Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Animal husbandry in Susa during the proto-elamite period - Jacob Dahl (2005)

VIEWS: 317 PAGES: 54


                                             by JACOB L.      DMll

              Slml/l/(/l"\I: Prel,jollS studies haw I'xp/ai/ll!l/ IlfOlo-Ehmll/l' ~;~"S accordurg 10
              1111';r graphic properties, or liS dinxIIO<l!1.\ /i"Ol1l lleighbormg prO!O-L'lIl1ei{ol"lI/.
              mlsl'd VII gmphk en lI'ell U~ ~e/llmuh; ~illlll(lrilies. Till:; (I/"tiele bwM\ Vll the
              rece/ll alkallC:e i/1 Ihe stlUl" uf proto-EftHlme by memb.1r:; of flu! CUI/eilon"
              DIgital Ubran IlIltiati\'1! (CDLI) <hUP://cf/lI.Ilc1o,edll>. {/lid propos<:s (I ptlnial
              deci,'hermelll 0/ SII.'ilI alllmo! tenllillolQgy. Domg SQ, bookkeeping tedmiqlle.5
              ndatill1!, to tl,e Ilerdillg ofshup o"d goaa OIY de.<iCriIJell ami di.'iCII.UI'/1

                                              O.   INTRODUCTION

     Susa, located in close proximity to the Zagros foothills, W~IS prcsum~lbly an
ideal place [ol-livestock breeding. The eadicst textual record, moving beyond the
numcl;cal tablcts from the period of intense contact between Mesopotamia and
Sl.Isiana, exhibits a vi\'id record of animal herding and a cOlTcspondingly dc\'cl-
oped terminology,
     The first indigenous writing+system from Imn is nlJled proto-Elamitc and it
was long thought of as a pl'ecursor to a (h.vpothetical) indigenous Elamite writing·
system. Proto-Elamite, as well as linear-Elamite, remains un~deciphercd. At present
it is idle speculation to postulate a relationship betwecn the two writing sy~tems,
Proto-Elamitc was used during a brief peliod around 3000 BC, whereas Iinear-
Elamitc is attested for an equally blief period sometime dUling the later half of the
3Td millennium BC.
     The proto-Elamite writing-system was used over a \ cry large geographical area,
stretching from Susa in the wesl, to Tepe Yahya in the cast (sec figlll'e I). Finds of
proto·Elamitc tablets from valious places in Iran cannot always be certified: some
amount to nothing more than a few clay lumps with some signs that mayor may
not be proto-Elamitc (Le, Tepc Hissar, see Tosi and Bulgarelli 1989, 39-40), The
signs and number-signs found on such tablcts could as well belong to an ear·lier
period of c10sc inter-regional contact represented by the numero-idcographic tab-
lets of the lallc,' pal1 of the so-called Uruk-expansion (Unlk IV). Sec in pal1icular

     'Th"nh nrc d ul' 10 the following iO!>liltilianl> and 1)('I~ons: 10 llll' National Ccnter far Scicmific
Research (CNRS) for funding m\ work in Paris. and 10 lhe 1ll('mbcrll of the research·learn "lll'lOin.' el
Archfulogi... de rOdenl CunCifonTIe~ (BAROC) for collegia Ie SUppol', 10 lilt." LuU\Te Mu!>t'um, in par·
licular Ihe Ot."partmenl of Oriental Allliquilic.... for allowing me unlimited aCCt'l>:' W lhe pmlO..Elamite
tablt'l' kepi then', and to Beatrice Andn."-Sal\"ini for her cOlllinued suppon of 111\ research, 10 the
CundrnnTI Oigilallibran Inilintiw (COLI) for logistical and lechnological support, and to Robert K.
Englund, Stew A. Famler,Jomll Frihcrg. Pl'ler Oamero\\, CalcJohnl>on. Cecile MIChel, Xm·ier Rognon.
Tcodol'a Seal, nod Sa.,hn M. Oahl. who hawaII read and CflOlnlentcd on eadier \e'~Jon!> of thi:. paper.

SMEA 47 (2005) p, 81-134,
82                                   Jacob L Dahl

the singular tablet fTom Shahr-i-Sohkta (sealed) with one 01" IWO non-numerical
signs and a numerical notation (fol- a photogmph see Salvatori, Tosi. and Vidalc
200 I. 36), as well as the tablets fmm Choga Mbh (Delougaz and KaIlIOl' 1996. 120
and plate 33), Godin Tepe (Weis~ and Young 1975.9 figUl"c ..0 , Tal-i GhaLir(Whitcomb
1971.37 + pi XI, A.; see also Alden 1982), among other'S, and compare to Englund
1998.51-53 and figure 16 on page 54. Tablets of this kind found on the Susa Acropolis
Mound appar-ently came from levels 18 and 176, immediately below the repol-ted
leveling of the entire acropolis in ancient limes (:::: level 17A; sec Morgan 1905, 16.
and compare with Potts, 1999,71-79), and the introduction of the pmto-Elamitc
culture pmper (level 16 to level 148).
     It is howevcr possible that we can usc the tablet formatlo detelllline the origin
of a given numem-ideographic tablet (Uruk rV). Since any tablet holding both <I
non-numerical notation and a qualifying numerical notation is bound to reflect on
the order of objects and qualifiers belie\"ed to be spednc to either of the two \\'1;t-
ing systems discussed here. In pmto-cuneiform we generally find the qualifying
numerical notation preceding the object, whercas the I'cverse order is found in
proto-Elamitc inscl;ptions. It can thel"dore tentatively be suggestcd that numem-
ideographic inscr-iptions of the kind commonly c1<1ssified as Uruk IV con be divided
into two gmups; a Mesopotamian gmup--where the numel'ical notal ion precedes
the non-numerical notation, and an iranian group-where the numerical notation
follows the non-numerical notation.
     Some of the more substantial finds of proto-Elamite tablets outside of Susa,
such as the Yahya texts (see Damerow and Englund 1989), are c1eady identifiable
as proto-Elamitc although they have a high number of sign val-jants or even single-
tons (non-repeated signs) in the sign-I-cpertoil'e. Even the single tablet from Tepe
Ozbaki (Majidzadeh, no date) can be safely asccl1ained as proto·Elamite since it
deals with some of the same signs and bookkeeping techniques as discussed in the
present 311icle (although one of the signs for animals is appm'ently only atlcstcd
ther"C, and in one text from Tcpc Sialk: see forthcoming short study by the author
on the regional tcrrninology relating to animal herding during the proto-Elamite
peliod). Among the proto-Elamile tablets found outside of Susa, the texts from
Malyan most closely I"esemble the Susa material (Stolper 1985,5). It is pedlaps due
to the excavation methods that Susa has yielded a disproportionni !<u'gc number of
proto-Elamite tablets. More than 1,500 tablets and fragments from Susa havc been
published, To date, 27 tablets and fl'agments have been found at Tcpc Yahya,
betwccen 30 and 40 at Malyan, and 22 at Sialk, whereas only one tablet has been
found at Ozbaki Tepe. The lablets from Godin Tepe, Choga Mish, Tepe Hissar, as
well as most of the tablets from Tepe Sialk, must be grouped with the numcnr
ideographic tablets of the pcdod immediatcly pdor to that of the prolO-Elamitc
tablets (Unlk V and early Uruk IV), their relationship to the proto-Elamite culture
cannot be established at present.
     The use of some of the same signs, or sign-groups for "owners" (see below)
throughout the region suggests a mOl'C intl;cate geo-political system than a super-
ficial take-over' of a Susa invention by local elites. No fur1her suggestions to the
nature of the geographical spl'cad of plUto-Elarnitc will be offered here.
                 Animalllu:.bandn in SU'm dUring the Prolo-Elamilt." period                              83

                               Ozbakl •                            u Ml)<\cm C,nes
                                                                     Anc",n! S~cs
                                                                   • A""lCnI S~cs  ,,,,I!
                        GolhnTcf'C'           IRA."                  rm.o..EI.&Ill"" T....I$

                                          Sl31k •
                        ' . SUSOt

        IRAQ    "'"           Icl>u.p M"h                                            Shahr-,   Su~llla

       "                              ~   Tal-, Ghazu

                                    Fig. 1 - Map of Andcnt Iran.

    In an eadiel- 311icle I explored the surplisingly (ree formation of complex graph-
emes, paniclilady visible in the Slisa animal herder texiS (Dahl 2005). The present
study is devoled to an analysis of the organi7-ation of animal husbandf} in ancient
SlIsa, according to Ihe same proto-Elamite texts. Meanwhile I will attempt to de-
duce the pmto-Elamitc terminology fOl' herded animals. Since the majOlity of the
texts discusscd here seem 10 come from the same archive this introduction will
br-icny discuss the problems pl'cscnled to us by the archaeological record.
    Following initial surveys by English and French explorers in the laller half of
the I9 'h century, Jacques de MOI''gan was ablc to initiate the first majol- excavations
of Susa in 1897. Morgan. who wa~ trained as a mining engineer, Icveled the acropo-
lis mound digging in increments of 5 meters. He had established these artificial
levels aftel' dlilling "galleries" into the mound (see Dyson 1968, for an introduction
10 the early work at Susa). Morgan had already reached what he c~llled "Nivcau II",
an artificiallcvcl ca. 10 metel"'S below the surface of the top of the acropolis mound
by the second season (1898-9). Thai level would later become iconic since the en-
tire mound was leveled 10 that height by Ihe end of 191 I. Only onc portion of the
acropolis, now known as the "Temoin de Morgan", was left standing. Although
.. ivcau ill" was dug into in the beginning of the 20'h celllUl"}' it was nevcr rully
realized; Ihe task of leveling the entire mound had become impossible, although
MOI-gan had pUI in a small mil-mad, and could count on as many as 1,200 workers
84                                         Jacob L. Dabl

at one point. Instead, Morgan. and his successor Roland de Mccquenem focused
their crfaIU on a few deep surveys.
     Pmlo-Elamilc tablets were not found in the rirsl IwO layers (Nivcau I and 11),
but plans for digging deeper had already been made in the spring of 1899 (Morgan
1900, 138). The first proto-Elamite tablets were found immediately below Niveau
II in lrcnch 7, supposedly COITcsponding 10 level 148 of Le Bn.1I1 1971 figure 31.
Trench 7 was apparently the central trench in what later came to be Morg<ln's
"Grande Tranchcc". Those first tablets (I"cparted in Morgan 1900, 138) arc prob·
ably identical with the two tablets published by Scheil in 1900 (MOP 2,130 and
131; J'cpublished as MOP 6, 399 and 4996); they correspond to what I have called
the late wl;ting-phase, and al leasl two tablets were found in the same level during
the later controlled excavations (see Vallat 1971, DAFI 1,581 and 2). During the
subscqucm seasons the initial trenches were widened and deepened, and in par-
ticular Trench 7 seems to have yielded substamialnumbers or proto-Elamite tab-
lets. 11 seems reasonable to allribute the proto·Elamite tablets to three or the deep
surycy areas of Susa, Morgans "Grnnde Tmnchee", and Mecqucncm's "Sondage I"
and "Sondage II" (see ngur'c 2, below). The central survey area apparently ~'ielded
no tablets. Targeted studies aimed at reconstructing the ancient archives, such as
the prescnt, combined with a careful reading or the ol'iginal exc<lvation reports and
the rep0l1s of the latcr surveys may allow LIS 10, in the futUl'C, hypothesize find-
spots for the larger groups of prolo-Elamite tablets from Susa.

                                                               • *    T~Il"'ln lk MUl'p:n

    Fig. 2 - Susa ~rtcr the e\ca\'ulions of Morgan and MCC<jllCI1Cm (figure adopted from Ste\'c and
   Gasehe, 1971, PI:ln I). The outline oflhc mound i., rCCOnStl1lCICd using map~ d:lling priolo to the
t'Omplele phv"ic;ll change of Ihe mound bv 11ll' dehris [l'om Morgan's and Mecqucncm's excavations.
                 Animal Husbandry in Susa duling   the Proto-Elamilc period        85

     Three large texts (text A, B, and C), briefly discussed in Dahl 2005, are key-
texts for the understanding of Susa animal terminology and animal herding. They
al'e discussed below together with a number of related receipts (text D, E, and F),
The entire corpus of pmto-Elamite texts has been used to strengthen and bmaden
the arguments. One of the key-texts of this al1icle (text C) was discussed by M. W.
Stolper in 1992 (with refel'ence to the parallel text B, but not text A). Stolpel"s
interpretation was based, in turn, on Englund and Oamerow 1989, and Meriggi
1971 (in particular 84 (§238 - §240), and 1974b, 115 - 116), The majority of the
Susa texts concerning animal herding were published in 1923 (as MOP 17) by the
epigrapher to the French mission 10 Persia, Vincent Scheil. They were apparently
found after the 1907-8 season, duting the excavalions of Mecquenem (see Scheil
1923, i). For sevel'al reasons, given below, it can be postulated thallhis group of
texts came [rom the same physical archive. We may tentatively suggest that this
archive was one of the "large lOIS" found in either tl"ench 7 at· 24 (see Scheil 1900,
i). TI'ench 7 was the original center-tl'cnch o[ what became MOI'gan's "Grande
Tranchee". L have been unable to localize trench 24. The archive discllssed here
could also have been found in one o[ Mecquenem's surveys "Sondage I or II" (see
figure 2). A few structurally similar texts were published by Scheil in 1935 (as
MDP 26). They were apparently found after the rupture of Ihe agreement con-
cerning the FI'ench excavations in Iran, in 1927, after which date all finds had 10
be divided equally between Paris and Teheran (sec ScheH 1935, i. and compare to
Mecquenem 1949, 44). According to Mecquenem the tablets of MOP 26 were
drawn by M.-G. de Mecquenem using a "chambre claire", A chambrc c1ain' is a
mechanical device used to projeci an image of the object onto anolher surface
used for copying Ihe inscription. The lablets published in MOP 26 do not seem to
have come from the same archive as those published in MOP 17: none o[ the
ownet· signs found in the at'chive published in MOP 17 are found in the animal
lexts published in MOP 26. It is possible that the lexts in MDP 26 concerning
herded animals are slightly younger than those published in MOP 17. ApPl"Oxi-
matelyl50 tablets published by Scheil as a supplement to MOP 26 (dl'awings by
M. P. Toscanne, according to Mecquenem 1949,44) came fTom the same lots as
Ihose published by Schcil in 1905 (MOP 6). The leXIS published in MDP 26 have
been included in this study [or comparative use only. since they were not avail-
able for collations at the lime. The remaining texiS discussed below have all been
collated. The regrettable slale of publication of the Susa pl"Oto-Elamite material
allows for no al'gument 10 be made based solely on the primm)' publications. A
re-edilion of the Louvre pmlo-Elamite texts, including complete photographical
documentation. is being prepal'ed by the aulhOl; in cooperation with Beatrice
Andre-Salvini, curator at the Louvre Museum.

                                  I, StGNS   FOR ANIMALS

    The faci Ihal a few pl"Olo-Elamite signs, together with a majority of the numeri~
cal systems and signs. seem to have been direci loans fmm the belter-known and
older Mesopotamian writing-system, here referred to as pmlo-cuneiform, or per-
haps more COITCCtly 10 have common ancestl)', has allowed scholal""S 10 isolate cer'-
86                                    Jacob L. Dahl

tnin classes of signs. In the ab~cncc of a successor wl;ting-system Ihal approach
has proven 10 be vcry productive.
     Basically. proto--Elamite signs can be divided into five groups according to theil'
place and function in the sentence. Sentence is used hen~ to denote each self-con-
tained unit in a prolo-Elamilc text; the headel', nn entry, the SUbSCI"ipt, 01" the total
(see also Englund 2004, 105 figure 5.3a). The five groups are I) signs denoting an
"owner" 01" a "household", understood in the broadest of terms, as an individual, a
temple 01" ramil,v household, a clan. or any olher comparable soda-economic uni\;
2) signs used to designate a person according to his or he I" social stratus, gcndel", age
01" similar categories; 3) signs standing fOI' counted objects, including humans and

animals; 4) numerical signs; and 5) signs used in the later phases of the \\'fiting
system to write one of the two Hrst types by combining two 0'" mOI'e signs in a
complex way. Note that there exists.some overlapping between the signs of groups
1,2, and 3. The high number of singletons (non-repeated signs) in proto-Elamile i~
in good accordance with the characteristics of proto-wl'iting a~ described by
Damcrow 1999. As was also shown for the so·callcd Indus Script thc number of
singlcLOns will increase with each new text publication (Farmel: Sproat and Witzel
2004, 36). It remains to be studied whether the number of single IOns in proto-
Elamite dencased over time, and if proto-Ebmitc like pmlo-cuneiform, under-
went some fom) of standardization dUTing the latc phase of its use (a reevaluation
of the results reached in Dahl 2002 may be needed). We shall brieny discuss thc
proposed evolution of the sign·reperloire while examining text F. below.
     Images of all signs discussed in this essay arc given in the figures accompany-
ing this study, as well as in the appendicies. Appendix A includes factor diagrams of
all proto-Elamitc numerical systcms. Appendix B provides a sign-list of the signs
discussed in this paper. AppendiX C has transliterations of the three key-texts (A, 8,
and C) discussed in this paper. For a description of the system of transliterations
implemented by the author see Dahl 2005 §3.9. The numbering of the signs folJows
loosely Meriggi I974a (see Dahl 2005, § 1.3 for an assessment of the application of
Meliggi 1974a). In the present study all signs and tablet copies have been turned 90
degrees counterclockwise to conform to the traditional direction of cuneiform signs
from the early pel"iods in scholarly publications.
     Among the most well known of the "loans" from proto-cuneiform is the sign for
sheep, proto-cunciform UDU. Whcreas that sign in proto-cuneiform is written with
a sign which has bcen described as a quartered disk (see figUT'C 3, below), the con'c-
sponding sign in proto-Elamite (M346) is wriltcn by crossing two half-circles (see
figUl'e 6, below), obtaining almost the same visual result (Englund 1998, 150; and
Mcl"iggi 1971, 53 (§ (42)). Each of the two half-circles making up M346 were made
by pressing the round end of a thick stylus (with a diameter of on an average 7-10
mm) into the surface of the clay, holding the stylus at a 450 angle. The same stylus
was used to \\'Iite the numer;cal signs N J98 , 3'" NH' etc., and was also used to write
a number of non-numerical signs for example M362, discussed below. DU, on the
othel' hand, was drawn with a pointed stylus. The Susa scribe had at least two styli,
con-esponding in size to the numelical signs N~~ and N ,.. respectively (the larger
one used for writing N w and other signs, had a nat end, whereas the smaller stylus
used for N 1.. , N" and other signs, had a slightly rounded end). The opposite pointed
end of one of these styli was presumably used for drawing the non-mlmcrical signs.
                   Animal lIu"banurv in SuS<! during the Pmtll-Elarnil.: p.:riud                  87

1-loWCVCI: it is also possible thai the scribe had a third ~tylus, uscd exclusively 10
wrile non-numel-icill signs (for a discussion of the styli of the scribe:, who wrote the
proto-cuneiformlexts see Englund 1988, 133-4). In the tablet copics of proto-Elamite
texts the circles pressed dccply into the day m'c coloF-coded black, whereas circles
pressed lightly into the ~urface of thc tablet al'e coloF.-coded gray. Some proto-Elamitc
texts (perhaps belonging to a latc phase of the \\riling-system) had signs wrillen
Wilh neaH~cdge·shaped lines, indicating thai the stylus hnd a tli- or quadrangular
head. Note, thnl nit hough aspects of proto-Elnmite Olnimnl tel-minolog.\ mOl\ be
inspired by the slightly oldel" proto-cuneiform, or have common roois, the Susa
scribes used their own, indigenous, decimal system 10 count animal~ (see Englund
2004.110 and 112).
     Using M346 as a point of depanure a whole range of semantically related signs
have been isolated (d. Englund 1998, J 28), and this study builds on that illlpol1.lI1t
undcrstanding of Ihe specific sign-repenoire relating to animal lenni nolog\'. See
for example Meliggi's list of products in Mel;ggi 1969, 16; Meriggi attempted a
classification based on some of the same pl;nciples Ihal members of tht' COLI ha\e
engaged in, although his cff0l1S suffered from a l-estlicted unde~tanding of imJXlr-
tant concepts of ead~ numeracy at the time (sec below for a discussion of the
JXlssibly incorrect identifications of animal signs in Oamerow and Englund 1989.
53 fn. 144, based on a correct melhodology restricted b~ the nawcd primary publi-
cations). The breaklhrough in deciphering early numel;cal notntions came with
Friberg 1978-79.
     Proto-cuneifoml sheep and goat tenninology was reconstnlcted in Englund
1998, 149, (folloWing Grecn 1980,5 figure 3; avoid Glassner 2000, 475); it is pre-
sented on figure 3. below. Signs fOl' fat-tailed sheep, and certain signs of uncel1ain
classification have not bccn included on this figure.

                               age                      females                     male~

                                               UD~.     UD~b         UD"           MAS,
                                adults        EfI;: lIE;             Cg:           to
    Sheep                                     EE5:
    and GO~lS
                                                       I~GAR                       MAS


                                                                           UDUNITA.     b     ,

                                .ldulu          ffiI           EB          EEl€>    ffiiE> EBo
                  Shecp                         ffij           ffi
                                               SALSI~<=K1RII                       SIIANITA
                                                       ~©                           @0
   Fig. 3 - Latc Ut\lk sheep and goat tcmlinology. adapled fmm Englund 1998. figure 51 p. 149.
88                                   Jacob L. Dahl

    We mentioned above that prOlo-cuneifonn UDU and proto-Elamitc M346 seems
(0 have identical roots, and likch identical application. Note, howc\'cr, that prolO·
Elamite M3-l6 is not used as a summm;zing sign for sheep and goal as is the case
with Late Uruk UDU, except pel"haps in MDP 6. 317 when> a herd of ewes and rams
seem 10 have been summarized by M346 (Dam~row and Englund 1989.55 rn. 1-16).
Other interpretations are possible for the next (wo texts mentioned by Damcmw
and Englund (MOP 26, 176 and 437): both texts seem 10 be exclusively records of
sheep (M346), the lasl "owner" listed in MOP 26, 437, however, being descdbed
with a sign presumably closely related 10 a sign for an animal. Both texts should be
collated before any fUliher conclusions are made. Note therefol-e, additionally, Ihat
at least one of the animal signs in the list given by Damel·OW and Englund 1989
(M251, see page 55 fn. 146) is not the sign for an animal (the vel)' poorly executed
hand-eopies of MOP 26, 133 and 437 allows for the suggestion to be made that a
sign comparable to M251 designated a herded animal, coUation is needed). It is
also impol1am to stress that proto-Elamite M346 is believed to represent a female
adult sheep, an ewe, perhaps con'esponding to a primordiaJ meaning of UDU.
    Apart fTom DU and M346 two other sign are suspiciously similar in bolh sys-
tems: MAS in proto-cuneifOlm and M6 in proto-Elamite. as well as UO~ and M362.
Oamemw and Englund (1989, 51) identified M367 and its variants with UO r I do
not agl·ee with this identification, and argue Ihat a morc apparent graphic similar'-
ity exists between M362 and UO~, sec also Stolper 1992, 78, who came to the same
result. Mcriggi identified M362 with a cow, or a cow-pen, based parlially on a struc-
tural analysis of the same texts described here and partly on a compal-ison with the
cuneiform sign for a cow-pen TUR l (see Meliggi 1971, 58 (§ 156) - 59 (§ I59), and 84
(§239}). However, it is very possible that graphicallv related signs did not share the
same semantic qualities in the two systems: a vcry simple sign such as M6/MAS
may be found in many un-related writing-systems, or even systems composed purely
of "symbols", as recently suggested for the Indus writing system (Falmer, Sproat
and Witzel, 2004), having a wide range of semantic meanings. In fact, there exist
two signs in proto-Elamite that are strikingly similar; M5 a and M6 (see figure 4,
below). Both form the visible image of a cross, but the vel1ical and the hOlizontal
stroke of M6 arc identical, and without a notable wedge-shaped "head", or stal-ling
point (M6 is in fact drawn identically to proto-cuneiform MAS). The vel1ical slroke
of M5~, on the other hand, is in fact two wedge-shaped lines joining at the middle
where it crosses the hOlizonlal line, whel·cby cach "ann" has ils own "head" or
wedge-shaped beginning; likcwise, the hor-izontalline has a starting point, or wedge-
shaped head at its left end. Only M6 is a sign for an animal, M5 a is presumably a
sign for a title, and perhaps relatcd to M5, M390, or M391. M5 a never appeal3 as a
counted object; M6 only appears as a counted object. M5 a of1cn appeal3 in thc
position of a header of a text, a spot normally rescrved for "household" signs, and
M5 a can be inscribed in object-signs, another quality reselyed for "household" or
"owner" signs. M6 cannot be inscribed into othcr signs, nor can it function as a
header; but "owner" signs, such as MS.> can qU:llify M6. The two signs, M6 and
M5 a , cannot always be distinguished in the hand-copies, see MOP 6, 221 and 317
for a good cxample of both (both texts have been published with photo as well as
hand-copy, see MOP 6, plate 13, and 16; for MDP 6, 221 see also Friberg 1978-79,
 16-19 and figul-es 4 and 5). The use of different styli to draw different signs has not
                  Animalllu:.bandn in Su:.a dUring the PrOlo<-Elamile period                      89

been studied so far (Meriggi blieny mentioned 3imilal- observations in 197·la. 25),
and we note Ihat M390 seems 10 be written with Ihe same stylus as used to write
the numerical sign Nt' and with a thick "regular" slylus producing a wedge-shaped

                                         M6         MS.


                                                   M391       M390
                                                     •          •
                                                  • ••          •
               Fig. 4 -   Po:.~ihll'   graphical v:1riant>. differentiated bv use or   ~tylllS.

     It may be worth noting that the majority of proto-cuneifOlm signs for sheep
and goats are formed b~ alteling the basic signs UDU. and that most signs for male
animals are constructed by adding a rhombic figm"C to the left of the sign. like-
wise. several prolo-Elamite signs for animals are composed of I"eoccuning graphi-
cal clements.
     In several prolO-Elamite lexts (disclIssed in section 2 of this paper) we find
eighl signs for animals. Note. that only one text (A) is complete enough to recon-
structthe entire sequence, but other texts give pal1S of it. Half of these signs can be
argued to represent dCI-ived fOI'ms of the finol four. due to their panicular grnphic
f01111. In other texts we find the same eight signs for animals gmuped in pairs;
either one main-form sign together with another, 01" a main-fon11 sign with its de-
rived sign. Since one of these signs is M346 il seems reasonable to argue that all of
these arc signs for sheep and goats. The velY' high numbCI"s of these animals found
in several texis support Ihe general classification proposed here. and al'gues against
the otherwise tempting suggestion of Meriggi identifying M362 with a daiJ)"cow
(see Meriggi 1971, 58 (§ 156) - 59 (§ 159). The deri\'ed signs can be shown to desig-
nate juvenile animals and will therefore not concclll us at first (sec below for more
on these identifications). The four signs for (aduh) animals have been numbered
M362, M367, M346, and M6. They arc always listed in Ihat mder when listed to-
     A comparable system of ordering. mentioning the adult animals pi"iol' 10 the
juveniles. can be found in texts from the Unlk III period. In (he Uruk texts it seems
as if ewes (U8 ) arc considered more important than goats, as the) al"C always men-
tioned first (d. Green 1980,2-3). Uruk sheep ;Jnd goal herding W;JS first adequately
described in Green 1980, for a more recent discussion see Englund 1998, 143-150.
It is important for our investigation to note thaI adults of both genders arc mell-
90                                     Jacon L Dahl

lianed befol"c the juveniles in pmto-cuneifol'nl texts (see also Englund 1988. 147),
and it is necessary (0 accept pri"'a (ace thai the same ordel'ing principle also ex-
iSled in the proto-Elamilc animal herding texts. Substantial stnicilil-al dirfcrcncc~
between the IWO s~slcms exisls. the most important being that \\pher'ea~ pmlo-cu-
ncifonn texts-earl~ texts from Mesopotamia-are an-angcd in visual hiemrchics,
proto-Elamite texiS are wrillcn in an in-line fannat perhaps coding cCI1ain ele·
mcnlS of speech (contrar) to proto-cuneiform. cr. Englund 2004. 104). Below is an
olltline of a pmLo-cunei[onn lexl relating to the administration of herded animals
(figure 5, on the left) and that of a prolo-Elamilc lex I (figure 5, on Ihe dght). The
actual document may be substantially larger and seemingly more complex. dealing
with mixed herds of both sheep and goats, howevcrthat complexity results from a
repetition of the general pattcm shown in the outline below. The PlUto-cuneiform
tablct is rotated on its horizontal axis. In compadson, we note that whel'eas proto-
Ebrnite tablets as a nJle arc also I"otated on their horizontal axis fOl' writing the
lotal (sec for example lexl B and C), some texis. such as lexi A, are rotated on their
vcrtical axis in ordel"10 continue Ihe texi of the obverse on the reverse, and then
rotated on their hor-i7.0ntal axis for wl'iling Ihe 10lal (if pl'esent), I"esulling in a re-
verse face with text running in two opposing directions. All directions here al'e
given according to the traditional presentation of e<.'lrly cuneiform texts; rotated 90
degrees counterclockwise to their original orientation.
    Although Damerow and Englund identified M367 \\ith the nanny goat (1989,
51), it is the proposal of this study that M367 was a sign for a billy goat. DamelUw
and Englund's claim seem3 based solely on a slight graphical similm"ity between
M367 and UD~. The main argument used in this study to identify M367 with a billy
goat rather than a nanny goat is in fact a purely logical one,
     M367 is often mentioned as a pair with either M6 or M362, but rarely with
M346 (only in MOP 17,25: and perhaps MOP 26. 437). whereas M6 is mentioned a3
a pair with M346 and M367 but never with M362. This kind of paidng is best
explained if it relates to a split in both gender and genus at the same time. For
example. males of both sheep and goats will be listed together in cCI1ain docu-
ments if Ihesc deal with, for example. slaughtered animals (see below). Females of
both genus will be mentioned together in other texIS if these are concerned with
daily production, or the growlh of a herd. etc. Males and females of either sheep 01'
goats will be mentioned together if animals of Ihal specific genus al"e concerned.
and so forth (both sheep and goats belong Lo the same sub-family (capri/we). sheep
to the genus avis and goats to the genus capra). Females of one genus and males of
anothCI' will only rarely be mentioned as a pair.
     It can therefOl"e be argued that if we can identify one of the animals in the
proto~Elamite texts then we C<.'ln also identify the one it never fOnTIS a pair with
since it must be opposite in both gender and genus (see figure 6. below).
     Subsequently il may be proposed that M367 is most likely a male adult goat, a
billy goat (it never fOl'ms a pair with the female ovine. the ewe. M346). And it
becomes likely, and will be substantiated below that M362 is an adult female goat,
a nanny goal, and M6 an adult male sheep, a ram (the two never fonn a pair). The
                         Animal Hw,bandn in Su;,a durin!;!. the PrUlo--EI.mllle pericxl                                                    91

   ,I.                        YOIINe                      otw
           ilDlllT'i A,

            \IAI t               "
           ADLlI.... "-        HX    '>;(;
                                y.                                           ,
                                                                             ,                          FI ....1   1'OI~11on   If".
            ~B!>(      RlPT
                                                                             ,                      conlin"~llon       of moln
             GN M
                                                                    •    •       •      •       •                              •
            ISl.oNiI!>l!l       ""
                                                                                                    Sfwnd roution              ,,~

                                                                                                          ",.Ilillft loul}
           IUr.U TOTAL                                •                                • •
    "'    ADlll TS YOLI\(;
                                                           "'                                                      I
             ",          Y,                                                                 ,
                                                                                            <                      \

                                                                 " , S
                                                                 0 ,
                                                                     "                      0


Fig. 5 - To Ihe left (I rcprcscntalion of the :.lnU;:lUll,' of a laiC Uruk le"t conccllllllg "heep and goaL~
(adaplt"d from Grecn 1980,2, figure 1); 10 the righl the :.troclureof a proto--Elarnite Inl, note Ihal
                the t"ntrics of a prOlo-Elarlllw leXI rna\ ron from one line 10 anOlher

                                         GClldt"r          Female                    Male


                              G~u                     1\1J61<                1\1\6-

                                             Fig. 6 - Adult "heep and goats in S!J;,a.
92                                     Jacob L. Dahl

pl'imary argument for Ihis is. thaI M362 is mentioned fir'si in lexlS presumed to be
conccl1lcd with among other things. dairy products. and thaI goats yield twice a~
much milk as for example sheep. Sec figul'c 6 for a rinn attempt al l'econSI1"l.lCling
Susa animal tcnninology. The deJi\'cd sign-forms. supposedly used to wrile juve-
niles. follow the same pattei'll (see figure 7 below). Other fanns of evidence exist.
that. as we shall sec suppol1S this logical idcnlificalion.
    As mentioned above a list of eight diITercni animal~ can be extracted from cer-
tain Susa animal hel'der texts. the four first being M362. M367, M346, and M6.
These have tentatively been identified as nannies. billies, ewes, and millS. The list
then continues with foUl" signs lhal can clearly be descloibed as gmphically derived
fOI-ms of the fil'Sl four. They are all formed either by hatching or crossing the "legs".
or the "head", of the original signs. These foul- signs have been numbered M362 a •
M367 a , M346 a • and M6.; and like the fir'Sl four signs they are always listed in that
order when listed IOgether (compal'c wiLh Mcriggi 1971.59 (§l61), 64 (§174). <lnd
passim). They apparently correspond to female kids. male kids, female lambs, and
male lambs (see figure 7). We shall discuss in detail these identifications below.

                              Gender         Female                Male


                                         M36'>'~            \t16'7.
                                         \1}46~             \16,
                                                  -ttr-             4-
                          Fill. 7 - Juvenile sheep and goats in Susa

    Mesopotamian scribes of early cuneifonn operated with a system for creating
derived sign-forms, known by its pseudo-Sumel'ian name as gunification. whereby
is meant the addition of a series of strokes to the main form of the sign. altering its
semantic qualities. It has been briefly suggestcd in Englund 2004 (lll). and will be
substantially elaboratcd on in this paper, that the scdbes who wlUte the proto-
Elamite tablets used an almost identical system. As in cuneifonn, proto-Elamitc
gunification is apparently used exclusi\'e1y to change the semantic quality of the
main sign-fonn. Some of the dCI'ived sign-fomls aloe attested in very few texts each.
as is the case with the signs belic\'ed to represent juvenile animals discussed here.
and it is likely that this kind of semantic altemtion could be applied in a very ad hoc
manner by the scribes. allowing for rather substantial graphic variations.
    The suggestion presented above. that the four derived signs represent juvenile
animals of the same kinds and gender as the those represented by the main-fOlm
signs. is therefore based on a structural analysis of the order in which the signs
                 Animal   llu~bilndn   in Susa during lht' Prolo-EJamile period      93

appear compared to the Mcsopotamian accounting practicc of thc s~mc objects.
Thc obsc,"vation th~t Susa scl"ibes, as their neighbors, opcratcd with ~ system of
main sign-foroms and derived sign-fOlms. here referred to al:> gunification. used to
alter the semantic prope'1ies of the main-fonn sign; and finally, the identirication
pl"Oposed above is substantiated in the discussions of the signs below.
     Scveral of the proto·Elamite signs fo,· sheep and goats resemble the proto-cu-
nciform signs for the same category of animals. howcvcr, not always with the same
semantic idcntification. It should pcrhaps be thc working hypothesis that
Mesopotamian and Iranian animaltelmino!ogies developed indcpendentlyof each
othe': but built on a set of common signs. it is in this regard intcresting to note that
all the signs in both systems are entirely abstmct; perhaps indicative of a long p'·c-
histol"} al:> symbols 0'· counters (e.g .. Schmandt-Bessemt 1992. 142-143). In thc
following we shall discuss each pair of signs, main fonn and del-h'ed form, in order
to substantiate the identifications proposed above.

Nm",y goats a"d female kids (M362 ami 1\1362)
    Whene\'er M362 appears together with other signs for herded animals in the
supposedly hierarchically organized administrative documcnts it is always listed
first. and we mn.y thcrefore speculate that it was the most important among the
sheep and goats.
     Based on the aforementioned gmphical similarity with proto-cuneifolm UO~. and
the fact th:Jt M362 ranks :JS the most imp0l1ant animal in texts supposedl... con-
cerned with dair'\' products (sec below). among other things. suggests that we can
safely identify M362 with a sign for an adult female goat. thc nanny goal. Nannies
produce much morc milk that ewes. and they are thereforc trndilionally prcfened in
dairy falming. evcn though ewe's milk is licher. The numbers of different animals
found in especially text A (=MOP 17.96+325+380) argues in favor of identifying
M362 with a female aninwl. In most flocks, ancient as well as contemporary. the
female animals out-nurnbe," the males by at least five-to-one. In lext A we find a ralio
of M362 to M367 in the range from three-lo-one, 10 as high as sevcn-lo·one. This
seems 10 be consistent in alllexts mcntioning the pair M362 and M367. I-Iowevel~ the
flocks mentioned in text A havc an unusually high ratio of goats (M362 and M367) to
shecp (M346 and M6), und an equally unusual ratio of ewes (M346) to rams (M6). In
othcr tcxts, such as MOP 17, 277, a fragmenlary lext with only a part of the total
preservcd (that lext c~n, presumably, be compared to text A discusscd below). we
find a much In.rgcr number of M346 and the delived fonn M346~ thn.n of M362 and
the der'ived form M362 b " Note that M362 b can be showl1lo be nothing bUI n gmphical
variant of M362". bn.sed on a text such as MOP 17.301, a fragmenl of a summary
account of the same type as text A. In MDP 17.301 we find M362h in the spot whcre
we would expecllo find M362 according to the better prescl"\'Cd of lh~ IWO le,xt (texl
A). Returning to MOP 17.277. we see Ihal thc IOta Is of adults and juveniles are
bundlcd togcthe,: which il:> a good indication that both belonged to the S<lme kind
(adults and juveniles. of the same sex and genus), and notc that sheep and goats are
not bundlcd. Howe\,cr, M362 and M362 b are stiIJ mentioned first. suggesting that this
animal is the largest or the most impol1ant. The diITerent ratio betwccn sheep (M346
and M6). :Jnd gO:Jts (M362 and M367) found in ,';:uious texiS. n.rgues against lL'.ing
these numbers to credit or disuedit the identifications sugg~ted here. We shall,·e-
94                                            Jacoh L. Dahl

lUrn to a discussion of the composition of the herds later in this study.
     Finally we note, that the seal found on text C (see below) has the image of a
herd of goats, c1cady distinguishable by the bearded males. Images of goalS seem
(0 prevail in the glyptic rcCOIU of the p.-oto-Elamilc periexl, with no certain ,"cpre-
sentations of sheep. Thai observation supports the identifications suggested here.
     The derived sign-folll1s used to describe the juvenile female goat. the female kid
is formed in at least two different ways; by hatching the inside of the large circle
(M362.). or by hatching each of the 1wo half-circles allacilCd to lhe large circle (M362 h).
It is possible thai M346, is a graphical valiant of M362. The sign ocelli'S in only IwO
texts (M DP 17. 86 and 172), .md only in a context equivalenl to that of M362.

Billy goals and male kids (M367 and M367.. J
     In the herding lexts disclissed below we find modest numbers of billy goats
(M367), Ihe~e texts were presumably concerned with mixed herds of sheep and
goat kepi primarily for dairy production. In other lexts we find much larger num·
bel'S of billy goats (M367), which pn~surnably represenl slaughtered male caprids
(see also above).
     Basing ourselves on the aforementioned paHem of formation of derived fomls
designaling juveniles, we can suggest that M367 a and other variants (fOimcd by
hatching Ihe area between Ihe IWO "legs" of Ihe sign) arc male kids of Ihe domesti-
cated goal. However, a wide array of graphical variants of M367 exists, and it is by
no means cCI1ain that all of Ihese signs l'cpr"eSCnl juvenile animals. It is vcr)' likely
that some denote diffel-ent animals, fOI' example, wild hunted goats.

                            C1;l§$,ficlllon       l<=g<       N,~

                                Aduh~             e::::::     \1.~7

                                                  <:          .\I.~-r•

                                                  .z          M367.

                          {grJphic "ariant~J

                                                  «:::.       MJ67h

                                                  <           Mj6-,



                          (~m~ntic   "~ri~r"')
                                                  <::         10.1367,

                                                  ~           Mj67~

                                        Fig. 8 - Male coprids.
                 Animal II1Ishandry in 511sa during the Proto-E1amilC period         95

    M367 c is pl'csumably a variant of M367 , . It appears in a few texts where we
would expect M367: that is, following M367 and as a pail' with M6, (see MOP 17 .
161. and presumably MDP 26, 90). II appears alone in a few other lexts in vel)' large
numbers (more than I\wnty thousand animals are listed in MOP 31.31). M367 h is
presumably another sign for a juvenile male goat, it appears in two texts From MOP
26 (numbcI's 229 and 350). In both cases it probably hlllctions as M367,.. In MOP
26,350 we rind the sign M367 t just before M367t>; this is the sale attestation of that
sign known to me. M367'1 is only attested in MOP 17. 217 and seems to be the sign
For a juvenile male caprid. M367 appears in two texts, MOP 17. 101; and MDP 31.
4. Tn both texts it is presumably 'the sign for an adult caprid. In figure 8, above. it
has been grouped with the signs for juveniles due to its graphical similarities with
those signs. In MOP 31,4 it is listed next to M376 r'eceiving half the nltions of that
creature (4N t for each M376 and 2N, for each M367). M376 was identified by
Damerow and Englund as a high-status human since it is counted in the sexagesimal
system (Oamemw and Englund 1989,22-23 and fn. 67; sec also Englund 2004. 125
figure 5.14). For the gl'aphically similar' signs M368 a • M368 b , and M368 c ' see
Oamerow and Englund 1989.32. and add the texts MOP 17, 64, and 124. These
signs may not be signs for animals (see appendix B).

Ewes ami female lambs (M346 anti M346)
    Conforming to a hypothetical early semantic classification of UDU as essen,
tiallya sign for an adult female sheep, M346 was identified as the proto-Elamite
sign for an ewe. We have alt-eady seen the pair M346 and M346, while we discussed
nanny goats and female kids above, and it seems beyond doubt that M346 ,and its
variants, constitute the sign for the juvenile equival~nt of M346. The del'iv:d sign is
formed in the same way as the two previously discussed signs. by hatching the
"legs" of the sign for the adult animal. All allestations of juvenile female lambs arc
found exclusivel..,., in texts recording herds composed of scvcl'al different animals.
M346 is found in many other tcxts.
    Whereas nanny goats arc pl'imal'ily attested in the herding accounts (see sec-
tion two of this paper) sheep and rams occur in a multitude of different text-groups.
One such text-group is of great interest for the study of the proto-Elamite sign-
repertoire, since it gives clues to the possible existence of a proto-Elamite syllabary.
These texls-ofwhich MOP 6. 253; 337; 353; MOP 17.93; 350; and 463 aI'e good
examples-all consist of a header followed by shOl1 lists of entries each consisting
of a string of non-numerical signs followed by a counted object (M346) and a nu-
merical notation. The considerable length of the non-numerical portion of the
strings, and the fact that these can be divided into two different segmellls that can
be found in different constellations throughout the corpus is suggestive of an intel'-
pretation of these as "spelling" the title and the name of the "owner" of the counted
object. The number' of signs used for writing these "names" is less than one hun-
dred and docs thereforT conform to what is commonly believed to be the pl'el'equi-
sites fOI' a tme syllabary (sec already Meriggi 1971, 172 - 184 (§453 - §480)). I will
return to this subject in a later study.
96                                    Jacob L Dahl

RlUU$ aml male lambs (M6 mill M6)
    The sign we have proposed for the Susa mm, M6, is identical wilh that used b)
the Mesopotamian sClibes 10 designate a male juvenile goal. However, in the Susa
texIS it almost always appears as a pai,- with M346. the sign we have prc\'
decided is the ewe. In some texts M6 fanTIs a pair wilh M367, and its dCI-j\'cd form
M6•. with the dCli\'cd form of M367. M367., suggesting thai these must be lists of
male sheep and goalS.
    The sign we have suggested as the sign for the juvenile counterpart of the ram,
the male lamb, M6•. is clearly fonned in the same way as the sign suggested for the
juvenile counterpart to the ewe, M346. (sec also the copy of text A, below).
    We arc now able to represent a rcconstluClion of $usa sheep and goats termi-
nology (see figure 9):

                     age                    r~mab                            males

                                           M362                             ,'..1367

        Goa(s                                                               <
                                     M362.        M362 h                     ,'..1367.
                                      0(           c¢                 IOl(               -<
                                           M34G                               M6

                                         +                                  +
                                           M34G,                              MG.
                                         ++                           it 4-
                    Fig. 9 - Prllto-Elamite sheep and goal   Tenninolog~.

Other herded animals in the Susa texts
    A few other signs for herded animals can be distinguished, although they can-
not easily be identified. One of these is M348 which mostly appears together with
M346 (M348 is formed by placing two half circles of the same size as those used to
draw M346 with the nat side facing each other, the graphically similar sign M347 is
formed by placing two half circles with the round side facing each other, thai sign
b nOI a sign for an animal, however). The two signs (M346 and M348) arc some-
times bundled (e.g., MDP 6, 317), other times not (e.g., MOP 17,93). M348 often
appears as if it is counted as a capacity container, or in 3. context with a capacity
sign, and may represent a standard "ration" unit (see, e.g., MOP 6, 238, and MOP
17,423 where we find the complex sign M348+M288!). See in Ihis regard espc-ci3.lIv
MDP 265, 5011 (d. Damerow and Englund 1989,55 fn. 147), suggeslive of M348
being exclusively tallied as a grain notation. It is also possible lhat M348 b a par-
                   Ammaillusoondr. III       Su~   dUling the Proto-Elamitc period                97

licular g~in-fed sheep, and therefore totaled according to a standard grain-conver-
sion. M206 d , another possible sign fOl- a herded animal, is quite similar in functions
to M348 (see, e.g., MOP 26, J), but no fun her conclusions arc drawn here.

                    Fi~   10 - Susa herded animals of unknown identification.

    Only three signs for animals can be shown, beyond doubt, to be the actual
picture of an anim;:tL Ihese have been numbered M334, M335, and M336 d • Two of
these signs are used only in a handful of lexts each (M334 only in MOP 17, 105 and
124; and M336 d only in MOP 17,440+453+460 (physical join confirmed in the Lou-
vre), and MOP 26, 156). M334 is the image of the head of a large animal, perhaps
an equid. M335, which is very similar to M334, may also be a sign for a person 01'
an official (see for example MDP 26, 119 and 120). M336d , the image of an animal,
can be compared to the other signs grouped together in the sign-lisl under the
same number (M336 Ia .,n)' due to their slight gmphical similalities. M336 d is used to
desclibe counled objects. On the other hand, none of the signs M336 H ,M332. and
M340, all images of animals or heads of animals, can be found in a posilion as a
counted object. Note Ihal M332 has a derived form. created by hatching the outline
of the main form (the main form is here tentatively listed under Ihe numbers M332,
and M332 d, and the derived foml under M332). for more on the fOl"1TI3tion of de-
rived fOims in proto-Elamite see elsewhel-e in this study.

         Signs representing counled ObjCClS             Signs not rqlresenting counted objcctS

        M334              M335               M336 d           M336            M332       M340
      'If ' " ·0              ,.,. b . -:;   4[[J",
                                                              2)(.=[)     ,, -{' <~;}
      'If                                                                 ,
        '\Y          'v
                      "   J


                                                                              I'    ~


                          '",                                 "5.:11'
                                                                          d I'I'~

    Fig. II - Proto-Elnmite signs with the visible appearance of an animal or pan of an animal.
98                                   Jacob L. Dahl

   The apparent absence of bovines from the textual records r~mains enigmatic.
The possibility that lhe Susn. administrators cared liule for cow herding remains
pure speculation, and it is not supported either by the 31'chacological nor the icono-
graphicalrccol·d. It is more likely that bovine tenninology is still c~caping LIS, or
that we have not found the nrchivcs conccming $usa cattle herding.

                                  2. A'IL\IAL HERDI\:G

    The Susa animal herder texts can be roughl) divided into two groups, pdmary
and secondary documents. This distinction is well known from later Mesopotamian
bookkeeping pr.lctices. but idcnlificd in the $usa documents for the first time hel'c.
Moreover, it seems appropriate to use Ihis lerminology, inhedtcd from Ur III stud-
ies, since it can be shown that the secondary documents wCI'e summaries of pri-
mal"}' documents. It may even be possible to speak about rcceipts and accounts
since most secondary documents have a total, and the primary documents were
sealed (some accounts were sealed as well, see below). The secondary documents,
the accounts. can be further divided into accounts conceming the ~ize of the herds,
and accounts concerning the production obtained from the herd. The following
analysis is based partly on three accounts (text A = MOP 17,96+325+380; text B =
MOP 17,85; and text C = MOP 17,97), presumably listing the same founccn flocks
of animals, and pal11y on a number of primal"} documents relating directly or indi-
I'cctlv to these accounts (text 0 = MOP 17, 182; text E = MOP 17. 191; and text F =
MDP 17. lSI).
    Text A (MOP 17,96+325+380) is the onlv more-ol':.less well·preserwd account
listing the number of animals from diffel'cnt herds. MOP 26, 217 may be another
account listing several flocks, but since it was unavailable for collations al the time
of writing this study it has not been included here, The much better preserved
accounts Band C (= MOP 17,85 and 97) are examples of accounts recording the
production from the same herds listed in text A. MDP 26. 100. and presumably
MOP 26. 251, arc likewise accounls l'ecOl'ding the production from animal-herd,
ing, buttheil' archival relationship to the I'est of the corpus remains unclear: they
have not been included in this study.
     Several fr~lgmcnts of tablets from both groups of accounls can be found in
 MOP 17. The following texts may be classified as fTagments of herd accounts; MDP
 17,241; 253; 275; 284; 285; and 301; and with only the total preserved, MOP 17.
276; 277; and 282. Only two fnlgments qualify as examples of production accounts,
 they arc MOP 17,305, and 476.
     J have found 14 documents that can be c1assificd as receipts relating to the
 herding of animals. These arc MDP 17.35; 151 (== text F); 161; 154?; 172; 182 (= texl
 E); 183; 186; 191 (= text D); 220; 222; 223; 265; and 267.
     These 28 texts are believed to have fonned part of a real archive, stored 10-
gether, and consisting of both primaly and secondary documents. It is also the
 hypolhesis of Ihis papel,thatthat archive was in usc for more than one "accounting
 period", and that each accounting period may have cOITesponded to a solar yea I'.
                 Animaillusband~   in SU<:>3 during the Prolo-Elamilc period          99

Text A (figure 12)
    This damaged text can with some certainty be reconstructed to consist of four-
teen entries: eleven entries m-e c1eady distinguishable, and three more can be esti-
mated from the size of the break. The text has no header, presumably making it a
top-level document, summarizing all other documents of its class; the same is true
for the two other accounts discussed below. Each entl")' lists the animals belonging
to a pal1icular ownel', desclibed by inselting a household sign into the first sign for
an animal (M362) or bundling the two (sec Dahl 2005, §4.6 to §4.9 and § 5.2). In
Dahl 2005 I briefly suggested lhal this scribal practice resembles the branding of
animals with owne"'s mal'ks, a practice known all over the world. See in this regm-d
the Mongolian system described in Waddington 1974. The close parallels between
these and many other systems should not lead us to seek a common origin of ani-
mal herding, or a common origin of the symbols uscd as brands (comparc to Lynch
and Robbins 1977, 539), rather they can be used to fOllnulate models for under-
standing the use of syrnbols and owner's marks by (semi)-literate animal-herders,
and the impact on wfiting from such systems.
     Retunling to text A, we note that fOI- some obscure reason the first flocks m-e
not the lal-gest, and we must recognize thalthc ordering principle was not the same
hieral-chical pdnciple as in most Mcsopotamian texts, unless we ""gue that the
first flock was "owned" by the most important pel'Son 01' house. That the list of
owners was not "fixed" speaks against that assessment, see also below. Each flock
is made up of from five 10 eight different kinds of animals. AU the animals are
seemingly cotlllled in the indigenous pmto-Elamite decimal system, as can be in-
fen-cd from the fragmenls MDP 17,276; 277; and 282. These three fragments hold
nothing but the totals of appal'cnlly similar accounts (sec Englund 2004, 110-111
and figUI'C 5.6a). The total of MOP 17,276 (645 nannies; 160+ ewes; and 96? rams)
is much larger than our estimate for text A (Le. ca. 400 nannies; 75 billies; etc.): text
A does not seem to have been totaled. Text A has been reconstlUcted from the three
fragments; MDP 17,96; 325; and 380. MDP 17,96 and 325 do not touch, but the
join can be assened from the fact thaI MDP 17,380 fills the space between the two,
and joins, physically, wilh number 96, whereby it provides the second of the IWO
clear points of reference with number 325, i.e., the left half of a M362 sign (see
copy below). There al'C at least two emsures in lexl A. The copies of the six proto-
Elamite tablets presented below were all made using high-resolution digital-im-
agcs, while also consulting the originals.
     Finally. it is w0I1h mentioning that MDP 17, lOS is a close pamllelto our text A.
Its size. seal-impression. as well as content suggests that the two tablets WCI'C stored
together and belonged to the same archive. MOP 17, 105 deals, presumably, with
equids belonging to approximately ten households, each flock of animals consists
of three diffe,'cnI kinds of the same animal (differentiated bv thc style of Ihe mane
                                                                .       .
only). The owners of the animals are described by some of the same household
signs we find in texts A, 8, and C described hel-e, but duc to the fact that thc animal
signs in MOP 17. 1051eavc lillie room fOl' inscl-ihing these, they are all placed next
to the sign fOl' the animal. The fact that it is scaled with the same seal as found on
our text C, and MDP 17.444, also confinns its relation to the texts desclibcd here.
That latter text has yet another seal which is again found on one of the plimary
documents shown to relate closely to text A (see below).
100                                    Jacob L. Dahl

  "'""" C
                                 ~==~.                               ~~
                                                                      •• • ••
                                                                       •• •
          •                                                  /'

                                                        f;-• -So I •
                                                               t- • • ••"

                                                         • •          (1
                                               •       •
                                                       • •• 1. •• •    •

                                                       ~:.         ••+
                                                              .J • • •
           •                              .,                      • • ..
                                                       • -'- • .+ ••
                                                        ~ •
           *                                                   · '.. ...
                                                             + -==---. I'  ~       •   II

                                                              -. .
                                                                           "       . , I' •

                                                               el'" · -'       I   ••••

         C                             )=:::::,

       Fig. 12 - Text A (= MDP 17.96+325+380; Sb 22286..22480..22534; 141'0;80..26 mm).

   The basic flock in text A is composed of roughly 20 to 50 nanny goals and six 10
eight billy goats, although some flocks are much smaller. A similar ratio between
the sexes exists for the juvenile goats. Each flock also consists of a much smaller
number of sheep, rams, ancl male and female lambs (sec figUl"C 13, below, [01" a
schematic I"cpresentalion of one of the best presenrcd entries of text A). Although
the ratio of adult sheep and rams to their juveniles is approximately the same as
lhal between adull goats and kids, the ratio between the sexes is one-ta-onc.
                     Animal Husbandn in Susa during the Proto-Elarnite pt'riod                     101

                                   M362+M384•• 4N l4 7N l          47 nanny goats
                                                                   (of/bdonging to) M384.

          e:::::::     8I          M367 • 8
                                               ,,                  8 billy goats

                       61          M346 • 6N l                     6 ewes

                        61         M6 • 6N[
                                                                   6 r.tms

                                   M362.     IN l ..               10 female \cid.

                        21         M367.     2N,                   2 male kids

                        II         M346, ,IN l                        female lamb

                        II         M6•• IN,                           male lamb

Fig. 13 - Sample entr)' from   texl A (entn' number 3) with (enlathe translation; compare to figure 17.

    The make-up of the mixed nocks reponed in this text does not con-espond well
with what we are used to seeing in ancient herding texts (Van De Mieroop 1993.
165 and table 1 and 2); nor with what is known as Ihe standard ratio between sheep
and goat in contemporal)' hCI-ding (Ryder 1993, 17·18). Only the prop0l1ion of
nannies to billies, as well as male to female kids is in good agreement with what is
othenvise known (rom ancient as well as conlempol"al)' l-ecOl-ds of sheep and goats.
The male kids would be slaughtered at an early date for both meat and hides. The
nannies would be kept, presumably, for bl-eeding and for their milk. In traditional
hel-ding the ratio between sheep and goats is normally five-to-one or even higher
(some Susa texts do show higher numbers of sheep than goats, see also above).
Note however the 2: I ratio of goal to sheep in the Bancsh-period (i.e. pmto-Elamite)
bonc·remain samples from Malyan (see Zeder 1991, 137. and table 26. note the
progression in the ratio described on pages 139 to 140). In hel' discussion Zcder
(1991, 161-164), suggests that the high ratio of goat bone-remains in the samples
may I'CSUIt from higher offspdng yield. and l-esuhing increased culling of goats,
rather than from an actual 2: I rate of goats to sheep in the herds (see also Hesse
and Zcder 2000. for an assessment that ancient goalS-herders in the Zagraos moun+
tains kept few adult animals alive),
    Although these suspicious ratios of sheep to goat in our texts, could be used to
discredit the tenninology as it has been reconstructed above thel'e are several other
options available, It is possible that the records here sen'ed a diffel'ent purpose
than the herd accounts otherwise known [mm the ancient ear East. and that
goats therefore appear more prominently in the recOl-d. It is possible that goats
102                                  Jacob L Dahl

were favored by the Susa administrators for their milk, but these texts may also be
p~u1ial records of the original herds. Note also Ihal if the sign M362 were a sign fOI"
an ewe, thus conforming to the high number' of adults in comp3l;son to contempo-
rary herding. we would be at a loss to explain the low numbel'S of juvenile female
animals fmm the same genus.

Text B llnd C (figures 14 and 15)
    The two accounts Band C are of almost equal size. and the break-pattern of
both suggest that they were stored together" (see in this regard my comments con-
cerning the two texts MDP 6. 366 and 386 in Dahl 2005. § 3.7). Il is my suspicion
IhM the two texts l"cp,"esented the accounts of the production [Tom the same herds
as listed in lexl A over a period of two accounting periods. most likely two years.
Text C was tl-eated by Stolper in 1992, with reference to text B; the interpretation
given here is not far from that of Stolper 1992. As of today no lime-keeping systems
have been identified in thc proto-Elamite texts, but wc may speculate that limc-
notal ions were infclTed from the grain-ration systems, and in lhe pmduction nonns
found in production ,·ccords. such as the ones prcscnled here (see also Damcmw
and Englund 1989,27).
    Texts Band C both list 14 units, designated in the same way as the ones found
in text A. It is immediately <:\pparent that many of these units are identical in all
three texts, although the order is not (see figure 20, below). Texts Band C list,
presumably. the production from the same sheep and goat herds listed in text A.
Due to the entirely fixed structure of the entries in these 1\\0 texts it is possible to
reconstruct the missing sections to a cel1.ain degl'cc (a quantitative reconstruction
can only to some extcnt be pursued, whereas the order of the objects can be veri-
fied in all cases).
Animalllu~IxHldrY       in Susa during the Proto·Elamitc period           103

c                                                )


Fig. 14 -   Tc~t   B (.. MDP 17.85: Sb 22276;   154~   1101(31 mm).
104                                Jacob L Dahl

        .. .. .'
        ~ • ••
               Iv ........
               ;r.../ (.-..(....

        •• •• ••
        •• •• ••
        . •.
        • ,
           .. c:::: I


      Fig. 15 - Text C (= MOP 17, 97: Sb 6353: 165xllOx32 mm).
                    Animaltlusbandr. in Susa during the Proto-E1amitc period                 105

     The first entry of both text Band C is missing, or panly damaged. but we may
suggest, in line with text A, that neither text had an actual header. but began listing
the first entry directly.
     In both texts the pl"Oducts are recorded in a fixed order. with only minor differ·
ences when listing products of the two first categOl;cs. There arc several erasures
in text C. but due to our limited undel'standing of pl"Oto-Elamite it is difficuh to
understand the pl"Ocesses behind these. Two entries of text B list both nanny goats
and male kids (M362 and M367), whereas at least one of the corresponding entries
in text C lists nanny goats and female kids (M362 and M362). In eithel' text the
oven.vhelming majority of the animals al'e of the first. and apparently most impor-
tant kind, the nanny goat (M362). It is not completely clear why nannies are listed
here in the production accounts. since we would expect for example male kids to
represent parts of the yeady "production" delivered together with dairy,products,
goat's hair. and hides, etc. In the receipt. text E. quoted below we find a much
higher number of nannies, and in the account of the herds. text A, we also find
numbers of nannies of up to ten times higher than in text B or C. Finally. in the
receipt. text F, cited below (perhaps belonging to a later phase of the wl;ting-sys-
tern) we find billies at exactly the place whcl'e we find nannies in text B. C. and E.
Is it possible that each nanny goat listed in text B, C. and E, actually represented a
kid. or a certain increase in the hel-d?
     Aher the animals. each text lists a number of products in a completely fixed
hierarchy (see figure 16). The first product is either M260 01' M269hl (avoid the
index in Dahl 2005. figure 4) or both. The next entry counts M I 06 or M 106a . M 106a
is counted in the capacity system C. whel'cas MI06 is apparentJy counted in the
biscxagesimal systcm. The third entry is M9. the fourth M206 • . the fifth M 102 <. and
the last is M309 a ; aU presumably counted in the bisexagesimal 01' the sexagesimal
system. We shall discuss the poSSible identification of some of these products be·
     Text C is sealed. text B is appal'emly not. It can be difficult to detect a seal on a
pl"Oto-Elamite tablet since the seals were rolled over the inscription. sometimes
blcnding in with this. When the seal is rolled on a blank sUlface. such as the edge.
it is easily detcctable. The seal impression found on text C is also found on MOP 17,
444. and MDP 17, 105. It was published as number 147 in Legrain 1921, and as
number 924 in Amiet 1972.

    M260    M2G9       M269.     MI06     Mt06.       M9             M206~   MI02.   M309.

    k'/     1)<4',    '><:J!-    -
                                 /\       "'0\                      ~        ¥       ('-<)

                             Fig. 16 - Products found in   1C.~1   Band C.
106                                   Jacob L. Dilhl

    Other types of documents dealing with animals ~lld animal Pl"OclUCIS exist.
However. the stnlctul-e of the documents discussed here is. by far. more complex
than that of any other text fmlll $usa concerning herded animals known to me.
Sec for example MOP 17.241 a similar account; it lIses a somewhat different
tcnninology, and may belong 10 a different aJ'chi\'c or a different period. 11 does
include some products, but does not display the same complexity as lex I A. MOP
17. 253 is a frngmcl1t of a document similar lO M DP 17. 241, perhap:::. even Ihe
sa me tablet?

Primary docume"ts
    In his groundbrcaking research the Soviet scholar V. V. Struve discllssed and
demonstrated the concrele relationship between the accounts and receipts in the
Ur III administration (Struve 1969. 156-157). Nothing comparable to the sophisti-
cated bookkceping system known from the Ur III period (ca. 2100 - 2000 Be) has
so-far becn attested in earlier Mesopotamian societies. Here I have tentatively sug-
gested that documents with only a single enlry can be described as primary docu-
ments or receipts. Whcn dealing with animal herding, a single enll)' is defined as
one flock, or the produclion from one flock. In the following we shall see how the
Susa administralors employed a system of accounting comparablc in scope albeit
not in scale to that of the Ur III stale.
    Given the disastl"Olis excavation history of Susa it is surprising to observe that
targeted studies still enable the I-econstruction of specific ancient archives. Two
pl"Oblems impose themselves howeveJ: First, the few PI'oto-Elamite !ablets found
during controlled excavations, somc of which can be shown to be intimately re-
lated to texts found during Morgan's and Mecqucnem's excavations (compare
CahOAFJ 1,58: 1, to MDP 17, 153, both tablets havc the same scribal design on
the revcrse), were not found in a context that is suggestive of large archives and a
centrali'led administration (see the tablets published by Vallnt 1971, figul-e 58,
and compal-C the find spot information with Le Brun 1971, 178·179; 189-199; and
196, and figurcs 31 through 34). Second, even a brief survey of the hand-w"iting
found on the more than 1,000 proto-Elamite tablets stored aI the Louvre Mu-
scum suggests that the number of scribes who wrote these documents can be
countcd in the tens (survcys such as measuring spccific signs to comparc the
writing-tools can in this regard be very valuable), conforming to the information
from the introduction to Scheil 1923, that the cady finds consisted of a few major
    Ilowc\'cr, we may speak about Susa archives since alleast one pl-immy docu-
ment can be shown to relate dil'cctly 10 one of the accounts (see already D3h12005,
§ 4.7; see also Stolper 1985, 10-11 for a likely identification of receipls and ac·
counts in the Malyan texts). Text 0 (=MDP 17, 191) is the pdm~lI-Y document used
to record Ihe third entry of text A. It is scaled, whereas text A is not. Text D has been
pal1ially reconSlrtlCled using lext A. The re\'CI'se of text D is. as expected, not in-
sClibed. The seal found on text 0 is listed as numbel" 930 in Amiet 1972 (= 223 and
222 in Legrain 1921). The same seal is found on MOP 17, 242. a document which is
similar to text O. and on M DP 17. 444. MDP 17, 444 is a fmgment of a h"'ge ac-
count, presumably concerned with, among olher things, by·products from dairy
farming. It will not be discussed hel·e. The seal seems to repl-esent humans(?) cal"-
                  Animal   Uu~bandl"\   in   SU~   during the Pmto-Elamitc period    107

rying sacks up a ladder leading to a structure with a domed roof, perhaps a silo?
See Mecquenem 1934, 183 fOl' a brief discussion of this seal in relation to an actual
grain silo found ill situ at Susa. Accol'ding to the standard view humans were not
represented on proto-Elamile gl.\ptic; howe\'el~ the tablets mentioned here ma.\
belong to the eadiest period of the use of the pmto-Elamite script, when seals with
Uruk IV motifs were still in use in Susa, It is also poSSible to interpret the figun~s on
the seal as animals doing human chores, a well-known motif from Susa seals. It is
impol"tant to note thnt MOP 17,444 is sealed with two distinct seals. numbcr'S 924
and 930 (from Amiet 1972). We saw above that sen I 930 was found on three tablds
(it was also found on a sealing, that object has since been lost, sec Amict 1972,
134). Seal 924 is also found on three tablets, namely the accounts MOP 17,97, our
text C; and MDP 17, 105 (Amiet 1972, 133). MDP 17, 105 and ollr tcxt A are stl'ik-
ingly simiJar. Many of the signs for owners found inscribed in, or bundled with thc
fir'St animaJ-signs in text A can also be fOllnd in MOP 17, 105. A stud, of the seal-
impl'essions and snibal marks found on the pmto-Elamite tablets is in preparation
by the authOl:
      For a compadson of text 0 to text A see figure 17. The seemingly f1·cc formation
of complex graphemes in pmto-Elamite was discussed in Oah12005; the two texts
presented in figure 17 form pari of the core argument behind the claims in that
'08                                      Jacob L Dahl

       MDP 17, 96+325
       (text A)

        entry   3

                                            MOP 17,
                                            (text   OJ
                                                          't                  ~
                         ~~                                        ...
                                                                   .. n
                                                               1/1::. e(
                                                               ~ ~     ~
                        •• -1c\
                        • •
                                                               •• • •
                                                               ••• •
                        ••                                      /11

                                                                         I      "
          Tm A (entry 3)                                 Text 0
          Obverse                                        Obverse
          Column I                                       Column I
          03. M362+M384" 4N!+ 7N 1                       01. M384. b M362 , 4N 14 7N 1
          03a. M367 , aN I                               02. M367 , 8N I
          03b. M346, 6N j                                03.M346,r6N 1 '
          03c. M6, 6N 1                                  04.[M6] . [6Nd
          03d. 'M362,', IN I4                            05.   M362•. IN I4
                                                         06.   r M367.',r2N,'
          03c. M367. ' 2N 1
          03f. M346., I N I                              07.   [M346.1, liNd
          03g. M8 b , IN,                                08.   [M8bJ, lINd

         Fig. 17 - Text D (= MOP 17. 191: Sb 6355: 64x4lx 17 mm), and entl)' 3 of text A.

    Text E (=MDP 17, 182) is another plimal), document which can perhaps be
related to one of Ollr accounts, allhough it is not a direct match. Text E is broken,
but we are able to reconstruct it using the informalion from texts Band C. The
document is presumably a receipt (note lhat a seal-impression is visible on all the
edges but not on thc reverse) calculating the numbcr of nannies (M362) in a nock,
and the (anticipated?) production. See figure 18 fOl- a copy of text E. Thc list of
pl"Oducts is similar to that found in any of the entries in the two pl"Oduction r·ccords
(text 8 and C). Howevcr, thcre are len times the numberof nannies recorded in texl
                 Animal Hu.-;bandrv in Susa during the Proto-Elamill' JX'riod           109

E as in thc avcragc cnlry of text B or C. This more likely con'csponds to the number
of nannics recorded in ICXI A, Most of thc deliveries of products arc appal-ently not
dependcnt on the number of animals. except M 106 a' which is always recorded al a
rale of 1Nw: to one M362 (see below).

                                                     Text E
                                                     Column I
                                                     01. M,362,.- M59.. , 4Nl~ r 5N l
                                                     02. (1\-12691. IN 1
                                                     03, I MI064 1. IN 1 2N,.", IN!4
                                                     04. r M9 . r 1N, 1 1...1
                                                     05. ,M'06,I. 1 1
                                                     06.{M \02d l ' I )
                                                     07. r M309. l .IN,

                  Fig. 18 - Text E( .. MOP 17, 182; Sb 22353; 39x37x13 mm).

Atlm;,ristmtion of I,eriled animals in Susa
   The three hcrding accounts discussed in this section are unique for two rea-
sons. First, they contain evidence of a system of "conseculive accounts", Second,
we can isolate a set of production l'3tes, comparable to those found in both con-
tempol'al)' and later Mesopotamian sheep and goat herding te:-as.

Evidence for II system of consecutive accounts
     Although it is perhaps impossible to prove, the two production accounts dis-
cussed here show cCI-tain features indicative of a system of "running accounts"
abundantly attested in later Mesopotamian administrative systems. ThaI is, it seems
"casonable to assume that the two texts Band C wcre accounts concerning two
consecutivc accounting periods. This is not only based on the fact that Ihe two
accounts are surprisingly similar in structure, with only minor differenccs in thc
content-cvcn Ihe brcak·patlern suggests Ihat the IWO texts wcre stored together-
it is also based on a certain logical suggestion of the accounting span infcl1'ed from
the production numbers (see below).

    Damel"Ow and Englund (1989), following FI;berg (1978-79), showed the exist-
ence of certain fixed relationships in proto-Elamite texts betwcen a particular sign,
or sign-group, and a particular amount of what can be infclTcd to be a grain prod-
110                                   Jacob L. D:lhl

tiel (see figUl"c 19. below, for some known relationships in prolo-Elamitc texts).
Grain-products in the prolO-Elamite corpus ha\-e been identified pal1.1y byanal\'z·
iog the numelical systems by which they are counted; it is pre~umcd that these
s~slems have identical application in both prolO·cuneifonn and prolo-Elamile.
     In eleven very similal"lexts we rind a J"clationship between one unit of the sign-
group M54 M388 and 2NJllb INH (= 1/2 NI ) of the product M288. counted in the
capacity system C (FI;bcrg 1978-79, 26-28; and Damerow and Englund 1989, 27).
The eleven texis with Ihis relationship are of approximately the same size (with an
appmximale mean size of 67x45x 16 mm), and they aJ"e sealed with either seal num-
ber 329 or 334 in Legrain 1921. These texts have a number of structural features in
common as well; I) they have only one entry; 2) the header is the same in all te:xts
(MIS7; except for MDP 26, 99 which has as the header M387 1); 3) the entry is
followed by a rather lengthy subscl;pt; 4) and as far as can he established they all
have a top-edge insCl;ption (l 14)' The texIS are MDP 6. 223; 236; MDP 17,67;
MOP 26. 99, MOP 265. 295, 4752, ~773, 4783, 4802, 4803; and 5043. This and other
like groups of texts should fonn the basis for f1.111her grapho-tactical im'estigations,
aimed at deciphering proto-Elamite. Damerow and Englund suggested that these
texts concerned the monthly rations for people plowing the fields: partially based
on the fact thm 2N 19h 1NH equals 30 times 1 JOd' the unit believed to cOlTespond to
the Mesopotamian unit fOI- a daily mtion.
     In a number of texts we find a relationship of one pictogram of a plow (M56) to
2N J % ohhe product M288 (sec first Friberg 1978-79, 19-20; and see Damerow and
Englund, 34 and fn. IS9 for a discllssion of both this, and the previous SCi of equiva-
lences). The hypothesis of Damerow and Englund, upheld here. is that this is in
fact a sowing rate or an implicitly stated area of measure (one plow (MS6) = 2 iku
= c. 1 3/4 acre or 0.72 hectares).
     Finally, wc are tempted to designate certain texIS as f<xldcl"-1cxts due to the fact
that certain signs for animals appear in a fixcd relationship to certain quantities of
what is assumed to be grain-pr<xlucts. These relationships appear to resemble f<xl-
der-rations known fTom later Mesopotamian soul''ccs, alJx>it not as abundantly at-
tcstcd (see abovc under the discussion of M348. and cr. Damerow and Englund
      In the Susa animal herding texts we find a rclationship between one nanny goat
(M362) and 1Njo< of the product M 106. (see Appendix A fOI" factol,-diagrams of all
numerical notations in this papCI"). Based on an identification of this product as
ell)' cheese (see below), and an estimate of production rates and obligations. lhis
amount may be assumed to con'espond to a yearly delivel)'.
                  Anirnall1u~bandr\      in   Sll~   during   th~   Prolo-Elamitl' pt.·riod   111

                    ~""       I
                                   I          It              2lD        2_ I :

                          M54 M388 , 1N1                      M288,2N l9b 1 N24

                              ~,,~ It                         ::2![] 2_
                                  M56,lN 1                    M288,2N l9b

                                              It         :~                 .-.
                                                                         I •••
                                  M362,lN 1                   Ml06a ,lN loc
                                       Fig. 19 -   produclion.r.ll~s.

Admj"jslraJive w,i/s
     There exists no visible relationship between the numbers of nan nics in the pro-
duction accounts (text B <.lOd C) and nannies in the nock registry (Text A). Howcvcr,
we can extrapolate a surplisingly coher"ent list of "owners" from the three texts.
Due to the [ragmentary state of preservation we arc unable to reconstruct the list in
full, but we can show that the list was not identical in the three documents. This is
indicati\'e of two things, first, that the texts ;;\I'e actual administrative documents
relating to real economic situations, and second, that no master-document, or ~Iexi­
cal" list, existed, which recorded impOltant house~, or titles, in a fixed fOI"m as i~
known from early Mesopotamia.
     The signs that arc insclibcd in, or bundled with M362, are believed to repre~('nt
the "owners" of the animals (sec Dahl 2005, § 4.9). The majority of these signs are
allcsled in the s..'lme c;;tpacity in other documents. Few of them are unique to the
animal herder texts. Howevel~ there seems to be a subtle change between some
ownel" signs from text to text, for example the owner sign in text E is not identical
with any of the owner signs in the three accounts (A, B. and C), although it b a
composite madc up of signs found in these. Note in Ihis regard the system of tall/aga~,
or horse brands, from Mongolia, descdbed in Waddington 1974. Waddington even
suggested that such a system could be interpreted as a fore-runner of writing
(Waddington 1974.484). The subtle change recorded here could also refer to intri-
cate familial or "political" constructions in Susa escaping our limited understand·
ing of that society.
     Five of the fOUl1ccn households can be found in all three texts (text A, enll)' 4 =
text B, cnll")' 3 = tcxt C, entry 3: text A, entry 5 = text B, entl")' 12 = lext C. entry 10:
ctc.): scvcral of the remaining signs or sign-clusters can be found in two texts. Note
that entry II of text C is partly '"isible on the hand·copy in MDP 17, but completely
abraded today. The total number of entries is reconsl11.1cted panly based on the fact
thaI each entl)' counts one N. of the product M309~, sumadzed in text C as 14 unib
(counted in the bisexagesimal system B). Following Ihis, it is possible to recon-
struct the basic structure of the missing pal1s of both tcxt Band C. whereby a 100ai
of 14 units is obtained.
112                                              Jacob L. Dahl

                 Text B                               Text C                           Text A
               (MOP 17. 851                       (MDP 17, ')7)                  (MDI' 17. 96.. 325 .. 380)

          [m3gc       T r:msli'Cr.ltion      Image     Transliteration            Image'          Tr:mslilcration

                          [M362.Xl                           [M.}62.XI
                                                                                 ~      ~ ',\1362.11.15'

                                                                                           OJ ,
      2                                                                                                                  2

                          M362.M)S4,                         [MJ62.X)
                                                                                 ~            }oBI!.

       ~          ....    MJ62.MW
                                           ~         HII     11.1362.11.1594
                                                            MI.Mj7'},            ~                     MJ62.MJ84.

      •                                                                                    ....                          •
                                           ~                                     ~
                          IMj6,20Xl                          M.}62.M'i94                               11.1362.11.159
      ,                                                                                                                  ,
          Ern~                                                                   .~

                                           ~ ~
                                                             M362.~t207.                               M362.M}8J.
      6                                                                                                                      6

                  ~                        ~
                          [·.·1                                                                        MJ62.!XI
                          M}62.M9'Jl.                        MJ62.M~

      7                                                                                                                      7

                                           ~                 M362.M244                                 IM.}62.Xl

                                           ~               ','.1361.1101158'-'                         IMJ(i2.Xl

       ~                 'M362.MI58'                         IMJ(i2.Xl                                 (M}(iI.X]

                                            ~ .....•
  10                                                                                                                         10
       ~                  M362.M2~'                          M362 M38J,
                                                                                 ~                 f   M362.MI58 1


       ~                 1'o1.l62.M)12)
                                            ~              M362.[MI23.1'
                                                                                 ~                     M}62./'.12(",




                                                     ~       M351cM362

                                                                                        ~          t

                                                                                                       MJ51, 1 MJ62

                                                                                                       M)62.M244'       I.


  l'                                                                                                                         l'
                                                                                 ~                     'MJ62.M~,
                          [M.}62.XJ                          (MJ(i2.Xj

                                      Fig. 20 - List of administrative units.
                  Allimall-lu~b.1.ndn   in Susa during   lhl.' Proto-Elamile period    113

Identification of products
     The first two pnxlucts in the production accounts (texts B and C), as well as in
the cOITesponding receipt (text E), are M260 or M269lal , and M106bl• It m3\ be
assumed that the most important products obtained from a herd of sheep and
goats are dairy products, followed by wool for sheep, goat-hair, hides and meat, as
well as other products such as hoofs, tendons. horns, bones, etc. Dairy products, as
it is well known, must be refined for pl'eservation in the absence of refrigeration. As
is also well researched, most cultures that practice dairy farming know of the pro-
cess of producing butler-oil (also known as clarified butler, essentiaJly water-free
dairy fat) and dry cheese (basically fat~ and water-free milk proteins) f.-om raw
milk. Butler~oil and dry cheese can be preserved almost indefinitely. It is therefon~
Ill,V hypothesis that the two first signs in our production account al'e to be inter-
preted as butter-oil and dry cheese (cf. Stolper 1992, 78, who identified the first
with milk and the second with a grain pmduct. based on the fact that it is counted
in the capacity system C, generally used to note capacity measures of grain). The
first sign, either M260 or a variant of M269\aJ' has a slight graphic resemblance to
the Mesopotamian sign fOl- butter-oil (KISIM"'b' see already Damerow and Englund
1989,52, who suggested an identification of M269. with a dairy-bollle, sec also
Englund 2004, 130, figure 5.19); whereas the second, M 106ta l' only th.-ough cir-
cumstantial cvidence can be demonstrated to be dl'~ cheese.
      It has already been shown how 3 rd millennium Mesopotamian dairy cattle herd-
ers had certain obligations to meet in exchange for herding the animals of the
"state" (Englund 1995b). The same has been suggested for latc 4'" millennium dairy
herders (Englund 1995a). As a general rule neo-Sumctian dairy cattle he"del'S were
obliged to deli"er 5 liters of bUller-oil and 7 1/2 litcl'S of dl') cheese annuall~ pel'
each adult cow, to the owners of Ihe callIe. This can be shown to cOITespond to
about one third of the milk left af1er feeding the calf. or ca. 100 liters of raw milk.
Allhough these numbers are of course all vel")' l'Ough estimates they al-e based on
the assumption that a dairy cow in a hot semi-arid en"il'Onment produces ca. 600
liters of milk in one lactation period, and lhat half of this is given to the calf. The
production from goats and the rate at which the goat-hel-der was obliged to retum
d::liry products to the owners of the animals is not understood with equal detail.
Late 3'.1 millennium goat herders (from VI' 111 Umma) had rates of fulfillment of II
21itcrof butler-oil and 213 liter of dl)' checse a .vear, cOITesponding to ca. 20 liters of
raw milk, or much less than even a VCI)' pessimistic estimate of the yield fl'om one
nanny goat dudng one bctation period (Englund 1995b, 399 fn. 45). We can esti-
male very tentatively that a nanny goat from ancient Mesopotamia 01' ancient SUS~I
produced half the amount of milk of a cow. Although lhe chemical make up of
cows milk and goat's milk is very different, thcy are rathel- comparable when it
comes to the amount of fat. protein. and other solids (Teuber 1995. 25 table 1).
SubsequemJy, 100 liters of goats milk will yield about the same amount of butler"
oil and dry cheese as 100 liters of cow's milk. The reason for the low deUvel-:'o amounts
from late 3 rd millennium goat-herders must la~ within the costs of herding and Ihe
expected pmfit. Dail-:'o products from sheep's milk arc almost absent from the
Mesopotamian "ccord of 3 nl millennium BC, but attested in the 4'''.
      M260 and M269(~lare presumably counted in the scxagesimal system. a system
rescl""\ed fordiscrete objects; see for example text F (MDP 17. 151) discussed below.
114                                  Jacoh L Dahl

The dCI-ivcd sign M269'aj is fonned by cmssing the inside of M260; additional hatch-
ing of the sides can make it look as if there were strokes protruding f!"Om its sides.
Unf0l1unatcly we arc unable to estimate the absolute size of this jal:
       In Unlk. shepherds returned one unit of KlSIM~ for every 20 ewes. and 1 unit of
KJSIM b (gunificd KISIM) for evel)' three to lh'"ce and two-thirds nanny goals an-
nually (Englund 1998, 147 - 148). We nOle forcompal"ison that the Unlk containcl"
for dairy fal. KISIM,.,1> was also counted in the sexagesimal system. Green (who
identified KISIM,,1> with a fenncnted dairy producllike bUtlcrmilk. or yogUl1) sug-
gested that KISIM a and KlSIM b shal"ed the same semantic qualities (Green 1980,
9). To Green the difference in sign forms could be purely abstr~ct, rcfening to for
example different production quantities. Englund, on the other hand, suggested
that the gunified sign symbolized some form of visible difference in the jars used
for butter-oil made from sheep and goat's milk. Products made from goat's milk are
notol-ious for their "spicy" taste resulting from the particular make-up of the milk
solids (note especially the high content of the three fatty acids caplic, caprylic, and
caproic, combined with the high values of casein B; see for e.'(ample infomlation
made available from the Amelican Dairy Goat Association at w\, for
more on goat's milk).
       The identification of M 106ra1 as dry cheese is based on both the fact that it is
listed immediately after M260 I M269 bl, and the production rate extrapolated from
texIS B, C, E, as well as other texts. Above we established a relationship of one unit
   .lO<. (measured in the capacity system C) of the product M t 06 for each nanny goal.
It is likely thaI this represented the annual delivery from lhe herder to the owner of
the animals, as is lhe case in similar· Mesopotamian texts, and not necessalily the
entire production. One 30.. is presumably equivalent to between one and two liters
(see Englund and Damerow 1989,26-27 for a possible estimate of the absolute size
of Susa capacity notations). If M 106a is identified as dry cheese it would mean that
the Susa herder delivered almost t\...'ice the amount of dry cheese as his
Mesopotamian counterpart did 900 years later. AJthough this would amount to a
poorer compensation of the Susa goat herder than of his neo-Sumel-ian counter:..
pan, we are still dealing with rather low yearly deliveries of refined products, com-
pared to the assumed tOlal pmduction of milk from each nanny.
        If we accept the hypothesis that M 106(0) represents some form of dl)' cheesc
produced fmm the goat's milk or sheep's milk, and by comparison that M260 I
M269<aJ represents the butter-oil fTom the same animals, then wc must also assumc
that thcse accounts covered a period of what would be equivalent to onc solar year
(the lactation period of goalS is 305 days). A monthly dclivel)' of 1-2 liler's of dry
cheese per nanny goat is not possible. There are no recognizable indicato,·s in ei-
ther of the lwO production accounts suggesting that this was an account of one
yeal: divided into 12 months for example. Cel1ain prollrcuneiform texts dealing
with dair)' products and lhe growth of the herds are al,.anged in a similar way.
These do, normally, include a time-notation cOl1"esponding to one yea!: However, it
 is likely and perhaps even possible to prove that Sus..., accountants operated with
 infen-ed systems of timekeeping rather than with explicit time-notations (cf. Englund
 1988). Unfortunately we can not usc the numbers of juvenile animals listed in our
 text A or D to assert whether these are actual annual documents (d. Green 1980, 14
and passim).
                     Animal Hmbandr. in          Su~   during Ihe Pnno-Elamite period                                  115

    The two produCIS (buucr'-oil and dry cheese) arc w!"illcn with (at least) four
diffel"cnt signs. FOI'cach pair we can isolate a main form and a graphically derivcd
valiant (fon11cd by modifying the ol·iginal. compamble to thc procedure known as
gunific<ltion in Mcsopotamia). This pairing is analogous to the situation in
Mesopotamia where butter-oil from ewe's milk is wriuen with the sign KISIM~; and
bUllel'-oil from nanny's milk is wriltcn with the sign KlSIMb-a gttnificd variant of
KlSIM a (sce Englund 1995a, 45. figure 10, and note thai Uruk sheep and goat hcrd-
ers did not. apparenlly, deliver dl)' cheese). Is it possible thaI Ihe samc distinction
existed in Susa? Due to the fragmentary nalurc of the firsl couple of entries of tcxt
C it is hard to judge if signs M269 a and M269 are mere graphical varianls, or if the
difference is semantic as well. The poorly preservcd total of lext C (see figure 15)
appears to contain multiple entries of semantically distinct dairy bottles, suggest-
ing a more complex system than Ihc one describcd here.
    As wc have seen, some of the fourteen units of the two production accounts
(text B and C) produced M260. while others produced M269 lar Likewise, some
units produced M I06, and othcrs M 106a (fOJ' images of the signs see figure 21,
below). Does this differentiation I'Clale 10 Ihe make-up of the Oocks? Even givcn the
poor state of preservation of lext A it is possible to give a lenlativc. but affilmati\'e
answer to this question. The Oocks with a majority of nannies and female kids
produced, as a rule the dcrived fOlms of the two products, that is M I06a, and M269lal
(compare cntries numbcr 3, 4, and perhaps 5 of lexl A, with entry 3 f.-om text B,
and entry 3 of text C). Whereas the nocks with a majOlityof ewes and female lambs
produced M 106 and M260 (compare entTies 5 and 6 on the rc\'crse of text A, with
entJ)' 9 fmlll text B, and enllies 7 and 8 h-olll text C). We can visualize our findings
in the following way (figure 21):

           Product                  Buttcr-oil                                       Of)' chttSC'

                                                          Uruk                                 Uruk

                           0\1260                                             Ml06
      Shcep's milk
                                                                              ,"",, 1 ()(\tonl..   ~u .......d   fur
                                                                                          <bl~     aukl

                              Fig. 21 -    Su.~a   and Umk daily prodtlcls.
116                                  Jacob L. Dahl

    Following buttcr+oil and dty cheese we rind four other plUducts which al-e more
difficult to decipher. The first of these products is wl-ittcn with the sign M9. It is
clear that more semantically distinct signs were wrillcn with the same sign M9 (or
two M I. a simple horizontal stroke). When M9 appears in the animal production
accounts it is without doubt an animal by-product. However, M9 can also appear
as pal1 of the sllings believed to be used exclusively to write pel'Sonal names. I will
not discuss the remaining products here.

Text F (figure 22)
     Text F (MDP 17. 151) is a p,-imal'y document with two entries, and a lotal. The
overall stnlclul-e of text F is identical to text E, discussed above. There arc, how-
ever, substantial minor differences between text F and the other documents dis-
cussed in this study. The most important of these is that the owners in te.xl Fare
described with a string of signs instcad of only onc sign as in the othcl- texts dis-
cussed het-c. Thc "hand" of text F is also different from the othet- documents de-
scribed in this study, and the stmkes al·c "ncar-wedge" shaped.
     Based on three arguments I will claim that text F belongs 10 a laiC phase of
pmto-Elamitc w"iting. and lhat the other texts discussed here belong to an early
phase. First, the scribal hand of text F resembles thai of the texts found in levels 15
through 14B dUl;ng the secure excavations of Susa in the 60's and 70's. The olher
texts descl;bed in this study have a slmnger resemblance to the texts found in level
 17B and 16. Information from the old French excavations of Susa supporting this
line of argumentation is not readily available but we may suggest that for example
the tablets published in MOP 6 and apparently found in Ihe 1899 - 1900 scason in
trench 7 came from the samc level as text F. One of the two texLS reponcd in Mor-
gan 1900, seemingly identical wilh the second of twO texts published in Scheil 1900
(= MOP 6, -1996), and apparently found immediately below "I h'eauU" (con-espond-
ing, pt'esumably to level 1-1 in Le Brun 1971 figure 32), is more closely rdated to
text F than to any of the other texts discussed here. The other text published in
ScheH 1900 (=- MOP 6, 399), and presumably found in the same laye,· as the one
discussed above in fact rescmblcs text A, B, C. 0, and E more than F, at Icast with
reg:'lrd to structure. J-1owevct; the handwl;ting of MOP 6, 399 is closer to text F than
to the other texts.
     The list of products in tc,xt F is the same as that found in the production ac-
counts (text B and C), and the primary document texi E. Howevel~ the form of
certain signs is considerably different. this is surnmadzed in figure 23. I suggest,
therefol"c, thaI the change in sign-fOims does not represent a regional or dinleclic<:d
differencc, but rathel- a tcmporal evolution in the repertoi,·c. In fact, this can be
::.hown to be likely b) looking at the entire body of proto-Elamite texts. It is pos-
loible, in all cases, to descdbe the emlution of the sign-fol-m in tenns of a gradual
alteration from one to the other, although intennediate fOims are missing from the
record. The sign-fOlms used in some of the animal-herder texts published in MOP
26 seem, in some cases, to be closer to those in text A, B. C, D, and E, and in others
to be closer to text F. Collation may \'erify whether or nol these texts belonged 10 a
middle phase of the pl"Olo-Elamile writing-system.
     If WC' look at thc semantic propenies we sec an evolution as well. A sign like
M206" for example, which is only found in the "early" texts mentioned in this
                       Anim:l! I-Imb:lndl") in SUS3 during lhe Prolo-Elamitc pcliod                117

study, has only the same semantic use descl;bed here (i.e. an animal by-product).
The sign replacing it in MOP 17, 151, M292 f • on the other hand, which is found
exclusively in texts assumed to belong to the later phase of the writing system
appears to have multiple semantic meanings. The same can be applied to the earl~
sign M 102~ and its late form M 102d .
    The third argument used here to deSCI;be lext F as a late text is the micro-
Sl1l.lClure. Whereas the first fivc texts discussed in this paper described owners
with onc sign. often clustered or inscribed in the object sign it was qualifying, text
F describes the two owners with more than two signs each (owner one: line 2;
owner two: line 9). The text also contains a real header. This is in good agreement
with what can be observed from the few texts found in sccure excavations whel'e
the only texts with long strings of signs were found in level 15 and 148, whereas
texts found in levels 17 and 16 can be comp3l'cd to the texts descl'ibcd on the first
pages of this paper.
     Finally, such an increased complexity as the one described above is best de-
scribed as refelTing to a temporal evolution in the sign-repertoire, considering also
that the texts come fyom the same limited geographical area.
     As noted above (section 2. discussion of lext B and C), text F lisls billy goats,
and not nannies as the rirst enll)'. fmiher suggesting that these documents arc true
yearly production recOl'ds of herded animals. Unfol,tunately it is not possible to
estimate the increase in the her·d. since we do not have the cOlTesponding herd
account nor the cOITesponding production account.
    The two products shown in the first line of figure 23. below, M309. M206•.
along with the sign fOl' a nanny goat. M362. are given here in accordance to the
fOlms we find in texts Band C. The same pnxiuclS are found in text F, however,
with substantial graphic alteration, here presented in the sccond line of figure 23.
  ote. thai M309 3 in text E is drawn somewhat doser to the later \'en>ion of thai
sign (M246m ). M359 is also found in MDP 6. 362; MOP 26. 152 and 350. It is only
possible to argue for an identification of the sign as a var;aot fonn of M362 in the
two last text examples.

                M362        M269       MI06.       M9       M206.       1'0.1102,     M309,

                                .)    ~\                   $1           ¥
                /'o.13S9    M26?,      MI06.       M'       M2')2j      MI02 J        M246,"
                  y         .><0)      c:::G\'\
                                                           lEY         ~-             ~~

Fig. 23 - E\'olulion or .sign,ronns: rhe sign.ronns in thc fiNtlinc are ghen according 10 letlS A. B, C.
                           D, and E. and in the second line according 10 leXI F.
118                                       Jrlcob L. Dahl

                                                   Column I
                                                   I. "1.16-.1.1'.6\
                                                   !. M 11\' X' .'t,IW \1 16~ .• :-0,
                                                   j, \12M,. IN..
                                                   4.   '11M,.     1~~.
                                                   \. \19.1"1,
                                                   (,.'\I!?1,    ,.:>1,
                                                   - ML02d·l~

                                                   , . .\.120'1, MJ/18 MllO. I X " \l.l6.' 4"1,
                                                   10 \IM.         1:-;..
                                                   II. "11116.       2S ...
                                                   12. \1<). IS,
                                                   U. Ml'Jl, .IIN,I
                                                   14, [Ml02,J. 2S
                                                   1\ \1146,.,.11'.1,

          •                                        ~­
                                                   l. [.--1. 1_
                                                   !. [...1. IN:
                                                   J. WJ.l'\i
                                                   4. M1?!j-.l....
                                                   \. \l10!..l ' "
                                                   6. M246,., IN,

                  Fig. 22 - Tt':'I:l F ('" MDP 17, 151; Sb 22329;         65~S2x18      mm).

                                        3.   CO:-lCLUSIONS

   In this <:H1icle we have discussed both Susa animal tcnninoJogy and Susa ani-
mal husbandry according to the wl"itten sources fwm thaI city eluting the period
known as the proto·Elamitc period, dating to sometime around 3000 Be. Stlsa
animal lenninology shares many signs and features with the slightly older and
much betlcr understood prolo-ctlnei[orm writing-system. However, sharing a com-
mon set of signs and organizing p"inciples did not apparently. have the effeci of a
complete take-over of Ihe sign-inventOl)' used by the Mesopol<lmian scribes de-
sCl'ibing domesticated animals. Rather, I suggest, based on the results of this study,
that the Susa scribes used and expanded on a common sign-repertoire pertaining
to herded animals-used in both Mesopotamia, and South-Western Iran, and per-
haps beyond-in a surprisingly indigenous way.
    Whereas the proto-cuneiform signs for sheep and goal were abstract, the COITe-
sponding callIe terminology was not. Susa cattle terminology still escnpes us, but
signs For bovines may closely I'esemble signs for certain groups of humans; they
arc thus not missing but merely hiding in the \'ocabulaly.
    In order to advance the identification of Susa animal signs we accepted the
hYPOlhesis that prot<rElamite M346, and proto-cuncifonn UDU have common roots
and identical semantic application. M346 appears to be the sign for an adult fe-
male sheep, an ewe. This identification was based not only on its graphic and se-
manlic similarities wilh proto-cuneiform UDU, but also on its relations 10 other
                  Animalllu~bandr\   in Sma during   rhe Prolo-EJ:lmitc period        119

signs for herded animals and its general use in proto-Ebmitc_ Unfortunatclv, we
could rind little 01" no proof that M346 possesses all of the same qualities a~ Late
   ruk UDU: M346 docs not seem to function a~ a ~ummarizing sign for ~heep and
goats. By accepting that fin-t identification (M346 '" UDU), certain other signs for
animals were identified, and we wcre able to suggest a rccon~tmction of thc 5us<'1
animal tcrminolog,\ (figure 9), bascd not only on logical arguments but also on a
thorough analysis of the entire corpus of proto-Elamite texts_
      Of course, it is not surprising to rind that the people of Imn he,-dcd sheep and
goats even in the proto-Elamite peliod_ What is surpl"i~ing, and shown here for the
fir"st time, is the dcg,-cc of control exe'Tiscd by thc central OI-ganization in keeping
detailed '-ccords of this activity. The textual source~ from Susa, therefore, do not
suppo,-t thc statcment in Zedcr 1991. 25, that "herding shcep and goat is not an
activity, however, Ihat lends itself to central control" (nolc thaI Zeder does nOI place
much economic importancc on milk produclS, pagc 34)_ The Susa bookkceping
procedures are sU'lJlisingly sophisticated, suggesting <In extensive administn1tive
appamtus. The stalic naturc of the delivcrics in the two production recOl-ds is sug-
gestive of a highly dcveloped administrative systcm of requil·ements. Systems with
fixed delivery or production l"ates often operate based on deliver)' norms, resem·
bling a planned economy of sorts.
      We also rudimentarily explonxl the use of seals, concluding that specific seals
were related to specific offices, fUl1her that the iconography on proto-Elamitc seals
may relate to the activities of these offices_ Futun~ studies of the proto-Elamite
archives will aim at establishing such links_
      Apparently two sets of documents followed each Oock of animals. One set con-
sisting of primary and secondaI;" documents tallied the size of the nocks, another
set, likely made up of both receipts and accounts as well, computed the production
of the same nock. We can estimate, but not prove, that the two by·producl ac·
counts (text B and C) were year's-end accounts, based on supposed production
rates. 11 has long been the hypothesis that time-nOliltions in proto-Elamitc were
inferred from the grain-notations. It is still impossible, due to the \-exing stalc of
publication, to show whether the top-edge notations found on many proto-Elamite
tablets had any "e1ations to a time-notation system.
      The p,-esentation here will hopefully aid the further advancement in the decipher".
menl of pt"Oto-Elamite. The identification of classes of semantically distinct groups of
signs is believcd 10 be essenlialto this process. The finding that cel1ain signs developed
over time not only in graphic shape but also semantically lllay have great impol1ance
for our understanding of proto-Elamite_ While deciphering the signs for vadous do-
mcstic ~lI1imals, and the production obtained from this activity we observed, that the
5usa sclibes opemted with a system of main fonns and delived forms_ Signs for young
nnimals were fomlcd by hatching the "legs" of signs fOl- <:lduhs; signs fo,- product.!>
obtained from goat's milk wcre fonned by hatching the signs for prodUCb> obtained
from sheep's milk_ This SO'1 of proto-Elamitc "guniDcation" (a term we adopted from
cuneiform-studies) can also be observed in the hypoth<.-sizcd syllabary used to write
what has been postulated to represent names_ Common signs used exclusively to write
ccnain suings believed to represent names have both a main and a derived foml (see
figure 24). One of these (M 102d ) is identical with thc late fOlm of one of the product
signs from the list of products distilled [rom te.'{t F discussed in this papel:
120                                    Jacob L. Dahl

                        MID2,            M21S               M219


                           "                "                 " ,
                        ~ '<>,         "-
                            Fig. 24 - Proto-Elamite gunificalion.

    We have also shown that it is possible to distinguish two phases of wl;ling in
Susa during the proto-Elamite period, and a clear development in the sign-fOl"TTIs
between these Iwo. We also briefly investigated the possible evolution of the se-
mantic qualities of the signs moving from the early texiS to the late.
    AI present, nothing is known of the links between the plUlo-Elamite wrlling-
system and speech, and in the case of the early texts (A, B, C. D. and E). 011 leasl, it
is unlikely thai the system encoded much if any linguistic infolTllalion (compal'c
Damerow 1999. and Fannel: Sproat and Witzel 2004). On the other hand, it is
possible that later teXis, such as text F, may hold some speech coding, as suggested
by the inclusion of much longerstl;ngs of non-numerical signs, and by indications
of polyvalency in the use of those signs. While it cannot be proven at present, the
possibility remains open that some of these longer sequences may have encoded
some type of phonetic data, possibly involving thead hoc use of rebuses or puns 10
write personal names, as is known to OCCUI- in a numbel" of p,"imitive "picture writ-
ing" or mnemonic systems. lacking a systematic syllabary. Whether or nOI ad hoc
phonelicism of this type existed in prolo-Elamile, or whcthcl- it may even have
undergone some level of standal"dization, can only be known when the entire COI"-
pus has been re-edited and made available for study.

Jacob L. Dahl
Max Plullck Il1srirwe (or rhe History of Science
BO!t:lllullllstrafJe 22
D -14195 Bedill


Alden. J. R.
1982 "Tr.ldc and Politics in Proto-Elamite   lran,~   in: Cllrrelll AllrhrolJOlogy Vol. 23,   0.6,
    Deccmber 1982, 613 - 640.

AmiCI. P.
1972 Glyplique stlsielllle, Volume 1- 2 (: Memoircs de la Delegalion Archeologique en Iran
   43; Paris: Paul Geulhner).
                    Animalilusbandn in Susa during the Proto·Elamilc period                    121

Damerow P.
1999 ~The Origins ofWdting as a Problem of Historical       Epbtemolo~,"(hup:l/ww\\.mpiwg-

Da01l."row P. and Englund, R. K.
1989 The Pmw-Elamite Texts (mill Tepe Yahya ('" The American School of PrehiSIOlic Re-
   ~arch Bul1elin 39; Camblidge. MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology).

Dahl, J. L.
2002 "proto-Elamile Sign Fr\.'CIllcncies.~in: CUllei(orm Digilal libml" Blllleti/l 2002:001 (http:/
   ledl i.ucla.edulpubsledlb/2002/cd Ib2002_00 I.ht011).
2005 "Complex Graphemes in Proto-Ela01ite." in: CEII/d(oll/l Digilal Ubrarylolllllal2005:003
   (http://cdli .ucla.cdulplIbslcdlj/2oo5/cd Ij2005_003.him I).

Delugaz, P, and Kantor, H.
1996 Cltoga Mish. Volllllle I, The First Five $easollS o(Exca\'aliollS 196/-197/. Pm1 I: Texl;
   Pari 2: Plales, Alizadeh, A., cd. (= 01 P 101; Chicago, Illinois: The Oliental Institute of the
   University of Chicago)

Dyson, R. H.
[968 "E:lI'!y Work on the Acropolis at Susa. The Beginning of Prebistory in Iraq and Iran:'
   in: Expedition 10/4,21-34.

Englund, R. K.
1988 "Administrative Timekeeping in Ancient Mesopotamia.~ in: JOlln/al o( the £COl/Dillie
   mul Social History o( II,e Oriellt 31, 121-185.
1995a "Lale Uruk Period Caule and Dairv Products: Evidence from Prolo-Cuneiform
   Sources:' in: Blllletill o(SwI/eriall Agricl~llUre 8/2 (Wannin.i>tc,·. UK) 33·48.
1995b ~Regulaling DaiTy Producti\'it:, in Ihe Ur III Peliod,~ in: Orielltalia 6.J, 377-429
1998 Texts From n,e lAte Uruk Period. in: Bauer, J., Englund, R. K.• and Krc~mik. M.
   Mesopolamieu: SplilUmk-lA!it lI1/d Fn'ihdYIlaslische Zeit (= Orhis Biblicus el Olicntalis
    160/1; Freiburg, Switzerland: Uni\·crsiUitsverlag Frciburg Schweiz. Vandcnhocck &
   Ruprecht Gotlingen).
2004 "The State of Deciphelment of Proto-Elamile.~ in: S. Houston, ed., 11,e First U'ritillg:
   Script bl\'elltiol/ as History ami Process (Cambl;dge, UK: Cambridge Uni\'en;itv Press)

Famler, S., Sproat, R. and Witzel, M.
2004 "The Collapse of the Indus-Sclipt Tbesis: The Myth of a LiTerate Harappan Civi)i.w-
   tion," in: Electrollic lOl/mol o{ Vedic Stl/dies (EIVS) Vol. II, Issue 2, 19-57 (htlp:/I
   Llsers.pri IllUSbosLcorn/-indialejvs/cjvs 11 02/ejvs I I02artide.pdO.

Friberg, J.
1978-79 me Third Mil/ell/IiI/III !loots o{ Babylollim/ Mathelll(Hics I-II (Goteborg: University
    of G6teborg, Dep3l1menl of Mathematics).

Glassner. J.-1.
2000 "Signes d'ocnlut"C el c1assificalion: I'exemple des ovi-capl;nes" in: Topoi.· Orielll-Oeci-
   delll. SLIp!. 2 (lyon, France) 467 -475.

Green. M. W.
1980 ~Animal Husband!) at Uruk in the Archaic Period.- in: lOl/mol o( Near Enstem Studies,
   Vol. 39, o. I, 1-35.

'·Iesse. B. & Zeder, M.
2000 "The Initial Domesticalion of Goats (Capra hircus) in the Zagros Mountains 10.000
122                                        Jacob L. Dahl

      Year:. Ago", in: Sciellce 24 (March 2000; 287) 2254·2257 fOOl: IO.1116/sci-
      ence.287.546 1.22541 (in Rcpons).

Le Brun, A.
197\ "Recherches stratigraphiques        a l'acropole de    Suse, 1969-1971," in: ClIhiers tie III
      Diligllliml arc1/iologiqlfe Frallfaise eli/rail 1(= CahOAFI I; Pnris. France: Geuthncr).

Lcgrnin, L.
1921 E""Jreillfes tIe cachets ilalll;tes (=Memoires de Ia Mission Archeologiqllc de PCI"Se 16;
    Paris, France: Erne!>! Leroux).

Lmch, M. and Robbins, H.
1977 "Animal Brand::. and the Interpretation or Rock An in £ast Africa:' in: ClIrrelll AlIlhro-
   !JOlogy. Vol 18. No.3, 538-539.

Majid7.adeh, Y.
 o date "The ancient Ol..baki Site, Savoudjbolaqh.         lran~   (Tehran. (ran: Iranian Cultural
   Heritage Organii'..ation).

Mecquenem. R. de
1934 Archiologie, mitrologie et IIl//llisma/iqlle sllsielllles (= Mcmoin~s de la Mission
   Al"(:hL-ologique en Perse 25 ; Paris, France: Ernest Leroux).
1943Arclu!ologie sllsie,me (= Memoires de la Mission Ar"Cheologiqueen Iran 29; Paris, France:
   Prcs~cs Uni\'crsitaires de France).
1949 Epigraphie IJI"olO-ilami'e (= Memoires de la Mission Archeologique en Iran 31; Paris.
   Fmllce: Prc:sscs Unh'er-sitaires de France).

MenggL P.
1969 ~AIISlllne.-ische lind Prolo-Elamische Bildcrschrifl:' in: Zei/Schrifi der Dell/schell
    Morge,diilllJischell GeseJlscJ/llfi 119/1, 156 - 163.
1971 lA. scrif/llra proto-dall/iea. Parle I~: La seril/1/ra e il COllfellllfo dei les/i (Rome. Italy:.
    Aceademi .. Nazionalc Dei Lined).
1974.. W Serif/lira IJrota-elallliea. Parte r: Caralogodei seglli (Rome. Italy: Accdemi.. Nazionale
    Dei Lincei).
1974b '-'I scrif/llm l1fO/o-elamica. Pane I": Tes/i (Rome. Italy: Accdcmia Na/.ionalc Dei Lincei).

Morgan, J.
1900 Re{;herches arclu!ofop,iqlles (= Memoires de la Delegation en Perse 1; Paris. France:
   Ernest Lerowl:).
1905 Recherches Mcheologiqlll's (= Memoires de la DclCgalion en Pcrse 7: Paris, France:
   Ernest Let'Ou;.;).

PoliS, D. T.
1999 71Je Archaeology of £Ialll (Cambridge. UK: Cambridge UniversilY Press).

Ryder, M. L.
1993 "Sheep and Goal Husbandrv with Pal1icular Reference to Textile Fibl'e and Milk Pro--
   dllction:' in: BHfletill ofSllllleriall Agricllimre 7/1 (Wanninstel~ UK) 9 - 32.

S...lvatori, 5.. Tosi. M.• and Vidale. M.
2001 ~Cl"ocevia dell'Asia. L'lmn Ol;entale e I'e"oluzione delle civilti't prolostOl;che ad oriente
     della Mcsopotami<l.~in: Gramiccia, A. eel., Alllica Persia, I Tresori del Aluseo Na;.iollale {Ii
      Tehrall e la Ricerca /Ialial/a el/ frail (Rome, haly: Edi'zioni de Luca).

Scheil, V.
1900 TeXles ilamites-similiques (= Memoires de la Delegation en Pcn.e 2; Pads. France:
   Emest Leroux).
                    Animal   Hu~bandr\   in Susa during tho: Proto-Elamill' JX'riod                123

1923 Textes de COIIIIJwbili,i prolo-ilal/lires (= Memoire!> de la Delegation en Pel"Se 17: Pari!>,
    France: Emest Lemux).
1935 Te.tles de eDtIlIUabiliu! (:   Mcmoil\"~ de   la Mission Archeologique en Perse 26; Paris,
    France: Emest Lemux).

1992 aerore Writill/:, lIolllllle I, Frolll COllll1illg ro C,lHei!orlll (Austin, TX: University of Texas

Steve, M-J.. <:Ind G"sche, H.
1971 L'Acropolis (Je Sllse. NOI/I'elles rOl/ilfes (=Memoir-es de I" Delegation Archcologiqut' en
    Iran 44: Pads, Franu~: Geuthncr 1 Leiden, Ncthed:l1lds: Brill)

Stolper, M.
1985 ~ProtO"-Elamite tcxts (rom Tall-I Malyan," in: KAD/itOS XXIV (Berlin 1 New-York: Walter
    de Gruv1er& Co.). 1-12.
    1992 ~Accounl Tablet.~ in: Harpel: P. el. al. e<b., Ti,e Royal Cin'        or
                                                                         Sl/<;a, AI/dell/ Near
    Easrem Treasures ill Ihe Lolll're (New- York. fY: Metropolitan MUM:um of Art). 77-80.

V. Struvc.
1969 ~Somc ne\~ data on the organization of Labour and on Social structure in SlimeI'
    during the reign of the third dynasty of Ur.~ (originall:-- \\'I;tl;;-n in Russian in 1949), in: I.
    Diakonoff (cd.), Alleiell/ MesolJOfmllia: Socio-Ecollomic History, A Colfeelioll o{ Sfl/dies
    by &1\'iet Scltolars (Moscow) 127· 172.

Teuber, M.
1995 "How can modem food technology help identify dairy products mentioned in ;:Incient
   Sumerian texts?," in: Bllllefill o{Swlleriall AgriClllfl/re 8/2 (Walminster, UK) 23-31.

Tosi. M. and Bulgarclli. G. M.
1989 .. The Simtigmphic Sequence of $quares DF 88/89 on South Ilili. Tappeh Hesar." in:
    Tappeft Hesar, Reporlso{tfte Resllu!'I-' Project. 1976. D\"son. R. and Howard. S., cds. (Flo-
    rence. Ital\": Casa Editrice Lc Lellere). 35-53.

Vallat. F.
1971 ~Le!> documcnls epigraphique!> de I'acmpole (1969-1971 ),~ in: CaMel") de III Deligmioll
    are1leologiqlle Frall~aise I'll lrall I (= CahDAFI 1; Paris. Fmnce: Geuthner), 235 - 2ot5.

Van de Microop, M.
1993 "Sheep and Goat Herding according 10 the Old Babylonian Texts from Ur," in: Bllllef/1I
   o{Swlleritm Agricultllre 7/1 (Warminster, UK) 161 - 182.

Waddington. C. H.
1974 "Horse Bmnds of the Mongolians: A Sy~t('m of Signs in a Nomadic Cuhure," in: Ameri-
   call Etlllloiogisl. Vol. I. No.3. 471 - 488.

Weiss, H. and Young. T. C.
1975 -rhe Merchanls of Susa. Godin V and Plateau-Lowland               Re1alion~ in   the Late Fourth
   Millennium B.c.,~ in: lrall 13, 1-17.

Whitcomb, D. S.
1971 Tlte ProtO-Elalllite period af Tall·1, lrall, Unpublished M.A. thesis. (Athens, GA;
    University of Georgia)

Zeder, M. A.
1991 Feedillg Cifies, SpeciaJi::.ed Allillllli EconolllY illihe Allcielll Neln EflSI (Washington. USA:
    Smithsonian Institution Press).
124                                               Jacob L. Dahl

  Appendix A: numerical signs in the proto-Elamite texts from Susa;
  and a recons(ruction of the numerical systems used in the texts
  from the same city, explained as (acmr diagrams (adapted from Englund 2004)

                                                    Scxagesimal Syucm S
                                                    S,.,ccrn used   '0   coon, discrCIC
                                                    'IUJm~.c ob~lS.

  Numerical signs found in the
                                                              6                    I           6          10             2 •
           proto-EJamirc                                                      '0
               [eXlS from Susa.
                                                     ." "600"
                                                   "3,600"                         "60"            "10'         "I"          "1/2"

      IN,       I              1N19o.               Decimal System D
                                                    5}'Sl:nJl wed '0 covnl dlKmc ~Jnu'c obj«U.
      IN..          •          IN,.s
                                         •          in ~"icub., domol:ia",d """nm and humln l.oboKn.

      IN. 4

      lN z3
                    -     I

                               IN 48     -           ~
                                                      _       10

                                                   WIO,OOO' "lii<r

      IN:.       •             IN sl                Biscxagesimal Syncm B
                               IN Hg
                                                    SystC'm wed '0 count dllil;:mc gr:>,n prodlM;'l~ obpu DlKN
                                                    Wl1h ,hiJ $)'l>'tm nuy, U In 3rch.aK 83by\on... bdong 10 3

                                                    r.l.lioning ')'Rem.

      IN""                     IN"                   _        10 _            2
                     "                                                                       6            10
      IN,.                     'N",

      IN 39b
                                                   "1,200'        "120·                          " 10"
                                                    Biscxagcsimal System B'
                                                    Sys,em dc:rivc<:l from ,he         bi~ng<:)Jm:aJ    S)'$'cm B. 1l....J
                                                    10 coun, ,.,,,iom        m of 1n     uncle.... n3lU'c.


  Capacity Syucm C
  Sy,,~m   "sed primarily 10 no'~ capaciry mom,,", of g,a;n,
  10 I~"icular b~,I"Y: ~n\~ of Ih••maU unin al~ d~ign~l'

  biscxag<simaUy ~oun,ed product!,

  I- ~I
                                             6            5              2
                                                                              .•       3 •••
                                                                                                    2               2

  Capacity System Cit
  Sy':I<'" derived fru", Ihe Clp~ciry 'Y',em C,
  posibly rda,ed fO 5YJlem B_

                                                              I     I 2

  up"'')' S""m
  SY"~m JeriYftl from
                       ,he capxiry <)'S.e'" C. graphically
  rcLued 10 .he Babylono.m sys,e'" tUtd to men""" nnmc•.

                                                                                       3 • •0•
                   Animal Hu.!>bandrv in 5usa during the Proto·E.lamilc period                                   125

                                 Appendix       B,   proro-Elamilc signs

\11                                                               .\l~   I".   ,     .    Nun·ooJC'l.I
                     mulllpk Km,mic me,,,,n!.:>'                                   ,
            ~         lloustholJ                                  ~I~46m       r-'-'      b'"lm.xluu fTOm
                                                                                          'n;m.1 he..I,n£.

            +         II~holJ                                     \I~'il
                                                                               +<$        L"nknown

            +        Animal
                     ;klnh m.le ,http
                                                                  \U(:oI,      ><)        Rllllf;'1'-oil
                                                                                          from <http"' m,ll'

\16.        4-       Anim.1
                     lu\~nik    male sh~
                                                                                          from F;n;u\ m,ll'

                     Mull1r1e ...m,mic me,ninp                                            Bune,-n,1
"9                   In-produn from .ninul h.crJing
                                                                               >Q<:;t     from b'U;"') milP


""                   "',m of "'"OIlers Of
                                                                               rJ         {'.,m    ~on •• tner

,,\6        ~        I'lOllgh                                     \I,U'i,      ,(y        An;nul

                     \luh'plt )CfIUnlle me.mng-
                     "~"l'fodun fTOm "lim.! herJing
                                                                  ~U.l'ih       {J        Anim.1

                     ~vn .." hj.....                                                      Animal
\Ilm...     ,                                                     :'UJ\         -~:
                     b~-I' ...JU<t from .n;",.1      hndin~
                                                                  \UJ'iJ        '(f-      An!nul

'" 10(,     <I
                     l) f)" h l"a('
                     from \l1et'Il"    ",ilk'                     \1.l:l'i c    ,t;       \n,m.1

Ml06,       ~        from 1:\0;11', milkl                         MJH,
                                                                                S         Anm,,1

.\\ \ 'i7   =0       ' Ilu,,~·hllld                               MlHh
                                                                               '1S        A"im~1

            'f       Animal?

                     ( lbt«t
                                                                                T         An,m.1

            $1       blP'uJ"" ho'" annn.1 h..din~
                                                                  Mjl('J       4c,'j"

                     I"on-"bl«t                                   Ml>6.
                                                                               lcf)       ~"Il-obl<'u

            ~<>      1".)I1"obi«'                                 \11lt"       "-
            E7       t""n-obt«,                                   0\1116,      Z:r;d      :-':00-001«'
126                                                      Jacob L. Dahl

                                         Appendix B: prow-Ehmite signs

             [6)              Obta:,
                              b)'-p<odu", from ~n,m.l herding
                                                                         \H67.      -.(          I"··..,,il..         go.>.l

  MJO'J.     (   .,- <"   /
                              !n-,product from .Alnu! hc:rding
                                                                         /l. B67h
                                                                                    <            1\O"m~1
                                                                                                 1"'-"''']''   m.le SW'

             ,'~'                                                                                An,m.1
                              i'<on·obi«l                                \H6"',     ~            IU"cnok nul.. gout

                   r-         Nun.oo,ea                                  MJ(,',J
                                                                                    ~  !k m~ goo.


                                                                                                 """ ....' ,
                 '-           Non.oo;n:l                                 M.367..

             '" ---
                              :-Ion-obj«t                                MJ67(
                                                                                    <:           Amm;l/
                                                                                                 nllk gwl          ,
                 +            <In"""
                              ..dull (nruk Wrp                           MJ671'i
                                                                                                 m.k goa,

                 -$-          Anim~
                              ,uvmil.. (..m.k .h«p
                                                                         \ij67i     eQ:          ;oJ ..I. nl,l..
                 X            Amm.1                                      \1 }68,
                                                                                    ~             HOUKhold

                              aduh (cm.ok     gU,1l7

                 -            Non-objn:r                                 MJ6llb     ~             HooKhukr

                 -                                                                  ~

                              Anim.1?                                    ,\1368,                  llou.lehold" ..,

                              .dull (em.!..     ~,                       0\1376
                                                                                    .. •

                                                                         MJ87!      •• • •       "HOllkhold
                              •Jul, (em,le go.,                                              •
                                                                                    •• • •

                 ~                                                                  ••
                              I",·.."il.. fcm.1< go.,
                                                                                    •            Itul1l.11 .....orkc.

 /l.U61 b
                                                                                      •          "lln"$ehoIJ
                              ,uvcmk    f.. m.l .. go"
             <                Anu",l
                              ro"l,   m~lc   soal
                                                                                    •• •         "Hou..:huld
                  Animal Hu!>bandr-=- in Susa durinlllhl.' Proto-Elamitt' pt.'riod   127

                  Appendix C:      Tran~lilerations     of leXIS A, B, and C

Text A = MDP 17,096+325+380


Column I

I.     M362+MS M207 b • 2N I
Ln.    M367 ,2N,
I.b.   M346.4N 1
I.d.   M362       1 I
I.f.   M346 1 1
2.     M362+MS9oJ M312 . . , 6 1 1
2.a.   rM3671 , r4N 1l
2.b.   M346 , I t
2.d.   M362., 2N l4 3N 1
2.e.   M367. ' 7N ,
H      M346.. ' 1N 14
2.g.   M6.. , r3 Nil
3.     M362+M384a • 4N l4 7N 1
3.a.   M367 , 8N 1
3.b.   M346,6N 1
3.c.   M6.6N ,
3.d.   rM362.. 1 • 1 14
3.e.   M367.,2N I
H.     M346•. 1 I
3.g.   M6•• 1 I
4.     M362+MS9 M 1+M379c ' 4N 14
4.a.   M367 • 19 II
4.b.   [M346], f2N,'
4.c.   M6,13N l l
4.d.   M362 u .6N 1
4.e.   M367 a ·IN I
4J.    M346... 3N\
4.g.   M6•• IN,
5.     M362+M383< • 1N 14
S.a.   [M367J, [... J
5.b.   rM346 1 • r6 II
S.c.   M6,21 1
S.d.   rM362 1 r2N IN        1
             .'         14   1
S.c.   [M367.J, [ J
S.f.   [M346,J , [ J
5.g.   [M6,l ,[...]
128                                                      Jacob L. Dahl

(two entries missing)


Column I

(two cmdcs missing)

I.r.     [ ...], flNll
         rM6?1 IN
         fM362+M 1581
                      ,         •   I N 14   [ ...   J
2.a.     'M367 ' , [...]

(IWO    or more lines missing)

2.d.     rM362'l 4N ,
3.       M362+M26h ,SN ,
3.a.     M367 , IN,
3.b.     M346 , IN,
3.d.     'M362 ">' '6N ,1
3.e.     [M367,J, IN,
3.r.     fM346 1 , IN!

3.g.     rM6",1.IN l
4.       rM35 1,,1 M362, 3N 1
-l.a.    M367. IN
4.d.     M362", , 1    14   1       I
-I.e.    'M367,', [2 ,J
4J.      [M346,J, '2 "
4.g.     M6", tN,
5.       'M362+M244", 3N I4 3N ,
5.a.     M367,6N 1
5.b.     IM346'1 • fJ N 14 4N I 1
S.c.     [M6'] , 2N,'1
6.       rM362+M99 b 1, 2N'4 IN,
6.a.     rM367 1 , 3N I
6.b.     M346 , 1NH 9N\
6.c.     [M6?] ,[...]
6.d.     IM362,. 1 • '6N 141
6.e?     [M367 "'] '4 ,1
6J.      M3-16,. . N 14 6N I
6.g.     M6,..7 I
                          Animal HusbandlY in Susa during the Proto-Elamitc period   129

Text B = MOP 17,085


Column I

I.      [ ... ]   .
2.a.    [M362+X] ,[X+ I            I]
2.b.    [M260] . [ ]
2.c.    [MI06,J. [ ]
2.d.    rM9 1 , tN I
2.c.    M206~, IN ,
2.r.    M 102,. IN,
2.g.    M309" IN,
3.a.    M362+M384.,6N ,
3.b.    M269,IN 1
3.c.    [M 106,]'[...]
3.d.    [M9] , [...]
3.e.    rM206   IN    1

             " 2N, ,
3.g.    M309,. IN,
4.3.    M362+M59 MI+M379<, SN I
4.b.    M269 1 , IN]
4.c.    MI06.. , I H2NlOt
4.d.    M9, IN]
4.c.    M206., I 1
4.f.    MI02<,,2 1
4.g.    [M309,] • [...]
5.3.    [M362+X], r8N 1l
S.b.    M269 , IN]
S.b.    M 106., IN 39b 2N J o<
S.d.    M9,IN ,
S.C.    M206., IN ,
5.f.    M 102., 2N ,
5.g.    M309.,IN ,
6.3.    M207" M362+M41, ' 3N,
6.b.    M260, IN,
6.c.    MI06.. ,IN 24
6.d.    rM9 1 , IN I
6.c.    [M206). [ ]
6.f.    [MI02,l. [ ]
6.g.    [M309,l , [ ]
7.31.   [...] M362+M99 b , 3N]
7.a2.   M367 a ,6 ]
7.b.    M269 , tNt
7.c.    M106,9N I
7.d.    M9, IN]
130                                 Jacob L. Dahl

7.e.     M206~,       INI
7J.      M102" 2N,
7.g.     M309, , IN,
8.a.     'M362+X', [...J
8.b.     [M269'], 'I "
8.c.     M 106, 3N.
8.d.     M9, IN,
8.e.     M206., I N I
8J.      MI02<, 2N,
8.g.     M309" I ,
9.a.     M361+M144. 7N ,
9.a.     M269 , I       I

9.b.     MI06, 7 ,
9.c.     M9. tN.
9d.      [M206) , [ J
9.c.     [MI02;J, [ J
9J.      [M309.J ,[ ]
10.a. IM362+MI58 1 .SN 1
IO.b. M269 1 , IN!
IO.c. MI06. SN.
10.d. M9, IN,
IO.e. M206•. 1              I
10J. MI02<,2N,
10.g. M309., I ,
I La. M362+M26h', 2N l
I Lb. M260, IN,
Il.e. MI06, IN!
II.d. [M9J, [ ... J

::~ ~~~~~:Ui~,                  I
Il.g.    rM309~1,IN 1
12.aI.I M362+M312}1,3N
12.a2.M367 a . 2N I
Il.b. rM269 1 , IN , 1N 24 2N 30c
12.c. M9. IN ,
12.e. M206., IN ,
IH.      MI02" 2N,
12.g. M309a , IN,
13.a 1. M362+M383, ,4N,
13.a2. M367 a     ,   IN!
 13.b.   [M269'J, [.j
 13.c.   [MI06]. [... j
 13.d.   [M9J, [... j
 13.c.   [M206), [...]
 13.f. rMI02 r ',2N ,
 13.g. rM309 a 1 , IN ,
 14.3. M362+MI23 b . 4N.
                  Animal·   in Su:.a during the Prolo--Elamilc period   131

14.b. IM260',IN I
14.<:. M106,4N l
14.d. M9,lN,
14.c. M206 ·IN l
14.r. M I02 e • 2N l
14.g. M309~. IN l
15.a. [M362+X) . [X+ IN,]
IS.b. [M269'] . [ ]
IS.c. [MI06J.[ ]
IS.d. IM9 1 ,I\N l l
IS.e. M206 , IN ,
IS.f. fMIO:!'2N
IS.g. IM309~l, IN,

Column I

1.    rM362 1 , 6N)4 SN l
2.     'M362.'l. [...)
3.b. [...). [... ]
3.c. MI06~. I I IN wb IN H
(several entries missing)
3.g. [M309,l. [IN,.l4N,

Tcxt C = MDP 17,097


Column I

La. [M362+X?]. 2N,~ 2N ,
1.b. M269 a2 , 3N 1
(I N I written over erased M269)
 I.e. M106~, 13N l9bl IN H 1NlOo.
(3N 1'lb partly erased (nail-mm'ks»
I.d. M9. IN,
I.e. rM2061 1 , IN l
1.f.     MI02 •. 2N,
1.f.     M309•. IN,
2.a. [M362+X~]. qNI~17N, M269~, IN ,
(I N, written over emsed M269b)
2.h2. M269 b • I I
2.e. M I 06. ,3 191>
2.d. fM9 1 • I N ,
(M9 pal11y erased (nail-marks»
132                                   Jacob L. Dahl

Z.e.    M206~!  IN ,
2.r.    M 102" 2N,
2.g.    M309" I ,
3.a.    M362+M59,J M I+M379 c ' SN,
3.b\.   [M269:J. [...]
3.b2.   [M269,'], I ,
3.e.    MI06a • 1 H 2NjOo.
3.d.    M9, I ,
3.e.    M206,. IN 1
3.1.    MI02" 2 ,
(M I02 e partly erased (nail-marks»
3.g.    M309" IN,
4,3.    M362+M59,j' 2N,
4.b.    M260, IN,
4.c.    M106, . 2NJOc
4.d.    M9. 1 1
4.e.    M206" I I
4.f.    MI02,,2,
4.g.    [M309,J. [IN,]
5.3.    rM362+M207 n 1 MS. 5N 1
S.b.    M2693 , J I
S.c.    MI06a • J H 2N3O<
S.d.    M9, 1 I
S.c.    M206" IN 1
5.f.    MI02,,2N,
5.g.    M309" I ,
6.31.   M362+M99b , 3N ,
6.a2.   M362" [...]
6.b\.   [...J.fJN,'
6.b2.   M260, IN,
6.c.    MI06, IN\46Nl
6.d.    M9, IN 1
6.c.    M2068 , 1N I
6.f.    MI02" 2N,
6.g.    M309" IN,
7.a.    M362+M244, IN'4 IN,
7.b\.   M269" IN,
7.b2.   M260, IN,
7.c.    [... J , [ J
7.d.    [M9] , [ ]
7.c.    [M206J ,[... J
 7J.    [M 102~, f2N,'
 7.g.   M309" IN,
 8.a.   IM362+MI58 1 , SN 1
 B.b.   'M260 1 , rtN,l
 S.c.   rMI06 1 ,5N,
 8.d.    M9, IN,
                        Animall-lusbandrv in Susa during the PrQto-Elamih_' period   133

S.c.     M206 I ,
S.f.     MI02 " ,2N.
8.g.     M309•. I ,
9.a.     [M362+X']. [...]
9.b.     [...]. 'I "
9.c.     fM 1061 ,2 •
9.c.     M9, IN 1
9.f.     M206 I I
9.f.     MI02 " ,2,
9.g. M309•• IN,
10.•. M362 M383,. 2N,
to.b. rM260 1 , IN l
ID.e. M 106, 2N ,
10.d. M9. IN,
ID.e. M206 gJ IN ,
10.f. [MI02). [2N,]
10.g. [M309.l. [IN,]
II.a.    IM362+M I 23 b11 , 3N 1
II.b.    rM260 1 , 1 ,
I I.e.   MI06,3N ,
Il.d.    M9.IN,
II.e.    M206       I    I

ILL MI02,. 2 ,
Il.g. M309 a , I \
12.a. M351 c rM362 1 ,3           I

12.b. ( J. [ ]
12.c. [ ]. [ ]
12.d. (M9]. [IN,]
 2.e. [M206J. [...]
 z.r. [M 102,]. [2N,]
 2.g. [M309,J. [IN,]
 3.a. rM362+M312?1. f3N l l
 3.b. rM269'l, IN,
 3.e, IMI06a1,IN242NJOc
 3.d. M9. IN,
 3.e. M206 g    .   IN ,
 3.f.    MI02,.2N,
 3.g.    [M309,J. [IN,]
 4.•.    [M362+X]. [...]
 4.b.    [ ]. [ ]
14.c.    [ ]. [ ]
14.d.    [M9]. [IN,]
14.e.    [M206). 2N,
14.f. rMI02 e 1 , tN,
14.g. 'M309.'. [IN,]
134                                Jacob L. Dahl


Column I

l.a1. M362 . 8 l~ 9 I
1.32. M362 a , IN1~ 3N, IM260'1.3 I
I.b2. 'M260'l . rJ N ,1
I.b3. (...J . [...J
1.b4. 'M260'1 1N ,
l.b5. M260.8N, M 106, 4N J4 2N ,
I.b2. fMI06.'. [... J
I.d. [M9'J ,[IN, 4N,J
I.e.  (M206,J . [mJ
I.f.  (M 102.1 . [2N"J8N,'(6N ,J
I.g. M309a ,IN l4 4N t

To top