Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-5lx2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T15:15:30.100Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

II. Threshing Implements in Ancient Mesopotamia: Cuneiform sources*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

P. Steinkeller
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This note examines the textual evidence bearing on Mesopotamian threshing implements, in the hope of throwing some light on the Uruk representations of sledges discussed in the first part of this article. The relevant terminology is limited to four words: giš-bad(-rá), kissappu, and dajaštu, and ḪAR-ḫa-da. “Of these, giš-bad(-rá), kissappu, and dajaštu have previously been recognized as denoting threshing implements; the suggestion that another such term is ḪAR-ḫa-da is new.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 52 , 1990 , pp. 19 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I wish to thank Mrs. M. A. Littauer for her kind invitation to become part of this fascinating investigation, and Professor Edith Porad a for having made this collaboration possible. I am also grateful to M. Civil for commenting on the first draft of this note. It goes without saying that responsibility for the views here expressed rests with me alone.

Abbreviations used are those of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary with the following additions:

TSA H. de Genouillac, Tablettes sumériennes archaïques (Paris, 1909)

ZAT M. W. Green, The Sign List, in M. W. Green, H. Nissen et al.Zeichenliste der archaischen Texte aus Uruk (Berlin, 1987), pp. 167–345.

References

18 The discussion of threshing implements in Salonen, A., Agricullura, pp. 170–177Google Scholar, is largely out-of-date.

19 See TCL 2, 5501Google Scholar ii 15 and A 4649 (unpubl.), both cited courtesy M. Civil, which record an offering for a giš-bad, next to similar offerings for a stool (gišš u4-a), a lyre (balag), a chariot (gišg i g i r), and a plough (giša pin). Further, note SACT 2, 277:1–4Google Scholar, listing ropes for a ship and a giš-bad (3 ébiḫ ki-lá-bi 15 ma-na ébiḫ gišmá dù-a ù giš-bad dù).

20 One possible explanation, suggested to me by M. Civil, is that the use of threshing machines was rare in ancient Mesopotamia, the usual threshing methods being flailing and the trampling by oxen.

21 Cited after M. Civil, The Farmer's Instructions (in press).

21a In contrast to Littauer and Crouwel, who translate tribulum as “threshing sledge” and plostellum as “threshing wheel,” I prefer to identify the former as “threshing board” and the latter as “threshing sledge.”

22 Seeden, H., Berytus 31 (1983), p. 18Google Scholar fig. 2.

23 Wulff, H., The Traditional Crafts of Persia (Cambridge, Mass., 1966), p. 274Google Scholar.

24 See Mieroop, M. van de, Crafts in the Early Isin Period, (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 24; Leuven, 1987), pp. 34, 36, 39–40Google Scholar.

25 See CAD K, p. 362 lex. section of kilzappu.

26 Cf. the ED Lagaš spelling ḫaḫ a r-r a-a n, a loan from the Akkadian ḫarrānu (see Bauer, J., WO 9 (1977), p. 6)Google Scholar, in which the phonetic indicator ḫa regularly precedes the sign ḪAR.

27 Unless the shape of the instrument resembled that of the implement. I owe this observation to M. Civil.

28 In all probability, k ú n g a(BAR.AN) was a hybrid of the donkey and the onager. See Postgate, J. N. in Meadow, R. H. and Uerpmann, H.-P., eds., Equids in the Ancient World (Wiesbaden, 1986), pp. 195–198Google Scholar.

29 As I suggested in my unpublished paper “Early Dynastic Burial Offerings in the Light of Textual Evidence” (190th meeting of the American Oriental Society, San Francisco, April 1980), DP 75 is a record of funerary offerings, which were presented by Lugal-anda, the governor of Lagaš, to his son Ur-tarsirsira, on the occasion of the funeral of Ur-tarsirsira's wife, named Nineniše. See the text's colophon: Ur-tar-sír-sír-ra dumu Nin-é-ni-šè dam-ni ba-túm-ma-a Lugal-an-da énsi Lagaški-ke4 e-na-ba, “(when) U., the son (of L.), buried his wife N., L. the governor of Lagaš, presented (these goods) to him” (viii 1–9). The translation “he buried” for ba-túm-ma assumes that the verb in question is (ki) … túm “to bury”. For a different interpretation of this passage, see Deimel, A., Or. 43-44, p. 130Google Scholar, who understood the verb as túm, “to bring, to carry away”, and thought that DP 75 was a list of wedding gifts (“DP 75 ist eine Liste von Hochzeitsgeschenken, die Lugalanda und Baragnamtarra ihrem Sohne Ur-tar-sír-sír-ra machten, als er ‘seine Gemahlin als seine Hausfrau einführte’ ”). The “burial” interpretation of the text is supported, in my opinion, by the following facts: (1) ki… túm, Akk. qebéru, “to bury”, appears as túm in Sollberger, Corpus, Ukg. 4 vi 15–16, ix 35–x 1: gi dEn-ki-ka-ka lú ù-túm, “after one was buried in the ‘Reed-of-Enki’ ” (note also the variant ki túm for túm in Sollberger, Corpus, Ukg. 4 vi 4); (2) assuming that the verb is “to bring, to take away”, the expected form would be ba-de6-a (de6= ḫamṭu root of túm/tùm); (3) the goods listed in DP 75 are strikingly reminiscent of the funerary offerings recorded in Mesopotamia: Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 8, pp. 68–69Google Scholar, a Pre-Sargonic document from Adab. For the PN Nin-é-ni-šè, cf. BIN 8, 252:8Google Scholar.

30 The reading KI.UD-ka, “Ödland”, offered by Bauer, J., Lagasch, p. 160Google Scholar, is impossible, since the term is a genitival syntagm. For the place-name Ki- (d)Utu-(k), see Rép. géogr. 1, p. 95Google Scholar. It is of interest that, on at least two occasions, Ki-Utu was visited by Uru-KA-gina's wife Šagšag and his daughter Geme-tarsirsira. See Or. 11, pp. 188–189Google Scholar VAT 4853 (Uru-KA-gina 2), recording food and garment allotments for a majordomo (sanga é-gal), a chief statue-builder (gal-TAG4.ALAM), a lapidary (zadim), two smiths (simug) and five silversmiths (kug-dím), which were made “when the … silver statue of Šagšag was set up in Ki-Utu” ([u]d UL alam kug-luḫ-ḫa Šag5-šag5, Ki-dUtu-ka ì-tuš-ša4-a–vi–vii), and TSA 2 (Uru-KA-gina 1), recording the expenditures of barley and emmer for Geme-tarsirsira, when “she resided in Ki-Utu” (Ki-dUtu-ka ì-tuš-ša4-a—xi 7–xii 1). This suggests that the Ḫ.S mentioned in VAS 14, 122Google Scholar (which dates to Uru-KA-gina's 3rd year) were manufactured in Ki-Utu in anticipation of a royal visit.

31 See Herzfeld, E., Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 6 (1934), p. 203Google Scholar; Falkenstein, A., ATU, p. 56Google Scholar nos. 741–742—“Schlitten”; Kramer, S. N., The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character (Chicago, 1963), p. 102Google Scholar fig. 3—“sledge”.

32 The sign is ATU 741, 742 = JEN 371 = ZAT 247. Although Green, M. W. (with Nissen, J.et al.), Zeichenliste der archaischen Texte aus Uruk (Berlin, 1987), p. 220Google Scholar, interprets this sign as GURUŠ, seeing KAL in the sign (ZAT 281), Falkenstein's analysis of the sign as KAL is almost certainly correct. Note that the archaic Ur sign (Burrows, E., UET 2Google Scholar, pl. 26 no. 326), which clearly represents KAL (as shown by the occurrences of zíd-KAL and ninda-KAL in archaic Ur texts; see Burrows, , UET 2, pp. 7–8)Google Scholar, obviously derives from ZAT 247 and not from ZAT 281.

33 A related sign is (ATU 743, 744, 745 = ZAT 248), which depicts a “sledge” with four wheels. Clearly, we find here the original sign for “wagon”. Cf. Falkenstein, , ATU, p. 56Google Scholar, who interprets it as “Wagen”. Against Green, , Zeichenliste, p. 220Google Scholar no. 248, the “wheels” show no relation to the sign TAR.

34 CAD L, pp. 191–194. Cf. Cooper, J. S., AnOr 25, p. 110Google Scholar.

35 Kismud gigir = up-pu (Hh VI 45Google Scholar); gišmud mar-gíd-da (MSL 6, p. 40 1.10)Google Scholar; gišmud mar (DP 411 i 4, 486 ii 7; Or. 16, p. 2Google Scholar VAT 4854 vi 3; etc.).

36 See Kilmer, A. D. in Finkelstein Mem. Vol., p. 131Google Scholar.

37 See Steinkeller, , Aula Orientalis 2 (1984), p. 139Google Scholar. To the examples cited there add DP 122 iii 4–5Google Scholar. (Prc-Sargonic, Lagaš): lú gá ux (Ni)-šub-ba dNanše-ka sig4 dím-me-dè, “men (who were designated) to make bricks in the brick-mould shed of Nanše”; cf. g á ˹giš˺ ù - š u b - b a in Gudea Cyl. A xiii 16, 20, xviii 17; Gudea Statue C i 20 (omits ù-); Gudea Statue E iii 1; Gudea Statue F ii 12.

38 Cf. giš-sag-du an-na and giš-sag-du ki-ta, the “upper” and “lower” asû (part of a loom), in Hh VI 306–307Google Scholar.

39 gišù-šub ab-ba = MIN (= na-al-bat-ti) ap-tum (Hh VII A 173); gišù-šub ab-ba = MIN (= na-al-bat-tum) ap-tum = bir-ri ša KÁ ap-ti (Hg.B II 96; 1 gišù-šub ka ab-ba ù-šuḫ5 l kùš-e sá-a (UET 3, 826Google Scholar iii 7). See also birru in CAD B, p. 260.

40 Any connection with the wickerwork that was found in association with Pu-abi's sledge? See above p. 18.

41 Cf. Civil, , JAOS 88 (1968), p. 8Google Scholar.

42 The basic meanings of umbin are “(finger) nail, animal claw”. When applied to furniture, urn bin means “leg”; when used in reference to vehicles, it denotes “wheel”. See the lexical sections of ṣsumbu and ṣupru in CAD Ṣ, pp. 244, 250–251. Among the early occurrences of u m b i n, note u m b i n l a g a b (DP 482 iii 6), possibly describing “solid wheel.”

43 The same was probably true of the Ḫ.S mentioned in example (12). See above n. 30.

43a While Littauer and Crouwel assume that the Uruk scenes depict a combination of two independent forms of transport: a sledge and a litter, I tend to think that the alleged “litter” (which, in my view, does not really show litter poles, and, therefore, qualifies better as a seat-box) was actually attached to the runners, thus forming a single object (cf. Pu-abi's sledge and the sledge depicted by the Uruk pictographs).

44 See above n. 29.

45 See above p. 18 and Plate IIIa.