(More) Fun with Signs!
Apr 21, 2009 22:27:49 GMT -5
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Apr 21, 2009 22:27:49 GMT -5
Thread Orientation: On this thread we continue with Petr Charvat's contextualization of Cuneiform Signs (from P. Charvat 2002, "Mesopotamia Before History".)
A number of weeks ago, I made a thread which explored A.S.T. City Signs. This thread attempted to sum Charvat's discussion on the different sorts of signs used in the early Cuneiform script for the writing of different city names - this was interesting to me for the overall effort of considering Archaic Symbolic Technology (A.S.T), as Holly Pittman terms it, and I would also like to understand how the Sumerians used images (seal imagery) and scripts to enable their progressive forms of fledgling administration..
After more reading on this topic, my parameters have matured somewhat, and I now understand Pittman's argument to relate, in the main, to the use question of early seal imagery. In fact she believes that as the scripts came into their own and became more and more the standby for information transfer, the iconography and seal imagery was relieved of this function (assuming it did in fact have it to significant extent) and imagery became more and more simplistic and decorative in nature (i.e the banquet type scene in the middle ED period and after). In any case this means that study of cuneiform script signs may not directly augment Pittman's arguments, however I proceed anyway with Charvat here, as the information is enriching and as we know from the city seals / city signs, cross overs between imagery and script are not impossible to note either. Charvat is considering the archaic script from URUK as presented in the ZATU publication.
Charvat: "The inference that Uruk culture communities also laid claim to their uncultivated environment may be supported by the various sign combinations with the water denotator, sign A [ZATU nos 2-5]. "
"Watercourses were associated with signs like EN, BU and NUN/ERIDU while the sign ZATU 672, also featured in such a connection, clearly shows an animal head symbol, perhaps in an emblematic function.."
Sheshki and I have observed the watercourse depicted near the NUN in some cuneiform sign combinations and have wondered about it. Here Charvat does not provide a very comprehensive explanation, although he presents the notion that Uruk culture communities "laid claim to their uncultivated environment" .. I am not able to explain why a sign for watercourse in the various combinations above is suggestive of a claim on uncultivated places - if anything a watercourse seems to me suggestive of cultivated lands which have enjoyed the irrigation benefits of the Mesopotamian canal systems - however for lack of evidence either way, I would defer to Charvat at present.
(Facilities which independently operate)
Charvat next moves on to signs which relate to Uruk administrative practice (very interesting in contrast to Pittman's parallel study of administrative qualities of images.) Charvat distinguishes two semi-distinct sorts of signs relating to administrative facilities in Uruk - those that include the presence of the EN sign and those that don't. Because the EN sign is "by common consent" agreed to be intimately connected with administration, those facilities which are not presented with the sign are interpreted to have run independently or 'without human sway'.
Im focusing on this type at present:
Charvat has it that these signs, the LAGAB and MAH series, are likely to denote economic structures (again, in theory independently operating ones.) The Lagab sign is very simple and is either a circular or rectangular design containing a given sign - Charvat has little to say on it. However, for the MAH sign, he states that it appears "to depict a section through a high domed building with a feeding funnel at its top and an excavation passage at its bottom, served, according to the signs inscribed in them, mostly for storage of animal-husbandry products and fish (Glassner 2000a). A structure of this kind may have been excavated at Abu Salabikh (Pollock, Steele and Pope 1991.)
The author has named the above signs (BANSHUR, ME, PA, NUN/ERIDU) to show that the LAGAB or MAH signs representing economic structures, could be associated further with particular occasions or needs (BANSHUR), offices (ME, PA) or communities (NUN/ERIDU). (Additionally, with particular sites (DU6).)
So, what does all this mean? We know that the MAH represents a structure more or less like today`s grain silo, it stored produce. The exact significance of Charvats notion that these signs were not in direct influence of the EN (not associated with the EN sign) eludes me, however its interesting to see that these signs could be paired with signs mentioned above, a sign like lagab-NUN/ERIDU would possibly be used to alot goods for Eridu - or a storage unit paired with office could be a sign used when indicating how much of a certain supply was to go to a certain office for its monthly ration. These sorts of sign would make up a important component of economic texts, perhaps a scribe documenting trade exchange with Eridu may use the LAGABxNUN/ERIDU sign to denote export goods to that city for example. This sort of tablet and sign would facilitate the functioning of the administrative system as a whole.
Still to come... Administrative sign with EN associations
(More) Fun with Signs!
A number of weeks ago, I made a thread which explored A.S.T. City Signs. This thread attempted to sum Charvat's discussion on the different sorts of signs used in the early Cuneiform script for the writing of different city names - this was interesting to me for the overall effort of considering Archaic Symbolic Technology (A.S.T), as Holly Pittman terms it, and I would also like to understand how the Sumerians used images (seal imagery) and scripts to enable their progressive forms of fledgling administration..
After more reading on this topic, my parameters have matured somewhat, and I now understand Pittman's argument to relate, in the main, to the use question of early seal imagery. In fact she believes that as the scripts came into their own and became more and more the standby for information transfer, the iconography and seal imagery was relieved of this function (assuming it did in fact have it to significant extent) and imagery became more and more simplistic and decorative in nature (i.e the banquet type scene in the middle ED period and after). In any case this means that study of cuneiform script signs may not directly augment Pittman's arguments, however I proceed anyway with Charvat here, as the information is enriching and as we know from the city seals / city signs, cross overs between imagery and script are not impossible to note either. Charvat is considering the archaic script from URUK as presented in the ZATU publication.
Signs with Watercourses:
Charvat: "The inference that Uruk culture communities also laid claim to their uncultivated environment may be supported by the various sign combinations with the water denotator, sign A [ZATU nos 2-5]. "
"Watercourses were associated with signs like EN, BU and NUN/ERIDU while the sign ZATU 672, also featured in such a connection, clearly shows an animal head symbol, perhaps in an emblematic function.."
Sheshki and I have observed the watercourse depicted near the NUN in some cuneiform sign combinations and have wondered about it. Here Charvat does not provide a very comprehensive explanation, although he presents the notion that Uruk culture communities "laid claim to their uncultivated environment" .. I am not able to explain why a sign for watercourse in the various combinations above is suggestive of a claim on uncultivated places - if anything a watercourse seems to me suggestive of cultivated lands which have enjoyed the irrigation benefits of the Mesopotamian canal systems - however for lack of evidence either way, I would defer to Charvat at present.
Uruk Administrative Signs (Without EN)
(Facilities which independently operate)
Charvat next moves on to signs which relate to Uruk administrative practice (very interesting in contrast to Pittman's parallel study of administrative qualities of images.) Charvat distinguishes two semi-distinct sorts of signs relating to administrative facilities in Uruk - those that include the presence of the EN sign and those that don't. Because the EN sign is "by common consent" agreed to be intimately connected with administration, those facilities which are not presented with the sign are interpreted to have run independently or 'without human sway'.
Im focusing on this type at present:
Charvat has it that these signs, the LAGAB and MAH series, are likely to denote economic structures (again, in theory independently operating ones.) The Lagab sign is very simple and is either a circular or rectangular design containing a given sign - Charvat has little to say on it. However, for the MAH sign, he states that it appears "to depict a section through a high domed building with a feeding funnel at its top and an excavation passage at its bottom, served, according to the signs inscribed in them, mostly for storage of animal-husbandry products and fish (Glassner 2000a). A structure of this kind may have been excavated at Abu Salabikh (Pollock, Steele and Pope 1991.)
The author has named the above signs (BANSHUR, ME, PA, NUN/ERIDU) to show that the LAGAB or MAH signs representing economic structures, could be associated further with particular occasions or needs (BANSHUR), offices (ME, PA) or communities (NUN/ERIDU). (Additionally, with particular sites (DU6).)
So, what does all this mean? We know that the MAH represents a structure more or less like today`s grain silo, it stored produce. The exact significance of Charvats notion that these signs were not in direct influence of the EN (not associated with the EN sign) eludes me, however its interesting to see that these signs could be paired with signs mentioned above, a sign like lagab-NUN/ERIDU would possibly be used to alot goods for Eridu - or a storage unit paired with office could be a sign used when indicating how much of a certain supply was to go to a certain office for its monthly ration. These sorts of sign would make up a important component of economic texts, perhaps a scribe documenting trade exchange with Eridu may use the LAGABxNUN/ERIDU sign to denote export goods to that city for example. This sort of tablet and sign would facilitate the functioning of the administrative system as a whole.
Still to come... Administrative sign with EN associations
I think there is a lil typo here:
