For the very few of you who actually read this blog, I thought it might be interesting to do a small study of what exactly the literature looks like physically that we are studying. All of these myths and stories that I am using as a comparison for the Biblical text are not made up by some madman/madwoman in an office somewhere in order to cast doubt into the minds of Christians and make them fall away. Nor were they (and yes this has been suggested to me as a serious explanation) put into the ground by Satan in order to lead us astray. These documents, in the form of clay, terracotta, or stone tablets, are excavated meticulously and studied ad nauseum by scholars and archaeologists, who then publish their findings in peer-critiqued journals. There have been literally tens of thousands of tablets discovered, and the number is being added to every day. It is very easy to date the tablets to a specific time period as the script has evolved and changed slightly depending on the era. It originally started with a reed stylus which the author would push into the clay which would create triangle wedge shapes. These wedges were then used in different forms and varieties to create a script. Of course when used on stone, the reed stylus did not work very well so the script was carved into the stone, but still using the wedge shapes (although the archaic script was more stylized). The script originally was meant to represent images in the same way as hieroglyphics, but as it evolved, it became more simplified, and the characters could really no longer be seen to represent anything. The cuneiform script was used originally in the Sumerian language, and then borrowed into Akkadian, Elamite, Hittite, Ugaritic, Persian, and many more. It was the most widespread form of written word used in the Ancient Near East.
For those who have studied Hebrew, Akkadian is similar grammatically and phonologically, but the writing system is completely different. Whereas classical Hebrew uses an alphabet to represent sounds, Akkadian has used the Sumerian script (which is a syllabic language) to write its own language. This has resulted in a very cumbersome script full of redundant writing. As well, Akkadian utilizes ideograms alongside phonetic spellings. To make matters worse, some signs can be either a sound or an ideogram depending on the context. As you can see, one should have a great deal of respect for those Assyriologists who have invested their time and lives into learning and deciphering this language. In this post, you will see exactly what the script looks like in its original context on real artifacts. Prepare to be overwhelmed.
A few years ago, while I was in Japan, I purchased a couple of cuneiform tablets. The first one that I want to look at is written in Old Babylonian from around 1500-1800 BCE and likely from the region of Ur. Although I can read Akkadian, I am much more familiar with the Neo-Assyrian script and this tablet is not only written in Old Babylonian, but being an administrative document, is written in a rather 'cursive' form making it difficult for one of my skill to read. All I was able to decipher is that it is a list of some sort naming the number of something over and over. I was recently able to find an antiquities dealer in the UK who acts as a middle man to an Assyriologist who will transliterate and translate tablets for a nominal fee as a way of getting the information in tablets of private collections into the hands of scholars. Feeling it was my duty for posterity, I employed his services and had him do the transliteration for my tablet. What follows are some pictures of the front with some close-ups as well as pictures of the obverse with close-ups. The tablet was in pieces and repaired. After the pictures are the comments from the Assyriologist as well as the complete transliteration and translation.
The tablet is encrusted with dirt, and clay from repairs. The beginnings and ends of lines are not clearly visible in the photos, but would be readable after conservation.
Transliteration:
