not give us their titles, let alone their names, since this information was redundant. But
what does seem clear is that the first scribes were highly skilled and important officials.
Their control over resources underpinned Late Uruk civilization. The suggestion to see
the DUB.SANGA of Uruk III as scribe (ultimately Nissen in Damerow et al., 1993 :
105 ) is a tempting one, although it is not clear that DUB means either “tablet” or
“scribe.” Many other types of SANGA are also attested; were they (too) scribes?
Most people would have had no contact with writing, nor would they have needed
to. Anatomically modern humans, with language skills, have managed to live entirely
without writing for all but the last 2 – 3 percent of their time on earth. Even then most
cultures have not used writing, and among those that have, usually only a minority of
people have been able to read and write. Mass literacy, as a product of universal
schooling, is more or less a modern concern. While scribal training would have been
key to a small number of high-ranking posts in Uruk society, it is not clear that other
officials would have had any interest in it, that training was in principle open, or that
there was any frustrated wider appetite for it.
What is remarkable is how quickly and widely the new technology of proto-
cuneiform spreads to other centers. Most of our evidence comes from Uruk. Yet sources
have also been found from other sites: Al-Uqair, Jemdet-Nasr, Tell Asmar and perhaps
Kish and Larsa. It was no doubt in use at other sites too. And a parallel writing system
inspired by that of Uruk has been found in western Iran – so-called Proto-Elamite. It
is clear that writing was considered superior to pre-writing information technologies,
and was coveted by bureaucrats elsewhere. It presumably offered greater accountability,
economic advantage and conferred status on its practitioners. It is remarkable that this
cutting-edge technology was not more closely guarded.
What remains to be explained is the lack of proto-cuneiform from many sites across
the ancient Near East that shared in the “Uruk culture.” These sites yield examples of
the forerunners of the system – sealings, bullae, and numerical tablets – but not proto-
cuneiform tablets. This anomaly may be explained in part by a break in contact
between the west and the heartland, and in part by the vagaries of preservation and
excavation. But perhaps another factor was also at work. Might the new system have
been more trouble than it was worth to the administration of many smaller sites, a
system far more sophisticated and complex than required? Two tablets from Tell Brak
raise the possibility of further daughter systems, inspired by proto-cuneiform but
taking their own local form (Finkel 1985 : 187 – 188 ). These two tablets appear to parallel
the numerical-ideographic tablets of Uruk, with a number and an ideogram in each
case. They differ from the Uruk examples in that the animals – a goat and a sheep –
are shown full-bodied. With only two examples known, it is impossible to prove that
they represent the remains of an administrative system, but given the importance and
location of Tell Brak and the presence of forerunner technologies there, it must remain
a serious possibility. Attempts to ignore them or dismiss them as ornamentation are
unsatisfactory. There is no reason why Proto-Elamite should be the only daughter
system of proto-cuneiform; writing systems have a tendency to spawn offspring. This
was a period that had seen a series of recording technologies appear in rapid succession.
–– Jon Taylor ––