Keywords
Late Uruk, Proto-Elamite, proto-cuneiform, decipherment

§1. Introduction: The Model Contracts
§1.1. MDP 17, 112, like most proto-Elamite tablets, was first published in the early part of the twentieth century when understanding of both the writing system and the society that produced it were still relatively poor. Recent advances in the study of early Iran and the proto-Elamite writing system in particular have prompted a re-evaluation of the corpus (Englund 2004; Dahl 2013).

§1.2. The very difficult text was published first by V. Scheil in 1923. The present article is based on a new collation (Musée du Louvre, July 2011) that corrected several errors and helped illuminate the overall structure of the text. MDP 17, 112, is a small clay tablet from Susa, inscribed on both its obverse and reverse in the proto-Elamite script. Dating of proto-Elamite tablets is problematic; however, based on certain criteria established for determining the relative chronology of proto-Elamite texts (such as the thickness of the tablet, the format of the text, and the sign forms), it is likely a relatively late text (Dahl et al. 2013). MDP 17, 112, is an administrative document—with two exceptions the only genre identified in the proto-Elamite corpus thus far—and most likely records a roster or inventory of dependent workers belonging to a particular household or institution.

§2. The Text

Figure 1: MDP 17, 112
Note that these images reflect the tablet being rotated around its long, vertical axis, not its shorter, horizontal axis.

§3. Text Commentary
§3.1. Header
§3.1.1. Most proto-Elamite tablets begin with a sign that acts as a header for the entire text, and MDP 17, 112, is no exception. Headers are single and, often, complex graphemes that may represent the individual, household, or institution to which the document or entities recorded belong (Englund and Damerow 1989: 13). These signs correspond to similar information recorded at the end of some proto-cuneiform texts (Englund 2004: 106 n. 12).

§3.1.2. The header in MDP 17, 112, is M327+M342^[1], which corresponds to sign M327_a in Meriggi’s sign list (1974). This sign occurs in at least 35 published proto-Elamite texts (including MDP 17, 112). It is the header in all of these texts except for MDP 17, 132, and MDP 17, 146, in which it occurs in the body of the texts and appears to be modifying an entry that is being counted.

§3.1.3. Only four tablets containing the header M327+M342 are sealed, and they do not all bear the same seal. The seals associated with M327+M342 are: PES 198 (MDP 6, 233), PES 103 (MDP 17, 489), and an unidentified seal (MDP 17, 50; MDP 26, 52) (Legrain 1921; Scheil 1935; Amiet 1986).

§3.2. Entries
§3.2.1. The main entries in this text start on the obverse and continue onto the reverse, rotating the tablet on its vertical axis. MDP 17, 112, is a complex text compared to the standard proto-Elamite corpus because each entry in this text contains at least one, and sometimes several, sub-entries. Each main entry consists of a long string of non-numerical signs that can be analyzed as consisting of signs from two distinct sub-groups of the signary: owner signs and signs for which a syllabic value has been suggested (Englund 2004: 127; Dahl 2013). Almost all of the owner designations mentioned here occur in other proto-Elamite texts, indicating that they might indeed be standard professions or titles that are common among the proto-Elamite households or institutions that used this writing system.

§3.2.2. Many of the sub-entries do not occur in any other proto-Elamite text, which would be unusual if they represented positions or titles. Instead, based on the structure of the strings of signs there is a high likelihood these are syllabically written words or names, which could either designate the individual who fills the position or title preceding the personal name, or indicate an individual who is responsible to the individual holding the position or title preceding the personal name.

§3.3. Total
§3.3.1. Most proto-Elamite texts contain a total of all account entries. This total is always written on the reverse of the tablet, rotated around its vertical axis (Englund 1996: 161). Proto-Elamite totals can be comprehensive and complex, with each product individually totaled, or they can be simplified totals in which some of the entries being counted on the obverse are subsumed into another group of counted entities on the reverse.

§3.3.2. As expected, MDP 17, 112, ends with a total on the reverse of the tablet. In the main body of the text, there are seven groups of entries on the obverse and seven on the reverse. The total on the reverse of this tablet draws attention to a common feature of the proto-Elamite writing system: the sub-grouping of certain signs as other signs in the totals of the texts. The total on the reverse only contains five entries: M317, 1N₁₄ 2N₁; M54, 1N₁₄ 7N₁; M373, 3N₁; M72, 9N₁; M46, 1N₁. Therefore only five items (or groups of items) are being totaled. This suggests that some of the items counted in the main body of the text are being grouped with other entries and therefore totaled under a different sign in the summary. All the entries and numbers in the total of the text correspond to the numbers of the entries in the main body of the text except for M54. There are seventeen M54 in the total but only thirteen in the main body of the text. However, there are four M3_b in the main body of the text that are not accounted for in the total. If one counts these towards the M54 total then the numbers add up and there are no numerical entries in the main body of the text that are unaccounted for in the summary, and vice versa. Since M3_b is subsumed under M54 in the summary we can conclude that these two signs are likely to be semantically related.

§4. General Commentary
MDP 17, 112, is a typical proto-Elamite text in many ways. It begins with a header, ends with a total, and contains a number of entries and sub-entries that include numerical notations. There are, however, several features of this text that make it unusual and that are worth noting. These include the use of the numerical notation N₂ (which in this text count the objects or individuals being represented by the sign M54), the presence of a scribal error, and the inclusion of a postscript.

§4.1. N₂ in Proto-Cuneiform
§4.1.1. N₂ occurs in both proto-Elamite and proto-cuneiform. In the proto-cuneiform corpus, this sign belongs to the derived sexagesimal System S' and has the numerical value of “1.” A quick look at the proto-cuneiform corpus informs us that the System S' was used in a limited number of contexts: lexical lists concerning animals (W 20266,55), fish (W 21916,2; W 14777,b; W 21208,49), geography (W 21208,50), general vocabulary (W 14337,a+), and one lexical list of undetermined type (W 20266,175); texts concerning liquids (Nissen et al. 1993: 28), particularly beer and beer products; animal husbandry texts; texts possibly concerning foodstuffs; and a few texts of unknown content.

Figure 2: Sexagesimal System S' in Proto-Cuneiform

§4.1.2. The precise meaning and function of N₂ in proto-cuneiform is not known. It has been suggested that N₂ in proto-cuneiform is the precursor to the sign BAD, with the later readings uš₂/ug₇ attested in the Ur III and Old Akkadian periods (Damerow and Englund forthcoming), including at Ebla (Butz 1981: 338), and in these later texts it is clear that it bears the meaning “sacrificed,” or in the case of humans, simply “dead.” In order to evaluate whether or not N₂ could mean “dead” or “sacrificed” in the proto-cuneiform texts as well, we must look to the animal husbandry texts; the precise meaning “dead” or “sacrificed” cannot realistically be applied to lexical lists, foodstuffs, or beer products. Even in these texts, the function of N₂ is not obvious. Therefore the evidence we have to connect N₂ with “dead” animals is suspect. It comes from texts that are 1000 years younger than the proto-cuneiform texts, and from a proposed connection between N₂ and later BAD. The proposed sign evolution that lead the trend to associate N₂ with BAD—and therefore with the meaning “dead”—is diagrammed below.

§4.1.3. The only possible evidence for the derived sexagesimal System S' being used to denote dead or sacrificed animals in the Uruk corpus comes from Green’s (1980, 7-8) observation on Uruk animal husbandry texts:

The other two subtotals included in the grand total are designated ŠU and X [viz, and ]. Unfortunately, the poor state of preservation of the tablets hinders the interpretation of these entries. The only tablet with both obverse and reverse preserved (no. 48) includes only the subtotal ŠU, which clearly is the sum of the subcases in obv. i. In comparison, text no. 39 has two types of subcase entries, one with additional remarks and one with only a numeral and no remarks, these perhaps corresponding to the subtotals ŠU and X, respectively. A peculiar numeral sign—like the normal impressed circle or semicircle but with a horizontal wedge through it—is used for these entries. In texts with preserved subtotals it is used only for the subtotal X, never for the subtotal ŠU. Comparison of subtotals and totals shows this numeral to be equivalent in value to a numeral without the horizontal wedge. An examination of the bookkeeping remarks associated with the subtotals ŠU and X points to a cultic significance. Where legible they include SIG-^dINANNA, ^dINANNA, and E₂-NUN. Perhaps comparable is UDU-ŠU mentioned in two Old Babylonian texts as selected for, or on the occasion of, a “great festival.” If indeed these entries do record animals designated for cultic purposes, a guess for the identification of the sign X is SIZKUR, ‘sacrificial animal.’

§4.1.4. Even if N₂ is used to denote dead or sacrificed animals in the Uruk corpora, the evidence for this is weak and the texts themselves are inconclusive. It is more likely that N₂ in proto-cuneiform denotes the entities it counts as “other” or “special.” The meaning “dead” may then have been later attributed to it due to the confluence of the N₂/“TIL” and “BAD” signs.

§4.2. N₂ in Proto-Elamite
§4.2.1. In MDP 17, 112, N₂ is used to count M54 in four different entries (lines 1b, 3b, 4b, and 5b), and in each occurrence two N₂’s are listed (in other entries, however, M54 is counted with N₁). Based on the total on the reverse, each of these N₂’s must be equal in value to the sign N₁ in order for the total to equate the entries on the obverse. When totals are present on the reverse of tablets, N₂’s are always counted towards the summed totals (versus being subtracted from them) and objects counted with N₂ are never totaled separately from the same objects being counted by N₁. Therefore there is no total in the proto-Elamite corpus that includes the sign N₂.

§4.2.2. As demonstrated in MDP 17, 112, N₂ and N₁ do not occur in exclusive contexts: the object represented by the sign counted with N₂ can also be counted with N₁, even in the same text. This holds true for all objects counted by N₂ in the proto-Elamite corpus, including the following signs in ten texts (for the graphic forms of these signs, cf. figure 5 at the end of the article):

Every sign listed above most likely represents some kind of dependent worker (except M346, if that is indeed what is being counted in MDP 17, 350). Therefore it appears that N₂ is used exclusively, or almost exclusively, to count various types of dependent workers – as opposed products, commodities, or animals as in the proto-cuneiform corpus. If this is true, then proto-Elamite N₂ and proto-cuneiform N₂ have nothing in common apart from their graphical similarity.

Figure 3: The Early Convergence of N₂ and BAD.

§4.2.3. If we look at the text MDP 17, 120, we can see that N₂ is used to count M388 in line 36, as well as M66 and M371 in lines 16 and 30, respectively. On closer inspection though, the sign M388 also occurs in every entry that N₂ is present. There are two possible explanations for this: 1) M66 and M371 are in fact the entities being counted and it is a coincidence that M388 occurs in every entry; 2) M388 is being counted in all instances and the presence of other signs after M388 indicates that these signs are most likely modifiers or personal names, and can occur either before or after M388 possibly according to their linguistic class (i.e. personal names, adjectives, etc.) The second possibility is most likely. In fact, if we look at the “syntactic” structure of proto-Elamite entries, we can see a pattern where signs that are most likely modifiers or “adjectives” occur before the noun they are modifying, and strings of signs that are more likely personal names occur after the noun they are governing. Line 20 of MDP 17, 120, illustrates this pattern when compared to line 4 of the reverse (part of the total):

In this text the entity “M387_i M387_i M388” is being counted, as indicated in the total on the reverse, so those three signs act as a single unit in line 20 on the obverse. Based on other proto-Elamite texts, we know that M388 is a type of dependent worker, so M387_i M387_i must act as a modifier indicating that the three signs together denote a particular type of M388. The final three signs, which are all likely candidates for signs with syllabic values, might be the syllabically written personal name of this particular “M387_i M387_i M388.”

§4.2.4. In addition to acting as a numerical sign, N₂ also has a non-numerical value (transliterated as M386_a); such polyvalence is not uncommon in proto-Elamite (Englund 2004: 113). M386_a is classified as one of the 80-120 signs that are likely to carry a syllabic value. It occurs as a non-numerical sign in over 50 texts.

§4.2.5. As is illustrated above, the precise meaning and function of the sign N₂ in the proto-Elamite corpus is also not entirely understood. Similar to the proto-cuneiform corpus, N₂ carries a numerical value in proto-Elamite and is a graphical variant of N₁ with the addition of a single vertical stroke inside the body of the sign. It seems to carry the same numerical value as N₁, which represents one unit in both the decimal and sexagesimal numerical and metrological systems. Proto-Elamite N₂ on the other hand only exists in the decimal system. It is possible that proto-Elamite N₂ is a borrowing from proto-cuneiform, like most other proto-Elamite numerical signs were, and we could therefore look to proto-cuneiform to help deduce how N₂ was being used in proto-Elamite. There are several problems with this, however. The first is that the rest of the proto-cuneiform System S' (N₁₅ and N₃₅) is not attested in proto-Elamite. Second, as was already mentioned above, N₂ in proto-Elamite only operates in the decimal system so far as is attested, while N₂ in proto-cuneiform operates in the sexagesimal system. Third, the function of N₂ and the rest of the System S' in proto-cuneiform is not well established, as was illustrated above. Last, the types of entities being counted with N₂ in proto-cuneiform (animals, beer jars, foodstuffs, and lexical entries) are incongruent with what N₂ is being used to count in the proto-Elamite corpus (dependent workers).

§4.2.6. There is another explanation, however. Derived signs are common in the proto-Elamite script, and can be made by modifying basic signs by the addition of single wedges, dots, lines surrounding the sign, dots surrounding the sign, small wedge-like impressions surrounding the sign, or by other means. The derived signs most likely represent semantic or phonological variants on the original sign. Their prevalence in the writing system indicates that we should not assume that proto-Elamite N₂ was necessarily a direct borrowing from proto-cuneiform. I suggest that proto-Elamite N₂ was an independent development derived from proto-Elamite N₁ (which, along with the other basic numerical signs, was a direct borrowing from proto-cuneiform). Regardless of whether or not it was an independent development in proto-cuneiform and proto-Elamite, it is clear that N₂ was used to designate whatever it was used to count as “other,” or distinct from the usual or majority object being counted. In the case of proto-Elamite this could possibly indicate a difference in gender, in worker status, or in type or amount of rations to be received. In proto-cuneiform, perhaps N₂ indicated that a different type of grain was used to make the beer or different additives were infused into the beer in the case of beer texts, that certain animals were already designated for a certain purpose or function in the case of animal husbandry texts, and similar designations in lexical lists.

§4.3. A Scribal Error
§4.3.1. The addition of one M72 in the bottom margin of the obverse (in line 6e of the transliteration, actually in the middle of group 7), which Scheil mentions in his initial publication of the text (1923: 16) can only be interpreted as an emendation to the previous group of entries. Since this tablet maintains a fixed order of counted entities in each entry, we can ascertain that M72 was written directly below the position in which it should have been written if it had been originally included in the chain of entries for group 6; that is, as the last entry in the sequence.

Figure 4: The Peculiarities in MDP 17, 112

§4.3.2. Scribal errors of this sort are very rare in the proto-cuneiform record. This text therefore provides a rare example of such a situation, and from it we can conclude that one method of correcting scribal errors—at least in the proto-Elamite writing system—is to insert the missing sign(s) in the lower margins of a line, directly beneath where the entry should have been written in the first place.

§4.3.3. Scribal errors occur more commonly in the proto-Elamite corpus than in the proto-cuneiform corpus (for examples of errors in proto-cuneiform, see Nissen, Damerow, and Englund 1993: 42), especially as arithmetical incongruities between the entries and the total.

Figure 5: List of Relevant Proto-Elamite Signs

For example, if we look at MDP 6, 361, we can see that there are three entries counting M376 (in the second entry M376 must be implied even though it is not expressly written) on the obverse totaling 39 units; on the reverse, the total was originally written as being 59^[3] units of M376. At least one of the N₁₄’s appears to be erased, but there is still one more than we would expect to find based on the entries on the obverse, which leaves the apparent total at 49 units.

§4.4. Postscript
§4.4.1. The presence of postscripts (also called subscripts in other publications, see Dahl 2012; 2013) in the proto-Elamite corpus is rare, found in only about 100 out of over 1500 published proto-Elamite texts. Postscripts range from a single sign to a string of six signs, and it is still unclear what information they contain, what purpose they serve, and why some texts include them and others do not. The postscript in MDP 17, 112, is written after the total and consists of the following four signs: M139^? M32 M387 M218. This combination of signs does not occur in any other published proto-Elamite tablet, either as a postscript or otherwise.

§4.4.2. Although at this stage in the decipherment it is not possible to explain the presence of postscripts on certain Proto-Elamite tablets, preliminary investigations suggest that there may be a relationship between the postscript on a tablet and the header. Otherwise, there does not appear to be any relationship between postscripts and the presence or type of seal on the tablet, the entities being recorded, or other such markers. Due to the wide number of different postscripts, it is unlikely that they all represent a calendrical date, though they could reference festivals or other events. Another possibility is that they are a syllabic or pseudo-syllabic rendering of the name of the scribe who wrote the tablet.

§5. Conclusion
In many ways the text MDP 17, 112, is typical of the proto-Elamite corpus; however, it also illustrates a number of peculiarities of the proto-Elamite writing system (see figure 4), such as the use of the numerical value N₂, how proto-Elamite scribes accommodated a scribal error, and the presence of a postscript (illustrated in figure 4). While further research is necessary to fully understand how these features operate in the proto-Elamite writing system, I hope this article has demonstrated that these are indeed interesting aspects of the writing system that do warrant future study.

Version: 2 May 2015  

@article{Hawkins2015New,
	note = {[Online; accessed 2024-04-19]},
	address = {Oxford; Berlin; Los Angeles},
	author = {Hawkins,  Laura F.},
	journal = {Cuneiform Digital Library Journal},
	issn = {1540-8779},
	number = {1},
	year = {2015},
	publisher = {Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative},
	title = {A {New} {Edition} of the {Proto}-{Elamite}  {Text} {MDP} 17, 112},
	url = {https://cdli.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/articles/cdlj/2015-1},
	volume = {2015},
}

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Hawkins,  Laura F.
DA  - 2015///
PY  - 2015
ET  - 2015/5/2/
ID  - cdlj-2015-1
IS  - 1
J2  - CDLJ
SN  - 1540-8779
T2  - Cuneiform Digital Library Journal
TI  - A New Edition of the Proto-Elamite  Text MDP 17, 112
UR  - https://cdli.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/articles/cdlj/2015-1
VL  - 2015
Y2  - 2024/4/19/
ER  -