logo
year 4, Issue 11 (6-2020)                   Parseh J. Archaeol. Stud. 2020, 4(11): 27-50 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Yousefi Zoshk R. (2020). The Analytical Study of the Invention of Writing in Iran and Mesopotamia in the Late Fourth Millennium B.C.. Parseh J. Archaeol. Stud.. 4(11), 27-50. doi:10.30699/PJAS.4.11.27
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-172-en.html
1- M.A in Archaeology, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. , rohollah57.yusefi@gmail.com
Abstract:   (5884 Views)

The invention of writing is considered one of the hallmarks in the human eveloution. Writing has not been invented all at once. Indeed, it had a gradual process from the Neolithic period to the end of the fourth millennium BC. In its early stages, it was similar among the Middle Eastern cultures, but at the end of the fourth millennium BC and the formation of the states in Uruk, Khuzestan, and Fars, two writing systems (Proto-Elamite and cuneiform) were invented at a same time. Both scribes are rooted in a common communication system. Some words with exactly the same iconography are obtained in the scribes of two lands which have been translated with different semantic uses thank to the progress of decipherment. The purpose of this study is to investigate the phonetic structure between the common early scribes in the second half of the fourth millennium BC in West Asia, which paves the way for the emergence of literature in the coming centuries. By using a descriptive-analytical methodology, the authors try to deduce that the reason for the similarities in the writing systems of the both areas is becuause of their identical roots by finding the roots of writing in two lands and examining the reasons for the formation of the first differences arising from understanding the environment and archaeological data. Also, the reason for the semantic differences of the words with the same iconography is due to the diversity of social and subsistance changes between the Iranian plateau and southern Mesopotamia, as well as the linguistic differences between the two regions. 
Keywords: Proto-Writing, Cuneform, Proto-Elamite, Susa, Phonetic Value.

Introduction
There are various theories about the origin of writing in Iran and the Middle East. Some argue that with the advancement of agriculture, rapid economic growth and lack of confidence in memory, the loss of many business and accounting information, and over-complexity of computing and business communications, the need to preserve information had increased. It was necessary to invent a way to maintain them. The invention of writing was not revolutionary nor suddenly is taken by an individual at a certain time; rather, it has evolved over several thousand years, and the period of Susa II and the emergence of complex societies and the specialization have greatly contributed to its growth. In the second half of the fourth millennium and early third millennium BC, tokens became more advanced, and were made in various forms with economic themes and were used in trade, then, the clay envelopes, also called bullae, became frequent. This clay envelopes date back to the mid-fourth millennium BC. Following the develepomental procees of the administrative system, the numerical tablets were invented.  

Disscussion 
The stages of writing up to the Susa II (Uruk) period were exactly the same, and from this period onwards the difference between the two scribes becomes apparent. The only major change of this period is the formation of a dense community in southern Mesopotamia. Since many ideograms were taken from the symbols around the environemnt, to better understand the roots of these differences, we need to fully understand the climate, environment and archaeological data of the two regions to comprehend these differences by taking the the environmental variety into account.
A) Mesopotamian climate in the fourth millennium BC: Mesopotamian communities due to alluvial soil and rich in minerals and nutrients that river water was washed from the surrounding mountains, in the field of agriculture and grain collection had access to surplus. On the other hand, the existence of large gardens near the permanent and water-rich rivers of the Tigris and Euphrates, vast pastures for sheep, goats and cattle, as well as abundant fish, poultry and wild animals for hunting, etc., led to extensive progress compared to other areas. In the fourth millennium BC, the population in these areas increased enormously, while the city of Uruk reached an area of about 2.5 square kilometers. Of course, there is no direct evidence of the exact number of inhabitants of Uruk, but with the help of anthropological data from the pre-modern Middle East, 100 to 200 inhabitants per hectare has been accepted for the residential sector. Apart from the the central monumental area of Uruk, It has reached approximately 230 hectares in the residential sector, which refers to the population of 25,000 to 50,000 people in Uruk in the late fourth millennium BC. Over 90 percent of the tablets were found in the garbages of the Temple of Eanna (the largest religious monuments of Uruk) presenting that this scribe was only used by a gropu of elites of the Mesopotamian society.
B) Climate of Iran in the fourth millennium BC: Iran is a clear example of the impact of natural structures on the cultural development. Iran is one of the arid lands of the ancient world and this determines the climatic relations of this land and the climate of its different regions. The summer heat in the lowlands forces people to migrate to the highlands with their herds. Due to the climatic conditions in these areas, a large part of the inhabitants of valleys and foothills are forced to live in their tents. Among the most important nomadic areas, we can mention Dar Khazineh, Tal-e Bakun and some settlements of Ramhormoz in the fifth to third millennium BC.

Conslusion
Management system has been one of the needs of human social development since the Neolithic period onwards which in the fourth millennium BC this need was felt quite clearly and at a high level, which led to a significant development of management in West Asia. At this time, the formation of different systems of government between the Iranian plateau and Mesopotamia probably led to the formation of different management systems, but since for more than four thousand years, both regions had used a completely identical writing system, it is not far-fetched that the two different types of scribes are affected by common roots and have evolved according to the management needs of their environment.
As was said before, In Mesopotamia the scribe was only used by a group of elites. Hence, the ideogram and pictogram were enough to respond the needs of conveying a message. But in Iran, due to the special climate in the past, it was devoid of the centralized populations; instead the main populations were scattered in different parts of the Iranian plateau and the use of this scribe was over an area of one million square kilometers from the Shahr-e Sokhte in Sistan, Tepe Yahya in Kerman, Tepe Ozbaki in Qazvin plain and Tepe Sofalin in Tehran to Tal-e Malyan and Susa in southwestern Iran which probably there were different ethnicities and dialects in these areas. Due to the scatterness of proto-writing caly tablets in different part of Susa, one can conclude that this scribe became common in the society to respond to the needs of such a large society. Consequently, a scribe with the use of pictograms and ideograms was invented. We believe, according to the percentage of repetitions, the phonetic use of this scribe is probably high, and since this scribe was common among the different tribes of the Iranian plateau, perhaps with the phonetic use, it was effecient to convey meaning from different languages on the Iranian plateau in the second half of the fourth millennium BC.

Full-Text [PDF 2069 kb]   (1377 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special Archeology
Received: 2019/08/9 | Accepted: 2020/02/17 | Published: 2020/06/20

References
1. - آلدن، جان، (1390). «دورۀ شوشIII». باستان‌شناسی غرب ایران. زیرنظر: فرانک هول. ترجمۀ زهرا باستی، تهران: انتشارات سمت، صص: 331-316.
2. - ارفعی، عبدالمجید، (1387). گل‌نبشته‌های باروی تخت‌جمشید. تهران: نشر مرکز دائره‌المعارف بزرگ اسلامی.
3. - الغازه، گیلرمو، (1397). میان‌رودان باستان در سپیده‌دم تمدن. ترجمۀ زهره عطایی آشتیانی، تهران: پژوهشکدۀ علوم‌انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
4. - بسرات، دنیز اشمانت، (1395). نگارش چگونه پدید آمد. ترجمۀ علی‌اکبر وحدتی، تهران: نشر شاپیکان.
5. - پاتس، دنیل. تی.، (1388). باستان‌شناسی ایلام. ترجمۀ زهرا باستی، تهران: انتشارات سمت.
6. - جانسون، گرگوری، (1390). «سازمان متغیر دستگاه اداری اوروک در دشت شوشان». باستان‌شناسی غرب ایران، زیرنظر: فرانک هول، ترجمۀ زهرا باستی، تهران: انتشارات سمت. صص: 273-217.
7. - حصاری، مرتضی، (1392). شکل‌گیری و توسعۀ آغاز نگارش در ایران (از پیش نگارش تا آغازایلامی). تهران: انتشارات سمت.
8. - حصاری، مرتضی؛ و اکبری، حسن، (1386). «گزارش مقدماتی کاوش محوطۀ باستانی سفالین پیشوا». مجموعه مقالات نهمین گردهمایی باستان‌شناسی ایران، جلد هفتم، تهران: پژوهشگاه میراث‌فرهنگی، صنایع‌دستی و گردشگری. صص: 200-165.
9. - رایت، هنری، (1390). «پسکرانه‌های شوشان در دوران شکل‌گیری حکومت‌های نخستین». باستان‌شناسی غرب ایران، زیرنظر: فرانک هول، ترجمۀ زهرا باستی، تهران: انتشارات سمت. صص: 309-285.
10. - رایت، هنری؛ و جانسون، گریگوری، (1392). «دورنماهای منطقه‌ای توسعۀ ایالتی در جنوب‌غربی ایران». شوش و جنوب‌غربی ایران. تاریخ و باستان‌شناسی، زیر‌نظر: ژان پرو و ژنو دلفوس، ترجمۀ هایده اقبال، گزارش گردهمایی بین‌المللی شوش، تهران: نشر مرکز نشر دانشگاهی. صص: 165-156.
11. - عقیلی‌نیاکی، شیرین، (1390). «اسناد محاسباتی مرتبط با فن مدیریت اقتصادی در قلی‌درویشII». باستان‌شناسی و تاریخ قم، نگارش: سیامک سرلک، قم: نشر ادارۀ کل میراث‌فرهنگی، صنایع‌دستی و گردشگری استان قم.
12. - سیدسجادی، سید‌منصور، (1384). نخستین شهرهای فلات ایران. جلد دوم، تهران: نشر سمت.
13. - علیزاده، عباس، (1383). منشاء نهادهای حکومتی در پیش از تاریخ فارس، تل باکون، کوچ نشینی باستان و تشکیل حکومت های اولیه. مترجم: کوروش روستایی، فارس: بنیاد پژوهشی پارسه- پاسارگاد.
14. - علیزاده، عباس، (1387). شکل‌گیری حکومت عشایری و کوهستانی عیلام. شهرکرد: انتشارات ادارۀ کل میراث‌فرهنگی، صنایع‌دستی و گردشگری چهارمحال و بختیاری.
15. - فریدریش، یوهانس، (1368). زبان‌های خاموش. ترجمۀ یدالله ثمره و بدرالزمان قریب، تهران: انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.
16. - متیوز، راجر، (1393). باستان‌شناسی بین‌النهرین، نظریات و رهیافت‌ها. ترجمۀ بهرام آجرلو، تبریز: دانشگاه هنر اسلامی تبریز.
17. - مجیدزاده، یوسف، (1389). کاوش‌های محوطه باستانی ازبکی. جلد اول: هنر و معماری. تهران: نشر اداره کل میراث‌فرهنگی، صنایع‌دستی و گردشگری استان تهران.
18. - مکی، محسن، (1396). «ایران سرزمینی مرتفع درکنار خلیج‌فارس». ایران کهن بین آب و بیابان، به‌کوشش: باربارا هلوینگ، ترجمۀ فرانک بحرالعلومی شاپور‌آبادی، تهران: موزۀ ملی ایران.
19. - ملوئن، م. ال.، (1392). بین‌النهرین و ایران قدیم. ترجمۀ فریبرز مجیدی، تهران: نشر قطره.
20. - نگهبان، عزت‌الله، (1390). شوش یا کهن‌ترین مرکز شهرنشینی جهان. تهران: سازمان میراث‌فرهنگی و صنایع‌دستی و گردشگری.
21. - نیسن، هانس، (1393). «زمینۀ ظهور نگارش در بین‌النهرین و ایران». بین‌النهرین و ایران در دوران باستان، گزارش سمینار یادوارۀ ولادمیرلوکونین، ویراستۀ جان کرتیس، ترجمۀ زهرا باستی، تهران: انتشارات سمت، صص: 104-79.
22. - ویت، مری؛ و دایسون، رابرت هنری، (1382). گاهنگاری ایران از حدود هشت هزار تا دوهزار پیش از میلاد. ترجمۀ اکبر پورفرج و احمد چایچی‌امیرخیز، تهران: انتشارات نسل باران.
23. - هینتس، والتر، (1386). داریوش و ایرانیان. ترجمۀ پرویز رجبی، تهران: نشر ماهی.
24. - هینتس، والتر، (1387). شهریاری ایلام. ترجمۀ پرویز رجبی، تهران: نشر ماهی.
25. - یوسفی‌زشک، روح‌الله، (1398). «فن مدیریت در نیمۀ دوم هزارۀ چهارم قبل‌ازمیلاد»، نشست علمی موزۀ رضا عباسی.
26. - یوسفی‌زشک، روح‌الله؛ و یزدانی، سحر، (1397). «ارائۀ نسخه جدید و بازخوانی گل‌نبشته‌های آغاز ایلامی MDP31.33 و MDP.31-27 موجود در موزه لوور». فصلنامۀ مطالعات باستان‌شناسی پارسه، دورۀ 2، شمارۀ 6، صص: 52-41.
28. - Alden, J. R., (1982). “Trade and Politics in Proto-Elamite Iran”. Current Anthropology Vol. 23(6). pp: 613 – 640.
29. - Alizadeh, A.; Ahmadzadeh, L. & Omidfar M., (2014). Ancient Settlement Systems and Cultures in the Ram Hormuz Plain, Southwestern Iran. Excavations at Tall-e Geser and Regional Surveys of the Ram Hormuz Area. Oriental Institute Publications 140.
30. Amiet, P., (1971). “La Glyptique de l’acropole, Tablettes lenticulaires de Suse”. Cahiers de la D.A.F.I., I, Pp. 217-233
31. - Amiet, P.; Tosi, M. & Meriggi, P., (1978). “Phase 10 at Shahr-i Sokhta: Excavations in Square XDV and the Late 4th Millennium B.C. Assemblage of Sīstān”. East and West 28.
32. - Le Brun, A., (1978). La glyptique du niveau 17B de l’acropole (campagne de 1972). Cahiers de la D.A.F.I. (CahDAFI) Paris.
33. - Le Brun, A. & Vallat, F., (1978). “L'origine de l'écriture à Suse”. Cahiers de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran 8 (CDAFI). Pp: 11-52.
34. - Dahl, J. L., (2005). “Animal Husbandry in Susa during the Proto-Elamite Period”. SMEA 47. Pp: 81-134.
35. - Dahl, J. L., (2013). “Early Writing in Iran”. In D.T. Potts (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, OUP, Pp: 233-262.
36. - Dahl, J.; Hessari, M. & Yousefi Zoshk, R., (2013). “The proto-Elamite tablets from Tepe Sofalin”. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 2/1 . Pp: 57-73.
37. - Damerow, P. & Englund, R. K., (1989). The Proto-Elamite Texts from Tepe Yahya. The American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 39; Cambridge, MA.
38. - Delugaz, P. P. & Kantor, H., (1996). Choga Mish. Volume I, The First Five Seasons of Excavations 1961-1971. Part 1: Text, Abbas Alizadeh, (ed). Chicago: Oriental Institute Publications 101.
39. - Desset, F., (2012). Premières écritures iraniennes.les systèmes proto-élamite et élamite linéaire Università degli studi di Napoli L'Orientale. Dipartimento Asia Africa e Mediterraneo
40. - Desset, F., (2016). “Proto-Elamite Writing in Iran”. ARCH'O-NIL, NO. 26 June 2016, Pp: 67-105.
41. - Englund. R. K. & Grégoire, /J.-P., (1991). The Proto-Cuneiform Texts from Jemdet Nasr (Materialien zu den frühen Schriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orients 1; Berlin 1991)
42. - Englund, R. K., (1998). “Texts from the late Uruk period, Mesopotamien”. Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit, 160, 1.
43. - Englund, R. K., (2004). “The State of Decipherment of Proto-Elamite”. In: Stephen Houston, (ed). The First Writing: Script Invention as History and Process. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, Pp: 100-149.
44. - Englund, R. K., (2006). “An Examination of the "Textual" Witnesses to Late Uruk World Systems”. In Gong, Y & Chen, Y. (eds). A Collection of Papers on ancient civilization of Western Asis, Aia Minor And North Africa. Beijing: Oriental Studies. Pp: 1-38.
45. - Falkenstein, A., (1936). Archaische Texts aus Uruk, ATU 1, Gebr. Mann Verlag, Berlin.
46. - Foxvog, D., (2008). Elementary Sumerian Glossary, Lecturer in Assyriology (retired). University of California at Berkeley.
47. - Friberg, J., (1978–79). The Third Millennium Roots of Babylonian Mathematics, I–II. University of Göteborg, Department of Mathematics, Göteborg.
48. - Goff, C., (1968). “Luristan in the first half of the first millenium BC”. IRAN. 6. Pp: 105-134.
49. - Goff, C., (1971). “Luristan before the Iron Age”. IRAN. 9. Pp: 131-152
50. - Hawkins, L. F., (2015). “A New Edition of the Proto-Elamite Text MDP 17, 112”. Cuneiform Digital Library Journal, Pp: 1-10.
51. - Kelley, K., (2018). “Gender, age, and labour organization in the earliest texts from Mesopotamia and Iran (c. 3300–2900 BC)”. A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Oxford: University of Oxford
52. - Labat, R. & Labat, M., (1994), Manuel d'Epigraphie akkadienne. Paris: Geuthner Manuels.
53. - Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C., (1971). “The Proto-Elamite Settlement at Tepe Yahyā”. IRAN, 9, Pp: 87–96.
54. - De Mecquenem, R., (1949). “Épigraphie proto-élamite” Mémoires de la Mission Archaéologique en Iran 31, Paris.
55. - De Mecquenem, R., (1956). “Notes protoélamites”. RA 50, Pp: 200–204.
56. - Nissen. Hans. J., (1986). “The Archaic Texts from Uruk Author(s): J. Source”. World Archaeology, Vol. 17, No. 3, Early Writing Systems, Pp: 317-334
57. - Scheil, V., (1905). “Documents archaïques en écriture proto-élamite”. Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 6, Pp: 57-128 . Paris.
58. - Scheil, V., (1923). Textes de comptabilité proto-élamites. Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 17. Paris.
59. - Scheil, V., (1935). Texte de comptabilité. Mémoires de la Mission Archaéologique en Perse 26. Paris.
60. - Schmandt-Besserat, D., (1979). “Reckoning Before Writing”. Archaeology, Vol. 32, No. 2, Pp: 22-31.
61. - Schmandt-Besserat, D., (1992). Before Writing: From Counting to Cuneiform. Austin: University of Texas Press.
62. - Schmidt, E. F. M., & H. Curvers, with contribution by J. A. Brinkman., (1989). The Holmes Expeditions to Luristan. Oriental Institute Publications 108, Chicago.
63. - Steve, M., (1992). Syllabaire Elamite. Histoire et Paleographie (Civilisations du Proche-Orient: Serie II, Philologie l), Neuchatel / Paris
64. - Stolper, M., (1985). “Proto-Elamite texts from Tall-I Malyan”. KADMOS. XXIV Berlin / New-York.
65. - Sumner, W., (1974). “Excavations at Tall-i Malyan, 1971-72”. IRAN, 12, Pp: 155-180.
66. - Vallat, F., (1971). “Les documents epigraphiques de I’acropole (1969-1971)”. Cahiers de la Delegation Archeologique Francise en Iran 1, Pp: 235-245.
67. - Vallat, F., (1973). “Les Tablettes Proto-Elamites de l’Acropole (Campagne 1972)”. Cahiers de la delegation archeologique francaise en Iran III, Pp: 93-105.
68. - Vanden Berghe. L., (1975). “La Neeropole de Dum_Gar- Parchinah”. Archeologia, 79, Pp: 46-61.
69. - Weiss, H. & Young, T., (1975). “The Merchants of Susa: Godin Vand plateau lowland elations in the late fourth millennium B.C.”, IRAN, XIII, Pp. 1-17.
70. - Whitcomb, D. S., (1971). “The Proto-Elamite period at Tall-i Ghazir, Iran”. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Georgia, Athens.
71. - Wright, H. & Rupley. E. S., (2001). Calibrated Radiocarbon Age Determinations of Uruk- Releted Assemblges. Edited: Mitchell S. Rothman. Oxford: School of American Research Press.

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.