Cuneiform script

Cuneiform script,[a] one of the earliest systems of writing, was invented by the
Sumerians.[3] It is distinguished by itswedge-shaped marks on clay tablets, made by means
Cuneiform
of a blunt reed for a stylus. The name cuneiform itself simply means "wedge shaped".[4][5]

Emerging in Sumer in the late fourth millennium BC to convey the Sumerian language,
which was a language isolate (the Uruk IV period), cuneiform writing began as a system of
pictograms, stemming from an earlier system of shaped tokens used for accounting. In the
third millennium, the pictorial representations became simplified and more abstract as the
number of characters in use grew smaller (Hittite cuneiform). The system consists of a
combination of logophonetic, consonantal alphabetic and syllabic signs. Trilingual cuneiform inscription of
Xerxes at Van Fortress in Turkey,
The original Sumerian script was adapted for the writing of the Semitic Akkadian written in Old Persian, Akkadian and
(Assyrian/Babylonian), Eblaite and Amorite languages, the language isolate Elamite and Elamite
for the language isolate Hattic, Hurrian and Urartian languages, as well as Indo-European
Type Logographic and
languages Hittite and Luwian, and it inspired the later Semitic Ugaritic alphabet as well as
syllabic
Old Persian cuneiform. Cuneiform writing was gradually replaced by the Phoenician
alphabet during the Neo-Assyrian Empire (911–612 BC). By the second century AD, the
Languages Akkadian, Eblaite,
script had become extinct, its last traces being found in Assyria and Babylonia, and all
Elamite, Hattic, Hittite,
knowledge of how to read it was lost until it began to be deciphered in the 19th century
.
Hurrian, Luwian,
Sumerian, Urartian,
Between half a million[6] and two million cuneiform tablets are estimated to have been Old Persian
[7] –100,000 have been read
excavated in modern times, of which only approximately 30,000 Time c. 31st century BC to
or published. The British Museum holds the largest collection (c. 130,000), followed by the period 1st century AD
Vorderasiatisches Museum Berlin, the Louvre, the Istanbul Archaeology Museums, the
Parent (Proto-writing)
National Museum of Iraq, the Yale Babylonian Collection (c. 40,000) and Penn Museum. systems
Most of these have "lain in these collections for a century without being translated, studied Cuneiform
or published,"[6] as there are only a few hundred qualified cuneiformists in the world.
[7]
Child None; influenced
systems shape of Ugaritic;
apparently inspired
Old Persian
Contents
Direction Left-to-right
History
ISO 15924 Xsux, 020
Proto-literate period
Archaic cuneiform Unicode Cuneiform
Akkadian cuneiform alias
Assyrian cuneiform Unicode U+12000 to U+123FF
Derived scripts range
Cuneiform
Decipherment U+12400 to U+1247F
Proper names
Cuneiform Numbers
Transliteration and Punctuation
Syllabary
Sign inventories
Numerals
Usage
Unicode
List of major Cuneiform tablet discoveries
See also
Notes
 References
Bibliography
External links

History
The cuneiform writing system was in use for more than three millennia, through several stages of development, from the 34th century BC
down to the second century AD.[8] Ultimately, it was completely replaced by alphabetic writing (in the general sense) in the course of the
Roman era, and there are no cuneiform systems in current use. It had to be deciphered as a completely unknown writing system in 19th-
century Assyriology. Successful completion of its deciphering is dated to 1857.

The cuneiform script underwent considerable changes over a period of more than two millennia. The image below shows the
development of the sign SAG "head" (Borger nr
. 184, U+12295 ).

Stages:

1. shows the pictogram as it was drawn around 3000 BC

2. shows the rotated pictogram as written around 2800 BC
3. shows the abstracted glyph in archaic monumental inscriptions, from c. 2600 BC
4. is the sign as written in clay, contemporary to stage 3
5. represents the late 3rd millennium
6. represents Old Assyrian ductus of the early 2nd millennium, as adopted into Hittite
7. is the simplified sign as written by Assyrian scribes in the early 1st millennium and until the script's
extinction.

Proto-literate period
The cuneiform script was developed from pictographic proto-writing in the late 4th
millennium BC, stemming from the near eastern token system used for accounting.
Mesopotamia's "proto-literate" period spans roughly the 35th to 32nd centuries. The first
documents unequivocally written in Sumerian date to the 31st century atJemdet Nasr.

Originally, pictographs were either drawn on clay tablets in vertical columns with a
sharpened reed stylus or incised in stone. This early style lacked the characteristic wedge
shape of the strokes.

Certain signs to indicate names of gods, countries, cities, vessels, birds, trees, etc., are
known as determinatives and were the Sumerian signs of the terms in question, added as a
guide for the reader. Proper names continued to be usually written in purely "logographic"
Sumerian inscription in monumental fashion.
archaic style, c. 26th century BC
The earliest known Sumerian king whose name appears on contemporary cuneiform tablets
is Enmebaragesi of Kish. Surviving records only very gradually become less fragmentary
and more complete for the following reigns, but by the end of the pre-Sargonic period, it had become standard practice for each major city-
state to date documents by year-names commemorating the exploits of itslugal (king).

From about 2900 BC, many pictographs began to lose their original function, and a given sign could have various meanings depending on
context. The sign inventory was reduced from some 1,500 signs to some 600 signs, and writing became increasingly phonological.
Determinative signs were re-introduced to avoid ambiguity. Cuneiform writing proper thus arises from the more primitive system of
pictographs at about that time (Early Bronze Age II).
Archaic cuneiform
In the mid-3rd millennium BC, writing direction was changed to left-to-right in horizontal
rows (rotating all of the pictographs 90° counter-clockwise in the process), and a new
wedge-tipped stylus was used which was pushed into the clay, producing wedge-shaped
("cuneiform") signs; these two developments made writing quicker and easier. By adjusting
the relative position of the tablet to the stylus, the writer could use a single tool to make a
variety of impressions.

Cuneiform tablets could be fired in kilns to provide a permanent record, or they could be
recycled if permanence was not needed. Many of the clay tablets found by archaeologists
were preserved because they were fired when attacking armies burned the building in Letter sent by the high-priest Luenna
which they were kept. to the king of Lagash (maybe
Urukagina), informing him of his
The script was also widely used on commemorative stelae and carved reliefs to record the son's death in combat,Girsu c. 2400
BC
achievements of the ruler in whose honour the monument had been erected.

The spoken language included many homophones and near-homophones, and in the
beginning similar-sounding words such as "life" [til] and "arrow" [ti] were written with the
same symbol. After the Semites conquered Southern Mesopotamia, some signs gradually
changed from being pictograms to syllabograms, most likely to make things clearer in
writing. In that way the sign for the word "arrow" would become the sign for the sound
"ti". Words that sounded alike would have different signs; for instance the syllable "gu" had
fourteen different symbols. When the words had similar meaning but very different sounds
they were written with the same symbol. For instance "tooth" [zu], "mouth" [ka] and
"voice" [gu] were all written with the symbol for "voice". To be more accurate, scribes Cuneiform inscriptions, Stela of Iddi-
started adding to signs or combining two signs to define the meaning. They used either Sin, king of Simurrum
geometrical patterns or another cuneiform sign. As time went by, the cuneiform got very
complex and the distinction between a pictogram and syllabogram became vague. Several
symbols had too many meanings to permit clarity. Therefore, symbols were put together to
indicate both the sound and the meaning of a compound. The word "Raven" [UGA] had the
same logogram as the word "soap" [NAGA], name of a city [EREŠ] and the patron goddess
of Eresh [NISABA]. Two phonetic complements were used to define the word [u] in front
of the symbol and [gu] behind. Finally the symbol for "bird" [MUŠEN] was added to
ensure proper interpretation.

Written Sumerian was used as a scribal language until the first century AD. The spoken An inscribed stand's head, early
language died out around the 18th century BC. dynastic period

Akkadian cuneiform
The archaic cuneiform script was adopted by the Akkadian Empire from the 23rd century BC (short chronology), and by the beginning of
the Middle Bronze Age (20th century BC), it had evolved into Old Assyrian cuneiform, with many modifications to Sumerian orthography.
The Semitic languages employed equivalents for many signs that were distorted or abbreviated to represent new values because the syllabic
nature of the script as refined by the Sumerians was not intuitive to Semitic speakers. At this stage, the former pictograms were reduced to a
high level of abstraction, and were composed of only five basic wedge shapes: horizontal, vertical, two diagonals and the Winkelhaken
impressed vertically by the tip of the stylus. The signs exemplary of these basic wedges are

AŠ (B001, U+12038) : horizontal;

DIŠ (B748, U+12079) : vertical;
GE23, DIŠ tenû (B575, U+12039) : downward diagonal;
GE22 (B647, U+1203A) : upward diagonal;
U (B661, U+1230B) : the Winkelhaken.
Except for the Winkelhaken which has no tail, the length of the wedges' tails could vary as required for sign composition.

Signs tilted by about 45 degrees are called tenû in Akkadian, thus DIŠ is a vertical wedge and DIŠ tenû a diagonal one. If a sign is modified
with additional wedges, this is called gunû or "gunification;" if signs are crosshatched with additional Winkelhaken, they are called šešig; if
signs are modified by the removal of a wedge or wedges, they are callednutillu.

"Typical" signs have about five to ten

wedges, while complex ligatures can
consist of twenty or more (although it is
not always clear if a ligature should be
considered a single sign or two collated,
but distinct signs); the ligature KAxGUR7
consists of 31 strokes.

Most later adaptations of Sumerian

cuneiform preserved at least some aspects
of the Sumerian script. Written Akkadian
included phonetic symbols from the
Sumerian syllabary, together with
logograms that were read as whole words.
Many signs in the script were polyvalent,
having both a syllabic and logographic
meaning. The complexity of the system
bears a resemblance to Old Japanese,
One of the Amarna letters, 14th
written in a Chinese-derived script, where century BC
Cuneiform tablet from the Kirkor
some of these Sinograms were used as
Minassian collection in the US
Library of Congress, c. 24th century logograms and others as phonetic
BC characters.

Assyrian cuneiform Neo-Assyrian ligature KAxGUR7 ( );

This "mixed" method of writing continued through the end of the Babylonian and Assyrian the KA sign ( ) was a Sumerian
empires, although there were periods when "purism" was in fashion and there was a more compound marker, and appears
marked tendency to spell out the words laboriously, in preference to using signs with a frequently in ligatures enclosing other
signs. GUR7 is itself a ligature of
phonetic complement. Yet even in those days, the Babylonian syllabary remained a mixture
SÍG.AḪ.ME.U, meaning "to pile up;
of logographic and phonemic writing.
grain-heap" (Akkadiankamāru; karû).
Hittite cuneiform is an adaptation of the Old Assyrian cuneiform of c. 1800 BC to the
Hittite language. When the cuneiform script was adapted to writing Hittite, a layer of
Akkadian logographic spellings was added to the script, thus the pronunciations of many Hittite words which were conventionally written
by logograms are now unknown.

In the Iron Age (c. 10th to 6th centuries BC), Assyrian cuneiform was further simplified. From the 6th century, the Akkadian language was
marginalized by Aramaic, written in the Aramaean alphabet, but Neo-Assyrian cuneiform remained in use in literary tradition well into
[9]
times of Parthian Empire (250 BC – AD 226). The last known cuneiform inscription, an astronomical text, was written in 75 AD.

Derived scripts
The complexity of the system prompted the development of a number of simplified versions of the script. Old Persian was written in a
subset of simplified cuneiform characters known today as Old Persian cuneiform. It formed a semi-alphabetic syllabary, using far fewer
wedge strokes than Assyrian used, together with a handful of logograms for frequently occurring words like "god" and "king". Ugaritic was
written using the Ugaritic alphabet, a standard Semitic stylealphabet (an abjad) written using the cuneiform method.
Decipherment
For centuries, travellers to Persepolis, in modern-day Iran, had noticed carved cuneiform inscriptions and were intrigued.[10] Attempts at
deciphering these Old Persian writings date back to Arabo-Persian historians of the medieval Islamic world, though these early attempts at
decipherment were largely unsuccessful.[11]

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 ofShiraz and on many clay tablets.

Antonio de Gouvea, a professor of theology, noted in 1602 the strange writing he had had occasion to observe during his travels a year
earlier in Persia which took in visits to ruins.[12][13][14] In 1625, the Roman traveler Pietro Della Valle, who had sojourned in Mesopotamia
between 1616 and 1621, brought to Europe copies of characters he had seen in Persepolis and inscribed bricks from Ur and the ruins of
Babylon.[15][16] The copies he made, the first that reached circulation within Europe, were not quite accurate but Della Valle understood
[17]
that the writing had to be read from left to right, following the direction of wedges, but did not attempt to decipher the scripts.

Englishman Sir Thomas Herbert, in the 1638 edition of his travel book Some Yeares Travels into Africa & Asia the Great. … , reported
seeing at Persepolis carved on the wall "a dozen lines of strange characters…consisting of figures, obelisk, triangular, and pyramidal" and
thought they resembled Greek.[18] In the 1677 edition he reproduced some and thought they were 'legible and intelligible' and therefore
decipherable. He also guessed, correctly, that they represented not letters or hieroglyphics but words and syllables, and were to be read from
left to right.[19] Herbert is rarely mentioned in standard histories of the decipherment of cuneiform.

Carsten Niebuhr brought the first reasonably complete and accurate copies of the inscriptions at Persepolis to Europe in 1767.[20][10]:9
Bishop Friedrich Münter of Copenhagen discovered that the words in the Persian inscriptions were divided from one another by an oblique
wedge and that the monuments must belong to the age of Cyrus and his successors. One word, which occurs without any variation towards
the beginning of each inscription, he correctly inferred to signify "king".[21][10]:10 By 1802 Georg Friedrich Grotefend had determined that
two kings' names mentioned were Darius and Xerxes (but in their native Old Persian forms, which were unknown at the time and therefore
had to be conjectured), and had been able to assign correct alphabetic values to the cuneiform characters which composed the two
names.[22] Although Grotefend's Memoir was presented to the Göttingen Academy of Sciences and Humanities on September 4, 1802, the
Academy refused to publish it; it was subsequently published in Heeren's work in 1815, but was overlooked by most researchers at the
time.[23][24]

In 1836, the eminent French scholarEugène Burnouf discovered that the first of the inscriptions published by Niebuhr contained a list of the
satrapies of Darius. With this clue in his hand, he identified and published an alphabet of thirty letters, most of which he had correctly
deciphered.[10]:14[25][26]

A month earlier, a friend and pupil of Burnouf's, Professor Christian Lassen of Bonn, had also published his own work on The Old Persian
Cuneiform Inscriptions of Persepolis.[26][27] He and Burnouf had been in frequent correspondence, and his claim to have independently
detected the names of the satrapies, and thereby to have fixed the values of the Persian characters, was consequently fiercely attacked.
According to Sayce, whatever his obligations to Burnouf may have been, Lassen's

...contributions to the decipherment of the inscriptions were numerous and important. He succeeded in fixing the true values
of nearly all the letters in the Persian alphabet, in translating the texts, and in proving that the language of them was not
Zend, but stood to both Zend andSanskrit in the relation of a sister.

— Sacye[10]:15

Meanwhile, in 1835 Henry Rawlinson, a British East India Company army officer, visited the Behistun Inscriptions in Persia. Carved in the
reign of King Darius of Persia (522–486 BC), they consisted of identical texts in the three official languages of the empire: Old Persian,
Assyrian and Elamite. The Behistun inscription was to the decipherment of cuneiform what the Rosetta Stone was to the decipherment of
Egyptian hieroglyphs.[28]

Rawlinson correctly deduced that the Old Persian was a phonetic script and he successfully deciphered it. In 1837 he finished his copy of
the Behistun inscription, and sent a translation of its opening paragraphs to the Royal Asiatic Society. Before his article could be published,
however, the works of Lassen and Burnouf reached him, necessitating a revision of his article and the postponement of its publication. Then
came other causes of delay. In 1847 the first part of the Rawlinson's Memoir was published; the second part did not appear until 1849.[29][b]
[10]:17
The task of deciphering the Persian cuneiform texts was virtually accomplished.

After translating the Persian, Rawlinson and, working independently of him, the Irish Assyriologist Edward Hincks, began to decipher the
others. (The actual techniques used to decipher theAkkadian language have never been fully published; Hincks described how he sought the
proper names already legible in the deciphered Persian while Rawlinson never said anything at all, leading some to speculate that he was
secretly copying Hincks.[30] ) They were greatly helped by the excavations of the French naturalist Paul Émile Botta and English traveler
and diplomat Austen Henry Layard of the city of Nineveh from 1842. Among the treasures uncovered by Layard and his successor
Hormuzd Rassam were, in 1849 and 1851, the remains of two libraries, now mixed up, usually called the Library of Ashurbanipal, a royal
archive containing tens of thousands of baked clay tablets covered with cuneiform inscriptions.

By 1851, Hincks and Rawlinson could read 200 Babylonian signs. They were soon joined by two other decipherers: young German-born
scholar Julius Oppert, and versatile British Orientalist William Henry Fox Talbot. In 1857 the four men met in London and took part in a
famous experiment to test the accuracy of their decipherments. Edwin Norris, the secretary of the Royal Asiatic Society, gave each of them
a copy of a recently discovered inscription from the reign of the Assyrian emperor Tiglath-Pileser I. A jury of experts was empanelled to
examine the resulting translations and assess their accuracy. In all essential points the translations produced by the four scholars were found
to be in close agreement with one another. There were of course some slight discrepancies. The inexperienced Talbot had made a number of
mistakes, and Oppert's translation contained a few doubtful passages which the jury politely ascribed to his unfamiliarity with the English
language. But Hincks' and Rawlinson's versions corresponded remarkably closely in many respects. The jury declared itself satisfied, and
the decipherment of Akkadian cuneiform was adjudged afait accompli.[31]

Proper names
In the early days of cuneiform decipherment, the reading of proper names presented the greatest difficulties. However, there is now a better
understanding of the principles behind the formation and the pronunciation of the thousands of names found in historical records, business
documents, votive inscriptions, literary productions and legal documents. The primary challenge was posed by the characteristic use of old
Sumerian non-phonetic logograms in other languages that had different pronunciations for the same symbols. Until the exact phonetic
reading of many names was determined through parallel passages or explanatory lists, scholars remained in doubt, or had recourse to
conjectural or provisional readings. Fortunately, in many cases, there are variant readings, the same name being written phonetically (in
whole or in part) in one instance and logographically in another
.

Transliteration
Cuneiform has a specific format for transliteration. Because of the script's
polyvalence, transliteration requires certain choices of the transliterating scholar, who
must decide in the case of each sign which of its several possible meanings is
intended in the original document. For example, the sign DINGIR in a Hittite text
may represent either the Hittite syllable an or may be part of an Akkadian phrase,
representing the syllable il, it may be a Sumerogram, representing the original
Sumerian meaning, 'god' or the determinative for a deity. In transliteration, a different
rendition of the same glyph is chosen depending on its role in the present context. Extract from the Cyrus Cylinder (lines 15–
21), giving the genealogy ofCyrus the
Therefore, a text containing DINGIR and MU in succession could be construed to Great and an account of his capture of
represent the words "ana", "ila", god + "a" (the accusative case ending), god + water, Babylon in 539 BC
or a divine name "A" or Water. Someone transcribing the signs would make the
decision how the signs should be read and assemble the signs as "ana", "ila", "Ila"
("god"+accusative case), etc. A transliteration of these signs, however, would separate the signs with dashes "il-a", "an-a", "DINGIR-a" or
"Da". This is still easier to read than the original cuneiform, but now the reader is able to trace the sounds back to the original signs and
determine if the correct decision was made on how to read them. A transliterated document thus presents the reading preferred by the
transliterating scholar as well as an opportunity to reconstruct the original text.
There are differing conventions for transliterating Sumerian, Akkadian (Babylonian) and Hittite (and Luwian) cuneiform texts. One
convention that sees wide use across the different fields is the use of acute and grave accents as an abbreviation for homophone
disambiguation. Thus, u is equivalent to u1, the first glyph expressing phonetic u. An acute accent, ú, is equivalent to the second, u2, and a
grave accent ù to the third, u3 glyph in the series (while the sequence of numbering is conventional but essentially arbitrary and subject to
the history of decipherment). In Sumerian transliteration, a multiplication sign 'x' is used to indicate typographic ligatures. As shown above,
signs as such are represented in capital letters, while the specific reading selected in the transliteration is represented in small letters. Thus,
capital letters can be used to indicate a so-called Diri compound – a sign sequence that has, in combination, a reading different from the sum
of the individual constituent signs (for example, the compound IGI.A – "water" + "eye" – has the reading imhur, meaning "foam"). In a Diri
compound, the individual signs are separated with dots in transliteration. Capital letters may also be used to indicate a Sumerogram (for
example, KÙ.BABBAR – Sumerian for "silver" – being used with the intended Akkadian reading kaspum, "silver"), an Akkadogram, or
simply a sign sequence of whose reading the editor is uncertain. Naturally, the "real" reading, if it is clear, will be presented in small letters
in the transliteration: IGI.A will be rendered as imhur
4.

Since the Sumerian language has only been widely known and studied by scholars for approximately a century, changes in the accepted
reading of Sumerian names have occurred from time to time. Thus the name of a king of Ur, read Ur-Bau at one time, was later read as Ur-
Engur, and is now read as Ur-Nammu or Ur-Namma; for Lugal-zage-si, a king of Uruk, some scholars continued to read Ungal-zaggisi; and
so forth. Also, with some names of the older period, there was often uncertainty whether their bearers were Sumerians or Semites. If the
former, then their names could be assumed to be read as Sumerian, while, if they were Semites, the signs for writing their names were
probably to be read according to their Semitic equivalents, though occasionally Semites might be encountered bearing genuine Sumerian
names. There was also doubt whether the signs composing a Semite's name represented a phonetic reading or a logographic compound.
Thus, e.g. when inscriptions of a Semitic ruler of Kish, whose name was written Uru-mu-ush, were first deciphered, that name was first
taken to be logographic because uru mu-ush could be read as "he founded a city" in Sumerian, and scholars accordingly retranslated it back
to the original Semitic as Alu-usharshid. It was later recognized that the URU sign can also be read as rí and that the name is that of the
Akkadian king Rimush.

Syllabary
The tables below show signs used for simple syllables of the form CV or VC. As used for the Sumerian language, the cuneiform script was
[32][33] transliterated as
in principle capable of distinguishing at least 16 consonants,

b, d, g, g̃ , ḫ, k, l, m, n, p, r, ř, s, š, t, z

as well as four vowel qualities, a, e, i, u. The Akkadian language had no use for g̃ or ř but needed to distinguish its emphatic series, q, ṣ, ṭ,
adopting various "superfluous" Sumerian signs for the purpose (e.g.qe=KIN, qu=KUM, qi=KIN, ṣa=ZA, ṣe=ZÍ, ṭur=DUR etc.) Hittite as it
adopted the Akkadian cuneiform further introduced signs such aswi5=GEŠTIN.
 -a -e -i -u

u ,
a , e , i ,
ú ,
á é í=IÁ
ù

ba , be=BAD , bi , bu ,

b- bá=PA , bé=BI , bí=NE , bú=KASKAL ,

bà=EŠ bè=NI bì=PI bù=PÙ

du ,
de=DI ,
da , di , dú=TU ,
d- dé ,
dá=TA dí=TÍ dù=GAG ,
dè=NE
du4=TUM

gu ,
gi , gú ,
ge=GI , gí=KID , gù=KA ,
ga ,
g- gé=KID , gì=DIŠ , gu4 ,
gá
gè=DIŠ gi4 , gu5=KU ,
gi5=KI gu6=NAG ,
gu7

ḫa ,
ḫá=ḪI.A , ḫe=ḪI , ḫi ,
ḫ- ḫà=U , ḫé=GAN ḫí=GAN ḫu

ḫa4=ḪI

ku ,
ka ,
ke=KI , ki , kú=GU7 ,
k- ká ,
ké=GI kí=GI kù ,
kà=GA
ku4

la ,
le=LI , li , lu ,
l- lá=LAL ,
lé=NI lí=NI lú
là=NU

me , mi ,
ma , mu ,
m- mé=MI , mí=MUNUS ,
má mú=SAR
mè / mì=ME

na ,
ná , ne , ni , nu ,
n- nà=AG , né=NI ní=IM nú=NÁ
na4 ("NI.UD")

p- pa , pe=PI , pi , pu=BU ,
pá=BA pé=BI
 pí=BI , pú=TÚL ,
pì=BAD pù

ru ,
ra , re=RI , ri ,
r- rú=GAG ,
rá=DU ré=URU rí=URU
rù=AŠ

sa , su ,
sá=DI , se=SI , si , sú=ZU ,
s- sà=ZA , sé=ZI sí=ZI sù=SUD ,
sa4 ("ḪU.NÁ") su4

šu ,
ša , še ,
ši=IGI , šú ,
š- šá=NÍG , šé,
ší=SI šù=ŠÈ ,
šà šè
šu4=U

ti ,
tu ,
ta , te , tí ,
t- tú=UD ,
tá=DA té=TÍ tì=DIM ,
tù=DU
ti4=DI

zi ,
za , ze=ZI , zu ,
z- zí ,
zá=NA4 zé=ZÌ zú=KA
zì

g̃ - g̃ á=GÁ g̃ e26=GÁ g̃ i6=MI g̃ u10=MU

ř- řá=DU ře6=DU
 a- e- i- u-

u ,
a , e , i ,
ú ,
á é í=IÁ
ù

ab , eb=IB , ib , ub ,
-
b áb éb=TUM íb=TUM úb=ŠÈ

ad , id=Á , ud ,
-
d ád ed=Á íd=A.ENGUR úd=ÁŠ

ag , eg=IG , ig ,
-
g ág ég=E íg=E ug

aḫ , uḫ=AḪ ,
-
ḫ áḫ=ŠEŠ eḫ=AḪ iḫ=AḪ úḫ

-k ak=AG ek=IG ik=IG uk=UG

al , el , il , ul ,
-l ál=ALAM él=IL íl úl=NU

am / , im , um ,
-
m ám=ÁG em=IM ím=KAŠ4 úm=UD

en , in ,
un ,
- én, in4=EN ,
n an ún=U
èn=LI in5=NIN

ep=IB, ip=IB , up=UB ,

-
p ap=AB ép=TUM íp=TUM úp=ŠÈ

ar , ir , ur ,
-r ár=UB er=IR íp=A.IGI úr

es=GIŠ , is=GIŠ , us=UZ,

-s as=AZ és=EŠ ís=EŠ ús=UŠ

aš , eš / , iš , uš ,
-š áš éš=ŠÈ íš=KASKAL úš =BAD

at=AD , ut=UD ,
-t át=GÍR gunû et=Á it=Á út=ÁŠ

-z az ez=GIŠ , iz= GIŠ , uz=ŠE&HU

éz=EŠ íz=IŠ úz=UŠ ,
ùz
 -
ág̃ =ÁG èg̃ =ÁG ìg̃ =ÁG ùg̃ =UN
g̃

Sign inventories
The Sumerian cuneiform script had on the order of 1,000 distinct signs (or about 1,500 if variants are
included). This number was reduced to about 600 by the 24th century BC and the beginning of Akkadian
records. Not all Sumerian signs are used in Akkadian texts, and not all Akkadian signs are used in
Hittite.

Falkenstein (1936) lists 939 signs used in the earliest period (late Uruk, 34th to 31st centuries). With an
emphasis on Sumerian forms, Deimel (1922) lists 870 signs used in the Early Dynastic II period (28th
Cuneiform writing in Ur,
century, "LAK") and for the Early Dynastic IIIa period (26th century, "ŠL"). Rosengarten (1967) lists southern Iraq
468 signs used in Sumerian (pre-Sargonian). Lagash and Mittermayer ("aBZL", 2006) list 480 Sumerian
forms, written in Isin-Larsa and Old Babylonian times. Regarding Akkadian forms, the standard
handbook for many years was Borger ("ABZ", 1981) with 598 signs used in Assyrian/Babylonian writing, recently superseded by Borger
("MesZL", 2004) with an expansion to 907 signs, an extension of their Sumerian readings and a new numbering scheme.

Signs used in Hittite cuneiform are listed by Forrer (1922), Friedrich (1960) and the HZL (Rüster and Neu 1989). The HZL lists a total of
375 signs, many with variants (for example, 12 variants are given for number 123
EGIR).

Numerals
The Sumerians used a numerical system based on 1, 10 and 60. The way of writing a number like 70 would be the sign for 60 and the sign
for 10 right after. This way of counting is still used today for measuring time as 60 seconds per minute and 60 minutes per hour
.

Usage
Cuneiform script was used in many ways in ancient Mesopotamia. It was used to record laws, like the Code of Hammurabi. It was also used
for recording maps, compiling medical manuals, documenting religious stories beliefs, among other uses.[34] Studies by assyriologists like
Claus Wilcke[35] and Dominique Charpin[36] suggest that cuneiform literacy was not reserved solely for the elite but was common for
average citizens.

[37] cuneiform script was used at a variety of literacy levels:

According to the Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture,

Average citizens needed only a basic, functional knowledge of cuneiform script to write personal letters and business documents. More
highly literate citizens put the script to more technical use, listing medicines and diagnoses and writing mathematical equations. Scholars
held the highest literacy level of cuneiform and mostly focused on writing as a complex skill and an art form.

Unicode
As of version 8.0, the following ranges are assigned to the Sumero-Akkadian Cuneiform script in the
Unicode Standard:

U+12000–U+123FF (922 assigned characters) "Cuneiform"

U+12400–U+1247F (116 assigned characters) "Cuneiform Numbers and Punctuation"
U+12480–U+1254F (196 assigned characters) "Early Dynastic Cuneiform"

The final proposal for Unicode encoding of the script was submitted by two cuneiform scholars working with an experienced Unicode
proposal writer in June 2004.[38] The base character inventory is derived from the list of Ur III signs compiled by the Cuneiform Digital
Library Initiative of UCLA based on the inventories of Miguel Civil, Rykle Borger (2003) and Robert Englund. Rather than opting for a
direct ordering by glyph shape and complexity, according to the numbering of an existing catalogue, the Unicode order of glyphs was based
on the Latin alphabetic order of their "last" Sumerian transliteration as a practical approximation.

List of major Cuneiform tablet discoveries

 Initial
Location Number of tablets Language
discovery

Persepolis, Iran Large[39] 1472

Kuyunkjik hill on Tigris River, Outside of Mosul, now in

NA 1840–1842
Iraq
Khorsabad hill on Tigris River, Outside of Mosul, now in
Significant 1843
Iraq

Library of Ashurbanipal 20,000–24,000[40] 1849 Akkadian

Nippur 60,000[40] 1851

Girsu 40,000–50,000[40] 1877

Dūr-Katlimmu 500[40] 1879

Tens of
Sippar 1880 Neo-Babylonian
thousands[40]
Amarna letters 382 1887 Akkadian

Nuzi 10,000–20,000[40] 1896

Assur 16,000[41] 1898 Akkadian

Hattusa 30,000[42] 1906 Hittite

Drehem 100,000[40] Sumerian

Kanesh 23,000[43] 1925[44] Akkadian

Ugarit Thousands 1929 Ugaritic

Persepolis, Iran 15,000–18,000[39] 1933 Elamite

Persepolis, Iran 500–1,000[39] 1933 Aramaic

Persepolis, Iran 1933[39] Old Persian

Mari, Syria 20,000–25,000[40] 1933 Akkadian

Alalakh 300[45] 1937

Abu Salabikh 500[40] 1963

Sumerian and
Ebla tablets c.5,000[46] 1974
Eblaite

Tablet V of the Epic of Gilgamesh 1[47] 2011 Old Babylonian

See also
Babylonokia: a 21st-century cuneiform artwork List of cuneiform signs
Elamite cuneiform List of museums of ancient Near Eastern art
Hittite cuneiform Old Persian cuneiform
Journal of Cuneiform Studies Ugaritic alphabet

Notes
a. /kjuːˈniːɪfɔːrm/ kew-NEE-i-form or /kjuːˈneɪɪfɔːrm/[1][2] kew-NAY-i-form or /ˈkjuːnɪfɔːrm/[1] KEW-ni-form
b. It seems that various parts of Rawlisons' paper formed oVl X of this journal. The final part III comprised chapters IV
(Analysis of the Persian Inscriptions of Behistunand) and V (Copies and ranslations
T of the Persian Cuneiform Inscriptions
of Persepolis, Hamadan, and Van), pp. 187–349.

References
1. "Definition of cuneiform in English"(https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cuneiform)
. Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved
 July 30, 2017.
2. Cuneiform: Irving Finkel & Jonathan T
aylor bring ancient inscriptions to life(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OC_kpFyf
T0). The British Museum. June 4, 2014. Retrieved July 30, 2017.
3. Egyptian hieroglyphs date to about the same period, and it is unsettled which system began first. SeeVisible Language.
Inventions of Writing in the Ancient Middle East and Beyond(http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/oimp32.pdf), Oriental Institute
Museum Publications, 32, Chicago: University of Chicago, p. 13,ISBN 978-1-885923-76-9
4. from a New Latin cuneiformis, composed of cuneus "wedge" and forma "shape" (17th century) of the script in the 19th
century (Henry Creswicke Rawlinson, The Persian Cuneiform Inscription at Behistun, Decyphered and r.; T with a Memoir
on Persian Cuneiform Inscriptions in General, and on that of Behistun in Particular
(1846). Different shape-derived names
occur in several other languages, such as Finnishnuolenpääkirjoitus "arrowhead script", Hebrew‫" כתב יתדות‬stake script",
and Persian ‫ ﻣﯿﺨﯽ‬and Dutch spijkerschrift, both meaning "nail script".
5. The word "cuneiform" was coined in 1700 by the English orientalistThomas Hyde (1663–1703):
Thomas Hyde, Historia Religionis Veterum Persarum, … [History of religion of the ancient Persians … ] (Oxford,
England: Sheldonian Theater, 1700), p. 526. (https://archive.org/stream/bub_gb_PcL W_2q7GwkC#page/n565/mode/2u
p) [in Latin] On pages 526–527, Hyde discusses the cuneiform found at Persepolis. From p. 526: "Istiusmodi enim
ductuli pyramidales seu Cuneiformes non veniunt in Gavrorum literis, nec inelesmaticis,
T nec in Hieroglyphicis Ægypti;
sed tales ductus (tam inter seinvicem juxta positi quam per seinvicem transmissi) sunt peculiares Persepoli, … "
(Because such thin pyramidal or wedge forms do not occur in the letters of the Gavres [variously spelled Gabres,
Guebers, Ghebers, or Chebers, was an old English name forZoroastrians, an ancient cult of fire worshippers; the word
Gavres was derived from the Persian wordgaur for "infidel"], nor in talismans, nor in Egyptian hieroglyphs; but such
drawings (so closely placed among each other as [intended to] be conveyed by means of each other) are peculiar to
Persepolis, … )
(Meade, 1974), p. 5. (https://books.google.com/books?id=iuAUAAAAIAAJ&pg=P
A5#v=onepage&q&f=false)
According to (Meade, 1974), p. 5, the German naturalist, physician, and explorer
Engelbert Kaempfer (1651–1716) is often
credited with having coined the word "cuneiform"; see:
Kaempfer, Engelbert, Amoenitatum Exoticarum… (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31378008345145;view=1u
p;seq=11) [Of Foreign Charms … ] (Lippe (Lemgoviae), (Germany): Heinrich Wilhelm Meyer , 1712), p. 331. (https://bab
el.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31378008345145;view=1up;seq=413)On p. 331 Kaempfer describes cuneiform as:" …
formam habentibus cuneolorum; … "( … having the form of wedges; … ). [Note: A sample of the cuneiform from
Persepolis appears onthe plate following p. 332.(https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31378008345145;view=1u
p;seq=415)]
However, on pp. 317–318, Kaempfer states hat
t he had read Thomas Hyde's bookHistoria Religionis Veterum Persarum:
From pp. 317–318: (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31378008345145;view=1up;seq=397) "Cl. Thomas Hyde,
Anglus, Vir in linguis & rebus exoticis præclare doctus, in Hist. Relig. vet. Pers. & Med.… " (The famous Thomas
Hyde, an Englishman, a man well trained in languages and in exotic things, in [his] Historia Religionis Veterum
Persarum … )
6. "Cuneiform Tablets: Who's Got What?"(http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&V
olume=31&Issue=2&
ArticleID=10), Biblical Archaeology Review, 31 (2), 2005
7. Watkins, Lee; Snyder, Dean (2003), The Digital Hammurabi Project(http://pages.jh.edu/~dighamm/version2/research/2003
_03_Museums%20and%20the%20Web%20Conference%202003.pdf)(PDF), The Johns Hopkins University, "Since the
decipherment of Babylonian cuneiform some 150 years ago museums have accumulated perhaps 300,000 tablets written
in most of the major languages of the Ancient Near East – Sumerian, Akkadian (Babylonian and Assyrian), Eblaite, Hittite,
Persian, Hurrian, Elamite, and Ugaritic. These texts include genres as variegated as mythology and mathematics, law
codes and beer recipes. In most cases these documents are the earliest exemplars of their genres, and cuneiformists have
made unique and valuable contributions to the study of such moderns disciplines as history , law, religion, linguistics,
mathematics, and science. In spite of continued great interest in mankind's earliest documents it has been estimated that
only about 1/10 of the extant cuneiform texts have been read even once in modern times. There are various reasons for
this: the complex Sumero/Akkadian script system is inherently difficult to learn; there is, as yet, no standard computer
encoding for cuneiform; there are only a few hundred qualified cuneiformists in the world; the pedagogical tools are, in
many cases, non-optimal; and access to the widely distributed tablets is expensive, time-consuming, and, due to the
vagaries of politics, becoming increasingly dif
ficult."
8. Adkins 2003, p. 47.
9. Marckham Geller, "The Last Wedge," Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie86 (1997): 43–95.
http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/zava.1997.87.issue-1/zava.1997.87.1.43/zava.1997.87.1 .43.xml
10. Sayce 1908.
11. El Daly, Okasha (2004). Egyptology: The Missing Millennium : Ancient Egypt in Medieval Arabic Writings
. Routledge.
pp. 39–40 & 65. ISBN 1-84472-063-2.
12. C. Wade Meade, Road to Babylon: Development of U.S. Assyriology
, (https://books.google.com/books?id=iuAUAAAAIAAJ
&pg=PA5) Brill Archive, 1974 p.5.
13. See:
Gouvea, Antonio de, Relaçam em que se tratam as guerras e grandes vitórias que alcançou o grande Rey de Persia
Xá Abbas, do grão Turco Mahometo, e seu filho Amethe … [An account in which are treated the wars and great
victories that were attained by the great king of Persia Shah Abbas against the greaturk
T Mehmed and his son,
Ahmed … ] (Lisbon, Portugal: Pedro Crasbeeck, 1611),p. 32. (https://books.google.com/books?id=gY9mAAAAcAAJ&
pg=PA32#v=onepage&q&f=false)[in Portuguese]
French translation: Gouvea, Antonio de, with Alexis de Meneses, trans., Relation des grandes guerres et victoires
obtenues par le roy de Perse Cha Abbas contre les empereurs de urquie T Mahomet et Achmet son fils,… (Rouen,
France: Nicolas Loyselet, 1646),pp. 81–82. (https://books.google.com/books?id=T cypEWd4iIIC&pg=PA81#v=onepage
&q&f=false) [in French] From pp. 81–82:"Peu esloigné de là estoit la sepulture de la Royne, qui estoit fort peu
differente. L'escriture qui donnoit cognoissance par qui, pourquoy , & en quel temps cest grande masse avoit esté
bastie est fort distincte en plusieurs endroits du bastiment: mais il n'y a personne qui y entende rien, parce que les
carracteres ne sont Persiens, Arabes, Armeniens ny Hebreux, qui sont les langages aujourd'hui en usage en ces
quartiers là, … " (Not far from there [i.e., Persepolis or "Chelminira"] was the sepulchre of the queen, which wasn't
much different. The writing that announced by whom, why, and at what time this great mass had been built, is very
distinct in several locations in the building: but there wasn't anyone who understood it, because the characters were
neither Persian, Arabic, Armenian, nor Hebrew , which are the languages in use today in those quarters … )
14. In 1619, Spain's ambassador to Persia,García de Silva Figueroa(1550–1624), sent a letter to the Marquesse of Bedmar ,
discussing various subjects regarding Persia, including his observations on the cuneiform inscriptions at Persepolis. This
letter was originally printed in 1620:
Figueroa, Garciae Silva,Garciae Silva Figueroa de Rebus Persarum epistola .vKal. an. M.DC.XIX Spahani exarat ad
Marchionem Bedmarii (Antwerp, (Belgium): 1620), 16 pages. [in Latin].
It was translated into English and reprinted in 1625 bySamuel Purchas, who included it in a collection of letters and other
writings concerning travel and exploration:
"Letter from Don Garcia Silva Figueroa Embassador from Philip the Third King of Spaine, to the Persian, ritten
W at
Spahan, or Hispahan Anno 1619 to the Marquese Bedmar ouching T Matters of Persia,"(https://books.google.com/boo
ks?id=XRZZAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA533#v=onepage&q&f=false) in: Purchas, Samuel, Purchas His Pilgrimes (London,
England: William Stansby, 1625), vol. 2, book IX, Chap. XI, pp. 1533–1535.
That English translation was reprinted in 1905:
Figueroa, Don Garcia Silva,"Chap. XI. Letter from Don Garcia Silva Figueroa Embassador from Philip the Third King
of Spaine, to the Persian, Written at Spahan, or Hispahan Anno 1619 to the Marquese Bedmar oTuching Matters of
Persia," (https://archive.org/stream/hakluytusposthum09purc#page/190/mode/2up) in: Purchas, Samuel, Hakluytus
Posthumus or Purchas His Pilgrimes,… (Glasgow, Scotland: James MacLehose and Sons, 1905), vol. 9, pp. 190–196.
On pp. 192–193, Figueroa describes the cuneiform at Persepolis: "The Letters themselves are neither Chaldæan, nor
Hebrew, nor Greeke, nor Arabike, nor of anyother Nation, which was ever found of old, or at this day , to be extant.
They are all three-cornered, but somewhat long, of the forme of a Pyramide, or such a little Obeliske, as I have set in
the margine: so that in nothing doe they differ one from another, but in their placing and situation, yet so conformed that
they are wondrous plaine distinct and perspicuous."
15. Hilprecht, Hermann Vollrat (1904). The Excavations in Assyria and Babylonia(https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.321
01073396747;view=1up;seq=45). Cambridge University Press. p. 17.ISBN 9781108025645.
16. Pallis, Svend Aage, "Early exploration in Mesopotamia, with a list of the Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform texts published
before 1851," Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab: Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser(Writings of the Royal
Danish Society of Science: Historical-philological Communications),33 (6) : 1–58 ; see p. 10. Available at: Royal Danish
Society of Science (http://www.royalacademy.dk/Publications/Low/613_Pallis,%20Svend%20Aage.pdf)
17. Valle, Pietro della, Viaggi di Pietro della Valle, Il Pellegrino [The journeys of Pietro della Valle, the pilgrim] (Brighton,
England: G. Gancia, 1843), vol. 2,pp. 252–253. (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015014139722;view=1up;se
q=263) From p. 253: "Mi da indizio che possa scriversi dalla sinistra alla destra al modo nostro, … (It " indicates to me that
it [i.e., cuneiform] might be written from left to right in our way,…)
18. Herbert, Thomas, Some Yeares Travels into Africa & Asia the Great. …(London, England: R. Bishop, 1638),pp. 145–146.
(https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015078546473;view=1up;seq=161) From pages 145–146: "In part of this
great roome [i.e., in the palace at Persepolis] (not farre from the portall) in a mirrour of polisht marble, wee noted above a
dozen lynes of strange characters, very faire and apparent to the eye, but so mysticall, so odly framed, as no Hierogliphick,
no other deep conceit can be more difficultly fancied, more adverse to the intellect. These consisting of Figures, obelisk,
triangular, and pyramidall, yet in such Simmetry and order as cannot well be called barbarous. Some resemblance, I
thought some words had of the Antick Greek, shadowing outAhashuerus Theos. And though it have small concordance
with the Hebrew, Greek, or Latine letter, yet questionless to the Inventer it was well known e; and peradventure may
conceale some excellent matter, though to this day wrapt up in the dim leafes of envious obscuritie."
19. Herbert, Sir Thomas, Some Years Travels into Divers Parts of Africa and Asia the Great.… , 4th ed. (London, England: R.
Everingham, 1677), pp. 141–142. (https://books.google.com/books?id=PFlOAAAAcAAJ&pg=P A141#v=onepage&q&f=fals
e) From p. 141: " … albeit I rather incline to the first [possibility], and that they comprehended words or syllables, as in
Brachyography or Short-writing we familiarly practise: … Nevertheless, by the posture and tendency of some of the
Characters (which consist of several magnitudes) it may be supposed that this writing was rather from the left hand to the
right, … " Page 142 shows an illustration of some cuneiform.
20. Niebuhr, Carsten, Reisebeschreibung nach Arabien und andern umliegender Ländern(Account of travels to Arabia and
other surrounding lands), vol. 2 (Kopenhagen, Denmark: Nicolaus Möller , 1778), p. 150; (https://books.google.com/books?i
d=TG5BAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA150#v=onepage&q&f=false) see also the fold-out plate (Tabelle XXXI) (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=TG5BAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA150-IA5#v=onepage&q&f=false)after p. 152. From p. 150:"Ich will auf der Tabelle
XXXI, noch eine, oder vielmehr vier Inschriften H, I, K, L beyfügen, die ich etwa in der Mitte an der Hauptmauer nach
Süden, alle neben einander, angetroffen habe. Der Stein worauf sie stehen, ist 26 Fuß lang, und 6 Fuß hoch, und dieser
ist ganz damit bedeckt. Man kann also daraus die Größe der Buchstaben beurtheilen. Auch hier sind drey verschiedene
Alphabete." (I want to include in Plate XXXI another, or rather four inscriptions H, I, K, L, which I found approximately in the
middle of the main wall to the south [in the ruined palace at Persepolis], all side by side. The stone on which they appear ,
is 26 feet long and 6 feet high, and it's completely covered with them. One can thus judge therefrom the size of the letters.
Also here, [there] are three different alphabets.)
21. See:
Münter, Frederik (1800a) "Undersögelser om de Persepolitanske Inscriptioner . Förste Afhandling." (https://babel.hathitr
ust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d00004536u;view=1up;seq=273)(Investigations of the inscriptions of Persepolis. First
part.), Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabers-Selskabs Skrivter (Writings of the Royal Danish Society of Science), 3rd
series, 1 (1) : 253–292. [in Danish]
Münter, Frederik (1800b) "Undersögelser om de Persepolitanske Inscriptioner . Anden Afhandling." (https://babel.hathitr
ust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d00004536u;view=1up;seq=643)(Investigations of the inscriptions of Persepolis. Second
part.), Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabers-Selskabs Skrivter (Writings of the Royal Danish Society of Science), 3rd
series, 1 (2) : 291–348. [in Danish] On p. 339, Münter presents the Old Persian word for "king" written in cuneiform.
Reprinted in German as: Münter, Friederich, Versuch über die keilförmigen Inschriften zuPersepolis (https://archive.or
g/stream/versuchberdiekei00mnte#page/n7/mode/2up)[Attempt at the cuneiform inscription at Persepolis]
(Kopenhagen, Denmark: C. G. Prost, 1802).
22. Heeren 1815.
23. Ceram, C.W., Gods, Graves and Scholars, 1954
24. See:
Grotefend, G. F., "Ueber die Erklärung der Keilschriften, und besonders der Inschriften von Persepolis" (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=JQ0PAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA563#v=onepage&q&f=false)[On the explanation of cuneiform, and
especially of the inscriptions of Persepolis] in: Heeren, Arnold Hermann Ludwig, Ideen über die Politik, den Verkehr
und den Handel der vornehmsten Völker der alten W elt (https://books.google.com/books?id=JQ0P AAAAQAAJ&pg=PR
1#v=onepage&q&f=false)[Ideas about the politics, commerce, and trade of the most distinguished peoples of the
ancient world], part 1, section 1, (Göttingen, (Germany): Bandelhoel und Ruprecht, 1815), 563–609. [in German]
English translation: Grotefend, G.F., "Appendix II: On the cuneiform character, and particularly the inscriptions at
Persepolis" in: Heeren, Arnold Hermann Ludwig, with David Alphonsoalboys, T trans., Historical Researches into the
Politics, Intercourse, and Trade of the Principal Nations of Antiquity, vol. 2, (Oxford, England: D.A. Talboys, 1833), pp.
313–360. (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hn39i8;view=1up;seq=327)Grotefend's determinations of the
values of several characters in cuneiform are also briefly mentioned invol. 1, p. 196. (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?
id=hvd.hn39i9;view=1up;seq=230)
25. Burnouf 1836
26. Prichard 1844, p. 30–31
27. Lassen.
28. Adkins 2003.
29. Rawlinson 1847.
30. Daniels 1996.
31. Rawlinson, Henry; Fox Talbot, William Henry; Hincks, Edward; and Oppert, Julius,Inscription of Tiglath-Pileser I., King of
Assyria, B.C. 1150, … (https://books.google.com/books?id=GGI-AAAAcAAJ&pg=P A1#v=onepage&q&f=false)(London,
England: J. W. Parker and Son, 1857). For adescription of the "experiment" in the translation of cuneiform, see pp. 3–7.
32. http://freepdfs.net/introduction-to-sumerian-grammar/b8f80f0cede72386cbf2ae3635ba552f/ Daniel A Foxvog, "Introduction
to Sumerian grammar", p.16 – 17; 20 – 21(about phonemesg̃ and ř and their representation using cuneiform signs)
33. https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/16107/Binnenwerk-jagersma.pdf?sequence=2"A descriptive
grammar of Sumerian", p. 43 – 45; 50 – 51 (about phonemesg̃ and ř and their representation using cuneiform signs)
34. "The World's Oldest Writing" (http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?sid=2f0d7c0d-4a6b-4ce8-97dd-388db96deee
b%40sessionmgr105&vid=0&hid=118&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=114537239&db=a9h) .
Archaeology. 69 (3). May 2016. Retrieved September 18, 2016 – via Virtual Library of Virginia.
35. Wilcke, Claus (2000). Wer las und schrieb in Babylonien und Assyrien. München: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften. ISBN 978-3-7696-1612-5.
36. Charpin, Dominique. 2004. "Lire et écrire en Mésopotamie: une af
faire dé spécialistes?" Comptes rendus de l'Académie
des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres: 481–501.
37. Veldhuis, Niek (2011). "Levels of Literacy".The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture.
doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199557301.001.0001(https://doi.org/10.1093%2Foxfordhb%2F9780199557301.001.0001)
.
38. Everson, Michael; Feuerherm, Karljürgen; T
inney, Steve (June 8, 2004). "Final proposal to encode the Cuneiform script in
the SMP of the UCS (http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2004/04189-n2786-cuneiform.pdf)."
39. "Persepolis Fortification Archive | The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago"
(https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/proje
cts/persepolis-fortification-archive). oi.uchicago.edu. Retrieved September 18, 2016.
40. Bertman, Stephen (2005).Handbook to Life in Ancient Mesopotamia. Oxford University Press.ISBN 978-0195183641.
41. Ellermeier, Friedrich., and Margret. Studt.Sumerisches Glossar. Bd. 3, T. 6, Handbuch Assur / Friedrich Ellmermeier ;
Margret Studt.Hardegsen bei Göttingen: Selbstverl. Ellermeier
, 2003. Print. Theologische und orientalistische Arbeiten aus
Göttingen, 4; Theologische und orientalistische Arbeiten aus Göttingen, 4.
42. "The Hittite cuneiform tablets from Bogazköy | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization"
(http://ww
w.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/memory-of-the-world/register/full-list-of-registered-heritage/registere
d-heritage-page-8/the-hittite-cuneiform-tablets-from-bogazkoey/)
. www.unesco.org. Retrieved September 18, 2016.
43. Michel, Cecile, Old Assyrian Bibliography
, 2001.
44. Tablets from the site surfaced on the marketas early as 1880, when three tablets made their way to European museums.
By the early 1920s, the number of tablets sold from the site exceeded 4,000. While the site of Kültepe was suspected as
the source of the tablets, and the site was visited several times, it was not until 1925 when Bedrich Hrozny corroborated
this identification by excavating tablets from the fields next to the tell that were related to tablets already purchased.
45. Lauinger, Jacob (January 1, 2007).Archival practices at Old Babylonian/Middle Bronze Age Alalakh (Level VII)
(http://grad
works.umi.com/32/73/3273033.html)(Thesis). THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO.
46. Moorey, P.R.S. (1992). A Century of Biblical Archaeology. Westminster Knox Press.ISBN 978-0664253929.
47. Amin, Osama S. M. (September 24, 2015)."The newly discovered tablet V of the Epic of Gilgamesh"(http://etc.ancient.eu/
2015/09/24/giglamesh-enkidu-humbaba-cedar-forest-newest-discovered-tablet-v-epic/)
. Ancient History et cetera.
Retrieved September 18, 2016.

Bibliography
Adkins, Lesley, Empires of the Plain: Henry Rawlinson and the Lost Languages of Babylon
, New York, St. Martin's Press
(2003) ISBN 0-312-33002-2
Bertman, Stephen (2005),Handbook to Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, Oxford University Press,ISBN 9780195183641
R. Borger, Assyrisch-Babylonische Zeichenliste, 2nd ed., Neukirchen-Vluyn (1981)
Borger, Rykle (2004). Dietrich, M.; Loretz, O., eds. Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon. Alter Orient und Altes Testament.
305. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. ISBN 3-927120-82-0.
Burnouf, E. (1836). "Mémoire sur deux Inscriptions Cunéiformes trouvées près d'Hamadan et qui font partie des papiers
du Dr Schulz", [Memoir on two cuneiform inscriptions [that were] found near Hamadan and that form part of the papers of
Dr. Schulz], Imprimerie Royale, Paris.
Daniels, Peter; Bright, William (1996).The World's Writing Systems. Oxford University Press. p. 146.ISBN 0-19-507993-0.
A. Deimel (1922), Liste der archaischen Keilschriftzeichen("LAK"), WVDOG 40, Berlin.
 A. Deimel (1925–1950),Šumerisches Lexikon, Pontificum Institutum Biblicum.
F. Ellermeier, M. Studt, Sumerisches Glossar
vol. 1: 1979–1980, ISBN 3-921747-08-2, ISBN 3-921747-10-4
vol. 3.2: 1998–2005, A-BISBN 3-921747-24-4, D-E ISBN 3-921747-25-2, G ISBN 3-921747-29-5
vol. 3.3: ISBN 3-921747-22-8 (font CD ISBN 3-921747-23-6)
vol. 3.5: ISBN 3-921747-26-0
vol 3.6: 2003, Handbuch AssurISBN 3-921747-28-7
A. Falkenstein, Archaische Texte aus Uruk, Berlin-Leipzig (1936)
Charpin, Dominique. 2004. 'Lire et écrire en Mésopotamie: une af
faire dé spécialistes?’ Comptes rendus de l’Académie
des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres: 481–501.
E. Forrer, Die Keilschrift von Boghazköi, Leipzig (1922)
J. Friedrich, Hethitisches Keilschrift-Lesebuch, Heidelberg (1960)
Jean-Jacques Glassner, The Invention of Cuneiform, English translation, Johns Hopkins University Press (2003),ISBN 0-
8018-7389-4.
Hayes, John L. (2000).A Manual of Sumerian Grammar and T exts. Aids and Research Tools in Ancient Near Eastern
Studies. 5 (2d ed.). Malibu: Undena Publications.ISBN 0-89003-197-5.
Heeren (1815) "Ideen über die Politik, den V
erkehr und den Handel der vornehmsten V
olker der alten Welt", vol. i. pp. 563
seq., translated into English in 1833.
Kramer, Samuel Noah (1981). "Appendix B: The Origin of the Cuneiform Writing System". History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-
Nine Firsts in Man's Recorded History(3d revised ed.). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 381–383.
ISBN 0-8122-7812-7.
René Labat, Manuel d'epigraphie Akkadienne, Geuthner, Paris (1959); 6th ed., extended by Florence Malbran-Labat
(1999), ISBN 2-7053-3583-8.
Lassen, Christian (1836)Die Altpersischen Keil-Inschriften von Persepolis. Entzifferung des Alphabets und Erklärung des
Inhalts. [The Old-Persian cuneiform inscriptions of Persepolis. Decipherment of the alphabet and explanation of its
content.] Eduard Weber, Bonn, (Germany).
Mittermayer, Catherine; Attinger, Pascal (2006). Altbabylonische Zeichenliste der Sumerisch-Literarischen exte.
T Orbis
Biblicus et Orientalis. Special Edition. Academic Press Fribourg.ISBN 978-3-7278-1551-5.
Moorey, P.R.S. (1992). A Century of Biblical Archaeology. Westminster Knox Press.ISBN 978-0664253929.
O. Neugebauer, A. Sachs (eds.), Mathematical Cuneiform Texts, New Haven (1945).
Patri, Sylvain (2009). L'adaptation des consonnes hittites dans certaines langues du XIIIe siècle.
Zeitschrift für Assyriologie
und vorderasiatische Archäologie99(1): 87–126.
Prichard, James Cowles (1844)."Researches Into the Physical History of Mankind"
, 3rd ed., vol IV, Sherwood, Gilbert and
Piper, London.
Rawlinson, Henry (1847)"The Persian Cuneiform Inscription at Behistun, decyphered and translated; with a Memoir on
Persian Cuneiform Inscriptions in general, and on that of Behistun in Particular
," The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of
Great Britain and Ireland, vol. X.
Y. Rosengarten, Répertoire commenté des signes présargoniques sumériens de Lagash
, Paris (1967)
Chr. Rüster, E. Neu, Hethitisches Zeichenlexikon(HZL), Wiesbaden (1989)
Sayce, Rev. A. H. (1908). "The Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions"
, Second Edition-revised, 1908, Society for
Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, Brighton, New oYrk; at pp 9–16 Not in copyright
Nikolaus Schneider, Die Keilschriftzeichen der Wirtschaftsurkunden von Ur III nebst ihren charakteristischsten
Schreibvarianten, Keilschrift-Paläographie; Heft 2, Rom: Päpstliches Bibelinstitut (1935).
Wilcke, Claus. 2000. Wer las und schrieb in Babylonien und Assyrien. Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften Philosophisch-historische Klasse. 2000/6. München: erlag
V der Bayerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Wolfgang Schramm, Akkadische Logogramme, Goettinger Arbeitshefte zur Altorientalischen Literatur (GAAL) Heft 4,
Goettingen (2003), ISBN 3-936297-01-0.
F. Thureau-Dangin, Recherches sur l'origine de l'écriture cunéiforme
, Paris (1898).
Ronald Herbert Sack, Cuneiform Documents from the Chaldean and Persian Periods
, (1994) ISBN 0-945636-67-9

External links
 Akkadian font for Windows and Mac
EDSITEment lesson plan Cuneiform Writing System in Ancient Mesopotamia: Emergence and Evolution
Babylonian Cunieform offering to the King of Erech
Epigraphy at Curlie (based on DMOZ)
Smarthistory, Cuneiform and the Invention of Writing
Unicode Fonts for Ancient Scriptsand Akkadian font for Ubuntu Linux-based operating system (ttf-ancient-fonts)
Unicode Fonts for Oracc, fonts for transliterating and displaying cuneiform
Writing ancient Iranian cuneiformon YouTube by subject-matter expertSoheil Delshad
Old Persian cuneiform pdf

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cuneiform_script&oldid=821213679

"

This page was last edited on 19 January 2018, at 01:53.

Text is available under theCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this site,
you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of theWikimedia Foundation, Inc., a
non-profit organization.