Ruins of the city of Umma. This photograph shows the extensive damage caused by looters since the beginning of the Iraq war.

     The Library of Congress has not yet published the provenance of this tablet. So it's not yet known where the tablet was found, or the archaeological context in which it was discovered.

     The Library of Congress has Tablet #36 dated in the (late) Ur III period. The CDLI has it dated as (Early) Old Babylonian. When I was translating this tablet, I was unaware of the CDLI's dating, and had accepted the LoC's Ur III date. During my research, I didn't see any compelling reason to change my mind about it, because I saw a lot of Ur III tablets that looked just like this one. But then again, some Early Old Babylonian tablets also looked the same; so from the beginning I’ve known that the tablet might be Early Old Babylonian (I love that expression, Early Old Babylonian). The truth is, there’s not a lot of difference in the writing between Late Ur III and Early Old Babylonian. Late Ur III is the period just before the fall of Sumer, and EOB is the period right after it.

       When I first learned of the CDLI's dating, I wasn't very happy about it. I wanted the Ur III dating, which would make this tablet "unequivocally" Sumerian. I have to admit, I have something of an attitude towards the Babylonians. To me, they are the nouveau riche, the "Johnny-come-latelys", who didn't even show up until after 2000 B.C.

       I always had one qualm, however, about the Ur III dating. It was my belief that the tablet may have been “preserved” when the city was destroyed, which leaves some doubt as to the fate of the scribe who wrote it (see cuneiform tablet in the Images section). If the tablet was indeed written in EOB times, it means the scribe had survived the fall of Sumer, and was perhaps writing of recent events. It’s a thought I find reassuring, so if the tablet is ultimately found to be Early Old Babylonian, then it’s fine by me (with a couple of provisos).

       If this tablet is EOB, it means that it was written soon after the final collapse of Sumerian civiization (dated by historians as the fall of the city of Ur, at around 2004 B.C.). This tablet may even be a description of the turbulent events leading up to the Fall of Sumer, or it may be a description of the chaotic period of instability that immediately followed. The scribe would most certainly have been an eyewitness to this historic era.     

       Although the tablet may be dated Early Old Babylonian, it is clearly Sumerian. Anyone writing in the early EOB period was most likely born and raised Sumerian, and doubtless thought of themselves as Sumerian, even after the fall of Ur. I am sure that for the scribe who wrote this tablet, Sumer was still a living memory.

      All speculation aside, however; there is still the tablet itself. It is written in the Sumerian language, with just a few Akkadian/Babylonian words thrown in; which is typical of Sumerian writing of the period. The story itself is distinctly Sumerian. Perhaps the Library of Congress has some documentation that will help establish when and where this tablet was written. If not, then the CDLI will of course be the final arbiter. In the meantime, the important thing to remember about this tablet is that it’s Sumerian, not Babylonian.

This is a cuneiform tablet in the collection of the University of Minnesota Museum of Art.  It's from the city of Drehem, dated during the reign of Amar-Suen.