Whoo, hey! Just found this note from the copyright page of the Annual Report:
"Overleaf: This text appears to identify two named slaves in the possession of a third individual. The sign for “slaves” in fact derives
from two distinct signs, one for male (
) and one for female (
) slave. Typical of proto-cuneiform texts, the inscription does not
include a preposition or verb, which would clarify the roles of the participants. This ambiguity is, in part, resolved by tablet format
and the organization of information into cases. OIM A2513. Clay. Purchased (Jemdet Nasr?). Ca. 3100
bc. 4.6 x 4.6 x 2.4 cm.
After Christopher Woods, “The Earliest Mesopotamian Writing,” in
Visible Language: inventions of Writing in the Ancient Middle East
and beyond
, edited by Christopher Woods, p. 39, fig. 2.6 (Oriental Institute Museum Publications 32; Chicago: The Oriental Institute,
2010). Photo by Jean Grant"
Pity the glyphs didn't make it through cut-n-paste.
"Overleaf: This text appears to identify two named slaves in the possession of a third individual. The sign for “slaves” in fact derives from two distinct signs, one for male ( ) and one for female ( ) slave. Typical of proto-cuneiform texts, the inscription does not include a preposition or verb, which would clarify the roles of the participants. This ambiguity is, in part, resolved by tablet format and the organization of information into cases. OIM A2513. Clay. Purchased (Jemdet Nasr?). Ca. 3100 bc. 4.6 x 4.6 x 2.4 cm. After Christopher Woods, “The Earliest Mesopotamian Writing,” in Visible Language: inventions of Writing in the Ancient Middle East and beyond , edited by Christopher Woods, p. 39, fig. 2.6 (Oriental Institute Museum Publications 32; Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 2010). Photo by Jean Grant"
Pity the glyphs didn't make it through cut-n-paste.