802 by Georg Friedrich Grotefend. The second, Babylonian cuneiform, was deciphered shortly after the Old Persian text. Because Elamite is unlike its neighboring Semitic languages, the script's decipherment was delayed until the 1840s.<ref name="MK1" />

Elamite cuneiform appears to have used far fewer signs than its Akkadian prototype and initially relied primarily on syllabograms, but logograms became more common in later texts. Many signs soon acquired highly distinctive local shape variants that are often difficult to recognise as related to their Akkadian prototypes.<ref name=":2">Template:Cite journal</ref>

Hittite cuneiformEdit

Hittite cuneiform is an adaptation of Old Assyrian cuneiform to write the Hittite language that emerged c. 1800 BC and was used between the 17th–13th centuries BC. More or less the same system was used by the scribes of the Hittite Empire for two other Anatolian languages, namely Luwian (alongside the native Anatolian hieroglyphics) and Palaic, as well as for the isolate Hattic language. When the cuneiform script was adapted to writing Hittite, a layer of Akkadian logographic spellings, also known as Akkadograms, was added to the script, in addition to the Sumerian logograms, or Sumerograms, which were already inherent in the Akkadian writing system and which Hittite also kept. Thus the pronunciations of many Hittite words which were conventionally written by logograms are now unknown.

Hurrian and Urartian cuneiformEdit

The Hurrian language (attested 2300–1000 BC) and Urartian language (attested in the 9th–6th centuries BC) were also written in adapted versions of Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform. Although the two languages are related, their writing systems seem to have been developed separately. For Hurrian, there were even different systems in different polities (in Mitanni, in Mari, in the Hittite Empire). The Hurrian orthographies were generally characterised by more extensive use of syllabograms and more limited use of logograms than Akkadian. Urartian, in comparison, retained a more significant role for logograms.<ref name=":2" />

Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian cuneiformEdit

Template:Multiple image In the Iron Age (c. 10th–6th centuries BC), Assyrian cuneiform was further simplified. The characters remained the same as those of Sumero-Akkadian cuneiforms, but the graphic design of each character relied more heavily on wedges and square angles, making them significantly more abstract:

Babylonian cuneiform was simplified along similar lines during that period, albeit to a lesser extent and in a slightly different way. From the 6th century, the Akkadian language was marginalized by Aramaic, written in the Aramaic alphabet, but Akkadian cuneiform remained in use in the literary tradition well into the times of the Parthian Empire (250 BCTemplate:Snd226 AD).<ref>Template:Cite encyclopedia</ref> The last known cuneiform inscription, an astronomical text, was written in 75 AD.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> The ability to read cuneiform may have persisted until the third century AD.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":12" />

Derived scriptsEdit

Old Persian cuneiform (5th century BC)Edit

{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}} Template:Multiple image The complexity of cuneiforms prompted the development of a number of simplified versions of the script. Old Persian cuneiform was developed with an independent and unrelated set of simple cuneiform characters, by Darius the Great in the 5th century BC. Most scholars consider this writing system to be an independent invention because it has no obvious connections with other writing systems at the time, such as Elamite, Akkadian, Hurrian, and Hittite cuneiforms.<ref>Windfuhr, G. L.: "Notes on the old Persian signs", page 1. Indo-Iranian Journal, 1970.</ref>

It formed a semi-alphabetic syllabary, using far fewer wedge strokes than Assyrian used, together with a handful of logograms for frequently occurring words like "god" (Template:Script), "king" (Template:Script) or "country" (Template:Script). This almost purely alphabetical form of the cuneiform script (36 phonetic characters and 8 logograms), was specially designed and used by the early Achaemenid rulers from the 6th century BC down to the 4th century BC.<ref name=schmitt>Template:Citation</ref>

Because of its simplicity and logical structure, the Old Persian cuneiform script was the first to be deciphered by modern scholars, starting with the accomplishments of Georg Friedrich Grotefend in 1802. Various ancient bilingual or trilingual inscriptions then permitted to decipher the other, much more complicated and more ancient scripts, as far back as to the 3rd millennium Sumerian script.

UgariticEdit

Ugaritic was written using the Ugaritic alphabet, a standard Semitic style alphabet (an abjad) written using the cuneiform method.

ArchaeologyEdit

Between half a million<ref name=BAR/> and two million cuneiform tablets are estimated to have been excavated in modern times, of which only approximately 30,000<ref name=DigHamm/>–100,000 have been read or published. The British Museum holds the largest collection (approx. 130,000 tablets), followed by the Vorderasiatisches Museum Berlin, the Louvre, the Istanbul Archaeology Museums, the National Museum of Iraq, the Yale Babylonian Collection (approx. 40,000), and Penn Museum. Most of these have "lain in these collections for a century without being translated, studied or published",<ref name=BAR>Template:Citation</ref> as there are only a few hundred qualified cuneiformists in the world.<ref name=DigHamm>Template:Citation</ref>

DeciphermentEdit

{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}} Template:Multiple image

The decipherment of cuneiform began with the decipherment of Old Persian cuneiform in 1836.

The first cuneiform inscriptions published in modern times were copied from the Achaemenid royal inscriptions in the ruins of Persepolis, with the first complete and accurate copy being published in 1778 by Carsten Niebuhr. Niebuhr's publication was used by Grotefend in 1802 to make the first breakthrough – the realization that Niebuhr had published three different languages side by side and the recognition of the word "king".<ref>[4]Sayce, Rev. A. H., "The Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions", Second Edition-revised, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, Brighton, New York, 1908 (Reprint – Template:ISBN)</ref>

The rediscovery and publication of cuneiform took place in the early 17th century, and early conclusions were drawn such as the writing direction and that the Achaemenid royal inscriptions are three different languages, with two different scripts. In 1620, García de Silva Figueroa dated the inscriptions of Persepolis to the Achaemenid period, identified them as Old Persian, and concluded that the ruins were the ancient residence of Persepolis. In 1621, Pietro Della Valle specified the direction of writing from left to right.

In 1762, Jean-Jacques Barthélemy found that an inscription in Persepolis resembled that found on a brick in Babylon. Carsten Niebuhr made the first copies of the inscriptions of Persepolis in 1778 and settled on three different types of writing, which subsequently became known as Niebuhr I, II and III. He was the first to discover the sign for a word division in one of the scriptures. Oluf Gerhard Tychsen was the first to list 24 phonetic or alphabetic values for the characters in 1798.

Actual decipherment did not take place until the beginning of the 19th century, initiated by Georg Friedrich Grotefend in his study of Old Persian cuneiform. He was followed by Antoine-Jean Saint-Martin in 1822 and Rasmus Christian Rask in 1823, who was the first to decipher the name Achaemenides and the consonants m and n. Eugène Burnouf identified the names of various satrapies and the consonants k and z in 1833–1835. Christian Lassen contributed significantly to the grammatical understanding of the Old Persian language and the use of vowels. The decipherers used the short trilingual inscriptions from Persepolis and the inscriptions from Ganjnāme for their work.

  • Niebuhr inscription 1 with word for King.jpg

    CitationClass=web }}</ref>

  • Niebuhr inscription 2 with word for King.jpg

    CitationClass=web }}</ref>

In a final step, the decipherment of the trilingual Behistun Inscription was completed by Henry Rawlinson and Edward Hincks. Edward Hincks discovered that Old Persian is partly a syllabary.

In 2023 it was shown that automatic high-quality translation of cuneiform languages like Akkadian can be achieved using natural language processing methods with convolutional neural networks.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>

TransliterationEdit

File:Cyrus cylinder extract.svg
An extract from the Cyrus Cylinder (lines 15–21), giving the genealogy of Cyrus the Great and an account of his capture of Babylon in 539 BC
File:Cuneiform sign EN, for Lord or Master (evolution).jpg
CitationClass=web }}</ref>

Template:Multiple image Cuneiform has a specific format for transliteration. Because of the script's polyvalence, transliteration requires certain choices of the transliterating scholar, who must decide in the case of each sign which of its several possible meanings is intended in the original document. For example, the sign dingir (𒀭) in a Hittite text may represent either the Hittite syllable an or may be part of an Akkadian phrase, representing the syllable il, it may be a Sumerogram, representing the original Sumerian meaning, 'god' or the determinative for a deity. In transliteration, a different rendition of the same glyph is chosen depending on its role in the present context.<ref>Kudrinski, Maksim. "Hittite heterographic writings and their interpretation" {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}, vol. 121, no. 1, pp. 159–176, 2016</ref>

Therefore, a text containing DINGIR (𒀭) and A (𒀀) in succession could be construed to represent the Akkadian words "ana", "ila", god + "a" (the accusative case ending), god + water, or a divine name "A" or Water. Someone transcribing the signs would make the decision how the signs should be read and assemble the signs as "ana", "ila", "Ila" ("god"+accusative case), etc. A transliteration of these signs, would separate the signs with dashes "il-a", "an-a", "DINGIR-a" or "Da". This is still easier to read than the original cuneiform, but now the reader is able to trace the sounds back to the original signs and determine if the correct decision was made on how to read them. A transliterated document thus presents the reading preferred by the transliterating scholar as well as an opportunity to reconstruct the original text.

There are differing conventions for transliterating different languages written with Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform. The following conventions see wide use across the different fields:

  • To disambiguate between homophones, i.e. between signs pronounced identically, the letters that express the pronunciation of a sign are supplemented with subscript numbers. For example, u1 stands for the glyph 𒌋, u2 stands for 𒌑, and u3 stands for 𒅇, all thought to have been pronounced /u/. No. 1 is usually treated as the default interpretation and not indicated explicitly, so u is equivalent to u1. For the numbers 2 and 3, accent diacritics are often used as well: an acute accent stands for no. 2 and a grave accent for no. 3. Thus, u is equivalent to u1 (𒌋), ú is equivalent to u2 (𒌑) and ù to u3 (𒅇). The sequence of numbering is conventional but essentially arbitrary and a consequence of the history of decipherment.
  • As shown above, signs as such are represented in capital letters. The specific reading selected in the transliteration is represented in small letters. Thus, capital letters can be used to indicate a so-called Diri compound, in which a sequence of signs does not stand for a combination of their usual readings, as in the spelling 𒅆𒀀 IGI.A for the word imhur 'foam' given above. Capital letters may also be used to indicate a Sumerogram, for example, KÙ.BABBAR 𒆬𒌓 – Sumerian for "silver" – being used with the intended Akkadian reading kaspum, "silver", or simply a sign sequence of whose reading the editor is uncertain. Naturally, the "real" reading, if it is clear, will be presented in small letters in the transliteration: IGI.A will be rendered as imhur4. An Akkadogram in Hittite is indicated by capital letters as well, but they are italicised: e.g. ME-E transcribes the sign sequence 𒈨𒂊 when the intended reading is Hittite wātar "water", based on Akkadian mê "water (accusative-genitive case)".
  • Another convention is that determinatives are written in superscript: thus, the sequence 𒀕𒆠 (the name of the city Uruk) is transliterated as unugki to show that the second sign, KI, meaning "earth", isn't intended to be pronounced, but only specifies the type of meaning the former sign has. In this case, that it is a place name. A few common determinatives are transliterated with abbreviations: for example, d represents the sign 𒀭 DINGIR when it serves as an indicator that one or more following signs form the name of a deity, as seen in the transliteration of 𒀭𒂗𒆤 as den-líl "Enlil". 𒁹 DIŠ 'one' and 𒊩 MUNUS 'woman' as prefixed determinatives for male and female personal names, uncommon in Sumerian, but subsequently used for some other languages, are often rendered with the abbreviations m and f for "masculine" and "feminine".
  • In Sumerian transliteration, a multiplication sign ('×') is used to indicate typographic ligatures. For example, the sign 𒅻 NUNDUM, which stands for the word nundum "lip", can also be designated as KA×NUN, which indicates that it is a compound of the signs 𒅗 KA "mouth" and 𒉣 NUN "prince".

Since the Sumerian language has only been widely known and studied by scholars for approximately a century, changes in the accepted reading of Sumerian names have occurred from time to time. Thus the name of a king of Ur, 𒌨𒀭𒇉, read Ur-Bau at one time,Template:Citation needed was later read as Ur-Engur, and is now read as Ur-Nammu or Ur-Namma; for Lugal-zage-si (𒈗𒍠𒄀𒋛), a king of Uruk, some scholars continued to read Ungal-zaggisi; and so forth. With some names of the older period, there was often uncertainty whether their bearers were Sumerians or Semites. If the former, then their names could be assumed to be read as Sumerian. If they were Semites, the signs for writing their names were probably to be read according to their Semitic equivalents. Though occasionally, Semites might be encountered bearing genuine Sumerian names.

There was doubt whether the signs composing a Semite's name represented a phonetic reading or a logographic compound. Thus, e.g. when inscriptions of a Semitic ruler of Kish, whose name was written 𒌷𒈬𒍑, Uru-mu-ush, were first deciphered, that name was first taken to be logographic because uru mu-ush could be read as "he founded a city" in Sumerian, and scholars accordingly retranslated it back to the original Semitic as Alu-usharshid. It was later recognized that the URU sign (𒌷) can also be read as rí and that the name is that of the Akkadian king Rimush.

Sign inventoriesEdit

Template:See also

File:Cuneiform writing Ur.jpg
Cuneiform writing in Ur, southern Iraq

The Sumerian cuneiform script had on the order of 1,000 distinct signs, or about 1,500 if variants are included. This number was reduced to about 600 by the 24th century BC and the beginning of Akkadian records. Not all Sumerian signs are used in Akkadian texts, and not all Akkadian signs are used in Hittite.

A. Falkenstein (1936) lists 939 signs used in the earliest period, late Uruk, 34th to 31st centuries. (See #Bibliography for the works mentioned in this paragraph.) With an emphasis on Sumerian forms, Deimel (1922) lists 870 signs used in the Early Dynastic II period (28th century, Liste der archaischen Keilschriftzeichen or "LAK") and for the Early Dynastic IIIa period (26th century, Šumerisches Lexikon or "ŠL").

Rosengarten (1967) lists 468 signs used in Sumerian (pre-Sargonian) Lagash. Mittermayer and Attinger (2006, Altbabylonische Zeichenliste der Sumerisch-Literarischen Texte or "aBZL") list 480 Sumerian forms, written in Isin-Larsa and Old Babylonian times. Regarding Akkadian forms, the standard handbook for many years was Borger (1981, Assyrisch-Babylonische Zeichenliste or "ABZ") with 598 signs used in Assyrian/Babylonian writing, recently superseded by Borger (2004, Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon or "MesZL") with an expansion to 907 signs, an extension of their Sumerian readings and a new numbering scheme. The introduction of a cursive script in the Old Babylonian period coincided with the expansion of literacy beyond institutional settings, leading to greater variation in writing styles. This shift may have influenced the increasing number of documented signs, as reflected in later sign lists. As writing adapted to new contexts—whether for administrative, literary, or private use—the need for expanded and specialized sign inventories became more apparent.<ref>Template:Citation</ref>

Signs used in Hittite cuneiform are listed by Forrer (1922), Friedrich (1960) and Rüster and Neu (1989, Hethitisches Zeichenlexikon or "HZL"). The HZL lists a total of 375 signs, many with variants (for example, 12 variants are given for number 123 EGIR).

SyllabaryEdit

The tables below contain the transliteration schemes of Sumero-Akkadian syllabograms.

NumeralsEdit

{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}} The Sumerians used a base-60 numerical system. A number, such as "70", would be represented with the digit for "60" (𒁹) and the digit for "10" (𒌋): 𒁹𒌋. It's important to mention that the number for "60" is the same as the number for "1";<ref name=":12" /> the reason this number isn't read as "11" is because of the order of the numbers: 60 then 10, not 10 then 60.

UsageEdit

Template:Multiple image

Cuneiform script was used in many ways in ancient Mesopotamia. Besides the well-known clay tablets and stone inscriptions, cuneiform was also written on wax boards.<ref>Zimmermann, Lynn-Salammbô, "Knocking on Wood: Writing Boards in the Kassite Administration", Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 177-237, 2023</ref> One example from the 8th century BC was found at Nimrud. The wax contained toxic amounts of arsenic.<ref>Cammarosano, Michele, Katja Weirauch, Feline Maruhn, Gert Jendritzki, and Patrick L. Kohl, "They Wrote on Wax. Wax Boards in the Ancient Near East", Mesopotamia, vol. 54, pp. 121‒180, 2019</ref> It was used to record laws, like the Code of Hammurabi. It was also used for recording maps, compiling medical manuals, and documenting religious stories and beliefs, among other uses. In particular it is thought to have been used to prepare surveying data and draft inscriptions for Kassite stone kudurru.<ref>Zimmermann, Lynn-Salammbô. "Wooden Wax-Covered Writing Boards as Vorlage for kudurru Inscriptions in the Middle Babylonian Period" Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History, 2022</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Studies by Assyriologists like Claus Wilcke<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> and Dominique Charpin<ref>Charpin, Dominique. 2004. "Lire et écrire en Mésopotamie: Une affaire dé spécialistes?" Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres: 481–501.</ref> suggest that cuneiform literacy was not reserved solely for the elite but was common for average citizens.

According to the Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture,<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> cuneiform script was used at a variety of literacy levels: average citizens needed only a basic, functional knowledge of cuneiform script to write personal letters and business documents. Citizens with a higher degree of literacy put the script to more technical use, listing medicines and diagnoses and writing mathematical equations. Scholars held the highest literacy level of cuneiform and mostly focused on writing as a complex skill and an art form.

Modern usageEdit

Cuneiform is occasionally used nowadays as inspiration for logos.

UnicodeEdit

{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}

As of version 16.0, the following ranges are assigned to the Sumero-Akkadian Cuneiform script in the Unicode Standard:<ref>[5]"Cuneiform and Hieroglyphs", in The Unicode® Standard Version 16.0 – Core Specification, September 10, 2024</ref>

The final proposal for Unicode encoding of the script was submitted by two cuneiform scholars working with an experienced Unicode proposal writer in June 2004.<ref>Everson, Michael; Feuerherm, Karljürgen; Tinney, Steve (June 8, 2004). "Final proposal to encode the Cuneiform script in the SMP of the UCS".</ref> The base character inventory is derived from the list of Ur III signs compiled by the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative of UCLA based on the inventories of Miguel Civil, Rykle Borger (2003) and Robert Englund. Rather than opting for a direct ordering by glyph shape and complexity, according to the numbering of an existing catalog, the Unicode order of glyphs was based on the Latin alphabetic order of their "last" Sumerian transliteration as a practical approximation. Once in Unicode, glyphs can be automatically processed into segmented transliterations.<ref>Gordin S, Gutherz G, Elazary A, Romach A, Jiménez E, Berant J, et al. (2020) "Reading Akkadian cuneiform using natural language processing". PLoS ONE 15(10): e0240511. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240511</ref>

Template:Navboxes

CorpusEdit

File:Cuneiform Inscriptions Geographical Site Index v1.5 2022 11 30.jpg
A map showing the locations of all known provenanced cuneiform inscriptions. Cuneiform Inscriptions Geographical Site Index v1.5, November 2022, from Uppsala University.

Numerous efforts have been made since the 19th century to create a corpus of known cuneiform inscriptions. In the 21st century, the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative and Open Richly Annotated Cuneiform Corpus are two of the most significant projects.

List of major cuneiform tablet discoveriesEdit

{{ safesubst:#invoke:Unsubst||date=__DATE__ |$B=Template:AmboxTemplate:Main other }}

Location Number of tablets Initial discovery Language
Nineveh 20,000–24,000<ref name=":1">Template:Cite book</ref> 1840 Akkadian
Nippur 60,000<ref name=":1" /> 1851
Girsu 40,000–50,000<ref name=":1" /> 1877
Dūr-Katlimmu 500<ref name=":1" /> 1879
Sippar 60,000–70,000<ref name="Pinches Finkel 1984 pp. 745–752">Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name=":1" /> 1880 Babylonian
Amarna 382 1887 Canaano-Akkadian
Nuzi 10,000–20,000<ref name=":1" /> 1896 Akkadian, Hurro-Akkadian
Assur 16,000<ref>Ellermeier, Friedrich., and Margret. Studt. Sumerisches Glossar. Vol. 3, T. 6, Handbuch Assur / Friedrich Ellmermeier; Margret Studt. Hardegsen bei Göttingen: Selbstverl. Ellermeier, 2003. Print. Theologische und orientalistische Arbeiten aus Göttingen, 4.</ref> 1898 Akkadian
Hattusa citation CitationClass=web

}}</ref>

1906 Hittite, Hurrian
Drehem 100,000<ref name=":1" /> Sumerian
Kanesh 23,000<ref>Michel, Cecile, Old Assyrian Bibliography, 2001.</ref> 1925Template:NoteTag Akkadian
Ugarit 1,500 1929 Ugaritic, Hurrian
Persepolis citation CitationClass=web

}}</ref>

1933 Elamite, Old Persian
Mari 20,000–25,000<ref name=":1" /> 1933 Akkadian
Alalakh 300<ref>Template:Cite thesis</ref> 1937 Akkadian, Hurro-Akkadian
Abu Salabikh 500<ref name=":1" /> 1963 Sumerian, Akkadian
Ebla approx. 5,000<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> 1974 Sumerian, Eblaite
Nimrud 244 1952 Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian

See alsoEdit

Template:Div col

Template:Div col end

NotesEdit

Template:NoteFoot

ReferencesEdit

Template:Duplicated citations Template:Reflist

BibliographyEdit

Template:Refbegin

  • Adkins, Lesley, Empires of the Plain: Henry Rawlinson and the Lost Languages of Babylon, New York, St. Martin's Press (2003) Template:ISBN
  • Template:Cite journal
  • R. Borger, Assyrisch-Babylonische Zeichenliste, 2nd ed., Neukirchen-Vluyn (1981)
  • Template:Cite book
  • Burnouf, E. (1836). "Mémoire sur deux Inscriptions Cunéiformes trouvées près d'Hamadan et qui font partie des papiers du Dr Schulz", [Memoir on two cuneiform inscriptions [that were] found near Hamadan and that form part of the papers of Dr. Schulz], Imprimerie Royale, Paris.
  • Cammarosano, M. (2017–2018) "Cuneiform Writing Techniques", cuneiform.neocities.org (with further bibliography)
  • Charvát, Petr. "Cherchez la femme: The SAL Sign in Proto-Cuneiform Writing". La famille dans le Proche-Orient ancien: réalités, symbolismes et images: Proceedings of the 55e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Paris, edited by Lionel Marti, University Park, USA: Penn State University Press, 2021, pp. 169–182
  • Template:Cite book
  • A. Deimel (1922), Liste der archaischen Keilschriftzeichen ("LAK"), WVDOG 40, Berlin.
  • A. Deimel (1925–1950), Šumerisches Lexikon, Pontificum Institutum Biblicum.
  • F. Ellermeier, M. Studt, Sumerisches Glossar
  • Robert K. Englund, Roger J. Matthews, "Proto-Cuneiform Texts from Diverse Collections", Berlin: Gebr. Mann 1996 ISBN 978-3786118756
  • Robert K. Englund and Rainer M.Boehmer, "Archaic Administrative Texts from Uruk – The Early Campaigns", (ATU Bd. 5), Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag 1994 ISBN 978-3786117452
  • A. Falkenstein, Archaische Texte aus Uruk, Berlin-Leipzig (1936)
  • E. Forrer, Die Keilschrift von Boghazköi, Leipzig (1922)
  • J. Friedrich, Hethitisches Keilschrift-Lesebuch, Heidelberg (1960)
  • Jean-Jacques Glassner, The Invention of Cuneiform, English translation, Johns Hopkins University Press (2003), Template:ISBN.
  • Template:Cite book
  • Heeren (1815) "Ideen über die Politik, den Verkehr und den Handel der vornehmsten Volker der alten Welt", vol. i. pp. 563 seq., translated into English in 1833.
  • DSpace Hershkovitz, Yehonatan, "The Adaptation Process of Cuneiform in the Old Babylonian Period", Dissertation, Harvard University, 2023
  • Template:Cite book
  • René Labat, Manuel d'epigraphie Akkadienne, Geuthner, Paris (1959); 6th ed., extended by Florence Malbran-Labat (1999), Template:ISBN.
  • Lassen, Christian (1836) Die Altpersischen Keil-Inschriften von Persepolis. Entzifferung des Alphabets und Erklärung des Inhalts. [The Old-Persian cuneiform inscriptions of Persepolis. Decipherment of the alphabet and explanation of its content.] Eduard Weber, Bonn, (Germany).
  • Template:Cite book
  • O. Neugebauer, A. Sachs (eds.), Mathematical Cuneiform Texts, New Haven (1945).
  • [7] Ouyang, Xiaoli, and Christine Proust, "Place-Value Notations in the Ur III Period: Marginal Numbers in Administrative Texts", Cultures of Computation and Quantification in the Ancient World: Numbers, Measurements, and Operations in Documents from Mesopotamia, China and South Asia. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 267–356, 2023
  • Patri, Sylvain (2009). "La perception des consonnes hittites dans les langues étrangères au XIIIe siècle." Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 99(1): 87–126. {{#invoke:doi|main}}.
  • Prichard, James Cowles (1844). "Researches Into the Physical History of Mankind", 3rd ed., vol IV, Sherwood, Gilbert and Piper, London.
  • Philippe Quenet, "The Diffusion of the Cuneiform Writing System in Northern Mesopotamia: The Earliest Archaeological Evidence", Iraq, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 31–40, 2005
  • Rattenborg, Rune, Smidt, Gustav Ryberg, Johansson, Carolin, Melin-Kronsell, Nils and Nett, Seraina, "The Archaeological Distribution of the Cuneiform Corpus: A Provisional Quantitative and Geospatial Survey", Altorientalische Forschungen, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 178–205, 2003
  • Rawlinson, Henry (1847) "The Persian Cuneiform Inscription at Behistun, decyphered and translated; with a Memoir on Persian Cuneiform Inscriptions in general, and on that of Behistun in Particular", The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. X. Template:JSTOR.
  • Rune Rattenborg et al., Open Access Index for the Geographical Distribution of the Cuneiform Corpus, University of Uppsala, Cuneiform Digital Library Journal, Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative, 2021:001 ISSN 1540-8779
  • Y. Rosengarten, Répertoire commenté des signes présargoniques sumériens de Lagash, Paris (1967)
  • Chr. Rüster, E. Neu, Hethitisches Zeichenlexikon (HZL), Wiesbaden (1989)
  • Nikolaus Schneider, Die Keilschriftzeichen der Wirtschaftsurkunden von Ur III nebst ihren charakteristischsten Schreibvarianten, Keilschrift-Paläographie; Heft 2, Rom: Päpstliches Bibelinstitut (1935).
  • Wolfgang Schramm, Akkadische Logogramme, Goettinger Arbeitshefte zur Altorientalischen Literatur (GAAL) Heft 4, Goettingen (2003), Template:ISBN.
  • F. Thureau-Dangin, Recherches sur l'origine de l'écriture cunéiforme, Paris (1898).
  • Ronald Herbert Sack, Cuneiform Documents from the Chaldean and Persian Periods, (1994) Template:ISBN

Template:Refend

External linksEdit

Template:Sister project

Template:Ancient Mesopotamia Template:List of writing systems

Template:Authority control

Retrieved from "https://zalansite.site/mediawiki/index.php?title=Cuneiform&oldid=222684"