Cuneiform system of writing as ancient civilizations value
Keywords:
Sumerian civilization, cuneiform system of writing, Sumerian language, values of ancient civilizationsSynopsis
This section of the monograph examines the preconditions for the emergence of the first writings, the oldest of which is the cuneiform writing system, invented by the ancient Sumerians, which became a catalyst in the formation of key values in ancient civilizations. The etymological versions of the word civilization are commented and it is substantiated that its internal form is based on the feature reflected in the word civis "citizen" and its numerous genetic derivatives in different languages, including the English equivalent city. The conclusions of historians, archeologists and culturologists have been reaffirmed. The first civilizations took place against the backdrop of ancient city-states, where citizens adhered to established norms of behaviour and lifestyle, showing respect and esteem for the city's values and traditions. To fix all kinds of civilizational existence, writing emerged as a conscious act of the ancient Sumerians. The history of Sumerian values is briefly considered, which had three periods: early dynastic, Akkadian and late Sumerian. Some facts of value priorities in other ancient civilized states are given. The periods in the history of the development of the Sumerian language are characterized by the nature of the writing of the cuneiform monuments found, which are distinguished by well-known Sumerian scholars of today. Genetic and typological versions of the origin of the Sumerian language have been analysed, which are currently controversial. It is concluded that the cuneiform system of writing ensured the formation of key values (cognitive, hedonistic, utilitarian, aesthetic and moral) for the existence of ancient civilizations.
References
Aristotel (2002). Etika. Moscow: AST.
Kryzhanivskyi, O. P. (1996). Istoriia Starodavnoho Skhodu. Kyiv: Lybid, 480.
Tyshchenko, O. V. (2000). Obriadova semantyka u slov'ianskomu movnomu prostori. Kyivskyi derzhavnyi linhvistychnyi universytet, 236.
Gumboldt, V. fon (1984). O razlichii stroeniia chelovecheskikh iazykov i ego vliianii na dukhovnoe razvitie chelovechestva. Izbrannye trudy po iazykoznaniiu. Moscow: Progress.
Uorf, B. L. (1960). Otnoshenie norm povedeniia i myshleniia k iazyku. Novoe v lingvistike, 1, 157–201. Available at: http://www.philology.ru/linguistics1/whorf-60.htm
Stefanova, N. O. (2020). Ethnosemiometric parametrisation of axioconceptosphere in the British and Ukrainian linguocultures. Kyiv. Available at: https://npu.edu.ua/images/file/vidil_aspirant/avtoref/D_26.053.26/Stefanova1.pdf
Melnychuk, O. S. (Ed.). (2012). Etymolohichnyi slovnyk ukrainskoi movy. Vol. 6: U–Ia. Kyiv: Naukova dumka. Available at: https://archive.org/details/etslukrmov6/mode/2up?view=theater
Benvinist, E.; Stepanova, Iu. S. (Ed.) (1974). Obshchaia lingvistika. Moscow: Progress.
Zalizniak, L. L. (2016). Mezolitychni vytoky pershykh indoievropeiskykh kultur Yevropy za danymy arkheolohii. Arkheolohiia, 3, 3–17.
Zalizniak, L. L. (2017). Etno-henetychni vytoky naidavnishykh indoievropeitsiv Yevropy. Ukraina y ukrainstvo v etnokulturnykh protsesakh. NDIU, 87–102. Available at: http://ndiu.org.ua/book/zbirn-etn-1.pdf
Oppert, J. (2018). Documents Juridiques de l'Assyrie Et de la Chaldée. Forgotten Books.
Kozyreva, N. V. (2007). Istoriia drevnei mesopotamii. Saint-Petersburg: Izdatelstvo Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta, 128. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/11701/10270
Kozyreva, N. V. (2016). Ocherki po istorii Iuzhnoi Mesopotamii epokhi rannei drevnosti (VII tys. do n.e. – seredina II tys. do n.e). Saint-Petersburg: Kontrast, 552. Available at: https://www.orient.spbu.ru/books/Kozyreva_ocherki_istorii_Mesopotamii
Mieroop, M. (2015). Van De A History of the Ancient Near East, ca. 3000-323 BC. Wiley Blackwell, 432.
Weeks, N. (1985). The Old Babylonian Amorites: Nomads or Mercenaries? Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica, 16, 49–57.
Huehnergard, J. A. (2011). Grammar of Accadian. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/234695/2011_A_Grammar_of_Akkadian_3rd_edition_
Vaiman, A. A., Struve, V. V. (Eds.) (1961). Shumero-vavilonskaia matematika ІІІ-І tys. do n.e. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Vostochnoi literatury, 278.
Biggs, R. D. (1973). Pre-Sargonic Riddles from Lagash. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 32 (1/2), 26–33. doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/372217
George, A. R. (2016). Mesopotamian incantations and related texts in the Schøyen Collection. CDL Press, 194. Available at: http://pi.lib.uchicago.edu/1001/cat/bib/10888399
Krebernik, M.; Bauer, J., Englund, R. K., Krebernik, M. (Eds.) (1998). Die Texte aus Fara und Tell Abu-Salabih. Mesopotamien: Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit. Universitätsverlag, 237–427. doi: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-151545
Vasko R., Korolyova A. (2020). Intertexutality of Julia Kristeva and hypothetical relationships of her theories with ancient types of writing. Reliģiski-filozofiski raksti. Latvijas Universitāte. Filozofijas un socioloģijas institūts.
Kaneva, I. T., Kozlova, N. V., Vizirova, E. Iu.; Kazanskii, N. N., Kibrik, A. A., Koriakov, Iu. B. (Eds.) (2010). Shumerskii iazyk. Iazyki mira. Drevnie reliktovye iazyki Perednei Azii. Moscow: Akademiia, 19–94. Available at: https://djvu.online/file/BHzncTKmDA72j
Thomsen, M.-L. (2001). The Sumerian Language: An Introduction to its History and Grammatical Structure. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.
Kaneva, I. T. (2006). Shumerskii iazyk. Saint-Petersburg: Peterburgskoe vostokovedenie, 240. Available at: https://pt.ua1lib.org/dl/3154702/8dbac4
Johnson, A., Johnson, J. C.; Englehardt, J. (Ed.) (2012). Contingency and Innovation in Native Transcriptions of Encrypted Cuneiform (UD.GAL.NUN). Agency in Ancient Writing. University Press of Colorado, 165–182. doi: https://doi.org/10.5876/9781607321996.c07
Kasian, A. S. (2015). Klinopisnye iazyki Anatolii (khattskii, khurrito-urartskie, anatoliiskie): problemy etimologii i grammatiki. Moscow, 445.
Turchin, P., Peiros, I., Gell-Mann, M. (2010). Analyzing genetic connections between languages by matching consonant classes. Journal of Language Relationship, 3, 117–126.
Kapranov, Y. (2018). Hypothetical Versions on Antropogenesis Localization of the First Populations of the Homo. Logos, 94, 149–158. doi: https://doi.org/10.24101/logos.2018.15
Vasko, R., Korolyova, A., Tolcheyeva, T., Kapranov, Y. (2020). Human Language as a Natural Artifact of Planetary-Noospheric Mind: Coevolutionary-Macromutational Reinterpretation. Revista Amazonia Investiga, 9 (34), 17–23. doi: https://doi.org/10.34069/ai/2020.34.10.2
Kapranov, Y. (2021). Dіakhronіchna іnterpretatcіia і verifіkatcіia stupenіv sporіdnennia nostratichnikh mov (na materіalі etimonіv *HuKa, *wol[a], *wete, *phaħ- (~ *phǝħ-), *marV). Kyiv.
Korolyova, A. (2021). Transformation Stages of Biosphere into Noosphere: from Syncretic Consciousness of Homo to Co-Evolution of Man and Nature. Logos, 108, 92–101. doi: https://doi.org/10.24101/logos.2021.58
Campbell, L., Poser, W. J. (2008). Language Classification: History and Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 536.
Svodesh, M. (1960). K voprosu o povyshenii tochnosti v leksikostatisticheskom datirovanii. Novoe v lingvistike, 1, 53–87.
Diakonoff, I. M. (1988). Afrasian languages. Moscow: Nauka.
Sidwell, P. (2010). The Austroasiatic central riverine hypothesis. Journal of Language Relationship, 4, 117–134.
Gamkrelidze, T. V., Ivanov, V. V. (1990). Istoriia proiskhozhdeniia indoevropeiskikh iazykov. V mire nauki, 5, 66–73.
Downloads
Pages
52-67
Published
December 29, 2022
Categories
Copyright (c) 2022 Kyiv National Linguistic University
Details about the available publication format: PDF
PDF
ISBN-13 (15)
978-617-7319-60-2
How to Cite
Vasko, R. (2022). Cuneiform system of writing as ancient civilizations value. In R. Vasko (Ed.), LANGUAGE. CULTURE. DISCOURSE (pp. 52–67). Kharkiv: TECHNOLOGY CENTER PC. https://doi.org/10.15587/978-617-7319-60-2.4
