![]() ![]() Relationship between writing and bookkeeping noted by Biggs and others Of the sign SANGA in the archaic texts as the designation of what was 3: Visicato correctly cites the evidence for an interpretation viii: Presumably "Walter" Sommerfeld is meant. Produced a volume of high quality at a reasonable price. 135), the author's English isĮxcellent, his expository style a pleasure to read. Instance, "trawling excavation records" on p. Seminars and Assyriological libraries, Visicato should have included a Since the book was destined to be a necessary reference work in Substantial ( for instance, for the Fara archives, pp. In some cases, these interpretations can be (usually isolated according to the qualifying phrases dub-sar(-mah),Īgrig, and um-mi-a attached to personal names, but includingĪttestations of the same personal names without such qualification whereĮvidence supports his arguments), and concludes with an interpretation followed by lists of scribes attested in the texts This expository layout takes the form of short introductions to the The geographical situation of the numerous archives he has mustered. Textual, and above all prosopographical, evidence for scribal activity Scribal profession, Visicato presents in a series of chapters the Which the author describes earlier treatments of this subject andĪttempts to delineate the terminology applied in antiquity to the The book presents the Babylonian scribal tradition alongĬhronological and geographical guidelines. Mesopotamia, and Visicato could have made this Ur III evidence available This period witnessed far and away the greatestĬorpus of written evidence for the importance of accountancy in ancient Neusumerischer Zeit, Heidelberg 1974) offers sufficient reason for theĪuthor's decision not to include the scribal evidence from the Ur Hartmut W aetzoldt (Das Schreiberwesen in Mesopotamien nach Texten aus One might wonder whether theĮxistence of an unpublished but widely circulated Habilitationsscrift by 2500-2350 B.C), and several thousand from the OldĪkkadian period (ca. 2600ī.C.), two thousand from ED IIIb ("pre-Sargonic Lagash Visicato, for reasons left unstated, names this periodĮD II), five hundred from ED IIIa ("Fara period' Ca. Thousand exemplars from Uruk IV-III, four hundred from Early Dynastic I Self-evidently, all clay documents are the products of scribes, and the We are blessed-and cursed- with a mountain of evidence from which toĭraw conclusions concerning this first millennium of cuneiform. As is abundantly clear to anyone who has considered the topic, until the close of the Old Akkadian period ca.Ģ200 B.C. ![]() Person of the Mesopotamian scribe, from his first activity in the Late Visicato presents as the object of his study the institution and Therefore be understood as a work by and for the Assyriologist. Unfortunately for the non-specialist, these sectionsĪre difficult to find in this extremely dense volume, which must What has evidently been a diligent examination of early cuneiform on the Not meant for a general public, although several sections, including "Although he is mentioned as an agrig only in aĭumu-dumu conscription text, he is in fact the ugula in charge of an The Power and the Writing: The Early Scribes of Mesopotamia. APA style: The Power and the Writing: The Early Scribes of Mesopotamia.The Power and the Writing: The Early Scribes of Mesopotamia." Retrieved from ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |