Stylesheet style.css not found, please contact the developer of "arctic" template.
[[Proto-cuneiform]]
Trace:
Show page
AdminRecent ChangesSitemap

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
proto-cuneiform [2007/12/07 12:08] – adminproto-cuneiform [2016/11/21 04:56] (current) – [External links] englund
Line 1: Line 1:
 ===== Proto-cuneiform ===== ===== Proto-cuneiform =====
  
-===== A Short History of Proto-Cuneiform =====+==== A Short History of Proto-Cuneiform ====
  
 (from: Hans J. Nissen, Peter Damerow and Robert K. Englund, Archaic Bookkeeping [University of Chicago Press: Chicago 1993]) (from: Hans J. Nissen, Peter Damerow and Robert K. Englund, Archaic Bookkeeping [University of Chicago Press: Chicago 1993])
Line 7: Line 7:
 The earliest true script in man's history emerged at the end of the fourth millennium B.C. in ancient Babylonia, the southern part of today's Iraq. The signs of this script were impressed with the aid of a stylus into the still soft surface of clay tablets. Such clay tablets hardened almost immediately in the dry and hot climate of that part of the world. As a result of this hardening, and because such lumps of clay could not be reused, these documents from early Babylonia survived in great numbers. The early script developed into the better-known "cuneiform," the hallmark of Babylonian history and culture; hence the name "proto-cuneiform" for the archaic script, which will be the focus of this book. The earliest true script in man's history emerged at the end of the fourth millennium B.C. in ancient Babylonia, the southern part of today's Iraq. The signs of this script were impressed with the aid of a stylus into the still soft surface of clay tablets. Such clay tablets hardened almost immediately in the dry and hot climate of that part of the world. As a result of this hardening, and because such lumps of clay could not be reused, these documents from early Babylonia survived in great numbers. The early script developed into the better-known "cuneiform," the hallmark of Babylonian history and culture; hence the name "proto-cuneiform" for the archaic script, which will be the focus of this book.
  
-{{ :images:proto-cuneiform1.jpg?300x397}} +<box 320px right>{{:images:proto-cuneiform1.jpg?300x397|Clay cones on the facade of a Late Uruk temple in Uruk}}</box|Clay cones on the facade of a Late Uruk temple in Uruk>
 Most of the tablets of this early phase were found during the excavations in the ancient city of Uruk in lower Babylonia, conducted by the German Archaeological Institute from 1913 up to the present day and interrupted only by the two world wars and regional conflicts. During the seasons from 1928 until 1976, nearly 5000 such tablets and fragments were unearthed, forming the basic material for a long-term research project dedicated to the decipherment and edition of these texts. Most of the tablets of this early phase were found during the excavations in the ancient city of Uruk in lower Babylonia, conducted by the German Archaeological Institute from 1913 up to the present day and interrupted only by the two world wars and regional conflicts. During the seasons from 1928 until 1976, nearly 5000 such tablets and fragments were unearthed, forming the basic material for a long-term research project dedicated to the decipherment and edition of these texts.
  
-===== The dates and circumstances of discovery of the archaic tablets from Uruk =====+==== The dates and circumstances of discovery of the archaic tablets from Uruk ====
  
 The most prominent archaeological site of the Late Uruk period is the ancient city of Uruk, today a vast landscape of ruins in southern Babylonia. Since early in the twentieth century, German archaeologists have been carrying out excavations at regular intervals at the site (with interruptions during the two world wars and regional conflicts), which was continuously occupied from the fifth millennium B.C. until its abandonment in the fifth century A.D. The most prominent archaeological site of the Late Uruk period is the ancient city of Uruk, today a vast landscape of ruins in southern Babylonia. Since early in the twentieth century, German archaeologists have been carrying out excavations at regular intervals at the site (with interruptions during the two world wars and regional conflicts), which was continuously occupied from the fifth millennium B.C. until its abandonment in the fifth century A.D.
Line 17: Line 16:
 For the time before 2000 B.C., eighteen archaic layers, counting from top to bottom, were identified within Eanna, the central, sacred precinct of the city. Those layers numbered VIII to IV were ascribed to the Late Uruk period, layer III to the Jemdet Nasr period. Layer I with its subphases dates to the Early Dynastic period (layer II turned out to have been an erroneous designation and has therefore been excluded from current terminology). For the time before 2000 B.C., eighteen archaic layers, counting from top to bottom, were identified within Eanna, the central, sacred precinct of the city. Those layers numbered VIII to IV were ascribed to the Late Uruk period, layer III to the Jemdet Nasr period. Layer I with its subphases dates to the Early Dynastic period (layer II turned out to have been an erroneous designation and has therefore been excluded from current terminology).
  
 +<box 420px left>{{:images:lateuruk02.jpg?400x369|The Late Uruk Eanna district in Warka}}</box|The Late Uruk Eanna district in Warka>
 The extensive buildings of the Uruk III levels were erected on great terraces after the older buildings had been razed and their grounds leveled. Thus, surface pits and holes were filled with cultural waste, consisting of weathered and broken mud-bricks as well as ash, animal remains, pottery sherds, and the like. This debris had apparently been taken from large waste deposits located elsewhere, which seemingly had been left by the great storage facilities from the lower levels whenever they were cleared of refuse. In this manner, large amounts of various kinds of once sealed objects found their way into the debris. After authorized individuals had broken sealed stoppers or collars in order to gain access to the stored contents of containers, the fragmented sealings may have been kept somewhere for control purposes but then lost their purpose and were consequently disposed of. The extensive buildings of the Uruk III levels were erected on great terraces after the older buildings had been razed and their grounds leveled. Thus, surface pits and holes were filled with cultural waste, consisting of weathered and broken mud-bricks as well as ash, animal remains, pottery sherds, and the like. This debris had apparently been taken from large waste deposits located elsewhere, which seemingly had been left by the great storage facilities from the lower levels whenever they were cleared of refuse. In this manner, large amounts of various kinds of once sealed objects found their way into the debris. After authorized individuals had broken sealed stoppers or collars in order to gain access to the stored contents of containers, the fragmented sealings may have been kept somewhere for control purposes but then lost their purpose and were consequently disposed of.
  
 Written documents were unquestionably treated in the same way. They served to carry out future checks on, for example, the amounts of barley delivered to a particular granary on a specified day or to keep track of the amounts of barley or beer distributed to named laborers. After a certain time had lapsed, this information was no longer useful. Consequently, the tablets were probably thrown away at regular intervals, thus landing on the refuse heaps. Judging from the distribution and concentration of tablets in various areas of Eanna unconnected to major buildings as well as from the random distribution of lexical texts, it seems clear that no contextual relationships existed between certain buildings and groups of texts. Written documents were unquestionably treated in the same way. They served to carry out future checks on, for example, the amounts of barley delivered to a particular granary on a specified day or to keep track of the amounts of barley or beer distributed to named laborers. After a certain time had lapsed, this information was no longer useful. Consequently, the tablets were probably thrown away at regular intervals, thus landing on the refuse heaps. Judging from the distribution and concentration of tablets in various areas of Eanna unconnected to major buildings as well as from the random distribution of lexical texts, it seems clear that no contextual relationships existed between certain buildings and groups of texts.
 +
 +<box 420px right|Examples of Uruk IV (above, excavation no. [[http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/P000958|W 7227,a]]) and Uruk III (below, no. [[http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/P002195|W 14804,a]])>{{:images:lateuruk03.jpg?400x496|Examples of Uruk IV (above, excavation no. W 7227,a) and Uruk III (below, no. W 14804,a)}}</box>
  
 Since the tablets had become irrelevant before they were disposed of in the rubbish dump that was used as a source of fill for surface irregularities of the large terrace below the buildings of Archaic Level III, they were obviously older than the earliest subphase of that layer. Although we are left in the dark as to their exact date or origin, we can assume that they are not older than the buildings of Archaic Level IV, since no tablets were found in the layers below them. Unfortunately, we cannot establish a stratigraphic link between the tablets and any of the three subphases "c," "b," or "a" of Archaic Level IV. In order to get a better grasp of the dates of these texts, we are thus obliged to develop new criteria based predominantly on the internal evolution of the script itself. Since the tablets had become irrelevant before they were disposed of in the rubbish dump that was used as a source of fill for surface irregularities of the large terrace below the buildings of Archaic Level III, they were obviously older than the earliest subphase of that layer. Although we are left in the dark as to their exact date or origin, we can assume that they are not older than the buildings of Archaic Level IV, since no tablets were found in the layers below them. Unfortunately, we cannot establish a stratigraphic link between the tablets and any of the three subphases "c," "b," or "a" of Archaic Level IV. In order to get a better grasp of the dates of these texts, we are thus obliged to develop new criteria based predominantly on the internal evolution of the script itself.
Line 28: Line 30:
 Despite the relatively safe assignment of these tablet groups to the archaic building layers IVa and IIIb, we have been forced to abandon the habit of referring to them as tablets from the respective levels. In order to stress that the dates of the tablets were not established as the result of a direct link between them and their stratigraphic location, we modified the terminology slightly to indicate the paleographic development of the script employed in the texts. Consequently, we date the archaic tablets according to their respective evolutionary phase of script. In reference to the stratigraphic nomenclature, these have been called script phase IV and III.3Ð1. Despite the relatively safe assignment of these tablet groups to the archaic building layers IVa and IIIb, we have been forced to abandon the habit of referring to them as tablets from the respective levels. In order to stress that the dates of the tablets were not established as the result of a direct link between them and their stratigraphic location, we modified the terminology slightly to indicate the paleographic development of the script employed in the texts. Consequently, we date the archaic tablets according to their respective evolutionary phase of script. In reference to the stratigraphic nomenclature, these have been called script phase IV and III.3Ð1.
  
-===== Other archaic texts =====+==== Other archaic texts ====
  
 +<box 420px left>{{:images:proto-cuneiform2.jpg?400x231|Excavations in southern Babylonia}}</box|Excavations in southern Babylonia>
 The tablets from Uruk, however, are not the only archaic documents known from this period. Similar tablets have been found in the northern Babylonian site of Jemdet Nasr, and some few originate from the sites of Khafaji and Tell Uqair, likewise situated in the northern part of Babylonia. Although their number is small in comparison to the corpus from Uruk, they share a great advantage for our research efforts. Whereas all of the Uruk tablets, found in dumps where they had been discarded after they were no longer of use, were as a rule in a fragmentary state, the tablets from the other sites were often fully preserved, presenting us with their complete original information. As will be seen in the following discussion, we are faced with the problem of deciphering texts of which both script and language are unknown. Hence most arguments have to be derived from the internal context of the tablets themselves. Textual analysis thus depends on information as complete as possible. The tablets from Uruk, however, are not the only archaic documents known from this period. Similar tablets have been found in the northern Babylonian site of Jemdet Nasr, and some few originate from the sites of Khafaji and Tell Uqair, likewise situated in the northern part of Babylonia. Although their number is small in comparison to the corpus from Uruk, they share a great advantage for our research efforts. Whereas all of the Uruk tablets, found in dumps where they had been discarded after they were no longer of use, were as a rule in a fragmentary state, the tablets from the other sites were often fully preserved, presenting us with their complete original information. As will be seen in the following discussion, we are faced with the problem of deciphering texts of which both script and language are unknown. Hence most arguments have to be derived from the internal context of the tablets themselves. Textual analysis thus depends on information as complete as possible.
  
 +
 +<box 420px right|An example from the recently acquired Erlenmeyer collection, [[http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/P005312|MSVO 3, no. 1]], now on permanent loan by the State of Berlin to the Vorderasiatisches Museum>{{:images:lateuruk04.jpg?400x827|An example from the recently acquired Erlenmeyer collection, MSVO 3, no. 1, now on permanent loan by the State of Berlin to the Vorderasiatisches Museum}}</box>
 The number of completely preserved tablets available to us has been considerably augmented recently. Toward the end of 1988, a group of 82 archaic tablets, formerly part of the Swiss Erlenmeyer Collection in Basel, was auctioned off in London. Although their existence had been known since their purchase by the Erlenmeyers in the late 1950s, these tablets had not been subjected to detailed study. Through the good offices of the Senate of Berlin, it was possible to purchase most of these tablets for our research. We wish to take this opportunity to again thank the Berlin authorities for this generous support of our work. The authorities of the British Museum (London), the Louvre (Paris) and the Metropolitan Museum (New York) joined us in our efforts to secure most of the archaic tablets of that collection for public institutions, where they remain readily accessible for further studies. The number of completely preserved tablets available to us has been considerably augmented recently. Toward the end of 1988, a group of 82 archaic tablets, formerly part of the Swiss Erlenmeyer Collection in Basel, was auctioned off in London. Although their existence had been known since their purchase by the Erlenmeyers in the late 1950s, these tablets had not been subjected to detailed study. Through the good offices of the Senate of Berlin, it was possible to purchase most of these tablets for our research. We wish to take this opportunity to again thank the Berlin authorities for this generous support of our work. The authorities of the British Museum (London), the Louvre (Paris) and the Metropolitan Museum (New York) joined us in our efforts to secure most of the archaic tablets of that collection for public institutions, where they remain readily accessible for further studies.
  
-===== The work of the project Archaische Texte aus Uruk =====+=== The work of the project Archaische Texte aus Uruk ====
  
 A long-term interdisciplinary research project Archaische Texte aus Uruk, directed by Hans J. Nissen, a leading specialist at the Free University of Berlin in the political and economic history of early Mesopotamia, in whose research Uruk has been particularly important, is dealing with these issues. Since 1982 the Sumerologist Robert K. Englund has served as the project's main investigator, interested primarily in the development of administrative structures and accountancy in the Near East of the third millennium B.C. This project commenced in 1964, when Nissen began cataloguing and copying all archaic texts found in Uruk after the publication of a first lot by Adam Falkenstein in 1936. Including all finds of excavation campaigns through 1976, the archaic Uruk text corpus amounts to almost 5000 tablets and fragments. Since 1971, the edition and analysis of these tablets is the major research project of the Seminar of Near Eastern Archaeology of the Free University. From 1976 on, it has been supported by the German Research Association (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [DFG]) and the Free University of Berlin, for shorter periods by the Volkswagen and Thyssen foundations. A long-term interdisciplinary research project Archaische Texte aus Uruk, directed by Hans J. Nissen, a leading specialist at the Free University of Berlin in the political and economic history of early Mesopotamia, in whose research Uruk has been particularly important, is dealing with these issues. Since 1982 the Sumerologist Robert K. Englund has served as the project's main investigator, interested primarily in the development of administrative structures and accountancy in the Near East of the third millennium B.C. This project commenced in 1964, when Nissen began cataloguing and copying all archaic texts found in Uruk after the publication of a first lot by Adam Falkenstein in 1936. Including all finds of excavation campaigns through 1976, the archaic Uruk text corpus amounts to almost 5000 tablets and fragments. Since 1971, the edition and analysis of these tablets is the major research project of the Seminar of Near Eastern Archaeology of the Free University. From 1976 on, it has been supported by the German Research Association (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [DFG]) and the Free University of Berlin, for shorter periods by the Volkswagen and Thyssen foundations.
Line 47: Line 52:
 Obviously such concepts involved in the study of the origin of writing are beyond the traditional realm of philology; yet it is equally obvious that any study without a solid philological background would be condemned to failure. The phenomenon of the origin of writing demands an interdisciplinary approach such as we have enjoyed in Berlin; perhaps our approach is not even diversified enough. It derives from our conviction that deciphering the archaic documents does not mean to merely translate them into a modern language, because they were not primarily meant to render language. Decipherment for us rather means the reconstruction of the social context and function of the documents, the study of the dynamics of the development of writing toward a comprehensively applicable instrument of intellectual life, and the examination of the consequences this development had for our way of thinking and our treatment of information. The early documents can thus be freed of some of their ambiguity, but also of their apparent simplicity, and so become early witnesses of the origin and the basic structures of our literate culture. Obviously such concepts involved in the study of the origin of writing are beyond the traditional realm of philology; yet it is equally obvious that any study without a solid philological background would be condemned to failure. The phenomenon of the origin of writing demands an interdisciplinary approach such as we have enjoyed in Berlin; perhaps our approach is not even diversified enough. It derives from our conviction that deciphering the archaic documents does not mean to merely translate them into a modern language, because they were not primarily meant to render language. Decipherment for us rather means the reconstruction of the social context and function of the documents, the study of the dynamics of the development of writing toward a comprehensively applicable instrument of intellectual life, and the examination of the consequences this development had for our way of thinking and our treatment of information. The early documents can thus be freed of some of their ambiguity, but also of their apparent simplicity, and so become early witnesses of the origin and the basic structures of our literate culture.
  
-===== External links ===== +==== External links ====
- +
-Peter Damerow, "The Origins of Writing as a Problem of Historical Epistemology +
-[[http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/en/forschung/Preprints/P114.PDF]] +
- +
-Peter Damerow and Robert K. Englund. “Die Zahlzeichensysteme der Archaischen Texte aus Uruk,” in: M. W. Green and H. J. Nissen, Zeichenliste der Archaischen Texte aus Uruk (=ATU 2; Berlin 1987) 117-166 [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/englund1987a.pdf]]+
  
-Peter Damerow, Robert K. Englund and Hans J. Nissen. “Die Entstehung der Schrift,” Spektrum der Wissenschaft, February 1988, 74-85 (reprinted in: J. Dittami, ed., Signale und Kommunikation [[Heidelberg/Berlin/Oxford|1993]] 150-161, and B. Riese, ed., Sprache und Schrift: Ein Lesebuch [[=|Verständliche Forschung; Heidelberg/Berlin/Oxford, 1994]] 90-101) [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/englund1988c.pdf]]+Peter Damerow, [[http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/en/forschung/Preprints/P114.PDF|“The Origins of Writing as a Problem of Historical Epistemology”]]
  
-id., “Die ersten Zahldarstellungen und die Entwicklung des Zahlbegriffs,” Spektrum der Wissenschaft, March 1988, 46-55 (reprinted in: B. Riese, ed., Sprache und Schrift, 102-111) [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/englund1988d.pdf]]+Peter Damerow and Robert K. Englund. [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/publications/englund1987a.pdf|“Die Zahlzeichensysteme der Archaischen Texte aus Uruk”]], in: M. W. Green and H. J. Nissen, Zeichenliste der Archaischen Texte aus Uruk (=ATU 2; Berlin 1987) 117-166 
  
-id., “Zur rechnergestützten Bearbeitung der archaischen Texte aus Mesopotamien,” Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 121 (1989) 139-152 [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/englund1988b.pdf]]+Peter Damerow, Robert K. Englund and Hans J. Nissen. [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/publications/englund1988c.pdf|“Die Entstehung der Schrift”]], Spektrum der Wissenschaft, February 1988, 74-85 (reprinted in: J. Dittami, ed., Signale und Kommunikation. Heidelberg/Berlin/Oxford 1993, 150-161, and B. Riese, ed., Sprache und Schrift: Ein Lesebuch. Verständliche Forschung; Heidelberg/Berlin/Oxford, 1994, 90-101) 
  
-id., “Indrukken in Klei: Het begin van det getal,” Natuur & Techniek 59 (1991) 696-707 [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/englund1991d.pdf]]+id., [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/publications/englund1988d.pdf|“Die ersten Zahldarstellungen und die Entwicklung des Zahlbegriffs”]], Spektrum der Wissenschaft, March 1988, 46-55 (reprinted in: B. Riese, ed., Sprache und Schrift, 102-111) 
  
-id., “Die Geburt der Schrift,” die waage 30 (1991) 2-7 [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/englund1991a.pdf]]+id., [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/publications/englund1988b.pdf|“Zur rechnergestützten Bearbeitung der archaischen Texte aus Mesopotamien”]], Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 121 (1989) 139-152 
  
-Robert K. Englund, “Administrative Timekeeping in Ancient Mesopotamia,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 31 (1988) 121-185 [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/englund1988a.pdf]]+id., [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/publications/englund1991d.pdf|“Indrukken in Klei: Het begin van det getal”]], Natuur & Techniek 59 (1991) 696-707 
  
-id., “Archaic Dairy Metrology,” Iraq 53 (1991) 101-104 [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/englund1991b.pdf]]+id., [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/publications/englund1991a.pdf|“Die Geburt der Schrift”]], die waage 30 (1991) 2-7 
  
-id.,  “Late Uruk Period Cattle and Dairy Products: Evidence from Proto-Cuneiform Sources,” in: Bulletin of Sumerian Agriculture 8/2 (Warminster, 1995) 33-48 [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/englund1995b.pdf]]+Robert K. Englund, [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/publications/englund1988a.pdf|“Administrative Timekeeping in Ancient Mesopotamia”]], Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 31 (1988) 121-185 
  
-id., “Late Uruk Pigs and Other Herded Animals,” in: U. Finkbeiner, R. Dittmann and H. Hauptmann, eds., Festschrift Boehmer (Mainz 1995) 121-133 [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/englund1995g.pdf]]+id., [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/publications/englund1991b.pdf|“Archaic Dairy Metrology”]], Iraq 53 (1991) 101-104 
  
-id., “Die Erfindung der Schrift in Uruk,” in: W. Seipel and A. Wieczorek, eds., Von Babylon bis Jerusalem vol. 2 (Milan 1999) 251-254 [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/englund1999d.pdf]]+id.,  [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/publications/englund1995b.pdf|“Late Uruk Period Cattle and Dairy Products: Evidence from Proto-Cuneiform Sources”]], in: Bulletin of Sumerian Agriculture 8/2 (Warminster, 1995) 33-48 
  
-id.,  “Grain Accounting Practices in Archaic Mesopotamia,” in: J. Høyrup and Peter Damerow, eds., Changing Views on Ancient Near Eastern Mathematics (=BBVO 19; Berlin, 2001) 1-35 [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/englund2001b.pdf]]+id., [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/publications/englund1995g.pdf|“Late Uruk Pigs and Other Herded Animals”]], in: U. Finkbeiner, R. Dittmann and H. Hauptmann, eds., Festschrift Boehmer (Mainz 1995) 121-133
  
-id. “Proto-Cuneiform Account-Books and Journals,” in: M. Hudson and C. Wunsch, eds., Creating Economic Order: Record-keeping, Standardization and the Development of Accounting in the Ancient Near East (CDL Press: Bethesda, Maryland, 2004) 23-46 [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/englund2004a.pdf]]+id., [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/publications/englund1999d.pdf|“Die Erfindung der Schrift in Uruk”]], in: W. Seipel and A. Wieczorek, eds., Von Babylon bis Jerusalem vol. 2 (Milan 1999) 251-254 
  
 +id.,  [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/publications/englund2001b.pdf|“Grain Accounting Practices in Archaic Mesopotamia”]], in: J. Høyrup and Peter Damerow, eds., Changing Views on Ancient Near Eastern Mathematics (=BBVO 19; Berlin, 2001) 1-35
  
-===== Extensive bibliography =====+id. [[http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/publications/englund2004a.pdf|“Proto-Cuneiform Account-Books and Journals”]], in: M. Hudson and C. Wunsch, eds., Creating Economic Order: Record-keeping, Standardization and the Development of Accounting in the Ancient Near East (CDL Press: Bethesda, Maryland, 2004) 23-46  
 +==== Extensive bibliography ====
  
 Adams, R., Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central Foodplain of the Euphrates (Chicago 1981)  Adams, R., Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central Foodplain of the Euphrates (Chicago 1981) 
proto-cuneiform.1197029309.txt.gz · Last modified: 2008/08/14 13:26 (external edit)
Show pageOld revisions
Media ManagerBack to top
CC Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International
Driven by DokuWiki Recent changes RSS feed Valid CSS Valid XHTML 1.0