number of gypsum tablets may be explained as use of readily available material. The
few stone tablets are harder to explain.
At the outset the messages recorded were brief and simple (see Englund 1998 for an
account of the document types). Tags of clay attached to containers were marked
apparently with a single unit of information, perhaps a reference to the contents of a
jar or the official connected with it. Soon though the potential of writing began to be
realized and longer and more complex documents followed. Tablets recorded individ-
ual transactions in greater detail. The next step saw several transactions being gathered
into a single document. At this point a new level of sophistication and abstraction was
reached – the transactions could be totaled, with both that total and each individual
transaction (and sometimes also sub-totals) recorded on the same tablet. The simple
link between each mark on the tablet and an object in the real world was gone.
Documents could summarize transactions over a period of months or even several
years. The signs used to write each transaction were grouped into their own box on
the tablet surface; while the entry would start with a quantity and a commodity, what
followed was not written in any particular order.
The conception of the systemIn this writing system the characters were mostly pictures. Barley was represented by a
drawing of a stalk of barley, a vessel by its outline – modified if necessary by drawing
inside it a representation of whatever its contents were. Large animals were represented
by a drawing of their head, this being the distinctive part of their body shape. Various
birds are shown more or less whole, and the fish-sign is recognizably fish-shaped. More
complex concepts could be communicated by combining signs, such as the disburse-
ment of rations to workers being represented by a human head plus a ration bowl
(apparently a drawing of one of the ubiquitous, mass-produced beveled-rim bowls).
Our understanding of proto-cuneiform is grounded in our knowledge of later
cuneiform. Even armed with this substantial body of knowledge, proto-cuneiform is
stubbornly opaque. One crucial avenue of investigation has been the lists of signs
compiled by the first scribes. These were copied again and again by countless genera-
tions. This has allowed us to match up archaic characters with their better-known
cuneiform descendants. Yet this has only allowed us a partial decipherment of the
system. And cuneiform developed many innovations of its own, so it is not safe simply
to transfer its mechanisms and the detail of its content back into proto-cuneiform.
What language does the Uruk writing system represent?This system recorded individual items of information rather than flowing sentences.
Since the signs did not represent sounds within the stream of speech but rather whole
words, it is not clear what language the first scribes spoke. Furthermore, much of the
information was transmitted through the formatting of the tablet itself. Key words are
written as an aide-memoire. It is roughly analogous to a modern shopping receipt,
where the time and date of transaction, the name of the office (or shop) and official (or
server) involved, the individual sums and the total are given in set places. These texts
were probably not read, as such, although their contents could of course have been
vocalized, quite possibly in set format. The lack of explicit linguistic information is one
–– Jon Taylor ––