Jump to content

Talk:Cuneiform

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reliable sources

[edit]

I've reverted changes that used the book Our Ancestors Came from Outer Space by Maurice Chatelain as a source. As far as I can tell, this source does not meet the relevant WP:RS criteria for this field of study. A discussion on this matter is also in progress at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Our_Ancestors_Came_From_Outer_Space_as_a_source_for_Cuneiform_script. -- The Anome (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping by after reading the post at RSN. I agree with Anome's revert. The source is not reliable enough to support the information added. Blueboar (talk) 11:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like Erik Dunnycan recycled. Anything 'reliable' in that source comes from the author's cannibalization of standard works on cuneiform, and therefore, ipso facto this makes it pointless as a source, esp. since it skews even those.Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of major Cuneiform tablet discoveries

[edit]

I notice that some of Wikiposter1's editing remains in this table. Given the dispute over sourcing, and the lack of citations for most entries in that table, it's hard to tell what is sourced from where, if indeed anywhere at all. Would it be possible to add citations to the various entries there? -- The Anome (talk) 09:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a source had never been cited, I'd've been more open to including it (with a CN tag). The info is not objectionable in itself but the source is so objectionable that I'd like to see the material reliably sourced before its restored. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The simple solution is to excerpt it from the text and open a section here, where, once it is edited to fill the gaping lacunae in sourcing and the obvious errors corrected, can be plunked back. I just gave it a cursory glance and one's eye gets hooked on that 100,000 from Drehen. The Puzriš-Dagan hoard yielded 12,000 tablets, and 100,000 looks like a rough underestimate for the total count for Third Dynasty cuneiform remains which are 10 times the Puzriš-Dagan finds.Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Bertman actually does state that on Puzriš-Dagan p.28 but he's a classicist writing a popular synthesis that lies out of his subject range. Nishidani (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copying it here is a good idea. I'm busy for a few days though. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked, Doug. The exact figures for Puzriš-Dagan are given in Amanda Podany, The Ancient Near East: A Very Short Introduction, OUP 2013 p.58. Someone can correct it when it's shifted for work here.Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Translation needed of cuneiform tablet

[edit]
File:Complaint tablet to Ea-nasir - front.jpg
Complaint tablet to Ea-nasir

A request has been made for a proper translation of this complaint letter. If you can read it, please visit and comment at:

Many thanks.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History Section-- possible addition

[edit]

The history section of this article currently gives some great information about how the script itself developed and evolved over time. I am thinking that it might be worth adding a brief section within the history section on how this ancient writing was used. For example, its use in law-making and recording history. I understand that this may fall into the overall Mesopotamian culture category, but I think it is worth noting at least briefly some ways this script was used in context. Please let me know of any thoughts/concerns. 128.239.247.254 (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Gabriela — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.247.254 (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits Update

[edit]

After checking the suggested article format on the WikiProject: Writing Systems page, I have decided to make the additions mentioned above under a separate category called "Usage." This should make the distinction between the development of the system and the system's cultural context more clear than how I previously intended to include the addition. 128.239.247.254 (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Gabriela[reply]

By all means... Be bold. Welcome. Kleuske (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giosafat Barbaro: didn't discover cuneiform

[edit]

In this article's "Decipherment" section, it states:

"In the 15th century, the Venetian Giosafat Barbaro explored ancient ruins in the Middle East and came back with news of a very odd writing he had found carved on the stones in the temples of Shiraz and on many clay tablets."

This claim is not referenced. I checked Barbaro's book:

Neither one of these books makes any mention of Barbaro noticing any strange writing in Persia. They do, however, mention that he visited some ancient ruins while he was in Persia. See pages 80–81 of the English translation, and page 47 of the original in Italian.

Books on cuneiform that mention Barbaro state only that Barbaro toured ancient ruins in Persia. See, for example:

  • Meade, C. Wade, Road to Babylon: Development of U.S. Assyriology (Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1974), p. 4.
  • Kramer, Samuel Noah, The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1963), p. 9.
  • Booth, Arthur John, The Discovery and Decipherment of the Trilingual Cuneiform Inscriptions (London, England: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1902), pp. 9–10.

So far, only one book claims that Barbaro discovered cuneiform. It's a history book that was written for children:

  • Loon, Hendrik Willem Van, Ancient Man: The Beginning of Civilizations (New York, New York: Boni and Liveright, Inc., 1922), p.115.

(Note that (1) Barbaro made no mention of visiting any temples in caves, and (2) van Loon says that cuneiform resembled "a series of scratches made by a sharp nail." "Nail-writing" was the Arab term for cuneiform (See: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911: Cuneiform) )

Since the article provides no citation for the claim that Barbaro was the first European to discover cuneiform, and since no evidence for the claim can be found (excepting a children's book), I would urge that the claim be deleted.

VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ductus

[edit]

Please explain the word "ductus" used in this article. 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:55B3:D03:F69C:563B (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot. It is now wikilinked, so readers should be able to easily find out what it is (characteristics of writing like stroke directions, speed, etc.). --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed page move reverted

[edit]

The page was moved back to Cuneiform script without discussion despite the above consensus to move it to Cuneiform. I have reverted this move. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sumer or Uruk?

[edit]

Hello. I wonder that how Cuneiform could be invented by Sumerians if that moment there was Uruk, but not Sumer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahanshah5 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to you too but I got a question for you: If you are going to make affirmations like you just did, would you be so kind as to supply references for those affirmations... otherwise, nobody is going to give hoot!

And oh yes! Could you also sign your posts? How big must it be written? Netweezurd (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Common Era

[edit]

I might be wrong here but since we are in the 21st century, can we move pass the Anno Domini and use the BCE (Before the Common Era or Before the Current Era) and CE (Common Era)? Netweezurd (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That battle has been fought before: MOS:ERA. DRMcCreedy (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Lack of mentions of bullae

[edit]

There is a surprising lack of mention to bullae and proto-writing that lead to sumerian symbols. Actually I prefer that is there although there would be only the opposing view than no mention at all. --Jakeukalane (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Cuneiform Pictograph Translation

[edit]

The Pictograph shown in Cuneiform#Archaic cuneiform (circa 3000 BC), (Cuneiform#/media/File:Cuneiform pictographic signs (vertical).jpg), has an error in it's translation. The sign for "Corn" is actually for Barley, as shown in the source it cites (https://archive.org/details/Walker.C.ReadingThePastCuneiform/page/n9/mode/2up, page 10). Corn is a New-World crop, and certainly was not accessible to early Mesopotamia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JungleEntity (talk • contribs) 23:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The word corn is ambiguous: in US English it means maize (a New World cereal) while in UK English it means any cereal, usually the local staple. Barley (used in the Old World as food but also to make beer and whisky) would (in UK English) be a typical "corn". — Tonymec (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! I never knew this, and it seems to be right as the book was published by the British Museum. Thanks! JungleEntity (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. According to the article Barley, barley was one of the first cultivated grains, so it is quite possible that when cuneiform writing was invented it was the only food cereal, IOW at that time and place a single word might mean both "barley" and "cereal". — Tonymec (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

a logo-syllabic script that was used to write several languages?

[edit]

'Cuneiform[note 1] is a logo-syllabic script that was used to write several languages of the Ancient Near East.'

As far I can tell, cuneiform isn't a singe script of a definite type, it's just a technique of writing in clay tablets with certain shapes, which has been used with several different scripts. The Ugaritic and Old Persian cuneiform scripts have nothing in common with Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform besides that technique, and they aren't logo-syllabic, unlike it. Really, the definition given here applies only to Sumero-Akkadian (and, by extension, Hittite, Elamite, Eblaite, Hurrian and Urartian) cuneiform.--79.100.144.23 (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic????

[edit]

I cannot find a single proof that Cuneiform was used to write Arabic. Not even a literary reference or an actual archeological proof of such claim. دانيالوه (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article say it was? Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it claims that old Arabic was written using this script. دانيالوه (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old Arabic isn't the same, and this has now been removed, no doubt correctly. When asked a question like this, please givwe a specific answer, in this case "in the infobox". Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Cuneiform

[edit]

I've been thinking about, ok just toying with, the idea of doing an actual not too long wiki article for Proto-Cuneiform by which I mean after tokens and before the development of more or less full blown cuneiform. So ending somewhere in ED I but mainly I'm talking about Uruk IV and Uruk III / Jemdet Nasr. Maybe merge in a few stubs like Kish tablet and Proto-cuneiform numerals. I suppose alternatively could just plus up the section in the Cuneiform article. Any thoughts?Ploversegg (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Proto-Cuneiform.Ploversegg (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merging in Babylonian cuneiform numerals

[edit]

I'm wondering if perhaps Babylonian cuneiform numerals should just be merged into the main cuneiform article. It wouldn't add that much to the length after the verbiage is removed.Ploversegg (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linear Elamite

[edit]
The decipherment of cuneiform took place between 1802 and 2022, beginning with the decipherment of Old Persian cuneiform in 1836 and ending with Linear Elamite in 2022.

Pardon my ignorance but how does work on a non-cuneiform script complete the decipherment of cuneiform? —Tamfang (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See under Linear Elamite where it is said that the most important longer Elamite texts were partly bilingual Akkadian / Elamite. Now Akkadian was already a known language. These bilingual texts, or text fragments, certainly helped understand the Elamite language the way the trilingual (well, triscriptural) Rosetta stone helped understand Egyptian hieroglyphs. Once Elamite was understood in its linear form, it was certainly easier to decipher it also in its cuneiform form. Tonymec (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true - the cuneiform form of Elamite was deciphered long before the linear form was (unsurprisingly, since it is based on Sumerian cuneiform and we already know the sound values of its signs). I'd say that it will be an amazing success if Linear Elamite can soon be read at least as well as Cuneiform Elamite has long been able to be read. If Linear Elamite ends up advancing the understanding of some details of Cuneiform Elamite, these advances will still be a long way from a 'decipherment'. And texts in Linear Elamite are far fewer, further decreasing their potential usefulness. As far as I know, the problems with reading Cuneiform Elamite come from the vocabulary - as there are many words whose meaning is still unknown - not from the script. The basics of its grammar are known fairly well even now.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article doubled in size

[edit]

The last few edits have been very confusing – the article appears to have doubled in size from c.150kb to c.300kb. What has been added and why? 300kb seems too much. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor deficiencies in the great tables

[edit]

Antiquistik, I noticed the great (and awsome, and very helpful) tables you added in this article have come minor deficiencies: there are no cuneiform signs for gàz (gaz₃), for kám (kam₂), for sám (sam₂), for san₄, and for šám (šam₂). I can say quite confidently these are all of the deficiencies (I found them as a result of a technical processing I did to the tables for Hebrew Wikipedia). If you can find the cuneiform sign for these, that would be great. פעמי-עליון (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes, now from the manual part of my processing:
  • "iì (ii₃) = 𒂊" appears only under Vi (and not under iV), and it is labeled as ii₃ while there is no ii₂;
  • "ai = 𒀀𒀀" appears under Ve (shouldn't it appear under Vi?);
  • There are "uá (ua₂)" and "ua₄", but no ua₃.
Of course, these tables are phenomenal work, and I'm no expert so I assume at least some of my notes are a result of misunderstanding of my own. פעמי-עליון (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@פעמי-עליון: Thanks for making me aware of these issues.
The signs for gàz (gaz₃), kám (kam₂), sám (sam₂), san₄, and šám (šam₂) are absent because they have not yet been encoded in Unicode. I will add them once they are included among the Unicode-encoded cuneiform signs.
I have corrected the placements of iì (ii₃) = 𒂊 and ai = 𒀀𒀀 in the table.
ii₂ and ua₃ are absent because the Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon lists only uá (ua₂) followed by ua₄ without any ua₃ sign. Antiquistik (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awsome, thanks! פעמי-עליון (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
is there a reason why every vowel sign is doubled? Because such rendundancy is often confusing Ichwerdennsonstthebest (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this mirrored table is a bit confusing. Also, in the Hebrew article I devided them to single vowels (" סימנים אכדיים הברתיים לתנועה בודדת (V)") and diphtongs (" סימנים אכדיים הברתיים ל"דו־תנועה" (VV)"), I think it is better. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 22:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cuneiform&oldid=1252145915"