The receipt says: “29,086 measures barley 37 months Kushim”. The most probable reading of this sentence is: “A total of 29,086 measures of barley were received over the course of 37 months. Signed, Kushim.”
The receipt says: “29,086 measures barley 37 months Kushim”. The most probable reading of this sentence is: “A total of 29,086 measures of barley were received over the course of 37 months. Signed, Kushim.”
Is there more context to the sentence? How were they able to determine the tense of the statement/past or future?
Like “agreed to buy 29,086 measures of barley over 37 months.”
The tablet is written in proto cuneiform, the earliest format of real writing – its basically got numbers, nouns and a limited list of verbs, but no grammatical elements… so we don’t know that it was past tense, it’s just a guess – but a reasonable one:
We know Kushim signed about a dozen other tablets listing various transactions, which were always either receiving, or disbursing grain. Proto debits and credits, if you will.
The distribution of grain has a recipient and a purpose (e.g., to four different people to make beer), and usually does not have a time frame.
The receipts have a time frame, and sometimes a source (sort of a “tax receipt”).
The thought is that basically, when the grain came in it’d be tallied, then tablets would be added noting recipients and purpose until it had been disbursed.
It’s also worth noting that clay tablets are challenging to date, and there’s an (as far as I know, ongoing) debate about whether “kushim” was an individual, or an office (e.g., “grain wrangler”).
Brilliant! That was much more insight than the article offered. Thanks for sharing!
Besides the name it’s the first evidence of bureaucracy.
In Germany we can be happy that we took the move to paper last century. Imagine “might you please fill out the clay form 101A and sign it. And don’t forget your clay passport.” Hopefully next century we conquer the transition to digital in German public offices.