57 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — ASSYRIOLOGIE 58 Glassner takes the relevant passage of Enmerkar’s letter to the sovereign of Aratta as containing enough magical force to “nail down” the Arattan to obedience to the mythical master of Uruk, referring, i. a., to the Mesopotamian custom of “clinching” house sales by driving a nail into the wall as a symbol of possession. He believes that this is exactly what happened to the lord of Aratta, who was “taken possession of” by the wedge(s) of the script in which Enmerkar’s message was written. The second chapter focuses on the review of the current state of knowledge of the emergence of cuneiform writing in ancient Southwestern Asia. Here the author takes, more or less, the side of authors of most manuals — cuneiform writ- ing is supposed to have been invented probably in southern Mesopotamia, in Late Uruk times (c. 3,500 — 3,200 B. C.). Here let us acknowledge with gratitude the diligence of the translators who complemented the book’s bibliography with works published after its appearance in French in 2000. Jean- Jacques Glassner’s conclusions based on the work of Diet- rich Sürenhagen may now be checked from the latter author’s own publication (Sürenhagen 1999). Here I wish to add a few of my own observations on the age of the invention of the cuneiform script: 1) it is likely to have been invented at the very end of — or, shortly after the extinction of — the Halaf culture, as the parallels between Halaf-culture repertory of symbols and the thesaurus of the earliest cuneiform signs are very few (Charvát 2002, 91-92), 2) the age of its invention may fall with in the Ubaid period: the leading decoration principle of Ubaid-culture pottery — the “Gleitspiegelung”, or mirror image — represents ASSYRIOLOGIE one of the procedures used in the earliest cuneiform (Glassner, op. cit., 128-129, the term “Gleitspiegelung” GLASSNER, J.-J. — The Invention of Cuneiform.Writing in having originally been used by Alwo von Wickede: Sumer. (Translated & Edited by Z. Bahrani and M. van de Charvát 2002, 67), Mieroop). The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 3) I have tried to argue that the earliest proto-cuneiform sign 2003. (23, 5 cm, XVII, 266). ISBN 0-8018-7389-4 for a scribe, UMBISAG, depicts a bale of goods with a prominent protrusion, possibly representing an attached Both Zainab Bahrani and Marc van de Mieroop have ren- seal. As such it must precede the Late Uruk age, when dered a major service to Assyriology by translating this container sealings were no longer the most typical repre- remarkable book, full of fresh ideas on the origin of one of sentatives of sealed goods (Charvát 1996), the world’s earliest writing systems, and originally published 4) and finally, cylinder seals, an invention more or less par- in 2000 as (Paris, Editions du Seuil 2000). In Ecrire à Sumer allel to that of script, turned up in Egypt at from least this manner, the most interesting and captivating ideas, with about 3600 B.C. (Pittman 1996, 16-17 and 24-26; on which Jean-Jacques Glassner has enriched our insights into cylinder seals in predynastic Egypt and their chronology the emergence and primary formation of the cuneiform-writ- cf. now Hill 2004, 16-17, 109-113). ten tradition, will undoubtedly find a wide echo throughout the academic community of many lands, and address those All this gives an approximate date of Ubaid to Middle Uruk interested readers who might have not been reached by the for the invention and introduction of the earliest proto- first, French edition of this erudite work.. cuneiform. In the Translators’ Preface, both scholars who rendered the As for the place of the invention, one should probably texts into English sketch briefly a history of the studies of the never tire from repeating that the fact that the earliest speci- origins of writing, and place Jean-Jacques Glassner’s work in mens of proto-cuneiform writing on clay turned up at Uruk a more general context of contemporary intellectual pursuits. does in no way prove that they were also written there. The In his turn, the savant author provides us in his Introduction mere fact that tags, that is, clay tablets clearly attached to car- with the background of his own study as he sees it. riers of other materials, and thus permitting at least a theo- At first, Jean-Jacques Glassner takes us to visit the ancient retical possibility of having been carried to Uruk from else- Sumerians who tell us how they viewed the invention of where, occur among the earliest proto-cuneiform tablets cuneiform themselves. Expounding at length the relevant pas- (Szarzynska 1994, most of Krystyna Szarzynska’s works are sages of the Sumerian epic known as “Enmerkar and the Lord now conveniently summarized in Szarzynska 1997), should of Aratta”, the autor shows how a ruler of an external polity militate against too rash conclusions. This is duly noted by was subdued to Sumerian rule by the mere recitation of a our savant author (p. 46), but alas, the majority of other cuneiform inscription written on a clay tablet. Jean-Jacques scholars seem to adhere to a different opinion. 59 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXII N° 1-2, januari-april 2005 60 The following three chapters give evidence on Jean- impressions, etc. Some of these changes might have been Jacques Glassner’s position towards the “received ideas” brought about by the necessity to transport written messages (idées reçues), some of the traditional opinions linked with over long distance, and thus to convey them by means of the origins of cuneiform with which he feels we have to dis- more coherent and sturdier carriers such as fired clay. Oth- pense. Our savant believes neither that cuneiform is an out- ers might have stemmed from the fact that procedures involv- come of a long preceding development, nor that it has ing script were now carried out on a much wider scale than emerged in consequence of streamlining of more efficient before, and by many more people some of whom might not accounting techniques by means of clay tokens, or, as he have been fully inititated into the use of writing — indeed, rightly remarks, calculi. Nor is he of the opinion that perhaps on purpose, as the Late Uruk elites might have cuneiform is to be viewed as containing any elements of pic- wished to keep the full knowledge of writing their secret. torial script. What, then, really is cuneiform writing? Jean-Jacques It goes without saying that the origins of many a major dis- Glassner brushes up his views in terms of a broadly con- covery of human history will always remain shrouded in mys- ceived canvas of ideas surrounding the origins of literate civ- tery, and perhaps rightly so. Without denying for a single sec- ilizations all over the world, but particularly in ancient South- ond Jean-Jacques Glassner’s right to exercise freely his west Asia. Taking up first the writing materials, he exerts creative capacities, I offer here my own perspective of the himself to convince us that the clay tablet and a reed stylus earliest history of cuneiform (in more detail cf. Charvát, were the very first carriers of literate culture. Here a most forthcoming). I believe that “it all began” at Susa, with the interesting passage is dedicated to the history of the Sumer- painted pots buried with the incumbents of the graves con- ian word for “scribe” (UMBISAG, cf. supra; in “The Inven- stituting the “massif funéraire” (latest Ubaid period). I see tion of Cuneiform” it may be found on pp. 107-110). in this huge funerary barrow a gigantic means of legitimation Citing my assumption that the earliest cuneiform texts of the paramounts of Susa. I suppose that every time a new were borne by carriers of perishable matters, Jean-Jacques chief was inaugurated into office, he re-united himself mys- Glassner refutes it as “hypothetical, without factual bases” tically with his ancestors or predecessors lying in graves of (op. cit., on p. 113). Leaving aside the question of what other the “Massif”. He also mystically re-enacted their memorable character this axiom can have, given the realities of feats and deeds. In order that this might happen, a “record” Mesopotamian climatic and pedological conditions, I know of such events was buried with all the venerable pesonages of no data that would exclude it from our reasoning, and I resting in peace in the “Massif”, being none ofher than the find at least one other indication in its support. This is the famous painted pots of Susa. These bear intelligible symbols, existence of “virtual signs”, “completely unknown” in pro- associating in accordance with definable rules. tocuneiform and without any subsequent traces in the writ- Things changed in the following period, the Early Uruk ten record (Glassner, op. cit. on p. 194). Were these signs culture which saw the erection of the impressive “Haute ter- truly “completely unknown in practice”, or did they appear rasse” at Susa. The iconography of sealings on clay shows a on perishable carriers only? threefold transformation of the old inauguration ceremony: Proceeding to what is probably the core chapter of his trea- 1) it was no longer performed for dead ancestors but for liv- tise, Jean-Jacques Glassner next describes the working of the ing communities, 2) its purpose was no longer to legitimize most ancient cuneiform writing to us. He sees in it a system the paramount but to trigger off fertility and procreation capa- of arbitrarily chosen signs, enclosed in itself and existing par- bility in all living things, and 3) instead of being performed allel to the spoken language, as well as characterized by three occasionally, it became a regular part of the cultic calendar, dominant features.