population that had been replaced by Sumerian speakers. Rubio ( 1999 , 2005 ) has most
convincingly discounted the arguments that have been brought forth in favour of
reconstructing these ‘substrate’ languages. According to Rubio ( 1999 ), the words that
were thought to have belonged to the substrate languages are either consistent with
Sumerian or can be analysed as loanwords. The loanwords include words borrowed
from a Semitic language, from Hurrian, or else they can be explained as ‘Arealwörter’,
or ‘Wanderwörter’ (Rubio 1999 , 2007 : 7 ). Our difficulties in analysing word formation
and morphographemic conventions are probably due to Sumerian being a linguistic
isolate, that is, we cannot connect it with any other language or language family (see
Cunningham this volume). However, one has to assume that there were several
languages that must have belonged to the same family which did not survive because
they were never written down (see Michalowski 2006 : 162 f.).WRITTEN SOURCES
When discussing history and chronology, it is necessary to devote some space to the
question of sources for the reconstruction of the most ancient history. For prehistoric
or preliterate periods, archaeological indicators have to be used to distinguish time
periods. These are stratigraphy and typology (Nissen 1988 : 6 ). In ancient Mesopotamia,
it is potsherds that offer the best chronological indicators for distinguishing time periods
(Pollock 1999 : 3 ). These methods of dating, while not without their problems, offer a
relative chronology, by which is meant measuring time periods relative to each other to
establish which is older and which is younger. Absolute chronology, that is, establishing
the exact chronological distance to the present time, has to rely on other methods, such
as radiocarbon dating (C 14 method). However, in spite of great progress in calibrating
radiocarbon dates, in particular of the earliest periods, they remain imprecise (Wright
and Rupley 2001 ) and are difficult to connect to historical events (see already Crawford
1991 : 18 ), and thus the chronology of the fourth and third millennia is rather insecure.
Therefore, all the absolute dates mentioned in this chapter are rather tentative.
With the advent of writing–which was but one of several innovations that occurred
around the same time–texts can be used to glean information on history. However,
leaving issues of decipherment aside, as already mentioned above, the earliest texts offer
little historical information if one is interested in a history of events. Textual genres that
we encounter in early Mesopotamia are administrative texts, word or ‘lexical’ lists,
literary texts, royal inscriptions and legal documents.
Administrative (or ‘archival’) texts are among the first texts that we encounter after
the invention of writing. These texts recorded economic processes and are often
associated with institutional administrations, thus offering important sources for the
study of socio-economic histories. Beginning c. 2500 BC, some administrative and legal
texts are dated using the so-called year names. Kings began naming every year after a
special event of the preceding year. Among the events are military conflicts (e.g. the
conquest of cities), religious events (e.g. appointing high priestesses or fashioning of
prestigious objects of worship), or building activities, such as the erecting of temples or
city walls. In a few cases, ancient scribes compiled the individual year names into year
lists, which can be used to reconstruct a particular king’s reign. However, it is not
always clear whether the claims that were made in the year names can be taken at face
value, because year names are also a convenient vehicle for royal propaganda.
–– Nicole Brisch ––